Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Emission dynamics in zincblende InAsxP1-x quantum dots in InP nanowires: influence of quantum dot size, composition and nanowire geometry

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exciton lifetimes in InAsP/InP nanowire dots are governed jointly by dot height, arsenic content, and shell thickness.

desk verdict First systematic lifetime data for zincblende InAsP/InP QD-NWs, with honest modeling—but the Purcell inhibition claim is quantitatively loose. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02029 v1 pith:HFJAZJS4 submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.mes-hall

Tomasz Gzyl , Giada Bucci , Krzysztof Gawarecki , Elisa García-Tabarés , Anna Musia{l} , Valentina Zannier , Ylea Vlamidis , Fabio Beltram
show 5 more authors
Julian V. Montero Beatriz Galiana Lucia Sorba Wojciech Rudno-Rudziński Grzegorz Sęk
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords emissiondynamicsquantumdotnanowirezinc-blendeInAsP/InPheterostructurevapourliquidsolidmodechemicalbeamepitaxytelecomspectralrangePurcelleffectexcitonlifetime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks what controls the speed of exciton recombination in zincblende InAsP/InP quantum dots embedded in InP nanowires, a candidate single-photon source for telecom-wavelength quantum communication. Combining time-resolved photoluminescence on nanowire ensembles, structural measurements, and two complementary theoretical models, it argues that the measured exciton lifetimes (about 1.1 to 2.8 ns) are governed by two independent factors: the quantum-dot potential, set by dot height, arsenic fraction, and the resulting electron-hole wavefunction overlap, and the photonic environment, whose Purcell effect either sustains or suppresses spontaneous emission. The central finding is that a thin InP shell (55 nm) falls below the waveguide cutoff and inhibits emission, roughly doubling the ensemble decay time, while a 150 nm shell keeps the Purcell factor near one. This matters because the radiative lifetime directly limits the maximum photon generation rate and contributes to photon indistinguishability in single-photon sources.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by pairing two computational tools with structural input. The electronic part uses an eight-band k·p band-structure calculation with a configuration-interaction basis of the twenty lowest electron and hole states to compute exciton energies, oscillator strengths, and radiative lifetimes as functions of dot height and arsenic composition; these calculations show that Coulomb correlations significantly shorten the lifetime and that taller dots have larger electron-hole overlap. The photonic part uses finite-difference time-domain simulations of an InP nanowire with a point dipole to compute the Purcell factor, the factor by which the photonic environment multiplies or suppresses the spontaneous emission rate, as a function of shell width and emission wavelength. This identifies the single-mode waveguide regime near a width-to-wavelength ratio of about 0.20 to 0.31 and the inhibited regime below it. The structural parameters that feed both models come from high-resolution electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The central comparison is the product of these two mechanisms: the dot potential fixes the bare radiative lifetime, and the shell thickness multiplies it through the Purcell effect.

What would settle it

Measure time-resolved photoluminescence on single nanowires containing nominally identical dots: one with a 55 nm shell and one with a 150 nm shell, at excitation low enough to isolate the neutral exciton. If the thin-shell single-dot lifetime is not roughly an order of magnitude longer, the paper's quantitative claim about spontaneous-emission inhibition would be unsupported; if the ratio remains near two even for single dots, the ensemble-averaging explanation would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that no single mechanism accounts for the measured emission dynamics in zincblende InAsP/InP quantum-dot nanowires. The full explanation requires both the quantum-dot potential and the photonic environment: the dot height and arsenic composition set the electron-hole overlap and exciton oscillator strength, while the InP shell thickness sets the Purcell factor by determining whether the nanowire confines the fundamental HE11 guided mode. Quantitative support comes from comparing three samples: a 10 nm dot with a 150 nm shell decays in about 1.8 ns; a 2 nm dot with a 150 nm shell decays in about 1.35 ns; and a 2 nm dot with a 55 nm shell decays in about 2.8 ns. The thin-shell sample, whose dot is nominally identical to the 150 nm-shell 2 nm dot, shows the signature of spontaneous-emission inhibition, although the measured factor of two is smaller than the factor of ten predicted for a single dot because the measurement averages over thousands of wires, excited states, and excitonic complexes.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative match between model and data assumes that a single-exponential fit to an ensemble photoluminescence decay represents the ground-state exciton radiative lifetime of one modelled dot, even though the signal averages thousands of nanowires with a spread of dot sizes, compositions, and excitation conditions; the paper identifies this averaging as the reason the predicted ten-fold inhibition appears only as two-fold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, zincblende InAsP/InP quantum-dot nanowires with thick shells offer radiative lifetimes of 1.1 to 1.8 ns across the 1100 to 1600 nm range, shorter than the >2 ns lifetimes reported for wurtzite telecom nanowire dots, which is favorable for faster single-photon emission.
  • Dot height and arsenic composition can be used as independent design levers for the lifetime: a 2-to-10 nm height increase outweighs a few-percent change in arsenic content.
  • A 55 nm InP shell is below the cutoff for the fundamental guided mode and should inhibit spontaneous emission by up to an order of magnitude for a single dot; the ensemble measurement gives a lower bound of about a factor of two.
  • The thick-shell geometry keeps the Purcell factor above 0.8 across the measured spectral range, so lifetime differences between the two thick-shell samples remain small despite different emission wavelengths.
  • Because the measured decay curves are monoexponential and the calculated lifetimes match, non-radiative recombination is not required to explain the short decay times.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if single-dot measurements reproduce the predicted order-of-magnitude inhibition, shell thickness becomes a growth-independent knob for lifetime engineering in this platform, allowing faster photon sources without changing the dot itself.
  • Editorial inference: the same ensemble-averaging bias likely affects other time-resolved studies of nanowire quantum-dot ensembles; comparing single-dot and ensemble lifetimes would give a direct estimate of the width of the dot parameter distribution and the contribution of charged or excited states.
  • Editorial inference: because the arsenic content changes carrier effective masses as well as the band gap, it may be possible to tune emission wavelength while partially decoupling it from lifetime by choosing dot heights that compensate the mass effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript combines structural characterization (SEM/STEM/EDS), eight-band k.p modeling with configuration-interaction exciton calculations, FDTD photonic simulations, and time-resolved photoluminescence to study exciton lifetimes in zincblende InAsP/InP quantum-dot nanowires grown by CBE-VLS. Three samples are compared: 10-nm QDs with a 150-nm InP shell, 2-nm QDs with a 55-nm shell, and 2-nm QDs with a 150-nm shell. Measured ensemble average lifetimes are about 1.8 ns, 2.8 ns, and 1.35 ns, respectively. The paper shows that the lifetime trends with QD height and As composition follow from the calculated ground-state exciton properties, and it attributes the longer lifetime of the thin-shell sample to Purcell inhibition, although the measured ratio is only about a factor of two rather than the predicted roughly tenfold; the authors ascribe this discrepancy to ensemble averaging and excited-state contributions.

Significance. If the quantitative Purcell claim could be substantiated, the paper would provide useful design rules for controlling emission dynamics in telecom-wavelength zincblende InAsP/InP QD-NWs and a methodological template combining structural characterization, k.p-CI exciton calculations, and FDTD photonic simulations. The qualitative trends (lifetime increasing with QD height and As content, thin shell elongating lifetime) are credible and consistent with independent literature. Notable strengths are that the calculated lifetimes are not fitted to the measured decays, the structural inputs come from independent TEM/EDS data, and the model includes strain, piezoelectric fields, Coulomb correlations, alloy intermixing, and the photonic environment. The main weakness is that the central quantitative inference about Purcell inhibition is not yet strictly supported by the ensemble measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Fig. 7(d)] The quantitative Purcell-inhibition claim is not yet established. The measured ensemble TRPL is fitted mono-exponentially and compared with a calculated single-QD ground-state lifetime, but Sections 3.4 and 4 themselves state that the ensemble includes thousands of QD-NWs with a spread of parameters and contributions from shorter-lived excitonic complexes and excited states, and that sample B required a higher excitation power (55 µW vs 25 µW) that biases its decay toward short-lived states. Under the FDTD model of Fig. 6(a), sample B (d ≈ 160 nm, λ ≈ 1120 nm, d/λ ≈ 0.143) should show a lifetime at least about ten times longer than sample C, whereas the measured ratio is 2.8/1.35 ≈ 2.1. Without a quantitative model of the ensemble-averaging correction, the same data are equally consistent with a much weaker Purcell effect or with uncharacterized QD differences between samples B and C, whose PL peaks differ by about 55 nm; the statement in Section 3.4 that the increase is qualitatively in agreement with the photonic calculations is appropriate, but the abstract's stronger conclusion that full understanding requires the Purcell effect needs further support.
  2. [Section 3.4, Fig. 7(a-d)] The averaged lifetimes are reported without uncertainties, error bars, or confidence intervals, and without the number of independent measurements or nanowires contributing to each value. Because the 2.1-fold B/C ratio is the sole experimental evidence for the Purcell-inhibition claim, the spread of decay-time values visible in Fig. 7(a-c) needs to be quantified to show that this ratio is statistically meaningful rather than reflecting collection-spot or sample heterogeneity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The scaling of the lifetime with exciton energy is stated once as τ ∝ 1/E_n and later as τ ∝ 1/E_n^2; Eq. (2) and the text should be made mutually consistent.
  2. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'at last 10-fold increase' should read 'at least 10-fold increase'.
  3. [Section 2.2] The name 'Feynmann-Hellman theorem' should be spelled 'Feynman-Hellman theorem'.
  4. [Section 3.4, Fig. 7(d)] The inset values tA = 1.75 ns, tB = 2.86 ns, and tC = 1.35 ns differ slightly from the text averages of about 1.8, 2.8, and 1.35 ns; clarify whether the inset shows representative single-decay fits or sample averages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the calculated lifetimes are derived from independent k.p/CI and FDTD simulations with measured structural inputs, and the measured lifetimes are not used as fitting parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. The QD electronic structure is computed with an eight-band k.p model whose material parameters come from published tight-binding and band-structure fits (Jancu et al., Vurgaftman et al.), and the exciton states are obtained by configuration interaction. The QD geometry, size, and composition are taken from HRSTEM/EDS measurements of the grown structures rather than from the optical decay data. The Purcell factor is computed by FDTD using SEM-determined NW dimensions, an independently measured emission wavelength range, and a point-dipole model; no parameter is fitted to the measured TRPL lifetimes. The measured PL decays are then compared with the predicted lifetimes only after the calculation, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the deviations (e.g., the predicted ten-fold Purcell inhibition appears as only a two-fold effect in Section 3.4, attributed to ensemble averaging and stronger excitation for sample B). While this ensemble-to-single-QD comparison is a methodological limitation, it is not a circular reduction: no equation of the paper defines a prediction in terms of the measured lifetimes, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The only self-citations concern growth methodology and prior demonstrations of tunable ZB QD-NW emission, which are not the basis of the theoretical lifetime derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard multiscale modeling stack: structural inputs from TEM/EDS, electronic structure from 8-band k·p with literature parameters, excitonic effects from a truncated CI expansion, and photonic response from FDTD. The main assumptions are those inherent in these models and in the mapping of ensemble measurements to single-dot theory. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • cmin/cmax ratio = 0.75
    Assumed composition at the QD edge relative to the center; not directly measured, affects confinement and calculated lifetime (Section 3.2).
  • Lateral composition spread σr = 15 nm
    Chosen for the composition profile; affects lateral confinement and wavefunction overlap; not fitted to lifetime data but is a modeling input (Section 3.2).
  • Axial composition spread σz = sqrt(2/3)*h
    Scales with QD height; affects axial composition grading and carrier confinement (Section 3.2).
  • Gaussian intermixing blur = 0.6 nm
    Assumed additional composition blur at interfaces; affects potential profile and lifetime (Section 3.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eight-band k·p model with material parameters from Jancu et al. and Vurgaftman et al. accurately describes the electronic structure of InAsP/InP QDs.
    The calculated lifetimes depend on the bulk band structure parameters; any errors propagate to the predicted lifetimes (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Continuous elasticity with second-order piezoelectricity gives the correct strain field in the QD.
    Strain modifies the band structure and hence lifetimes; parameters from Caro et al. are assumed valid (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The CI model truncated to the 20 lowest electron and hole states captures the exciton ground state oscillator strength.
    Truncation could affect the correlation enhancement of oscillator strength (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The ensemble TRPL decay fitted by a single exponential represents the ground-state exciton radiative lifetime.
    Ensemble averaging, higher excited states, and excitonic complexes are known to shorten the apparent lifetime; the paper acknowledges this but does not quantify it (Section 3.4 and Section 4).
  • domain assumption The FDTD model treating the QD as a point dipole at the nanowire center captures the Purcell factor for the actual extended QD.
    The finite size of the QD and its polarization are approximated; this affects the predicted inhibition factor (Section 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emission dynamics in zincblende InAsxP1-x quantum dots in InP nanowires: influence of quantum dot size, composition and nanowire geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFJAZJS4

@misc{pith2026260802029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emission dynamics in zincblende InAsxP1-x quantum dots in InP nanowires: influence of quantum dot size, composition and nanowire geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFJAZJS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02029}
}
read the original abstract

Hereby, we present an experimental and theoretical investigation of emission dynamics in zincblende InAsxP1-x quantum dots (QDs) embedded in InP nanowires (NWs) grown via vapour-liquid-solid mechanism by chemical beam epitaxy, using Au nanoparticles as a nucleation catalyst. By measuring time-resolved photoluminescence from an ensemble of QD-NWs it was possible to determine the exciton lifetime dependence on QD composition and height. Changes in the InP shell thickness surrounding the InP NW stem with a QD, brought additional insight into the influence of photonic environment on the carrier dynamics. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy, combined with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, provided actual structural parameters. The experimentally obtained lifetimes were interpreted in the light of results of 8 band kp calculations combined with configuration-interaction model to take into account the Coulomb interactions and finite-difference time domain photonic simulations to include the effect of optical confinement. The full understanding of the experimental results required considering both, the changes in the QD potential and the Purcell effect, the latter leading to spontaneous emission inhibition in the case of NWs with thin InP shell.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02029 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SEM images of ZB QD-NWs of sample C from the top view (a) and from 45° tilted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Composition profile of InAsxP1-x QD in InP NW with As content colour￾coded adapted in the calculation of strain and further in numerical 8 band k.p simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The lifetimes (solid lines, the scale on the left) and the energies (dashed lines, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The electron and hole probability density (the ground states) in the growth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fig.7. PL spectra of QD-NW ensembles and decay time dispersion within each sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum-dot single-photon sources: Prospects for applications in linear optics quantum-information processing,

    A. Kiraz, M. Atatüre, and A. Imamoǧlu, “Quantum-dot single-photon sources: Prospects for applications in linear optics quantum-information processing,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 69, no. 3, 2004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.032305

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.69.032305 2004

  2. [2]

    The quantum internet,

    H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,” Nature, vol. 453, no. 7198, pp. 1023–1030, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1038/nature07127

    doi:10.1038/nature07127 2008

  3. [3]

    Quantum Communication Using Semiconductor Quantum Dots,

    D. A. Vajner, L. Rickert, T. Gao, K. Kaymazlar, and T. Heindel, “Quantum Communication Using Semiconductor Quantum Dots,” Jul. 01, 2022, John Wiley and Sons Inc. doi: 10.1002/qute.202100116

    doi:10.1002/qute.202100116 2022

  4. [4]

    Quantum Repeaters: The Role of Imperfect Local Operations in Quantum Communication,

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum Repeaters: The Role of Imperfect Local Operations in Quantum Communication,” 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Time-bin encoded quantum key distribution over 120 km with a telecom quantum dot source,

    J. Wang et al., “Time-bin encoded quantum key distribution over 120 km with a telecom quantum dot source,” Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41377-026-02205-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41377-026-02205-9 2025

  6. [6]

    High-rate intercity quantum key distribution with a semiconductor single-photon source,

    J. Yang et al., “High-rate intercity quantum key distribution with a semiconductor single-photon source,” Light Sci. Appl., vol. 13, no. 1, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41377-024-01488-0

    doi:10.1038/s41377-024-01488-0 2024

  7. [7]

    Quantum key distribution using deterministic single-photon sources over a field-installed fibre link,

    M. Zahidy et al., “Quantum key distribution using deterministic single-photon sources over a field-installed fibre link,” npj Quantum Inf., vol. 10, no. 1, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00800-x

    doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00800-x 2024

  8. [8]

    Single-emitter quantum key distribution over 175 km of fibre with optimised finite key rates,

    C. L. Morrison et al., “Single-emitter quantum key distribution over 175 km of fibre with optimised finite key rates,” Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39219-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39219-5 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Engineering Nanohole-Etched Quantum Dots for Telecom- Band Single-Photon Generation,

    I. M. Masson et al., “Engineering Nanohole-Etched Quantum Dots for Telecom- Band Single-Photon Generation,” ACS Nano, vol. 3, no. 20, pp. 2872–2880, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1021/acsnano.5c17982

    2026 doi

  2. [10]

    Telecom band quantum dot technologies for long-distance quantum networks,

    Y. Yu et al., “Telecom band quantum dot technologies for long-distance quantum networks,” Nov. 2023, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.03993

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Springer Cham, 2017

    Michler Peter, Nano-Optics and Nanophotonics, 1st ed. Springer Cham, 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56378-7

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Crystal phase quantum dots,

    N. Akopian, G. Patriarche, L. Liu, J. C. Harmand, and V. Zwiller, “Crystal phase quantum dots,” Nano Lett., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1198–1201, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1021/nl903534n

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Ultraclean emission from InAsP quantum dots in defect-free wurtzite InP nanowires,

    D. Dalacu et al., “Ultraclean emission from InAsP quantum dots in defect-free wurtzite InP nanowires,” Nano Lett., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 5919–5923, Nov. 2012, doi: 10.1021/nl303327h

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Bright single-photon sources in bottom-up tailored nanowires,

    M. E. Reimer et al., “Bright single-photon sources in bottom-up tailored nanowires,” Nat. Commun., vol. 3, no. 737, 2012, doi: 10.1038/ncomms1746

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Solid-state single photon sources: the nanowire antenna,

    I. Friedler, C. Sauvan, J. P. Hugonin, P. Lalanne, J. Claudon, and J. M. Gérard, “Solid-state single photon sources: the nanowire antenna,” Opt. Express, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2095–2110, 2009, doi: 10.1364/OE.17.002095

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Tailoring the geometry of bottom-up nanowires: Application to high eƯiciency single photon sources,

    D. Dalacu, P. J. Poole, and R. L. Williams, “Tailoring the geometry of bottom-up nanowires: Application to high eƯiciency single photon sources,” Nanomaterials, vol. 11, no. 5, May 2021, doi: 10.3390/nano11051201

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    A highly eƯicient single-photon source based on a quantum dot in a photonic nanowire,

    J. Claudon et al., “A highly eƯicient single-photon source based on a quantum dot in a photonic nanowire,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 174–177, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2009.287

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Bright Single InAsP Quantum Dots at Telecom Wavelengths in Position-Controlled InP Nanowires: The Role of the Photonic Waveguide,

    S. HaƯouz et al., “Bright Single InAsP Quantum Dots at Telecom Wavelengths in Position-Controlled InP Nanowires: The Role of the Photonic Waveguide,” Nano Lett., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 3047–3052, May 2018, doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b00550

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Indistinguishable Single Photons from Nanowire Quantum Dots in the Telecom O-Band,

    M. K. Alqedra et al., “Indistinguishable Single Photons from Nanowire Quantum Dots in the Telecom O-Band,” Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1063/5.0271146

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Single photon emission in the telecom C-band from nanowire-based quantum dots,

    A. N. Wakileh et al., “Single photon emission in the telecom C-band from nanowire-based quantum dots,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 124, no. 4, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1063/5.0179234

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Zincblende InAsxP1-x/InP Quantum Dot Nanowires for Telecom Wavelength Emission,

    G. Bucci et al., “Zincblende InAsxP1-x/InP Quantum Dot Nanowires for Telecom Wavelength Emission,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, vol. 16, no. 20, pp. 26491– 26499, May 2024, doi: 10.1021/acsami.4c00615

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Enhanced Photon Extraction through Optimized Waveguide Geometry for Zincblende InAsP/InP Nanowire Quantum Dots Emitting in the Telecom Range,

    G. Bucci et al., “Enhanced Photon Extraction through Optimized Waveguide Geometry for Zincblende InAsP/InP Nanowire Quantum Dots Emitting in the Telecom Range,” ACS Appl. Nano Mater., vol. 9, pp. 1837–1848, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1021/acsanm.5c04842

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

    Inhibition, enhancement, and control of spontaneous emission in photonic nanowires,

    J. Bleuse et al., “Inhibition, enhancement, and control of spontaneous emission in photonic nanowires,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 106, no. 10, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.103601

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Simulation of waveguiding and emitting properties of semiconductor nanowires with hexagonal or circular sections,

    A.-L. Henneghien, B. Gayral, Y. Désières, and J.-M. Gérard, “Simulation of waveguiding and emitting properties of semiconductor nanowires with hexagonal or circular sections,” Journal of the Optical Society of America B, vol. 26, no. 12, p. 2397, Dec. 2009, doi: 10.1364/JOSAB....

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Harnessing light with photonic nanowires: Fundamentals and applications to quantum optics,

    J. Claudon, N. Gregersen, P. Lalanne, and J. M. Gérard, “Harnessing light with photonic nanowires: Fundamentals and applications to quantum optics,” ChemPhysChem, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2393–2402, Aug. 2013, doi: 10.1002/cphc.201300033

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Quantum optics: Towards eƯicient quantum sources,

    S. Strauf, “Quantum optics: Towards eƯicient quantum sources,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 132–134, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2010.11

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    Assessing the Alignment Accuracy of State-of-the-Art Deterministic Fabrication Methods for Single Quantum Dot Devices,

    A. A. Madigawa et al., “Assessing the Alignment Accuracy of State-of-the-Art Deterministic Fabrication Methods for Single Quantum Dot Devices,” ACS Photonics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1012–1023, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.3c01368

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Deterministic quantum dot cavity placement using hyperspectral imaging with high spatial accuracy and precision,

    Q. Buchinger et al., “Deterministic quantum dot cavity placement using hyperspectral imaging with high spatial accuracy and precision,” Nano Converg., vol. 12, no. 1, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40580-025-00501-5

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Solid-state single photon sources: Light collection strategies,

    W. L. Barnes et al., “Solid-state single photon sources: Light collection strategies,” European Physical Journal D, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 197–210, 2002, doi: 10.1140/epjd/e20020024

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    Spontaneous emission control of single quantum dots in bottom-up nanowire waveguides,

    G. Bulgarini et al., “Spontaneous emission control of single quantum dots in bottom-up nanowire waveguides,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 100, no. 12, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1063/1.3694935

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Position-Controlled Telecom Single Photon Emitters Operating at Elevated Temperatures,

    P. Laferriére, S. HaƯouz, D. B. Northeast, P. J. Poole, R. L. Williams, and D. Dalacu, “Position-Controlled Telecom Single Photon Emitters Operating at Elevated Temperatures,” Nano Lett., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 962–968, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c04375

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Impact of second-order piezoelectricity on electronic and optical properties of c -plane InxGa1-xN quantum dots: Consequences for long wavelength emitters,

    S. K. Patra and S. Schulz, “Impact of second-order piezoelectricity on electronic and optical properties of c -plane InxGa1-xN quantum dots: Consequences for long wavelength emitters,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 111, no. 10, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1063/1.4991720

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Ab initio calculations of polarization, piezoelectric constants, and elastic constants of InAs and InP in the wurtzite phase,

    C. Hajlaoui, L. Pedesseau, F. Raouafi, F. Ben Cheikh Larbi, J. Even, and J. M. Jancu, “Ab initio calculations of polarization, piezoelectric constants, and elastic constants of InAs and InP in the wurtzite phase,” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, vol. 121, no. 2...

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Comparison of two methods for describing the strain profiles in quantum dots,

    C. Pryor, J. Kim, L. W. Wang, A. J. Williamson, and A. Zunger, “Comparison of two methods for describing the strain profiles in quantum dots,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 2548–2554, Mar. 1998, doi: 10.1063/1.366631

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    Importance of second-order piezoelectric eƯects in zinc-blende semiconductors,

    G. Bester, X. Wu, D. Vanderbilt, and A. Zunger, “Importance of second-order piezoelectric eƯects in zinc-blende semiconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 96, no. 18, 2006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.187602

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Origin of nonlinear piezoelectricity in III- V semiconductors: Internal strain and bond ionicity from hybrid-functional density functional theory,

    M. A. Caro, S. Schulz, and E. P. O’Reilly, “Origin of nonlinear piezoelectricity in III- V semiconductors: Internal strain and bond ionicity from hybrid-functional density functional theory,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., vol. 91, no. 7, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1103/Ph...

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Willatzen and L

    M. Willatzen and L. C. Lew Yan Voon, The k p method: Electronic properties of semiconductors. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540- 92872-0

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Spin-orbit coupling and magnetic-field dependence of carrier states in a self-assembled quantum dot,

    K. Gawarecki, “Spin-orbit coupling and magnetic-field dependence of carrier states in a self-assembled quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 97, no. 23, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.235408

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Modeling g factors, hyperfine interaction, and optical properties of semiconductor quantum dots: Atomistic and eight-band k · p approaches ,

    K. Gawarecki, A. Garbiec, J. Stanecki, and M. Zieliński, “ Modeling g factors, hyperfine interaction, and optical properties of semiconductor quantum dots: Atomistic and eight-band k · p approaches ,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 112, no. 20, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1103/vjrj-jc3c

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Empirical spds* tight-binding calculation for cubic semiconductors: General method and material parameters,

    J.-M. Jancu, R. Scholz, F. Beltram, and F. Bassani, “Empirical spds* tight-binding calculation for cubic semiconductors: General method and material parameters,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 57, no. 11, Mar. 1998, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.6493

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    Band parameters for III-V compound semiconductors and their alloys,

    I. Vurgaftman, J. R. Meyer, and L. R. Ram-Mohan, “Band parameters for III-V compound semiconductors and their alloys,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 89, no. 11 I, pp. 5815–5875, 2001, doi: 10.1063/1.1368156

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    Forces in Molecules,

    R. P. Feynman, “Forces in Molecules,” Physical Review, vol. 56, pp. 340–343, Aug. 1939, doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.56.340

    1939 doi

  35. [43]

    Relation between dipole moment and radiative lifetime in interface fluctuation quantum dots,

    A. Thränhardt, C. Ell, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, “Relation between dipole moment and radiative lifetime in interface fluctuation quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.65.035327

    2002 doi

  36. [44]

    Exciton lifetime and emission polarization dispersion in strongly in-plane asymmetric nanostructures,

    M. Gawełczyk et al., “Exciton lifetime and emission polarization dispersion in strongly in-plane asymmetric nanostructures,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 96, no. 24, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.245425

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    https://www.ansys.com/products/optics/fdtd

    “https://www.ansys.com/products/optics/fdtd.”

  38. [46]

    Excitonic complexes in MOCVD-grown InGaAs/GaAs quantum dots emitting at telecom wavelengths,

    P. Mrowiński et al., “Excitonic complexes in MOCVD-grown InGaAs/GaAs quantum dots emitting at telecom wavelengths,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 100, no. 11, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.115310

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.