Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Deterministic assembly of a charged quantum dot-micropillar cavity device

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports deterministic coupling of a positively charged quantum-dot trion to a micropillar cavity mode, with 85–91% hole occupation and 97% photon indistinguishability.

desk verdict A genuine step forward in deterministic cavity-QD engineering, but the positive-trion assignment is inferred rather than proven, and that ambiguity reaches the paper's central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02440 v3 pith:BUZG4GU4 submitted 2019-09-05 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

P. Hilaire , C. Millet , J.C. Loredo , C. Antón , A. Harouri , A. Lemaître , I. Sagnes , N. Somaschi O. Krebs
show 2 more authors
P. Senellart L. Lanco
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumdotmicropillarcavitypositivetrionspin-photoninterfacesingle-photonsourceelectrodynamicsholetunnelingin-situlithography
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

The paper claims that a positively charged quantum dot can be deterministically coupled to a micropillar cavity mode, removing the usual post-selection step from fabricating spin-photon interfaces. It does so by identifying the positive-trion spectral line through its four-line Zeeman pattern under an in-plane magnetic field, tuning the cavity to that line during in-situ lithography, and trapping a single hole with an asymmetric tunneling barrier. The resulting devices hold a single hole 85–91% of the time, with hole escape times above 20 microseconds, and emit single photons with purity $g^{(2)}(0)=1.6\pm0.4\%$ and raw Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility $V=97.0\pm0.4\%$. A sympathetic reader would take the message to be that all three requirements—knowing the charge state, matching the cavity, and keeping the charge—can be met in one fabrication flow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four-line polarization fingerprint of a positive trion in an in-plane magnetic field: it is the signature that lets the experimenter know which spectral line to target before the cavity is etched. The second mechanism is the 20-nm Al$_{0.1}$Ga$_{0.9}$As tunneling barrier placed 10 nm above the dot, which slows hole escape by roughly three orders of magnitude while leaving electron escape fast, so an optically created electron-hole pair converts into a trapped single hole. The third is a quasi-resonant CW laser that creates the pair without exciting the charged dot, plus a resonant laser that drives the trion transition and produces photons only when the hole is present. Finally, the auto-correlation of that resonance fluorescence, fitted with a two-state rate model, converts the blinking statistics into numerical values of $\langle P_h\rangle$ and $T_h$.

What would settle it

On a gated twin sample, sweep the bias while tracking the 925.1 nm line: if the assignment is right, its intensity and four-line Zeeman pattern should appear on the single-hole charging plateau, while the 925.3 nm line appears on a two-hole plateau; any other ordering would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a singly charged, cavity-coupled quantum dot can be assembled rather than searched for: the positive trion is identified in advance by magneto-spectroscopy, the pillar is etched around it and tuned to its energy, and the hole is held in place by an Al$_{0.1}$Ga$_{0.9}$As barrier combined with quasi-resonant optical pumping. The identification hinges on selection rules: under an in-plane field the trion emits four linearly polarized transitions while the neutral exciton emits only two, and the adjacent four-line feature is assigned to a two-hole state. The autocorrelation of resonance fluorescence, modelled with a two-state rate equation, then gives both the average hole occupation $\langle P_h\rangle$ and the hole tunnelling time $T_h$ from the decay of the $g^{(2)}$ envelope. Across three devices the extracted occupation is 85–91%, the trapping time exceeds 20 microseconds, and single-photon purity and indistinguishability are $g^{(2)}(0)=1.6\pm0.4\%$ and $V=97.0\pm0.4\%$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire chain depends on the assignment of the 925.1 nm line—the one with the four-line polarization pattern—to the single-hole positive trion; if the fingerprint points to a different charge state, the cavity is tuned to the wrong transition and the reported occupations do not describe the intended interface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fabrication flow removes post-selection: cavities are defined around a known charged transition rather than screened for one afterwards.
  • Hole occupation probabilities of 85–91% and trapping times above 20 microseconds are compatible with, and longer than, typical zero-field hole spin lifetimes, so the confined spin is available as an interface memory.
  • Polarized brightness up to 33%, purity of 1.6%, and a raw HOM visibility of 97% mean the same device can serve as a source of pure indistinguishable photons and as a spin-cavity interface.
  • Real-time blinking traces give a direct, non-destructive readout of the charge occupation, which can be used to monitor or herald the spin-photon interface state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Reversing the barrier geometry (placing it below the dot) should yield the same deterministic flow for electron-charged dots, giving electron-spin interfaces by the same identification-plus-tuning recipe.
  • Because the assigned trion line and the X$^{2+}$ line are only 0.2 nm apart, a bias-controlled charging experiment on a gated twin sample would test the fingerprint transfer; the paper does not provide that direct check.
  • At strong pumping the two-state model breaks down and the paper attributes this to two-hole states; a three-state rate model would separate hole-tunneling times from pair-creation rates and could predict the optimal operating power.
  • If the pillar position and contacts are known during in-situ lithography, the same charged-cavity unit could be integrated into larger photonic circuits in the same run, a natural extension not demonstrated here.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a deterministic fabrication route for positively charged quantum-dot micropillar cavity devices. The authors combine in-situ lithography with magneto-photoluminescence spectroscopy to identify a trion transition and tune the cavity mode to it, and they use an asymmetric tunneling barrier together with quasi-resonant pumping to trap a single hole. The hole occupation probability and trapping time are extracted from resonance-fluorescence autocorrelation measurements using a two-state rate-equation model. The devices show ⟨P_h⟩ between 85% and 91%, g^(2)(0)=1.6±0.4%, and a raw HOM visibility of 97.0±0.4%, indicating bright, pure, and indistinguishable single-photon emission.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a substantial experimental advance: it would demonstrate deterministic coupling of a single-hole trion to a micropillar cavity, with both high charge occupation and near-optimal light-matter coupling. The paper's strengths include the systematic characterization across three devices, explicit error bars on the main figures, a transparent rate-equation model for the charge dynamics, and state-of-the-art single-photon purity and indistinguishability. The work also provides a plausible route to spin-photon interfaces for cluster-state generation and photon-photon gates. However, the positive-trion assignment and the background-correction procedure are load-bearing and not fully established, so the headline claims require additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 3(b)] The assignment of the 925.1 nm line to the positive trion X+ is not uniquely established. The four-line Zeeman pattern identifies a charged trion transition, but it does not determine the sign of the charge, and the adjacent 925.3 nm line, which also splits into four components, is assigned to X2+ on the basis of a qualitative intensity asymmetry. Since this identification is carried through the in-situ lithography step and is then used to interpret the resonance-fluorescence autocorrelations as a single-hole occupation probability, the ambiguity is load-bearing: if the tuned transition were X2+ or X-, the reported ⟨P_h⟩ values would not describe the claimed single-hole occupation. A concrete test, such as bias-voltage-dependent spectroscopy of the 925.1 nm line or a comparison with a known charging fingerprint, should be provided.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (5)] The background correction used to obtain g^(2)(t) from the experimental autocorrelation depends on P_QD, the probability that a detected photon originates from the quantum dot, but P_QD is not derived, measured, or varied in the analysis. The extracted ⟨P_h⟩ and T_h depend on this correction, especially at long delays where the background contribution is largest. The authors should specify how P_QD is determined (e.g., from count rates, independent measurements, or a fit) and quantify how the quoted uncertainties on ⟨P_h⟩ and T_h propagate from the uncertainty in P_QD.
  3. [Sec. V, Figs. 5 and 6] The two-state model of Eqs. (2)-(4) is used to extract T_h and ⟨P_h⟩ even in parameter regimes where the authors state that two-hole states break the model. Figures 6(c) and 6(d) show deviations from the model's expectations (T_h and ⟨P_h⟩ varying with resonant power, and T_h decreasing at high P_QR), yet the exponential fits are still interpreted as single-hole parameters. This is internally inconsistent. Either the analysis should be restricted to the regime where the two-state model is valid, or the model should be extended to include the two-hole state explicitly. As written, the claim that T_h exceeds 20 µs is not justified over the full power range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V, Fig. 5(c) inset] The statement that the tangent at zero delay crosses the x-axis at t = T_h should be derived from Eq. (4). As written, it is not immediately obvious and could confuse readers; a one-line derivation or a more precise caption would help.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (6)] The definition of B_p as the probability per excitation pulse to detect a polarized single photon 'after the first lens' is unclear in relation to the setup transmission T and detector efficiency η_det. Please clarify the reference point (intracavity, after the lens, or after the full collection path).
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3(c)] The magneto-optical data for the micropillar device are presented for a different QD than the planar-cavity identification data. This is fine, but the text should explicitly state that the same fingerprint analysis is applied, rather than implying the same dot is measured.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'enveloppe' for 'envelope' in Sec. V and inconsistent spacing in equations. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims rest on direct measurements and an openly fitted rate-equation model, not on self-citation or definition.

full rationale

No circular derivation is present. The paper's central quantitative claims are either direct measurements (g(2)(0)=1.6±0.4%, raw HOM visibility V=97±0.4%, polarized brightness Bp) or parameters extracted by fitting data to an explicit two-state rate-equation model. In Sec. V, Eqs. (2)-(4) define dPh/dt and solve it to obtain the envelope g(2)(t)=Ph(t)/<Ph>; the paper then fits this expression to autocorrelation data to extract <Ph> and Th. These are fitted parameters, not predicted outputs, and the paper never claims to derive them from first principles. The relation between the observable g(2)(t) and the model parameters is an algebraic consequence of the stated equations, so no target result is inserted as an input. The assignment of the 925.1 nm line to a positive trion is an experimental identification based on the four-line Zeeman pattern, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the adjacent 925.3 nm line also splits into four transitions and is attributed to X2+; this is a possible measurement-selection ambiguity but not a circularity. Self-citations to the group's earlier in-situ lithography work (Refs. 22, 23) and to prior HOM methods (Ref. 43) cite established techniques and are not load-bearing for the charge-occupation derivation. The brightness-versus-<Ph> plot in Fig. 6(e) is a consistency check with constrained linear fits, not a disguised prediction. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained against the measurements and external references, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims rest on standard semiconductor QD physics plus several domain assumptions inherited from cited works (barrier effect, selection rules). The free parameters are fitted values from the correlation analysis; the main unstated quantity is P_QD in the background correction.

free parameters (4)
  • hole occupation probability P_h = 85±1% (QD1, QD2), 91±1% (QD3)
    Extracted by fitting the exponential decay envelope of the measured g(2)(t) with Eq. 4; it is a fitted parameter, not a prediction.
  • hole trapping time T_h = >20 µs below P_QR=100 µW
    Extracted from the same exponential fit (tangent crossing of Eq. 4); it varies with pump power and is a fitted quantity.
  • probability P_QD that a detected photon originates from the QD = not stated
    The correction in Eq. 5 requires P_QD, but the paper does not specify how it is measured or fitted. All corrected g(2)(t) curves depend on this parameter.
  • brightness slope s_pi = 26.2%
    Fitted linear slope of polarized brightness versus hole occupation for a pi-pulse; the pi/2 and pi/3 slopes are fixed relative to it by cos-squared factors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption In-plane magnetic field Zeeman selection rules: a positive trion decays through four linearly polarized transitions at high field, while a neutral exciton decays through two such transitions.
    Used in Sec. III to identify the charged-state line; standard QD physics, but specific to this material system and the applied field orientation.
  • domain assumption The Al0.1Ga0.9As tunneling barrier increases hole tunneling time by approximately three orders of magnitude while leaving electron tunneling unchanged.
    Taken from Ref. 27; load-bearing for the single-hole trapping scheme described in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Quasi-resonant pumping at 901 nm creates an electron-hole pair and the electron tunnels out before radiative recombination, leaving a single hole; the same laser does not excite the charged dot.
    Central to the optical injection method; stated in Sec. II and used to explain blinking and the two-state dynamics.
  • domain assumption Two-state rate-equation model (zero-hole and one-hole) with constant rates gamma and 1/T_h describes the charge dynamics, and detection of a photon implies a hole was present.
    Used in Eqs. 2-4 to extract P_h and T_h; the authors later note deviations at high power due to two-hole states.
  • ad hoc to paper The X2+ state assignment explains the asymmetric four-line pattern of the 925.3 nm line.
    Introduced to distinguish the candidate trion line from another four-line feature; no independent confirmation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic assembly of a charged quantum dot-micropillar cavity device." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUZG4GU4

@misc{pith2026190902440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic assembly of a charged quantum dot-micropillar cavity device},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUZG4GU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02440}
}
read the original abstract

Developing future quantum communication may rely on the ability to engineer cavity-mediated interactions between photons and solid-state artificial atoms, in a deterministic way. Here, we report a set of technological and experimental developments for the deterministic coupling between the optical mode of a micropillar cavity and a quantum dot trion transition. We first identify a charged transition through in-plane magnetic field spectroscopy, and then tune the optical cavity mode to its energy via in-situ lithography. In addition, we design an asymmetric tunneling barrier to allow the optical trapping of the charge, assisted by a quasi-resonant pumping scheme, in order to control its occupation probability. We evaluate the generation of a positively-charged quantum dot through second order auto-correlation measurements of its resonance fluorescence, and the quality of light-matter interaction for these spin-photon interfaces is assessed by measuring the performance of the device as a single-photon source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Simulated electromagnetic field intensity inside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Sketch comparing the energy levels of a neutral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Optical selection rules of a trion (top) and an exciton (bottom), with (right) and without (left) external transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Time trace recording the number of single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a,b) Coincidence measurement observed at (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a, b) Auto-correlation measurements for (a) varying non resonant powers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantum performances of the cQED devices. Single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Varnava , author D

    author author M. Varnava , author D. E. \ Browne , \ and\ author T. Rudolph ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.060502 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 100 ,\ pages 060502 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.060502 2008

  2. [2]

    Senellart , author G

    author author P. Senellart , author G. Solomon , \ and\ author A. White ,\ @noop journal journal Nature nanotechnology \ volume 12 ,\ pages 1026 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    author author H. J. \ Kimble ,\ 10.1038/nature07127 journal journal Nature \ volume 453 ,\ pages 1023 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nature07127 2008

  4. [4]

    Borregaard , author A

    author author J. Borregaard , author A. S. \ S rensen , \ and\ author P. Lodahl ,\ @noop journal journal Advanced Quantum Technologies \ volume 2 ,\ pages 1800091 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Koshino , author S

    author author K. Koshino , author S. Ishizaka , \ and\ author Y. Nakamura ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 82 ,\ pages 010301 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Rosenblum , author S

    author author S. Rosenblum , author S. Parkins , \ and\ author B. Dayan ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.033854 journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 84 ,\ pages 033854 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.033854 2011

  7. [7]

    author author N. H. \ Lindner \ and\ author T. Rudolph ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 103 ,\ pages 113602 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Schwartz , author D

    author author I. Schwartz , author D. Cogan , author E. R. \ Schmidgall , author Y. Don , author L. Gantz , author O. Kenneth , author N. H. \ Lindner , \ and\ author D. Gershoni ,\ DOI: 10.1126/science.aah4758 journal journal Science \ volume 354 ,\ pages 434 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.aah4758

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Imamoglu , author D

    author author A. Imamoglu , author D. D. \ Awschalom , author G. Burkard , author D. P. \ DiVincenzo , author D. Loss , author M. Sherwin , \ and\ author A. Small ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4204 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 83 ,\ pages 4204 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    doi

  2. [10]

    Wilk , author S

    author author T. Wilk , author S. C. \ Webster , author A. Kuhn , \ and\ author G. Rempe ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 317 ,\ pages 488 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  3. [11]

    Somaschi , author V

    author author N. Somaschi , author V. Giesz , author L. De Santis , author J. C. \ Loredo , author M. P. \ Almeida , author G. Hornecker , author S. L. \ Portalupi , author T. Grange , author C. Ant\'on , author J. Demory , author C. G\'omez , author I. Sagnes , author N. D. \...

    doi

  4. [12]

    Ding , author Y

    author author X. Ding , author Y. He , author Z.-C. \ Duan , author N. Gregersen , author M.-C. \ Chen , author S. Unsleber , author S. Maier , author C. Schneider , author M. Kamp , author S. H\"ofling , author C.-Y. \ Lu , \ and\ author J.-W. \ Pan ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116...

    doi

  5. [13]

    Wang , author Y.-M

    author author H. Wang , author Y.-M. \ He , author T.-H. \ Chung , author H. Hu , author Y. Yu , author S. Chen , author X. Ding , author M.-C. \ Chen , author J. Qin , author X. Yang , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Photonics \ ,\ pages 1 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  6. [14]

    author author C. Y. \ Hu , author W. J. \ Munro , \ and\ author J. G. \ Rarity ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.125318 journal journal Physical Review B (Condensed Matter and Materials Physics) \ volume 78 ,\ eid 125318 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    \ Duan \ and\ author H

    author author L.-M. \ Duan \ and\ author H. J. \ Kimble ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.127902 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 92 ,\ pages 127902 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    author author D. E. \ Chang , author V. Vuleti \'c , \ and\ author M. D. \ Lukin ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Photonics \ volume 8 ,\ pages 685 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  9. [17]

    author author S. E. \ Economou , author N. Lindner , \ and\ author T. Rudolph ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 105 ,\ pages 093601 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  10. [18]

    Pichler , author S

    author author H. Pichler , author S. Choi , author P. Zoller , \ and\ author M. D. \ Lukin ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 114 ,\ pages 11362 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  11. [19]

    author author M. T. \ Rakher , author N. G. \ Stoltz , author L. A. \ Coldren , author P. M. \ Petroff , \ and\ author D. Bouwmeester ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.097403 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 102 ,\ eid 097403 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi

  12. [20]

    Loo , author C

    author author V. Loo , author C. Arnold , author O. Gazzano , author A. Lemaitre , author I. Sagnes , author O. Krebs , author P. Voisin , author P. Senellart , \ and\ author L. Lanco ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.166806 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 109 ,\ pag...

    doi

  13. [21]

    Hilaire , author C

    author author P. Hilaire , author C. Ant \'o n , author C. Kessler , author A. Lema \^ tre , author I. Sagnes , author N. Somaschi , author P. Senellart , \ and\ author L. Lanco ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 112 ,\ pages 201101 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  14. [22]

    Dousse , author L

    author author A. Dousse , author L. Lanco , author J. Suffczy n \' n ski , author E. Semenova , author A. Miard , author A. Lema\^ tre , author I. Sagnes , author C. Roblin , author J. Bloch , \ and\ author P. Senellart ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.267404 journal journal Physica...

    doi

  15. [23]

    author author A. K. \ Nowak , author S. L. \ Portalupi , author V. Giesz , author O. Gazzano , author C. Dal Savio , author P. F. \ Braun , author K. Karrai , author C. Arnold , author L. Lanco , author I. Sagnes , author A. Lema \^ tre , \ and\ author P. Senellart ,\ 10.1038/...

    doi

  16. [24]

    author author J. H. \ Prechtel , author A. V. \ Kuhlmann , author J. Houel , author A. Ludwig , author S. R. \ Valentin , author A. D. \ Wieck , \ and\ author R. J. \ Warburton ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 15 ,\ pages 981 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  17. [25]

    Drexler , author D

    author author H. Drexler , author D. Leonard , author W. Hansen , author J. Kotthaus , \ and\ author P. Petroff ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 73 ,\ pages 2252 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994

  18. [26]

    author author R. J. \ Warburton , author C. Sch \"a flein , author D. Haft , author F. Bickel , author A. Lorke , author K. Karrai , author J. M. \ Garcia , author W. Schoenfeld , \ and\ author P. M. \ Petroff ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 405 ,\ pages 926 ( year 20...

    2000

  19. [27]

    \ Ardelt , author T

    author author P.-L. \ Ardelt , author T. Simmet , author K. M \"u ller , author C. Dory , author K. Fischer , author A. Bechtold , author A. Kleinkauf , author H. Riedl , \ and\ author J. Finley ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 92 ,\ pages 115306 ( year 2015...

    2015

  20. [28]

    Pooley , author D

    author author M. Pooley , author D. Ellis , author R. Patel , author A. Bennett , author K. Chan , author I. Farrer , author D. Ritchie , \ and\ author A. Shields ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 100 ,\ pages 211103 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  21. [29]

    Reindl , author J

    author author M. Reindl , author J. H. \ Weber , author D. Huber , author C. Schimpf , author S. F. \ Covre da Silva , author S. L. \ Portalupi , author R. Trotta , author P. Michler , \ and\ author A. Rastelli ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:1901.11251 ...

    1901 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sosnowski , author T

    author author T. Sosnowski , author T. Norris , author H. Jiang , author J. Singh , author K. Kamath , \ and\ author P. Bhattacharya ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 57 ,\ pages R9423 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998

  23. [31]

    Bayer , author S

    author author M. Bayer , author S. Walck , author T. Reinecke , \ and\ author A. Forchel ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 57 ,\ pages 6584 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998

  24. [32]

    Bayer , author G

    author author M. Bayer , author G. Ortner , author O. Stern , author A. Kuther , author A. A. \ Gorbunov , author A. Forchel , author P. Hawrylak , author S. Fafard , author K. Hinzer , author T. L. \ Reinecke , author S. N. \ Walck , author J. P. \ Reithmaier , author F. Klop...

    doi

  25. [33]

    Ediger , author G

    author author M. Ediger , author G. Bester , author A. Badolato , author P. Petroff , author K. Karrai , author A. Zunger , \ and\ author R. Warburton ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 774 ( year 2007 a ) NoStop

    2007

  26. [34]

    Ediger , author G

    author author M. Ediger , author G. Bester , author B. Gerardot , author A. Badolato , author P. Petroff , author K. Karrai , author A. Zunger , \ and\ author R. Warburton ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 98 ,\ pages 036808 ( year 2007 b ) NoStop

    2007

  27. [35]

    Mlinar \ and\ author A

    author author V. Mlinar \ and\ author A. Zunger ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 80 ,\ pages 035328 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  28. [36]

    Kamada , author H

    author author H. Kamada , author H. Gotoh , author J. Temmyo , author T. Takagahara , \ and\ author H. Ando ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.246401 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 87 ,\ pages 246401 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    \ He , author Y

    author author Y.-M. \ He , author Y. He , author Y.-J. \ Wei , author D. Wu , author M. Atature , author C. Schneider , author S. Hofling , author M. Kamp , author C.-Y. \ Lu , \ and\ author J.-W. \ Pan ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.262 journal journal Nature Nanotec...

    doi

  30. [38]

    Giesz , author N

    author author V. Giesz , author N. Somaschi , author G. Hornecker , author T. Grange , author B. Reznychenko , author L. De Santis , author J. Demory , author C. Gomez , author I. Sagnes , author A. Lema\^itre , et al. ,\ doi:10.1038/ncomms11986 journal journal Nature Communic...

    doi

  31. [39]

    Pi e tka , author J

    author author B. Pi e tka , author J. Suffczy \'n ski , author M. Goryca , author T. Kazimierczuk , author A. Golnik , author P. Kossacki , author A. Wysmolek , author J. Gaj , author R. St e pniewski , \ and\ author M. Potemski ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ vol...

    2013

  32. [40]

    Dahbashi , author J

    author author R. Dahbashi , author J. H \"u bner , author F. Berski , author K. Pierz , \ and\ author M. Oestreich ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 112 ,\ pages 156601 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  33. [41]

    author author R. H. \ Brown \ and\ author R. Twiss ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences \ volume 243 ,\ pages 291 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    1958

  34. [42]

    author author C. K. \ Hong , author Z. Y. \ Ou , \ and\ author L. Mandel ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2044 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 59 ,\ pages 2044 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    Loredo , author C

    author author J. Loredo , author C. Ant \'o n , author B. Reznychenko , author P. Hilaire , author A. Harouri , author C. Millet , author H. Ollivier , author N. Somaschi , author L. De Santis , author A. Lema \^ tre , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Photonics \ ,\ page...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.