The Development of Quantum Emitters Based on Semiconductor Quantum Dots

Part of the Lecture Notes in Nanoscale Science and Technology book series (LNNST, volume 27)


Quantum emitters serve as the building blocks of quantum network, connecting quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum metrology. Quantum dots (QDs) are widely considered as the best candidate for quantum emitters. This chapter reviews the scientific and technological development of quantum emitters based on QDs in recent years.

By a decade of effort, the controllability, purity, brightness, indistinguishability, and coherence of QD emitters are greatly improved so that they are much closer to the application level. The energy level of QD and its fine structure splitting can be routinely tuned simultaneously by post-growth technique, the single-photon purity has come up to 10−3, and the brightness has been greatly improved. Excellent indistinguishability and coherence can even be realized in the frame of electrically driven bulky semiconductors. Photon entanglement becomes an easy job by precisely tuning the energy levels and the symmetry of QDs. The second big progress is the success of coupling QD emitters to photonic nanostructures. These couplings greatly enhance the excitation/emission rates and the control of radiative direction. The entanglement of independent emitters might be possible by controlling the nanostructures coupled to QD emitters. Nanoscale selective excitation is realized by surface plasmonic interference. QDs coupled to waveguides produce strongly correlated photon states. Thirdly, remarkable development has been made towards on-chip integration of QD emitters into planar circuits and nanophotonic systems. Successful integration with multimode interference beam splitters has shown good single-photon purity of QD emitters. Integration into nanophotonic structures makes the engineering-related scattering much less important in the characters of QD emitters. Site-controlled integration with semiconductor nano-waveguides significantly improves the collection efficiency of QD emitters. In short, QDs are further proved the best on-demand, entangled, on-chip integrated quantum emitters for quantum information processing.



This chapter was supported by Sichuan Science and Technology Program under Grant No. 2018JY0084, the Recruitment Program of Global Experts, and the Rongpiao Plan of Chengdu City, China.


  1. 1.
    Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2000). Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beveratos, A., et al. (2002). Single photon quantum cryptography. Physical Review Letters, 89, 187901.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheung, J., et al. (2007). The quantum candela: a re-definition of the standard units for optical radiation. Journal of Modern Optics, 54, 373.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kok, P. W. J., et al. (2007). Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits. Reviews of Modern Physics, 79, 135.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aspuru-Guzik, A., & Walther, P. (2012). Photonic quantum simulators. Nature Physics, 8, 285.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Brien, J. L., et al. (2009). Photonic quantum technologies. Nature Photonics 3, 687.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aharonovich, I., et al. (2016). Solid-state single-photon emitters. Nature Photonics 10, 631.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lodahl, P., et al. (2015). Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87, 347.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atatüre, M., et al. (2018). Material platforms for spin-based photonic quantum technologies. Nature Reviews Materials, 3, 38.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akopian, N., et al. (2006). Entangled photon pairs from semiconductor quantum dots. Physical Review Letters, 96, 130501.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young, R. J., et al. (2006). Improved fidelity of triggered entangled photons from single quantum dots. New Journal of Physics, 8, 29.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hafenbrak, R., et al. (2007). Triggered polarization-entangled photon pairs from a single quantum dot up to 30 K. New Journal of Physics, 9, 315.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chunnilall, C. J., et al. (2014). Metrology of single-photon sources and detectors: a review. Optical Engineering, 53, 081910.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Greve, K., et al. (2012). Quantum-dot spin-photon entanglement via frequency downconversion to telecom wavelength. Nature, 491, 421.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gao, W. B. (2012). Observation of entanglement between a quantum dot spin and a single photon. Nature, 491, 426.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaibley, J. R. et al. (2013). Demonstration of quantum entanglement between a single electron spin confined to an InAs quantum dot and a photon. Physical Review Letters, 110, 167401.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takemoto, K. et al. (2015). Quantum key distribution over 120 km using ultrahigh purity single-photon source and superconducting single-photon detectors. Scientific Reports, 5, 14383.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    He, Y., et al. (2017). Quantum state transfer from a single photon to a distant quantum-dot electron spin. Physical Review Letters, 119, 60501.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varnava, C., et al. (2016). An entangled-LED-driven quantum relay over 1 km. Quantum Information, 2, 16006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Senellart, P., et al. (2017). High-performance semiconductor quantum-dot single-photon sources. Nature Nanotechnology, 12, 1026.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lodahl, P., et al. (2018). Quantum-dot based photonic quantum networks. Quantum Science and Technology, 3, 013001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huber, D., et al. (2018). Semiconductor quantum dots as an ideal source of polarization-entangled photon pairs on-demand: a review. Journal of Optics, 20, 073002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benson, O., et al. (2000). Regulated and entangled photons from a single quantum dot. Physical Review Letters, 84, 2513.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gérard, J. M., et al. (1998). Enhanced spontaneous emission by quantum boxes in a monolithic optical microcavity. Physical Review Letters, 81, 1110.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lodahl, P., et al. (2004). Controlling the dynamics of spontaneous emission from quantum dots by photonic crystals. Nature, 430, 654.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Englund, D., et al. (2005). Controlling the spontaneous emission rate of single quantum dots in a two-dimensional photonic crystal. Physical Review Letters, 95, 13904.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grange, T., et al. (2015). Cavity-funneled generation of indistinguishable single photons from strongly dissipative quantum emitters. Physical Review Letters 114, 193601.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sapienza, L., et al. (2015). Nanoscale optical positioning of single quantum dots for bright and pure single-photon emission. Nature Communications, 6, 7833.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tomas, M.-S., et al. (1999). Spontaneous-emission spectrum in an absorbing Fabry-Perot cavity. Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 60, 2431.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choy, J. T., et al. (2011). Enhanced single-photon emission from a diamond-silver aperture. Nature Photonics, 5, 738.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barnes, W. L., et al. (2002). Solid-state single photon sources: light collection strategies. European Physical Journal D: Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics, 18, 197.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Somaschi, N., et al. (2016). Near-optimal single-photon sources in the solid state. Nature Photonics, 10, 340.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Loredo, J., et al. (2017). Boson sampling with single-photon fock states from a bright solid-state source. Physical Review Letters, 118, 130503.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu, S., et al. (2017). A deterministic quantum dot micropillar single photon source with >65% extraction efficiency based on fluorescence imaging method. Scientific Reports 7, 13986.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mermillod, Q., et al. (2016). Harvesting, Coupling, and Control of Single-Exciton Coherences in Photonic Waveguide Antennas. Physical Review Letters, 116, 163903.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ding, X., et al. (2016). On-demand single photons with high extraction efficiency and near-unity indistinguishability from a resonantly driven quantum dot in a micropillar. Physical Review Letters, 116, 20401.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miyazawa, T., et al. (2005). Single-photon generation in the 1.55-µm optical-fiber band from an InAs/InP quantum dot. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 44, L620.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Song, H.-Z., et al. (2013). Design of Si/SiO2 micropillar cavities for Purcell-enhanced single photon emission at 1.55 μm from InAs/InP quantum dots. Optics Letters, 38, 3241.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Song, H.-Z., et al. (2015). High quality-factor Si/SiO2-InP hybrid micropillar cavities with submicrometer diameter for 1.55-μm telecommunication band. Optics Express, 23, 16264.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Song, H.-Z., et al. (2017). In InGaAsP/InP Nanocavity for Single-Photon Source at 1.55-μm Telecommunication Band. Nanoscale Research Letters, 12, 128.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim, J., et al. (2016). Two-photon interference from a bright single-photon source at telecom wavelengths. Optica, 3, 577.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Birowosuto, M., et al. (2012). Fast Purcell-enhanced single photon source in 1,550-nm telecom band from a resonant quantum dot-cavity coupling. Science Reports, 2, 321.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arcari, M. S., et al. (2014). Near-unity coupling efficiency of a quantum emitter to a photonic crystal waveguide. Physical Review Letters, 113, 093603.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thyrrestrup, H., et al. (2018). Quantum optics with near lifetime-limited quantum-dot transitions in a nanophotonic waveguide. Nano Letters, 18, 1801.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ralph, T. C., et al. (2015). Photon sorting, efficient bell measurements, and a deterministic controlled-gate using a passive two-level nonlinearity. Physical Review Letters, 114, 173603.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ozel, T., et al. (2011). Anisotropic emission from multilayered plasmon resonator nanocomposites of isotropic semiconductor quantum dots. ACS Nano, 5, 1328.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Belacel, C., et al. (2013). Controlling spontaneous emission with plasmonic optical patch antennas. Nano Letters, 13, 1516.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhukovsky, S., et al. (2014). Hyperbolic metamaterials based on quantum-dot plasmon-resonator nanocomposites. Optics Express, 22, 18290.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pfeiffer, M., et al. (2018). Coupling a single solid-state quantum emitter to an array of resonant plasmonic antennas. Scientific Reports, 8, 3415.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li, L., et al. (2017). Enhanced quantum dot spontaneous emission with multilayer metamaterial nanostructures. ACS Photonics, 4, 501.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leng, H., et al. (2018). Strong coupling and induced transparency at room temperature with single quantum dots and gap plasmons. Nature Communications, 9, 4012.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Boretti, A., et al. (2015). Electrically driven quantum light sources. Advanced Optical Materials, 3, 1012.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kuhlmann, A. V., et al. (2015). Transform-limited single photons from a single quantum dot. Nature Communications, 6, 8204.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kirsanske, G., et al. (2017). Indistinguishable and efficient single photons from a quantum dot in a planar nanobeam waveguide. Physical Review B, 96, 165306.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Michler, P., et al. (2000). Quantum correlation among photons from a single quantum dot at room temperature. Nature, 406, 968.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reithmaier, G., et al. (2013). On-chip time resolved detection of quantum dot emission using integrated superconducting single photon detectors. Scientific Reports, 3, 6.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lin, X., et al. (2017). Electrically-driven single-photon sources based on colloidal quantum dots with near-optimal antibunching at room temperature. Nature Communications, 8, 1132.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Feng, S.-W., et al. (2017). Purification of single photons from room-temperature quantum dots. Physical Review Letters, 119, 143601.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lohrmann, A., et al. (2015). Single-photon emitting diode in silicon carbide. Nature Communications, 6, 7783.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Arita, M., et al. (2017). Ultraclean Single Photon Emission from a GaN Quantum Dot. Nano Letters, 17, 1902.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gold, P., et al. (2014). Two-photon interference from remote quantum dots with inhomogeneously broadened linewidths. Physical Review B, 89, 035313.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Reindl, M., et al. (2017). Phonon-assisted two-photon interference from remote quantum emitters. Nano Letters, 17, 4090.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Delteil, A., et al. (2017). Realization of a cascaded quantum system: heralded absorption of a single photon qubit by a single-electron charged quantum dot. Physical Review Letters, 118, 177401.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ding, F., et al. (2010). Tuning the exciton binding energies in single self-assembled quantum dots by piezoelectric-induced biaxial stress. Physical Review Letters, 104, 067405.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zopf, M., et al. (2018). Frequency feedback for two-photon interference from separate quantum dots. Physical Review B, 98, 161302R.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Deng, Y.-H., et al. (2019, May 10). Quantum interference between light sources separated by 150 million kilometers. arXiv:1905.02868 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhang, R., et al. (2009). Creation of long-term coherent optical memory via controlled nonlinear interactions in Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 103, 233602.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Specht, H. P., et al. (2011). Single-atom quantum memory. Nature, 473, 190.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shields, A. J. (2007). Semiconductor quantum light sources. Nature Photonics, 1, 215.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Huang, H., et al. (2017). Electrically-pumped wavelength-tunable GaAs quantum dots interfaced with rubidium atoms. ACS Photonics, 4, 868.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Orieux, A., et al. (2017). Semiconductor devices for entangled photon pair generation: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 80, 076001Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gong, M., et al. (2011). Exciton polarization, fine-structure splitting, and the asymmetry of quantum dots under uniaxial stress. Physical Review Letters, 106, 227401.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rastelli, A., et al. (2012). Controlling quantum dot emission by integration of semiconductor nanomembranes onto piezoelectric actuators. Physica Status Solidi B, 249, 687.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gerardot, B. D., et al. (2007). Manipulating exciton fine structure in quantum dots with a lateral electric field. Applied Physics Letters, 90, 041101.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bennett, A. J., et al. (2010). Electric-field-induced coherent coupling of the exciton states in a single quantum dot. Nature Physics, 6, 947.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hudson, A. J., et al. (2007). Coherence of an entangled exciton-photon state. Physical Review Letters, 99, 266802.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sapienza, L., et al. (2013). Exciton fine-structure splitting of telecom-wavelength single quantum dots: Statistics and external strain tuning. Physical Review B, 88, 155330.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Patel, R. B., et al. (2010). Two-photon interference of the emission from electrically tunable remote quantum dots. Nature Photonics, 4, 632.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Delteil, A., et al. Generation of heralded entanglement between distant hole spins. (2016). Nature Physics, 12, 218.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Höfer, B., et al. (2019). Tuning emission energy and fine structure splitting in quantum dots emitting in the telecom O-band. AIP Advances 9, 085112.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Trotta, R., et al. (2012). Universal recovery of the energy-level degeneracy of bright excitons in InGaAs quantum dots without a structure symmetry. Physical Review Letters, 109, 147401.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chen, Y., et al. (2016). Extended carrier lifetimes and diffusion in hybrid perovskites revealed by Hall effect and photoconductivity measurements. Nature Communications, 7, 7.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Salter, C. L., et al. (2010). An entangled-light-emitting diode. Nature, 465, 594.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chung, T. H., et al. (2016). Selective carrier injection into patterned arrays of pyramidal quantum dots for entangled photon light-emitting diodes. Nature Photonics, 10, 782.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Keil, R., et al. (2017). Solid-state ensemble of highly entangled photon sources at rubidium atomic transitions. Nature Communications, 8, 15501.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Xiang, Z.-H., et al. (2019). Long-term transmission of entangled photons from a single quantum dot over deployed fiber. Scientific Reports, 9, 4111.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Juska, G., et al. (2013). Towards quantum-dot arrays of entangled photon emitters. Nature Photonics, 7, 527.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Musial, A., et al. (2014). Toward weak confinement regime in epitaxial nanostructures: Interdependence of spatial character of quantum confinement and wave function extension in large and elongated quantum dots. Physical Review B, 90, 045430.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mano, T., et al. (2000). InAs quantum dots growth by modified droplet epitaxy using sulfur termination. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 39, 4580.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wang, Z. M., et al. (2007). Nanoholes fabricated by self-assembled gallium nanodrill on GaAs (100). Applied Physics Letters, 90, 113120.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Huo, Y. H., et al. (2013). Ultra-small excitonic fine structure splitting in highly symmetric quantum dots on GaAs (001) substrate. Applied Physics Letters, 102, 152105.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Huo, Y. H., et al. (2014). Volume dependence of excitonic fine structure splitting in geometrically similar quantum dots. Physical Review B, 90, 041304.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Huber, D., et al. (2017). Highly indistinguishable and strongly entangled photons from symmetric GaAs quantum dots. Nature Communications, 8, 15506.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Basso Basset, F., et al. (2018). High-yield fabrication of entangled photon emitters for hybrid quantum networking using high-temperature droplet epitaxy. Nano Letters 18, 505.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Furis, M., et al. (2006). Bright-exciton fine structure and anisotropic exchange in nanocrystal quantum dots. Physical Review B, 73, 241313.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Giovannetti, V., et al. (2004). Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science, 306, 1330.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hacker, B., et al. (2016). A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator. Nature, 536, 193.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lee, J. P., et al. (2018). Multi-dimensional photonic states from a quantum dot. Quantum Science and Technology, 3, 024008.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Bennett, A. J., et al. (2016). Cavity-enhanced coherent light scattering from a quantum dot. Science Advances, 2, e1501256.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Muller, M., et al. (2017). Quantum dot single-photon sources for entanglement enhanced interferometry. Physical Review Letters, 118, 257402.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Pernice, W. H. P., et al. (2012). High-speed and high-efficiency travelling wave single-photon detectors embedded in nanophotonic circuits. Nature Communications, 3, 1325.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Claudon, J., et al. (2010). A highly efficient single-photon source based on a quantum dot in a photonic nanowire. Nature Photonics, 4, 174.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gao, W. B., et al. (2013). Quantum teleportation from a propagating photon to a solid- state spin qubit. Nature Communications, 4, 2744.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Gazzano, O., et al. (2013). Bright solid-state sources of indistinguishable single photons. Nature Communications, 4, 1425.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Yuan, Z., et al. (2016). Electrically driven single-photon source. Nature Communications, 7, 10387.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Prtljaga, N., et al. (2014). Monolithic integration of a quantum emitter with a compact on-chip beam-splitter. Applied Physics Letters, 104, 231107.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Jöns, K. D., et al. (2015). Monolithic on-chip integration of semiconductor waveguides, beamsplitters and single-photon sources. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 48, 085101.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Midolo, L., et al. (2017). Electro-optic routing of photons from single quantum dots in photonic integrated circuits. arXiv:1707.06522v1 [quant-ph], 20 July 2017.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Davanco, M., et al. (2017). Heterogeneous integration for on-chip quantum photonic circuits with single quantum dot devices. Nature Communications, 8, 889.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kim, J.-H., et al. (2017). Hybrid Integration of Solid-State Quantum Emitters on a Silicon Photonic Chip. Nano Letters, 17, 7394.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Elshaari, A. W., et al. (2017). On-chip single photon filtering and multiplexing in hybrid quantum photonic circuits. Nature Communications, 8, 379.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Gschrey, M., et al. (2015). Highly indistinguishable photons from deterministic quantum-dot microlenses utilizing three-dimensional in situ electron-beam lithography. Nature Communications, 6, 7662.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Santori, C., et al. (2002). Indistinguishable photons from a single-photon device. Nature, 419, 594.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kim, J.-H., et al. (2016). Two-photon interference from the far-field emission of chip-integrated cavity-coupled emitters. Nano Letters, 16, 7061.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Wu, X., et al. (2017). On-chip single-plasmon nanocircuit driven by a self-assembled quantum dot. Nano Letters, 17, 4291.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Keil, R., et al. (2016). Hybrid waveguide-bulk multi-path interferometer with switchable amplitude and phase. APL Photonics, 1, 81302.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Zadeh, I. E., et al. (2016). Deterministic integration of single photon sources in silicon based photonic circuits. Nano Letters, 16, 2289.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yuan, X., et al. (2018). Uniaxial stress flips the natural quantization axis of a quantum dot for integrated quantum photonics. Nature Communications, 9, 3058.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Lin, H., et al. (2011). Stress tuning of strong and weak couplings between quantum dots and cavity modes in microdisk microcavities. Physical Review B, 84, 201301.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Silverstone, J. W., et al. (2016). Silicon quantum photonics. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 22, 390.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Reithmaier, G., et al. (2015). On-chip generation, routing, and detection of resonance fluorescence. Nano Letters, 15, 5208.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Calic, M., et al. (2017). Deterministic radiative coupling of two semiconductor quantum dots to the optical mode of a photonic crystal nanocavity. Scientific Reports, 7, 4100.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Strauss, M., et al. (2017). Resonance fluorescence of a site-controlled quantum dot realized by the buried-stressor growth technique. Applied Physics Letters, 110, 111101.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Jöns, K. D., et al. (2013). Triggered indistinguishable single photons with narrow line widths from site-controlled quantum dots. Nano Letters, 13, 126.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Dousse, A., et al. (2008). Controlled light-matter coupling for a single quantum dot embedded in a pillar microcavity using far-field optical lithography. Physical Review Letters, 101, 267404.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Schnauber, P., et al. (2018). Deterministic integration of quantum dots into on-chip multi-mode interference beamsplitters using in-situ electron beam lithography. Nano Letters, 18, 2336.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Hallett, D., et al. (2018). Electrical control of nonlinear quantum optics in a nano-photonic waveguide. Optica, 5, 644.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Pyayt, A., et al. (2008). Integration of photonic and silver nanowire plasmonic waveguides. Nature Nanotechnology, 3, 660.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Guo, X., et al. (2009). Direct coupling of plasmonic and photonic nanowires for hybrid nanophotonic components and circuits. Nano Letters, 9, 4515.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wei, H., et al. (2011). Cascaded logic gates in nanophotonic plasmon networks. Nature Communications, 2, 387.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Wei, H., et al. (2012). Nanowire-based plasmonic waveguides and devices for integrated nanophotonic circuits. Nano Photonics, 1, 155.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Chang, D. E., et al. (2007). A single-photon transistor using nanoscale surface plasmons. Nature Physics, 3, 807.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Kumar, S., et al. (2013). Efficient coupling of a single diamond color center to propagating plasmonic gap modes. Nano Letters, 13, 1221.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Li, Q., et al. (2015). Quantum yield of single surface plasmons generated by a quantum dot coupled with a silver nanowire. Nano Letters, 15, 8181.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Li, Q., et al. (2018). Plasmon-Assisted Selective and Super-Resolving Excitation of Individual Quantum Emitters on a Metal Nanowire. Nano Letters, 18, 2009.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Song, H. Z., et al. (2005). Site-controlled photoluminescence at telecommunication wavelength from InAs/InP quantum dots. Applied Physics Letters, 86, 113118.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Dalacu, D., et al. (2010). Deterministic emitter-cavity coupling using a single-site controlled quantum dot. Physical Review B, 82, 033381.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Dalacu, D., et al. (2012). Ultraclean emission from InAsP quantum dots in defect-free wurtzite InP nanowires. Nano Letters, 12, 5919.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Versteegh, M., et al. (2014). Observation of strongly entangled photon pairs from a nanowire quantum dot. Nature Communications, 5, 6298.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Jöns, K. D., et al. (2017). Bright nanoscale source of deterministic entangled photon pairs violating Bell’s inequality. Scientific Reports, 7, 1700.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Huber, T., et al. (2014). Polarization entangled photons from quantum dots embedded in nanowires. Nano Letters, 14, 7107.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Haffouz, S., et al. (2018). Bright single InAsP quantum dots at telecom wavelengths in position-controlled InP nanowires: the role of the photonic waveguide. Nano Letters, 18, 3047.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Unold, T., et al. (2005). Optical control of excitons in a pair of quantum dots coupled by the dipole-dipole interaction. Physical Review Letters, 94, 137404.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Kasprzak, J., et al. (2011). Coherent coupling between distant excitons revealed by two-dimensional nonlinear hyperspectral imaging. Nature Photonics, 5, 123.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Temnov, V. V., et al. (2005). Superradiance and subradiance in an inhomogeneously broadened ensemble of two-level systems coupled to a low-Q cavity. Physical Review Letters, 95, 243602.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Betzig, E., et al. (1993). Single molecules observed by near-field scanning optical microscopy. Science, 262, 1422.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    de Assis, P.-L., et al. (2017). Single molecules observed by near-field scanning optical microscopy. Physical Review Letters, 118, 117401.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Song, H. Z., et al. (2006). Scanning tunneling microscope study of capped quantum dots. Applied Physics Letters, 85, 2355.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Liu, J., et al. (2018). Single self-assembled quantum dots in photonic nanostructures: the role of nanofabrication. Physical Review Applied, 9, 064019.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Stock, E., et al. (2013). On-chip quantum optics with quantum dot microcavities. Advanced Materials, 25, 707.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Munnelly, P., et al. (2015). A pulsed nonclassical light source driven by an integrated electrically triggered quantum dot microlaser. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 21, 681689.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Munnelly, P., et al. (2017). An electrically tunable single-photon source triggered by a monolithically integrated quantum dot microlaser. ACS Photonics, 4, 790.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Fundamental and Frontier SciencesUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.Southwest Institute of Technical PhysicsChengduChina

Personalised recommendations