2010
DOI: 10.3938/jkps.56.1418
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Active Hold-Off Technique in 1.55 micro-meter Single-Photon Detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparing to our previous results [23], the quantum efficiency of the detector drops down from 20% to 13.8% with almost the same dark count probability. And this is due to the addition of the analog switch, which modifies the shape of the gate pulse and especially increases its rising and falling times (see Fig.…”
Section: Afterpulsessupporting
confidence: 60%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Comparing to our previous results [23], the quantum efficiency of the detector drops down from 20% to 13.8% with almost the same dark count probability. And this is due to the addition of the analog switch, which modifies the shape of the gate pulse and especially increases its rising and falling times (see Fig.…”
Section: Afterpulsessupporting
confidence: 60%
“…The active hold-off technique prevents the occurrence of afterpulses and then can be approvingly compared to the afterpulse-discarding method of A. Yoshizawa et al [15,24], which only permits to postselect the avalanche signals of sufficiently large number of adjacent pulses after every photon click event. The measured results on some key parameters of SPD demonstrate that the active hold-off technique can efficiently enhance the noise-efficiency performance of the detector [14,23]. However, full characterization of SPD with active hold-off technique is still necessary to better understand the improvements it provided.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…If a photon click occurs in a certain pulse, the probability to have one or more photon clicks within the next few gate pulses immediately following the avalanche is very low (see [13]). In such a case, it seems suitable to hold-off on an appropriate number of gate pulses after each registered detection click.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%