This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Bright, low-noise source of single photons at 780 nm with improved phase-matching in rubidium vapor

Omri Davidson Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel    Ohad Yogev Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel    Eilon Poem Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel    Ofer Firstenberg Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 7610001, Israel
Abstract

Future optical quantum networks could benefit from single photons that couple well to atoms, for realizing, e.g., quantum memories and deterministic photonic gates. However, the efficient generation of such photons remains a difficult challenge. Recently, we demonstrated a bright multiplexed source of indistinguishable single photons with tunable GHz-bandwidth based on four-wave-mixing in rubidium vapor [Davidson et al. 2021 New J. Phys. 23 073050]. Here we report on an improved implementation of this photon source. The new implementation employs a frequency-detuning regime that is better phase matched, a spatial-alignment procedure using single-mode fibers, a different rubidium isotope, and higher vapor-cell transmission. Characterization of the source is performed using superconducting-nanowire detectors with higher detection efficiency and lower jitter. Our source produces single photons with detected heralding efficiency of over 20%, Hong-Ou-Mandel interference visibility of 88%, generation rate of over 100 kilo-counts per second, and signal-to-noise ratio greater than 100, making it suitable for quantum information processing with photons.

I Introduction

Single photons that can efficiently interact with alkali atoms are highly desirable for quantum optics experiments and for quantum information processing [1]. The performance of single-photon sources improved considerably in recent years, mainly by using spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) [2, 3, 4] and quantum dots [5, 6, 7]. However, efficiently generating and interfacing photons from these sources with atomic ensembles remains a difficult challenge [8, 9, 10, 11]. Alternatively, single photons can be generated by atomic ensembles, making them inherently compatible with atomic systems [12, 13]. Nevertheless, these sources typically operate at a low photon generation rate and moderate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Adopting the scheme developed by Lee et al. [14, 15, 16], we have recently demonstrated a multiplexed, heralded, single-photon source based on four-wave-mixing (FWM) in rubidium vapor [17]. The source employs the nearly Doppler-free ladder scheme |5S1/2|5P3/2|5D5/2|5S_{1/2}\rangle-|5P_{3/2}\rangle-|5D_{5/2}\rangle of rubidium. It generates single photons at 780 nm, heralded by the detection of idler photons at 776 nm, with high rate and SNR. Multiplexing is achieved by operating two independent spatial channels producing indistinguishable photons, as verified by a Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference measurement. Additionally, by changing the optical depth (OD) of the atomic ensemble, the temporal width of the photons is tunable over a dynamic range of five.

In this letter, we report on an improved experimental implementation of the photon source, based on the same principle setup. The improved source employs a frequency of the excitation fields which is better phase-matched, spatial alignment of the counter-propagating excitation beams at the single-mode level, a different rubidium isotope, and a vapor cell with higher transmission. We characterize the source using superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs) with a higher detection efficiency and a lower detection time-jitter with respect to the detectors used in Ref. [17], which further improves the results.

II Experiment

We start by briefly outlining the experimental scheme and refer the reader to Ref. [17] for additional details. As shown in Fig. 1(a), the excitation fields, denoted as pump and control, couple the |5S1/2,F=2|5P3/2,F=3|5S_{1/2},F=2\rangle\rightarrow|5P_{3/2},F=3\rangle and |5P3/2,F=3|5D5/2,F=4|5P_{3/2},F=3\rangle\rightarrow|5D_{5/2},F=4\rangle transitions in Rb87{}^{87}\text{Rb}, respectively, with transition wavelengths of 780 nm and 776 nm. The combined two-photon transition is, on the one hand, nearly Doppler-free and, on the other hand, enables separation of the two wavelengths using standard thin-film interference filters. The signal and idler photons are generated in a FWM process from the respective transitions of the pump and control fields.

Figure 1(b) shows the geometry of the beams in the experiment. The pump and control beams are counter-propagating through a 25-mm-long vapor cell with isotopically purified Rb87{}^{87}\text{Rb}. The signal and idler photons are emitted in the phase-matched directions and collected at an angle of 1.4°1.4\degree from the optical axis. As the phase-matching function has cylindrical symmetry, we collect the signal and idler photons from two sides of the optical axis and thus spatially multiplex our source, effectively creating two sources using the same vapor cell.

The normalized bi-photon cross-correlation function, defined as gs-i(2)(τ)=ai(t)as(t+τ)as(t+τ)ai(t)/[asasaiai]g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}(\tau)=\langle a_{\text{i}}^{\dagger}(t)a_{\text{s}}^{\dagger}(t+\tau)a_{\text{s}}(t+\tau)a_{\text{i}}(t)\rangle/[\langle a^{\dagger}_{\text{s}}a_{\text{s}}\rangle\langle a^{\dagger}_{\text{i}}a_{\text{i}}\rangle], is shown in Fig. 1(c). Here \langle\cdot\rangle denotes averaging over time tt, and τ\tau is the time separation between signal and idler detections. A strong signal-idler correlation is evident, and the cascaded nature of the emission is seen in the asymmetric shape of the bi-photon cross-correlation. The background value of gs-i(2)(τ)g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}(\tau), due to uncorrelated signal and idler photons detection, is equal to 1. Therefore, its peak value [gs-i(2)]max[g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}]_{\text{max}} is associated with the SNR of the source.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Photon source experiment. (a) Atomic levels of rubidium used to generate the signal and idler photons in a FWM process. (b) The pump and control beams counter-propagate through the vapor cell to minimize the residual Doppler broadening of the two-photon transition. The signal and idler photons are emitted in the phase-matched directions. We spatially multiplex the photon source by collecting the signal and idler photons from both sides of the optical axis. (c) Normalized cross-correlation gs-i(2)(τ)g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}(\tau) of the signal and idler photons versus their time separation τ\tau.

III Photon source improvements

We now detail the changes made in the new implementation. First, we employ an isotopically-purified Rb87{}^{87}\text{Rb} cell instead of the purified Rb85{}^{85}\text{Rb} cell used previously. Except for the isotope, it is the same cell type and dimensions (same vendor, Precision Glassblowing). Before placing the cell in the setup, we immerse it in Acetone as a cleaning step and obtain a transmission of 96.5±1%96.5\pm 1\% at 780 nm in the optical setup (reported errors are 1 standard deviation). The cell is heated to 45°\sim 45~{}\degreeC, such that OD=4±0.1\text{OD}=4\pm 0.1 [measured on the |5S1/2,F=2|5P3/2,F=1,2,3|5S_{1/2},F=2\rangle\rightarrow|5P_{3/2},F=1,2,3\rangle transitions]. This OD is chosen to maximize the heralding efficiency of the source and to generate temporally-long photons while maintaining a good SNR [17].

The Rb87{}^{87}\text{Rb} isotope has a larger hyperfine level splitting than Rb85{}^{85}\text{Rb}. Therefore, for a given atomic density, which determines the strength of the FWM interaction, the generated broadband signal photons are less absorbed in the |5P3/2,F=1,2|5P_{3/2},F=1,2\rangle states (|F=2,3|F=2,3\rangle in Rb85{}^{85}\text{Rb}). Using the numerical model described in Ref. [17], we estimate that the reduced absorption in Rb87{}^{87}\text{Rb} increases the heralding efficiency and SNR for a given generation rate by 15%\sim 15\% compared to Rb85{}^{85}\text{Rb} for our experimental parameters.

Second, we optimize the spatial alignment of the counter-propagating pump and control beams. In Ref. [17], the two beams were aligned by optimizing the transmission through two irises with a diameter of 0.8 mm, comparable to the beams’ waist diameter of 0.9 mm. In the new implementation, we couple the outgoing control beam into the single-mode fiber of the incoming pump beam, thus verifying the mutual alignment of these beams at the single-mode level. This procedure improves the spatial mode-overlap of the pump and control beams by 15±2%15\pm 2\% compared to that achieved with the irises, measured by the increase of the control power coupled into the incoming pump-beam fiber.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Phase matching of the photon source. The phase-matching function |sinc(ΔkL/2)|2|\text{sinc}(\Delta kL/2)|^{2} for L=25L=25 mm versus the angle of the signal beam θ\theta from the optical axis, with the idler at the optimal angle of approximately θ-\theta. Positive pump detuning Δp=+1.0\Delta_{\text{p}}=+1.0 GHz (as in Ref. [17]) is shown in blue, and negative pump detuning Δp=1.1\Delta_{\text{p}}=-1.1 GHz (this work) in orange. The dashed black line indicates the collection angle in our implementation θ=1.4°\theta=1.4\degree (magnified in the inset).

Third, we optimize the phase-matching of the FWM process. The bi-photon wavefunction amplitude depends on the phase-matching term ψ(τ)sinc(ΔkL/2)\psi(\tau)\propto\text{sinc}(\Delta kL/2) [18], where LL is the length of the vapor cell and Δk=(kpkc)(kski)\Delta k=(k_{\text{p}}-k_{\text{c}})-(k_{\text{s}}-k_{\text{i}}) is the wavevectors mismatch. Here kpk_{\text{p}}, kck_{\text{c}}, ksk_{\text{s}}, and kik_{\text{i}} are the projections (in absolute value) of the wavevectors of the pump, control, signal, and idler fields, respectively, on the optical axis. It follows that the bi-photon generation rate and the signal photon heralding efficiency scale as |sinc(ΔkL/2)|2|\text{sinc}(\Delta kL/2)|^{2}. Note that this expression neglects the absorption (scattering) of the signal and idler photons, which alters the complex linear susceptibility and could be included in the model via the signal and idler wavevectors [18].

Figure 2 shows the phase-matching function |sinc(ΔkL/2)|2|\text{sinc}(\Delta kL/2)|^{2} versus the angular deviation of the signal mode from the optical axis θ\theta for a pump detuning of Δp=+1.0\Delta_{\text{p}}=+1.0 GHz (as in Ref. [17]) and Δp=1.1\Delta_{\text{p}}=-1.1 GHz used in this work. Here it is assumed that the signal and idler photons are emitted on resonance due to the third order susceptibility enhancement, as verified numerically using the model described in Ref. [17]. We note that the angular deviation of the idler mode θi=θs×ks/ki\theta_{\text{i}}=\theta_{\text{s}}\times k_{\text{s}}/k_{\text{i}} differs from that of the signal by only 0.5%\sim 0.5\%, due to momentum conservation in the transverse axis and the wavelength mismatch of the signal and idler photons. As shown in Fig. 2, it is possible to obtain perfect phase-matching |sinc(ΔkL/2)|2=1|\text{sinc}(\Delta kL/2)|^{2}=1 with Δp<0\Delta_{\text{p}}<0, but not with Δp>0\Delta_{\text{p}}>0. This makes the previous choice Δp>0\Delta_{\text{p}}>0 by us and others [17, 14, 15, 16] less preferable. We note however that near the phase-matching optimum, the difference between Δp<0\Delta_{\text{p}}<0 and Δp>0\Delta_{\text{p}}>0 increases quadratically with the vapor cell length, making the difference less significant in smaller cells [14, 15, 16]. At the collection angle of 1.4°1.4\degree of our setup, previously designed to operate with Δp>0\Delta_{\text{p}}>0, the phase-matching function with Δp=1.1\Delta_{\text{p}}=-1.1 GHz is 11%11\% higher than with Δp=+1.0\Delta_{\text{p}}=+1.0 GHz.

To understand why perfect phase-matching Δk=0\Delta k=0 is achievable only with Δp<0\Delta_{\text{p}}<0, we rewrite it as

Δk=1c[(ωSP+Δp)(ωPDΔp)(ωSPcosθsωPDcos(θsωSP/ωPD))],\Delta k=\frac{1}{c}\Big{[}(\omega_{\text{SP}}+\Delta_{\text{p}})-(\omega_{\text{PD}}-\Delta_{\text{p}})-\\ \big{(}\omega_{\text{SP}}\cos\theta_{\text{s}}-\omega_{\text{PD}}\cos(\theta_{\text{s}}\omega_{\text{SP}}/\omega_{\text{PD}})\big{)}\Big{]}, (1)

where ωSP\omega_{\text{SP}} and ωPD\omega_{\text{PD}} are the resonance frequencies of the |5S1/2|5P3/2|5S_{1/2}\rangle\rightarrow|5P_{3/2}\rangle and the |5P3/2|5D5/2|5P_{3/2}\rangle\rightarrow|5D_{5/2}\rangle transitions, respectively. Expanding for small angles, we find

Δk1c[2Δp+12θs2ωSP(1ωSP/ωPD)].\Delta k\approx\frac{1}{c}\Big{[}2\Delta_{\text{p}}+\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}_{\text{s}}\omega_{\text{SP}}(1-\omega_{\text{SP}}/\omega_{\text{PD}})\Big{]}. (2)

The second term in the brackets is positive for ωSP<ωPD\omega_{\text{SP}}<\omega_{\text{PD}}, and therefore perfect phase-matching is only possible with Δp<0\Delta_{\text{p}}<0.

To verify the improvement of phase-matching, we measure the bi-photon generation rate and heralding efficiency at Δp=±1.1\Delta_{\text{p}}=\pm 1.1 GHz, in which the phase-matching function is 14%14\% higher in the negative detuning than in the positive detuning. This calculated factor agrees well with the increase we measure of 17±1%17\pm 1\% in the bi-photon generation rate and 16±1%16\pm 1\% in the heralding efficiency.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Comparison of SNR and HOM correlation of the photon sources. (a) The peak of the bi-photon normalized cross-correlation [gs-i(2)]max[g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}]_{\text{max}} versus the detected bi-photon generation rate RR. The comparison is made for OD=4\text{OD}=4 in this work and OD=9.3\text{OD}=9.3 in Ref. [17]. (b) Coincidence counts of the heralded signal-1 and signal-2 photons after interference on a beam splitter versus the time difference between the detection of the heralding idler photons. We consider a heralding event if the signal and idler photons were detected within a 3.5 ns-long detection time window, which accounts for more than 95% of the heralded photons’ energy. In (a) and (b), results from the new implementation (orange) are compared to those from Ref. [17] (blue).

Lastly, we characterize the photon source using SNSPDs with a detection efficiency of 90%\sim 90\% and detection time jitter full-width at half-maximum of 5555 ps, compared to 68%\sim 68\% and 350\sim 350 ps of the detectors used in Ref. [17]. Low detection-time jitter prevents smearing of the peak of gs-i(2)(τ)g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}(\tau), thus increasing the SNR of the source, and also increases the heralded photons’ purity [19], thus increasing the HOM interference visibility [20].

Higher detection efficiency of the detectors improves the measured heralding efficiency ηh\eta_{\text{h}} and the detected bi-photon generation rate RR. While RR can be increased by stronger pumping, the SNR for a given RR is nonetheless improved. This can be understood as follows: In bi-photon sources based on parametric processes, such as SPDC and FWM, the SNR is decreased as the rate is increased [21, 17, 22] due to an increase in the multi-pair emission probability. Even if the detectors have a finite detection efficiency 0<ηd<10<\eta_{\text{d}}<1, the SNR is the same as that with perfect detectors, as evident from the definition of gs-i(2)(τ)g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}(\tau). However, as Rηd2R\propto\eta_{\text{d}}^{2}, higher detection efficiency improves the SNR for a given generation rate. It follows, as intuitively expected, that high-performance photon sources require high detection efficiency.

IV Comparison of performance

Figure 3(a) shows the SNR ([gs-i(2)]max[g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}]_{\text{max}}) versus RR in kilo-counts per second (kcps). It is evident that the SNR is significantly improved in this work. As an example, for a bi-photon generation rate of R=200R=200 kcps, we obtain a three-fold increase from [gs-i(2)]max=64±1[g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}]_{\text{max}}=64\pm 1 in Ref. [17] to [gs-i(2)]max=202±1[g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}]_{\text{max}}=202\pm 1 in this work. Increasing the OD will further increase the SNR, at the cost of lowering the heralding efficiency [17]. For completeness, we note that as in Ref. [17], the SNR for a given generation rate of the second spatial channel is slightly lower than that of the first channel (presented here) mainly due to the increased scattering noise from the control field.

We show the heralded signal-1 and signal-2 coincidence counts in a HOM interference setup [23] in Fig. 3(b). Here, we consider a heralding event of the signal photons if the signal and idler photons are detected within a 3.5 ns-long detection time window. This time window captures over 95% of the heralded photons’ energy. The raw HOM visibility is increased from V=78±3%V=78\pm 3\% in Ref. [17] to V=88±2%V=88\pm 2\% in this work with similar OD and SNR. We note that here the reported visibility of the previous photon source is lower than the value reported in Ref. [17] due to the larger coincidence detection time window considered here as a coincident signal-idler photons detection.

A summary of the sources performance is shown in Table 1. It compares the sources SNR and HOM visibility discussed above, as well as the sources heralding efficiency. The measured heralding efficiency improves from ηh=10.5±0.1%\eta_{\text{h}}=10.5\pm 0.1\% in Ref. [17] to ηh=24±0.1%\eta_{\text{h}}=24\pm 0.1\% in this work.

To quantify the different contributions of the photon source improvements, we consider the heralding efficiency. The improved detectors increase ηh\eta_{\text{h}} by 40%\sim 40\% (including the fiber-to-air interface), and the improved phase-matching increases ηh\eta_{\text{h}} by 11%\sim 11\%. The remaining 50%\sim 50\% improvement originates from the pump beam alignment, higher vapor cell transmission, and different rubidium isotope.

Table 1: Comparison of this work and Ref. [17].
Heralding efficiency ηh\eta_{\text{h}} HOM visibility VV Max normalized cross-correlation [gs-i(2)]max[g^{(2)}_{\text{s-i}}]_{\text{max}} @ R=200R=200 kcps
This work 24%±0.1%24\%\pm 0.1\% 88%±2%88\%\pm 2\% 202±1202\pm 1
Ref. [17] 10.5%±0.1%10.5\%\pm 0.1\% 78%±3%78\%\pm 3\% 64±164\pm 1

We verify the single-photon nature of the generated photons by measuring the auto-correlation of the signal photons gc2(0)g_{\text{c}}^{2}(0), conditioned on the detection of an idler photon. Using a 3.5 ns-long detection time window we measure gc2(0)=0.0112±0.0001g_{\text{c}}^{2}(0)=0.0112\pm 0.0001 for R=37R=37 kcps. As a comparison, in Ref. [17], we obtained a similar value gc2(0)=0.012±0.0003g_{\text{c}}^{2}(0)=0.012\pm 0.0003 for R=15R=15 kcps, with OD=9.3\text{OD}=9.3 and a 2.5 ns-long detection time window that accounts for 95% of the photons’ energy with the higher OD.

V Discussion

The advantage of heralded single-photons that are generated using an atomic ensemble is that they can be stored in an atomic quantum memory based on the same ladder-level scheme [24, 25]. Indeed, our upgraded photon source, combined with a quantum memory [25], has been used to construct synchronized two-photon states [26]. Notably, high-rate and low-noise photon generation with high heralding efficiency is required to efficiently synchronize the photons for multi-photon state generation [26].

In conclusion, we demonstrate a heralded single-photon source with improved performances compared to our original implementation [17]. Our photon source generates indistinguishable heralded single photons with high rate and SNR. It can readily be used as a source of single photons for systems based on rubidium atoms, making it a valuable resource for a wide range of applications in the field of quantum optics, including those requiring multi-photon states.

Acknowledgements.
We acknowledge financial support from the Israel Science Foundation, the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and US National Science Foundation (NSF), the Minerva Foundation with funding from the Federal German Ministry for Education and Research, the Estate of Louise Yasgour, and the Laboratory in Memory of Leon and Blacky Broder.

References

  • [1] M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov. Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detectors. Review of Scientific Instruments, 82(7):071101, 2011.
  • [2] Xi-Lin Wang, Luo-Kan Chen, W. Li, H.-L. Huang, C. Liu, C. Chen, Y.-H. Luo, Z.-E. Su, D. Wu, Z.-D. Li, H. Lu, Y. Hu, X. Jiang, C.-Z. Peng, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, Yu-Ao Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. Experimental ten-photon entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:210502, Nov 2016.
  • [3] Han-Sen Zhong, Yuan Li, Wei Li, Li-Chao Peng, Zu-En Su, Yi Hu, Yu-Ming He, Xing Ding, Weijun Zhang, Hao Li, Lu Zhang, Zhen Wang, Lixing You, Xi-Lin Wang, Xiao Jiang, Li Li, Yu-Ao Chen, Nai-Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. 12-photon entanglement and scalable scattershot boson sampling with optimal entangled-photon pairs from parametric down-conversion. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:250505, Dec 2018.
  • [4] Kentaro Wakui, Yoshiaki Tsujimoto, Mikio Fujiwara, Isao Morohashi, Tadashi Kishimoto, Fumihiro China, Masahiro Yabuno, Shigehito Miki, Hirotaka Terai, Masahide Sasaki, and Masahiro Takeoka. Ultra-high-rate nonclassical light source with 50 GHz-repetition-rate mode-locked pump pulses and multiplexed single-photon detectors. Opt. Express, 28(15):22399–22411, Jul 2020.
  • [5] N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Antón, J. Demory, C. Gómez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lemaítre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart. Near-optimal single-photon sources in the solid state. Nature Photonics, 10(5):340–345, 2016.
  • [6] Xing Ding, Yu He, Z.-C. Duan, Niels Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, Christian Schneider, Martin Kamp, Sven Höfling, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. On-demand single photons with high extraction efficiency and near-unity indistinguishability from a resonantly driven quantum dot in a micropillar. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:020401, 2016.
  • [7] Natasha Tomm, Alisa Javadi, Nadia Olympia Antoniadis, Daniel Najer, Matthias Christian Löbl, Alexander Rolf Korsch, Rüdiger Schott, Sascha René Valentin, Andreas Dirk Wieck, Arne Ludwig, and Richard John Warburton. A bright and fast source of coherent single photons. Nature Nanotechnology, 2021.
  • [8] Oliver Slattery, Lijun Ma, Kevin Zong, and Xiao Tang. Background and review of cavity-enhanced spontaneous parametric down-conversion. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stan., 124:124019, 2019.
  • [9] Pin-Ju Tsai, Ya-Fen Hsiao, and Ying-Cheng Chen. Quantum storage and manipulation of heralded single photons in atomic memories based on electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:033155, Jul 2020.
  • [10] N. Akopian, L. Wang, A. Rastelli, O. G. Schmidt, and V. Zwiller. Hybrid semiconductor-atomic interface: slowing down single photons from a quantum dot. Nature Photonics, 5(4):230–233, 2011.
  • [11] Hüseyin Vural, Simone L. Portalupi, Julian Maisch, Simon Kern, Jonas H. Weber, Michael Jetter, Jörg Wrachtrup, Robert Löw, Ilja Gerhardt, and Peter Michler. Two-photon interference in an atom-quantum dot hybrid system. Optica, 5(4):367–373, 2018.
  • [12] Yunfei Wang, Jianfeng Li, Shanchao Zhang, Keyu Su, Yiru Zhou, Kaiyu Liao, Shengwang Du, Hui Yan, and Shi-Liang Zhu. Efficient quantum memory for single-photon polarization qubits. Nature Photonics, 13(5):346–351, May 2019.
  • [13] Mingtao Cao, Félix Hoffet, Shuwei Qiu, Alexandra S. Sheremet, and Julien Laurat. Efficient reversible entanglement transfer between light and quantum memories. Optica, 7(10):1440–1444, Oct 2020.
  • [14] Yoon-Seok Lee, Sang Min Lee, Heonoh Kim, and Han Seb Moon. Highly bright photon-pair generation in doppler-broadened ladder-type atomic system. Opt. Express, 24(24):28083–28091, 2016.
  • [15] Taek Jeong, Yoon-Seok Lee, Jiho Park, Heonoh Kim, and Han Seb Moon. Quantum interference between autonomous single-photon sources from doppler-broadened atomic ensembles. Optica, 4(10):1167–1170, 2017.
  • [16] Jiho Park, Taek Jeong, Heonoh Kim, and Han Seb Moon. Time-energy entangled photon pairs from doppler-broadened atomic ensemble via collective two-photon coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:263601, 2018.
  • [17] Omri Davidson, Ran Finkelstein, Eilon Poem, and Ofer Firstenberg. Bright multiplexed source of indistinguishable single photons with tunable GHz-bandwidth at room temperature. New Journal of Physics, 23(7):073050, jul 2021.
  • [18] Shengwang Du, Jianming Wen, and Morton H. Rubin. Narrowband biphoton generation near atomic resonance. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 25(12):C98–C108, 2008.
  • [19] Shengwang Du. Quantum-state purity of heralded single photons produced from frequency-anticorrelated biphotons. Phys. Rev. A, 92:043836, 2015.
  • [20] Peter J. Mosley, Jeff S. Lundeen, Brian J. Smith, Piotr Wasylczyk, Alfred B. U’Ren, Christine Silberhorn, and Ian A. Walmsley. Heralded generation of ultrafast single photons in pure quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:133601, 2008.
  • [21] Roberto Mottola, Gianni Buser, Chris Müller, Tim Kroh, Andreas Ahlrichs, Sven Ramelow, Oliver Benson, Philipp Treutlein, and Janik Wolters. An efficient, tunable, and robust source of narrow-band photon pairs at the 87rb d1 line. Opt. Express, 28(3):3159–3170, 2020.
  • [22] Heewoo Kim, Jiho Park, Hyun-Gue Hong, Taeg Yong Kwon, Jongchenol Park, and Han Seb Moon. Photon-pair generation from a chip-scale Cs atomic vapor cell. Opt. Express, 30(13):23868–23877, Jun 2022.
  • [23] C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel. Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys. Rev. Lett., 59:2044–2046, 1987.
  • [24] Ran Finkelstein, Eilon Poem, Ohad Michel, Ohr Lahad, and Ofer Firstenberg. Fast, noise-free memory for photon synchronization at room temperature. Science Advances, 4:eaap8598, 2018.
  • [25] Omri Davidson, Ohad Yogev, Eilon Poem, and Ofer Firstenberg. Fast, noise-free atomic optical memory with 35-percent end-to-end efficiency. Communications Physics, 6:131, Jun 2023.
  • [26] Omri Davidson, Ohad Yogev, Eilon Poem, and Ofer Firstenberg. Single-photon synchronization with a room-temperature atomic quantum memory. arXiv:2302.09508, 2023.