Assessing the alignment accuracy of state-of-the-art deterministic fabrication methods for single quantum dot devices

The realization of efficient quantum light sources relies on the integration of self-assembled quantum dots (QDs) into photonic nanostructures with high spatial positioning accuracy. In this work, we present a comprehensive investigation of the QD position accuracy, obtained using two marker-based QD positioning techniques, photoluminescence (PL) and cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging, as well as using a marker-free in-situ electron beam lithography (in-situ EBL) technique. We employ four PL imaging configurations with three different image processing approaches and compare them with CL imaging. We fabricate circular mesa structures based on the obtained QD coordinates from both PL and CL image processing to evaluate the final positioning accuracy. This yields final position offset of the QD relative to the mesa center of $\mu_x$ = (-40$\pm$58) nm and $\mu_y$ = (-39$\pm$85) nm with PL imaging and $\mu_x$ = (-39$\pm$30) nm and $\mu_y$ = (25$\pm$77) nm with CL imaging, which are comparable to the offset $\mu_x$ = (20$\pm$40) nm and $\mu_y$ = (-14$\pm$39) nm obtained using the in-situ EBL method. We discuss the possible causes of the observed offsets, which are significantly larger than the QD localization uncertainty obtained from simply imaging the QD light emission from an unstructured wafer. Our study highlights the influences of the image processing technique and the subsequent fabrication process on the final positioning accuracy for a QD placed inside a photonic nanostructure

Local Difference Measures between Complex Networks for Dynamical System Model Evaluation

Acknowledgments We thank Reik V. Donner for inspiring suggestions that initialized the work presented herein. Jan H. Feldhoff is credited for providing us with the STARS simulation data and for his contributions to fruitful discussions. Comments by the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged as they led to substantial improvements of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Complex networks for climate model evaluation with application to statistical versus dynamical modeling of South American climate

Acknowledgments: This paper was developed within the scope of the IRTG 1740/TRP 2011/50151-0, funded by the DFG/FAPESP. Furthermore, this work has been financially supported by the Leibniz Society (project ECONS), and the Stordalen Foundation (JFD). For certain calculations, the software packages pyunicorn (Donges et al. 2013a) and igraph (Csa´rdi and Nepusz 2006) were used. The authors would like to thank Manoel F. Cardoso, Niklas Boers, and the reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.Peer reviewedPostprin

Assessing the alignment accuracy of state-of-the-art deterministic fabrication methods for single quantum dot devices

The realization of efficient quantum light sources relies on the integration of self-assembled quantum dots (QDs) into photonic nanostructures with high spatial positioning accuracy. In this work, we present a comprehensive investigation of the QD position accuracy, obtained using two marker-based QD positioning techniques, photoluminescence (PL) and cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging, as well as using a marker-free in-situ electron beam lithography (in-situ EBL) technique. We employ four PL imaging configurations with three different image processing approaches and compare them with CL imaging. We fabricate circular mesa structures based on the obtained QD coordinates from both PL and CL image processing to evaluate the final positioning accuracy. This yields final position offset of the QD relative to the mesa center of $\mu_x$ = (-40$\pm$58) nm and $\mu_y$ = (-39$\pm$85) nm with PL imaging and $\mu_x$ = (-39$\pm$30) nm and $\mu_y$ = (25$\pm$77) nm with CL imaging, which are comparable to the offset $\mu_x$ = (20$\pm$40) nm and $\mu_y$ = (-14$\pm$39) nm obtained using the in-situ EBL method. We discuss the possible causes of the observed offsets, which are significantly larger than the QD localization uncertainty obtained from simply imaging the QD light emission from an unstructured wafer. Our study highlights the influences of the image processing technique and the subsequent fabrication process on the final positioning accuracy for a QD placed inside a photonic nanostructure