Detection jitter quantifies variance introduced by the detector in the determination of photon arrival time. It is a crucial performance parameter for systems using superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPDs). In this work, we have demonstrated that the detection timing jitter is limited in part by the spatial variation of the photon detection events along the length of the wire. We define this jitter source as a geometric jitter since it is related to the length and area of the SNSPD. To characterize the geometric jitter, we have constructed a differential cryogenic readout with less than 7 ps of an electronic jitter that can amplify the pulses generated from the two ends of an SNSPD. By differencing the measured arrival times of the two electrical pulses, we were able to partially cancel out the difference of the propagation times and thus reduce the uncertainty of the photon arrival time. We proved that the variation of the differential propagation time was a few ps for a 3 μm × 3 μm device, while it increased up to 50 ps for a 20 μm × 20 μm device. In a 20 μm × 20 μm large SNSPD, we achieved a 20% reduction in the overall detection timing jitter for detecting the telecom-wavelength photons by using the differential cryogenic readout.

Single-photon detectors are suitable for the applications that require single-photon signal sensitivity from visible to infrared wavelengths. The quantum key distribution,1 the time-of-flight laser ranging (LIDAR),2 the fluorescent imaging,3 and the space based optical communication4 all require single photon detectors. The superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPDs) excel relative to the other commercially available single-photon detectors,5 with efficiencies up to 96% at 1550 nm, response spectrum from 0.5 to 5 μm, low dark count rates below 100 counts per second (cps), and a count rate above 100 × 106 cps.6–9 These applications require precise time resolution, and thus low timing jitter. Prior work has demonstrated that the jitter of the SNSPD can be as low as 18 ps.11 However, a wide range of jitter values—from 18 ps up to hundreds of ps—have been reported for the SNSPDs of different sizes and different materials.7–9,11 This inconsistency is an indication that the mechanisms involved in the setting device jitter remain poorly understood.

The source of the measured timing jitter can be divided into two main parts: (i) an electronic readout component and (ii) an intrinsic component. The electronic components such as amplifiers, passive components, ground loops, and measurement equipment generate noise.10,11 The existence of this limit is inferred from the observation that a reduction of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and slew rate of the SNSPD signal increases jitter: with an RMS noise of 4 mV, a reduction in the slew rate from 0.57 mV/ps to 0.15 mV/ps increased the electronic jitter from 6 ps to 24 ps.10 The origin of the intrinsic jitter remains unclear: O'Connor15 showed that a possible mechanism for an intrinsic jitter is variation in the hotspot lengths. In their work, the nanowire defects or constrictions distributed over the detector area were shown to produce different signal slopes and amplitudes, thus generating different SNSPD signals that increased the jitter by up to 50 ps in a 20 μm × 20 μm device. However, the limits of an intrinsic jitter in devices without intrinsic inhomogeneity remains a puzzle.

Our recent discovery that a superconductive nanowire acts like a transmission line12,13 has suggested a geometry-based approach to the understanding of the intrinsic jitter. In particular, due to a large kinetic inductivity of these wires, the signal velocity of such a transmission line is slower than the speed of light, while its characteristic impedance is much higher than 50 Ω. 14 For a typical SNSPD, the effective signal wavelength is thus significantly reduced, approaching the scale of the wire's physical length. Therefore, instead of describing the electrical pulse generation from the perspective of an SNSPD behaving like a lumped inductor, the device should be treated as a distributed circuit element, i.e., a transmission line. In the distributed-element scenario, after a photon is absorbed in the nanowire, two electrical pulses are generated, which then propagate towards either end of the nanowire, arriving at times t1 and t2. Assuming the transmission line has a constant velocity v, t1 and t2 can be written as linear functions of the photon landing location xp and arrival time tp, which are t1=tp+xpv and t2=tp+Dxpv, where D is the total length of the nanowire. In a typical SNSPD with a meandered shape, photons are usually uniformly illuminated on the detector. Consequently, the spatial variation of the absorbed photon will contribute to the variation of t1 and t2, introducing a geometric jitter jG that is closely related to the size of an SNSPD. Although this fully distributed description oversimplifies the microwave behaviour of the SNSPD, it is qualitatively useful in understanding our results.

In this work, we have identified, studied, and provided experimental evidence for jG in an SNSPD by implementing a differential cryogenic readout to determine the absolute and the relative arrival times of output pulses at the two ends of the nanowire. As shown in Fig. 1(a), we pre-amplified these two pulses by means of the two HEMT-based cryogenic amplifiers, increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to reduce the electrical jitter jE below 7 ps. The amplifier had a high-input impedance and operated at 4.2 K while immersed in liquid helium (see Fig. 1(a)). The SNSPD was placed into a symmetric electrical network on a custom-printed circuit board (PCB), which was made from a 1.2-mm-thick FR4 laminate sheet. The SNSPD was biased with a DC current supplied by a voltage source with a serial resistor, while its output pulses were AC coupled to two HEMTs.18 In this way, positive and negative pulses arriving at each end of the SNSPD were separately amplified (Fig. 1(b)). The electrical noise was lowered by using multiple high-pass filters that are designed to have a low cut-off frequency around 200 MHz. The filter cut-off was defined by the input, output capacitors, and by the RC network placed at the source terminals of the HEMTs. Furthermore, the input stage of the amplifier comprised of a resistor and an inductor; the SNSPD was shunted to the ground by a 50 Ω resistor Rshunt (that provided a low-impedance path, to avoid latching events) in series with a 10 μH conical broadband inductor Lshunt (self-resonant frequency up to 40 GHz) that was used to boost the high-frequency component of the SNSPD signal. The conical inductor provided a high-impedance block for the rising edge of the SNSPD signal: in the frequency range between 200 MHz and 1.5 GHz (consistent with the bandwidth of the SNSPD signals), the input impedance of the each HEMT was higher than 600 Ω. The output pulses were read out at the room temperature, amplified by a single stage 20 MHz–4-GHz-bandwidth amplifier, and analysed with a 6 GHz oscilloscope. The gain of the differential stage was evaluated comparing its output to a classic one without amplifier,7–12obtaining a gain of 18 dB (see Fig. 1(b)). Fig. 1(b) shows the output signals (Ch1 and Ch2) and the corresponding arrival times of the differential readout for a signal event from a 3 μm × 3 μm device of a nanowire meandered in a square geometry, biased at 24 μA. A clear delay was observed between Ch1 and Ch2. This delay varied due to the variation in an event position along the length of the wire. We measured an output signal with an 800 mV amplitude, a rise time of 500 ps, and a slew rate of ∼1.5 mV/ps. The RMS voltage output noise was 4.5 mV, which guaranteed a maximum electronic RMS jitter of 3 ps (FWHM jitter of 7.3 ps) per channel.10 

FIG. 1.

(a) Schematic of the differential cryogenic HEMT readout circuit with a NbN SNSPD. The HEMT amplifiers were designed to cut off all frequencies lower than 200 MHz to increase the SNR. The input impedance of the amplifier was set from the series combination of the shunt resistor and a conical inductor. All the components and the SNSPD were placed on a printed circuit board (PCB). (b) Output pulses of the differential readout acquired with a 6 GHz oscilloscope. The rising edge (10%–90% of the slope) is 500 ps wide, and the slope is 1 mV/ps at 10% of the waveform amplitude. The delay time of the arrival signal from Ch1 and Ch2 is quoted at a defined threshold voltage Vt. The blue dotted line is the output pulse of a single channel readout without an HEMT amplifier (c) The Jitter distribution t1,t2, and the sum of two (t1 + t2)/2 of a 10 μm × 10 μm SNSPD.

FIG. 1.

(a) Schematic of the differential cryogenic HEMT readout circuit with a NbN SNSPD. The HEMT amplifiers were designed to cut off all frequencies lower than 200 MHz to increase the SNR. The input impedance of the amplifier was set from the series combination of the shunt resistor and a conical inductor. All the components and the SNSPD were placed on a printed circuit board (PCB). (b) Output pulses of the differential readout acquired with a 6 GHz oscilloscope. The rising edge (10%–90% of the slope) is 500 ps wide, and the slope is 1 mV/ps at 10% of the waveform amplitude. The delay time of the arrival signal from Ch1 and Ch2 is quoted at a defined threshold voltage Vt. The blue dotted line is the output pulse of a single channel readout without an HEMT amplifier (c) The Jitter distribution t1,t2, and the sum of two (t1 + t2)/2 of a 10 μm × 10 μm SNSPD.

Close modal

We measured the pulse arrival times for both pulses to extract t1 and t2 after removing fixed delays from the connections and the amplifiers. As shown in Fig. 1(c) (histograms of t1 and t2) for the measurements of a 10 μm × 10 μm SNSPD, if we only use t1 or t2 to determine tp, which is similar to readout of a conventional SNSPD, the overall detection timing jitter jt1 = jt2 = 35 ps is defined as the FWHM of the distribution of t1 or t2. This value includes not only the intrinsic jitter but also our hypothesized geometric jitters jG1 or jG2 due to the distribution of photon landing locations along the wire length. For each photon-detection event, the difference of arrival times Δt=t2t1=(D2xp)v is independent of the photon arrival time tp, and only depends on the photon landing location xp. Therefore, the variation of Δt, which we will call the differential jitter jΔ, is used as a metric to evaluate the contribution of the geometric jitter to the overall jitter. Referring to the previous expression, jG can be evaluated as jΔ2. The sum of t1 and t2,Σt=t2+t1=2tp+Dv is a function of tp and independent of the photon landing locations xp, from which tp can be determined by calculating tp=(ΣtDv)2, where Dv is assumed to be constant. As shown in Fig. 1(c) (histogram of (Σt2)), the variation of Σt2 gives the detection sum timing jitter jΣ, which is 29 ps, representing a 12% reduction relative to the jt1 or jt2. A clear delay was observed between t1 and t2 for the hotspot nucleation event shown. This delay varied randomly from event to event, which we interpret as resulting from the variation in the position of the event along the length of the wire.

With the metrics defined above, we implemented the differential readout on the NbN SNSPDs of various geometries. The devices were fabricated from ∼4-nm-thick NbN films on the SiNx-on-Si substrates. The standard meander structure was defined using electron-beam lithography, followed by reactive-ion etching. The nanowire width was 100 nm, the fill factor was 50%, and the detector area varied from 3 μm × 3 μm up to 20 μm × 20 μm. Assuming a uniform distribution in the hotspot stimulation from the flood laser illumination on the active area, we measured the t1 and t2 for each photon detection event and thus derived jΔ and jΣ.

Fig. 2(a) shows that increasing the dimension of the SNSPD, at the same biasing current, increased the jΔ as well. For larger SNSPDs, photons were spread over a larger area. Because it takes time for a pulse generated at one end to reach the other end, a larger area resulted in a higher Δt. We compared the detection jitters jt1 and jt2, each measured from a single output, to the jΣ determined by using both outputs. The jitters were acquired with a LeCroy 6 GHz oscilloscope. The number of photon events acquired was more than 50 000 and the measurement time was 1 h each. The laser power was set to a single photon level. As shown in Fig. 2(c), as the size of the SNSPD was varied from 3 μm × 3 μm to 20 μm × 20 μm, jitters jt1 and jt2 increased from 22 ps to 45 ps. In comparison, the increase of jΣ over the same range was smaller, resulting in a reduction of 17% in the variance of the determination of the photon arrival time by using jΣ relative to using jt1 (or jt2) for a 20 μm × 20 μm SNSPD. As a result, we can use the differential readout to reduce the single-photon detection jitter without changing the design of an SNSPD, and this reduction grows as the device area grows. We noticed that the jitter reduction was higher in 10 μm × 10 μm instead of 15 μm × 15 μm. This was explained by the biasing ratio: the 15 μm × 15 μm showed higher defects, low critical current (Fig. 2(c)), than 10 μm × 10 μm, leading in higher hot-spot jitter,15 which cannot be compensated in jΣ.

FIG. 2.

(a) The distribution of the t1-t2 for different detectors with different size: from 3 μm × 3 μm up to 20 μm × 20 μm. The traces were acquired by using a 6 GHz oscilloscope, the start signal of the time correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) was Ch1, and Ch2 was the stop. The devices were flood-illuminated by a 1550 nm picosecond pulsed laser, attenuated to the single photon level. (b) The full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of t1-t2 for a single constriction device and for devices with varying area. The black line represents the final geometric jitter. (c) FWHM of the SNSPD timing jitter acquired by using a 1550 nm picosecond pulsed laser, before and after propagation jitter correction for all the device geometries. The percentage improvement and the biasing ratio (bias current, Ib = 24 μA, over critical current, Ic) are indicated for each device.

FIG. 2.

(a) The distribution of the t1-t2 for different detectors with different size: from 3 μm × 3 μm up to 20 μm × 20 μm. The traces were acquired by using a 6 GHz oscilloscope, the start signal of the time correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) was Ch1, and Ch2 was the stop. The devices were flood-illuminated by a 1550 nm picosecond pulsed laser, attenuated to the single photon level. (b) The full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of t1-t2 for a single constriction device and for devices with varying area. The black line represents the final geometric jitter. (c) FWHM of the SNSPD timing jitter acquired by using a 1550 nm picosecond pulsed laser, before and after propagation jitter correction for all the device geometries. The percentage improvement and the biasing ratio (bias current, Ib = 24 μA, over critical current, Ic) are indicated for each device.

Close modal

For sufficient small detector areas, the geometric effect ought to be negligible, and so jΔ should approach the intrinsic jitter of the hot-spot generation process, while jΣ should approach jt1 or jt2. To test this hypothesis, we fabricated the SNSPDs with a minimal detection area, named the constricted SNSPD. For each detector, there was only a 1-μm-long and a 100-nm-wide nanowire region (shown in red and blue) for sensing photons. Because photon-detection events are limited to the 1-μm-long nanowire region, the geometric jitter from this small portion of the device jΔS should approach the limit set by the combined effect of the variance in the intrinsic hot-spot generation process and electrical noise (as expected from Ref. 12, the electrical jitter increases with the overall inductance of the nanowire, including both narrower and wider regions). We considered the inductance variation decreasing the constricted SNSPD biasing current (i.e., changing signal slopes): at higher signal slope (representing the 3 μm × 3 μm), we achieved a jitter, jΔS, lower than 12 ps instead for the 20 μm × 20 μm jΔS was 18 ps.

By comparing the difference between jΔ in the typical SNSPDs jΔN and jΔS in the 1-μm-long devices, as shown in Fig. 2(b), we could evaluate how much the geometric jitter jG contributes to the jitter of a typical device after removing the contribution from electrical noise. We assumed that jΔN and jΔS add in quadrature, so jG=jΔN2jΔS22.

Fig. 3 shows the design of a comparison experiment, designed to characterize the maximum propagation time that can result when a photon hits at either edge of the nanowire. In this experiment, we used an on-chip multiplexing circuit to operate the two SNSPDs (named L and R), which were designed to have limited photon-sensing area close to the edge of the meander shape shown in Fig. 3. Each of the SNSPDs had a 1-μm-long nanowire region placed in opposite corners, with the rest of the wire comprised of a 200-nm-wide nanowire. The devices had a total area of 20 μm × 20 μm of which only the 100 nm × 1 μm length was active. The arms were connected in parallel but oriented in opposite directions. The two SNPSDs were selectively biased by means of the superconductive switches—nanocryotrons (nTrons)16,17—one placed in series with each side of the device (L and R) along the meander. When the nTron gate was biased over its critical current, the nTron channel became resistive and blocked the bias current on one side of the device. Fig. 3(b) shows the distribution of the Δt acquired in the two different configurations of Fig. 3(a): (i) arm L ON, where the photon detection location was far from OUT1; (ii) arm R ON, where the photon detection location was close to OUT1. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the two resulting distributions of t2t1 had almost the same FWHM but had a spacing of Δt = 42 ps between the distribution centres. Thus, Δt/2 corresponds to the propagation delay for a signal to travel the entire length of the nanowire in this geometry (noting of course that the velocity of signal propagation along the 200 nm wide region will not be exactly the same as that for the 100-nm-wide region in typical devices).

FIG. 3.

(a) Schematic of the parallel single constriction devices. As depicted here, the R arm is biased and is able to detect photons, while L arm is OFF. The switches used were nTron devices: open when the gate (third terminal, not shown) was biased over its critical current, closed (i.e., zero resistance) when the gate was left floating. (b) Δt distribution for the two sides of the double parallel device. The FWHM of the distributions are quoted: ΔtL and ΔtR are the measured time differences between arrivals at channels 1 and 2 for the L and R devices, respectively, and correspond to the propagation delay for a signal to travel the entire length of the nanowire.

FIG. 3.

(a) Schematic of the parallel single constriction devices. As depicted here, the R arm is biased and is able to detect photons, while L arm is OFF. The switches used were nTron devices: open when the gate (third terminal, not shown) was biased over its critical current, closed (i.e., zero resistance) when the gate was left floating. (b) Δt distribution for the two sides of the double parallel device. The FWHM of the distributions are quoted: ΔtL and ΔtR are the measured time differences between arrivals at channels 1 and 2 for the L and R devices, respectively, and correspond to the propagation delay for a signal to travel the entire length of the nanowire.

Close modal

In conclusion, we developed: (i) a differential cryogenic readout circuit demonstrating less than 7 ps of readout jitter by using a high impedance input stage and (ii) a post-processing compensation method improving the detection timing jitter of an SNSPD, reducing the jitter by 17% for a 20 μm × 20 μm device, and thus achieving 38 ps of detection timing jitter. We also demonstrated the existence of geometric jitter in an SNSPD and characterized the dependence of geometric jitter on the SNSPD size. We showed that this effect contributes with 20 ps to the jitter of a 20 μm × 20 μm device. This work also implies that the observed system jitter should depend on how light is coupled to a detector (whether focussed on a single spot or distributed evenly across the full device).

This work has shown that some improvement in jitter is available by a simple change in a readout method; we believe that in future work, a comprehensive treatment of the full microwave environment and device characteristic could result in a substantial modification in the existing model of the SNSPD operation. The SNSPD architectures can now be envisioned in which, for example, an improved microwave biasing, readout, and signal amplification of the device are considered. We believe that any future efforts to drive the SNSPD jitter and reset performance to higher levels will require consideration of the microwave characteristic of the nanowire geometry.

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant under Contact No. ECCS1-509486 and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) grant under Contract No. FA9550-14-1-0052. Niccolò Calandri would like to thank his financial support from the Roberto Rocca project when he was a visiting student in MIT. Di Zhu is supported by National Science Scholarship from A*STAR, Singapore. Andrew Dane was supported by NASA Space Technology Research Fellowship, Grant No. NNX14AL48H. Emily Toomey is acknowledged for helpful comments on the manuscript. Adam McCaughan is acknowledged for helpful discussions.

1.
R. H.
Hadfield
,
J. L.
Habif
,
J.
Schlafer
,
R. E.
Schwall
, and
S. W.
Nam
, “
Quantum key distribution at 1550 nm with twin superconducting single-photon detectors
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
89
(
24
),
241129
(
2006
).
2.
R. E.
Warburton
,
A.
McCarthy
,
A. M.
Wallace
,
S.
Hernandez-Marin
,
R. H.
Hadfield
,
S.
Woo Nam
, and
G. S.
Buller
, “
Subcentimeter depth resolution using a single-photon counting time-of-flight laser ranging system at 1550 nm wavelength
,”
Opt. Lett.
32
,
2266
2268
(
2007
).
3.
R. M.
Hoffman
, “
The multiple uses of fluorescent proteins to visualize cancer in vivo
,”
Nat. Rev. Cancer
5
,
796
806
(
2005
).
4.
D. M.
Boroson
,
B. S.
Robinson
,
D. V.
Murphy
,
D. A.
Burianek
,
F.
Khatri
,
J. M.
Kovalik
,
Z.
Sodnik
, and
D. M.
Cornwell
, “
Overview and results of the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration
,”
Proc. SPIE
8971
,
89710S
(
2014
).
5.
A.
Tosi
,
N.
Calandri
,
M.
Sanzaro
, and
F.
Acerbi
, “
Low-noise, low-jitter, high detection efficiency InGaAs/InP single-photon avalanche diode
,”
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.
20
(
6
),
192
197
(
2014
).
6.
G. N.
Gol'tsman
,
O.
Okunev
,
G.
Chulkova
,
A.
Lipatov
,
A.
Semenov
,
K.
Smirnov
,
B.
Voronov
,
A.
Dzardanov
,
C.
Williams
, and
R.
Sobolewski
, “
Picosecond superconducting single-photon optical detector
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
79
(
6
),
705
(
2001
).
7.
F.
Najafi
,
A.
Dane
,
F.
Bellei
,
Z.
Qingyuan
,
K. A.
Sunter
,
A. N.
McCaughan
, and
K. K.
Berggren
, “
Fabrication process yielding saturated nanowire single-photon detectors with 24-ps jitter
,”
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.
21
(
2
),
3800507
(
2015
).
8.
F.
Marsili
,
V. B.
Verma
,
J. A.
Stern
,
S.
Harrington
,
A. E.
Lita
,
T.
Gerrits
,
I.
Vayshenker
,
B.
Baek
,
M. D.
Shaw
,
R. P.
Mirin
, and
S. W.
Nam
, “
Detecting single infrared photons with 93% system efficiency
,”
Nat. Photonics
7
(
3
),
210
214
(
2013
).
9.
D.
Rosenberg
,
A. J.
Kerman
,
R. J.
Molnar
, and
E. A.
Dauler
, “
High-speed and high-efficiency superconducting nanowire single photon detector array
,”
Opt. Express
21
(
2
),
1440
1447
(
2013
).
10.
Q.
Zhao
,
L.
Zhang
,
T.
Jia
,
L.
Kang
,
W.
Xu
,
J.
Chen
, and
P.
Wu
, “
Intrinsic timing jitter of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors
,”
Appl. Phys. B
104
,
673
678
(
2011
).
11.
L.
You
,
X.
Yang
,
Y.
He
,
W.
Zhang
,
D.
Liu
,
W.
Zhang
,
L.
Zhang
,
L.
Zhang
,
X.
Liu
,
S.
Chen
,
Z.
Wang
, and
X.
Xie
, “
Jitter analysis of a superconducting nanowire single photon detector
,”
AIP Adv.
3
,
072135
(
2013
).
12.
K. V.
Smirnov
,
A. V.
Divochiy
,
Yu. B.
Vakhtomin
,
M. V.
Sidorova
,
U. V.
Karpova
,
P. V.
Morozov
,
V. A.
Seleznev
,
A. N.
Zotova
, and
D. Yu.
Vodolazov
, “
Rise times of voltage pulses in NbN superconducting single-photon detectors
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
109
,
052601
(
2016
).
13.
D. F.
Santavicca
,
J. K.
Adams
,
L. E.
Grant
,
A. N.
Mccaughan
, and
K.
Karl
, “
Microwave dynamics of high aspect ratio superconducting nanowires studied using self-resonance
,”
J. Appl. Phys.
119
,
234302
(
2016
).
14.
Q. Y.
Zhao
,
D.
Zhu
, and
N.
Calandri
, “
A scalable single-photon imager using a single superconducting nanowire
,” arXiv:1605.08693v1 (
2016
).
15.
J. A.
O'Connor
,
M. G.
Tanner
,
C. M.
Natarajan
,
G. S.
Buller
,
R. J.
Warburton
,
S.
Miki
,
Z.
Wang
,
S. W.
Nam
, and
R. H.
Hadfield
, “
Spatial dependence of output pulse delay in a niobium nitride nanowire superconducting single-photon detector
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
98
(
20
),
201116
(
2011
).
16.
A. N.
Mccaughan
and
K. K.
Berggren
, “
A superconducting-nanowire 3-terminal electronic device
,”
Nano Lett.
14
,
5748
5753
(
2014
).
17.
B. S.
Robinson
,
A. J.
Kerman
,
E. A.
Dauler
,
R. J.
Barron
,
D. O.
Caplan
,
M. L.
Stevens
,
J. J.
Carney
,
S. A.
Hamilton
,
J. K. W.
Yang
, and
K. K.
Berggren
, “
781 Mbit/s photon-counting optical communications using a superconducting nanowire detector
,”
Opt. Lett.
31
(
4
),
444
(
2006
).
18.
J.
Kitaygorsky
,
S.
Dorenbos
,
E.
Reiger
,
R.
Schouten
,
V.
Zwiller
, and
R.
Sobolewski
, “
HEMT-based readout technique for dark- and photon-count studies in NbN superconducting single-photon detectors
,”
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.
19
(
3
),
346
349
(
2009
).