Photon Detection Efficiency
Author: the photonics expert Dr. Rüdiger Paschotta (RP)
Acronym: PDE
Definition: the probability of a single-photon detector to register a single photon
Category:
- properties of photodetectors
- responsivity
- gain
- spectral response of a photodetector
- photon detection efficiency
- (more topics)
Related: single-photon detectorsquantum efficiencyphotons
Page views in 12 months: 435
DOI: 10.61835/3im Cite the article: BibTex BibLaTex plain textHTML Link to this page! LinkedIn
Content quality and neutrality are maintained according to our editorial policy.
What is a Photon Detection Efficiency?
Photon detection efficiency (PDE) is a key performance figure for single-photon detectors. It is the probability that an incident photon produces a registered count (a “click”). This probability depends on several factors:
- Optical coupling losses: Some photons are lost before reaching the sensitive region, e.g. by parasitic reflections at an optical window or the detector surface.
- Fill factor: In detector arrays, some photons may strike inactive regions of the chip.
- Absorption efficiency: Some photons are not absorbed in the active region, particularly if the absorption coefficient at the chosen wavelength is small. They may also be absorbed in regions where carriers recombine before contributing.
- Avalanche triggering: In a Geiger-mode avalanche photodiode (SPAD), generating an electron–hole pair does not always trigger an avalanche. The trigger probability approaches unity at high excess bias but may be significantly below 100% near breakdown. (Some materials do not allow operation substantially above breakdown without excessive dark count rates.)
By definition, PDE is evaluated when the detector is ready to detect — that is, not during a “dead time” following a previous avalanche. In practice, the effective detection efficiency is reduced by dead time, hold-off, or gating duty cycle.
In some fields (e.g. superconducting nanowire detectors), the term system detection efficiency (SDE) is used to include all coupling optics and packaging losses. PDE is then the detector-intrinsic efficiency.
Relation to Quantum Efficiency
Most of the loss mechanisms explained above are encompassed in the conventional quantum efficiency of a photodetector. However, quantum efficiency refers only to the conversion of absorbed photons into charge carriers. PDE goes further by including the avalanche trigger probability and, for arrays, the fill factor. As a result, the PDE is generally lower than the quantum efficiency. This discrepancy is especially important for longer-wavelength SPADs, where the excess bias cannot be raised high enough for near-unity avalanche triggering.
Typical Values of Photon Detection Efficiencies
High PDE values are achievable only within wavelength ranges where the absorption coefficient is favorable:
- Silicon SPADs: At suitable wavelengths (≈400–1000 nm), PDE values >50% are common; optimized devices can exceed 60%.
- InGaAs/InP SPADs: At telecom wavelengths (≈1.3–1.55 µm), typical PDE values are ≈10–30% under practical conditions.
- Ge-on-Si SPADs: Research devices show ≈20–40% PDE around 1.3–1.55 µm.
- Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs): PDE can exceed 80% across wide wavelength ranges.
The optimization of photon detection efficiency often involves trade-offs with other performance factors. For example, raising the bias voltage of SPADs improves efficiency, but also raises the dark count rate and afterpulsing. Therefore, fair comparisons of devices or technologies should look at efficiencies only under well-defined conditions.
Generally, the detection efficiency is substantially wavelength-dependent. For some nanostructured detectors (e.g. superconducting nanowires), PDE depends also on the polarization of light due to anisotropic absorption.
Measurement of Photon Detection Efficiency
Measuring PDE is more challenging than measuring responsivity in linear-mode detectors. Two main approaches are used:
Direct Method
The conceptually simplest approach is to prepare a light source with a known photon flux of a suitable magnitude — which is typically quite low, limited by the detector's maximum count rate. One may start with a higher photon flux, which is more easily measured, e.g. with a calibrated photodiode, and then apply a known (and often high) amount of attenuation. The obtained count rate — with the dark count rate subtracted — can then be easily related to the known photon flux:
$$\textrm{PDE} = \frac{C_\textrm{meas} - C_\textrm{dark}}{\Phi_\textrm{incident}}$$where ($C_\textrm{meas}$) is the total count rate, ($C_\textrm{dark}$) the dark count rate, and ($\Phi_\textrm{incident}$) the incident photon flux.
Difficulties arise in accurately calibrating the attenuation and ensuring uniform coupling.
Some national metrology institutes provide calibrated photon flux standards to reduce uncertainty. They maintain carefully worked-out standard procedures for traceability.
Quantum Correlation Method (Klyshko Two-Photon Technique)
Another widely used approach called the Klyshko two-photon technique [1, 2, 3] employs photon pair sources, typically from spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Time-correlated photons are directed into two channels:
- The detector under test (A) is placed in one channel.
- The reference detector (B) monitors the other channel.
Fast coincidence electronics record joint detections.
The PDE of the test detector is estimated as:
$$\textrm{PDE} = \frac{N_{AB}}{N_B}$$where ($N_{AB}$) is the coincidence count rate and ($N_B$) the count rate of the reference detector.
Practical considerations related to non-ideal performance of the reference detector:
- A high dark count rate in the reference detector reduces accuracy but can be corrected statistically.
- Non-unity detection efficiency of the reference detector is less problematic — it simply reduces the usable event rate.
- Large timing jitter in either detector would require a wider coincidence window, raising the rate of accidental coincidences; this can also be corrected.
Frequently Asked Questions
This FAQ section was generated with AI based on the article content and has been reviewed by the article’s author (RP).
What is photon detection efficiency?
Photon detection efficiency (PDE) is the probability that a photon arriving at a single-photon detector will be successfully registered as a detection event or 'click'.
What is the difference between photon detection efficiency and quantum efficiency?
Quantum efficiency typically refers only to the conversion of absorbed photons into charge carriers. Photon detection efficiency (PDE) is a broader metric that also includes factors like optical coupling losses, the detector's fill factor, and the probability of a charge carrier successfully triggering a detection event.
What are typical PDE values for single-photon detectors?
Efficiencies vary by technology and wavelength. Silicon SPADs can exceed 60% in the visible range, while InGaAs/InP SPADs for telecom wavelengths typically offer 10–30%. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs) can achieve over 80% PDE across a wide wavelength range.
How can one measure the photon detection efficiency?
A common method involves using a calibrated light source with a known photon flux and measuring the detector's count rate. An alternative is the Klyshko two-photon technique, which uses correlated photon pair sources to determine the efficiency by comparing coincidence counts with counts in a reference channel.
Bibliography
| [1] | D. N. Klyshko, “Use of two-photon light for absolute calibration of photoelectric detectors”, Sov. J. Quantum Electron. 10 (9), 1112 (1980); doi:10.1070/qe1980v010n09abeh010660 |
| [2] | M. Ware and A. Migdall, “Single-photon detector characterization using correlated photons: the march from feasibility to metrology”, Journal of Modern Optics 51 (9-10), 1549-1557 (2004); doi:10.1080/09500340410001670910 |
| [3] | S. V. Polyakov and A. L. Migdall, “High accuracy verification of a correlated-photon-based method for determining photon-counting detection efficiency”, Opt. Express 15 (4), 1390 (2007); doi:10.1364/OE.15.001390 |
(Suggest additional literature!)
