Abstract
Spatial correlations between two photons are the key resource in realising many quantum imaging schemes. Measurement of the biphoton correlation map is typically performed using singlepoint scanning detectors or singlephoton cameras based on charged coupled device (CCD) technology. However, both approaches are limited in speed due to the slow scanning and the low frame rate of CCDbased cameras, resulting in data acquisition times on the order of many hours. Here, we employ a high frame rate, singlephoton avalanche diode (SPAD) camera, to measure the spatial joint probability distribution of a biphoton state produced by spontaneous parametric downconversion, with statistics taken over 10^{7} frames. Through violation of an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen criterion by 227 sigmas, we confirm the presence of spatial entanglement between our photon pairs. Furthermore, we certify, in just 140 s, an entanglement dimensionality of 48. Our work demonstrates the potential of SPAD cameras in the rapid characterisation of photonic entanglement, leading the way towards realtime quantum imaging and quantum information processing.
Introduction
Individual singlephoton avalanche diodes (SPADs) have long been the workhorse of many quantum optics experiments^{1,2}. This is due largely to their singlephoton level sensitivity, and also to the Geiger mode operation, which allows for straightforward methods of singlephoton discrimination and counting, provided the detector operates in the photonstarved regime. Furthermore, precise timing electronics results in an impulse response function that can be as short as 20 ps^{3}, which is ideal for measuring temporal correlations between multiple photons while reducing the influence of background radiation and dark counts. These properties make SPADs one of the leading technologies for measuring photon–photon correlations and entanglement.
Arrays of SPADs, or SPAD cameras, fabricated with standard CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) technology, have been produced in recent years and are now commercially available (e.g. from Photon Force, Micro Photon Devices). The maturity of the technology has enabled the production of compact arrays^{4,5}, as well as the reduction of the cost per device through bulk manufacturing processes^{6}. Thus far, imaging devices based on SPADs have demonstrated their capabilities in fluorescence lifetime imaging^{6,7,8}, LiDAR (light detection and ranging)^{9,10,11,12}, nonlineofsight imaging^{13,14}, imaging through strongly scattering media^{15} and timeresolved correlation measurements^{16,17}. However, SPAD cameras have yet to make their mark due to their overall efficiency and resolution; the fill factor of the earliest available SPAD cameras was on the order of a few percent^{6,18}, which, despite the quantum efficiency of the single SPAD pixels being on par with commercial single element SPADs, equates to a large overall loss. This high loss is particularly detrimental to the detection of quantum states formed of multiple photons as it scales with the power of the photon number.
Charged coupled device (CCD)based singlephoton cameras have, therefore, been typically preferred for quantum imaging applications, where one of the routine tasks involves measuring spatial correlations between photons to build an image. This, in turn, is a result of the photon source of choice that is usually spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC) in nonlinear crystals, where a pump photon is converted with a given probability, into a pair photons. The governing law for this process is momentum conservation that ensures correlations between the photons in the pair^{19,20}. These correlations can be exploited for ghost imaging^{21,22,23}, imaging Belltype nonlocal behaviour^{24}, imaging at enhanced spatial resolution^{25,26}, quantumenhanced target detection^{27} and to distil an image encoded in quantum states in the presence of classical background radiation^{28,29}. We note that recently, Ianzano et al.^{30} have demonstrated the measurement of polarisation entanglement using a camera, owing to its hightemporal resolution (1.5 ns). However, this demonstration did not take full advantage of the spatial resolution of the camera to measure the spatial correlations in the photon pairs; these were spatially filtered using singlemode fibres before being measured with the camera. While this ensured mode matching and spatial indistinguishability that are necessary for polarisation entanglement, the approach comes at the cost of reducing the number of modes to only one, insufficient for imaging, and limits the dimensionality of entanglement to two.
A quantity of particular interest in quantum imaging is the spatial biphoton joint probability distribution (JPD) describing the correlations between photon pairs. The reconstruction of the JPD can be achieved through statistical averaging over a large number of intensity images^{31}—typically on the order of 10^{6} to 10^{7} images—of identically prepared photon pairs. Given that CCDbased detectors provide frame rates on the order of 100 frames s^{−1}, the total acquisition time can vary from a few hours to over a day. Such long acquisition times constitute a hindrance to the widespread adoption of quantum imaging schemes for practical applications.
In the following, we show the reconstruction of the JPD in both position and momentum using a commercially available SPAD camera (SPC3, Micro Photon Devices). Correlation measurements in position and momentum space are averaged over a total of 10^{7} images, amounting to an acquisition time of 140 s. These measurements are of a quality that allows to demonstrate spatial entanglement through violation of an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) criterion^{32,33} with a confidence of 227 sigmas. We show an experimental study into the confidence of the violation as a function of the number of individual singlebit frames used for the calculation, highlighting the benefit of the high frame rate enabled by the SPAD camera for fast characterisation of entanglement correlations. From our measurements in complementary position and momentum bases, we certify highdimensional entanglement in up to 48 dimensions. To this end, we used a robust method of entanglement certification developed by Bavaresco et al.^{34} to compute the lower bound of the fidelity of the measured state with respect to a maximally entangled one in order to estimate its dimensionality. The short acquisition times required to reconstruct the biphoton JPD and certify highdimensional entanglement pave the way for the implementation of quantum imaging and information processing schemes in real time. Indeed, we note that faster sensors, with frame rates up to 800 kiloframes s^{−1}, have been demonstrated^{35} and that this work represents only the tip of the iceberg for the potential use of SPAD cameras within the field of quantum optics.
Results
Experimental setup
Figure 1 shows the experimental apparatus used to measure spatial correlations between photon pairs. Spatially entangled photon pairs are produced via SPDC in a 0.5mmlong βbarium borate (BBO) crystal, cut for typeI phase matching. The crystal is pumped by a 347nm pulsed laser with a repetition rate of 100 MHz (pulse length of 10 ns), an average power of 50 mW and is spatially filtered and collimated (not shown) to a beam diameter of 0.7 mm (1/e^{2}). Spectral filters block the pump beam and select neardegenerate photon pairs at 694 ± 5 nm. Photon pairs are detected using an MPDSPC3 SPAD camera with an array of 32 × 64 pixels, a fill factor of 80% and a 150 μm pixel pitch. The quantum efficiency at 694 nm is ~9% and the dark count rate is 0.14 count per pixel s^{−1}. The SPAD camera has a nominal speed of 96 kiloframes s^{−1} and is operated at its minimum exposure time (10 ns) and deadtime (50 ns). Our photon flux over the full array was 22.5 megacounts s^{−1}. To measure momentum correlations, we used a 4ftelescope (consisting of lenses f_{2} and f_{3}) to image the Fourier plane of the BBO crystal surface (located 2f_{1} away from the crystal) onto the SPAD camera (farfield (FF) configuration), as shown in Fig. 1a. Figure 1b shows the configuration used to measure position correlations of photons pairs at the surface of the BBO crystal (nearfield (NF) configuration); the output surface of the crystal is imaged onto the SPAD camera using a 4ftelescope.
Measuring EPR entanglement
We demonstrate the presence of spatial entanglement in SPDC light by violating the EPR criterion^{33}
where Δr = Δ(r_{1} − r_{2}) and Δk = Δ(k_{1} + k_{2}) are, respectively, measures of the correlation strength in position and momentum for a pair of photons labelled 1 and 2. Violation of a related EPR criterion has been achieved previously both in the case of scanning singlepoint detectors^{33} and by fullfield imaging using an electronmultiplying CCD (EMCCD) cameras^{36,37}.
To determine the strength of the transverse position and momentum correlations, we measure the spatial JPD of photon pairs in the two configurations described in Fig. 1 using the SPAD camera. For a given pair of pixels located at positions r_{i} and r_{j} of the sensor, an element of the JPD denoted Γ(r_{i}, r_{j}) represents the joint probability of detecting photon i of a pair at pixel r_{i} and photon j at pixel r_{j}. Γ(r_{i}, r_{j}) is calculated from a set of N frames using the formula^{38}
where I_{l}(r_{i}) ∈ {0, 1} is a binary value returned by the SPAD camera at pixel r_{i} in the lth frame. The first term is an average value of the coincidence detection of photons belonging to either the same entangled pair (genuine coincidence) or different entangled pairs (accidental coincidence). Since multiple photon pairs can be detected during the time of an exposure, the contribution of accidental coincidences is generally greater than the genuine ones. The second term is an average value of accidental coincidences. Therefore, a subtraction between these two terms leaves only an average value of genuine coincidences that is Γ(r_{i}, r_{j}) (see ‘Methods’). Note that, while subtracting the accidental coincidences is important for our approach to work, this process also has the drawback of increasing the noise in the reconstructed JPD.
Reconstruction of biphoton correlations
Figure 2 shows results of JPD measurements performed in the FF configuration to study momentum correlations. Figure 2a shows the direct intensity image reconstructed from the sum of 10^{7} frames, which corresponds to a total acquisition time of 140 s. This image represents the probability of detecting a photon with a given momentum k = (k_{x}, k_{y}), with no information about the relative position of photons within the same pair (i.e. it is the marginal probability distribution). The JPD Γ(k_{1}, k_{2}) is computed from this set of frames using Eq. (2) and is visualised using conditional projections. For example, Fig. 2b, c shows the conditional spatial distributions Γ(k∣A) and Γ(k∣B) of two photons measured by the sensor in coincidence and with high signaltonoise ratio (SNR), with one photon detected at arbitrarily chosen positions A and B, respectively.
Due to momentum conservation in the SPDC process, the signal and idler photons are measured at π radians in the transverse plane at the centre of the marginal distribution. The centrosymmetry of momentum correlations is characterised by the presence of an intense peak of coincidences in the sumcoordinate projection of the JPD shown in Fig. 2d. The height of the peak corresponds to the sum of coincidences measured in all pairs of symmetric pixels, while its width gives the strength of the correlation, that is, the momentum correlation width Δk. Accounting for the effective magnification of our optical system, we measured Δk = 1.0666(7) × 10^{−2} rad μm^{−1} using a Gaussian fitting model. This model follows from the doubleGaussian approximation applied to the twophoton wavefunction of photon pairs produced by SPDC in a thin crystal^{39,40} used in many experimental studies^{31,33,36,37} (see ‘Methods’).
We repeated the above analysis in the NF configuration shown in Fig. 1b to extract the position correlation width Δr. The photons in entangled pairs are position correlated, that is, they are born at the same position in the crystal and are expected to arrive at the SPAD sensor in the same position. Figure 3a, b shows, respectively, the direct intensity image and the projection of the JPD along the minuscoordinate reconstructed from a set of 10^{7} frames. A coincidence peak is observed at the centre of the minuscoordinate projection that demonstrates strong position correlation between photon pairs. The central pixel in the minuscoordinate projection has been set to zero because the SPAD camera does not resolve the number of photons detected per pixel and therefore cannot measure photon coincidences at the same pixel. Accounting for the optical magnification, we measured a position correlation width Δr = 4.3(2) μm by fitting with a Gaussian model (see ‘Methods’).
The measured values of transverse position and momentum correlations width violate the EPR criterion in Eq. (1): Δr ⋅ Δk = 4.6(2) × 10^{−2} < 1/2, thus demonstrating the presence of spatial entanglement. This violation has a confidence level of C = 227 using the following definition:
where σ = 10^{−3} is the uncertainty on the product Δr ⋅ Δk.
In both position and momentum space, we observe that the correlation width is at most, as large as a single pixel on the SPAD camera. On the one hand, this is due to the relatively large 150 μm pixel pitch that is for comparison, over 10× larger than that of the EMCCD iXon 888 from Andor technologies. On the other hand, The magnification of our optical system was not large enough to spread the correlation width over more pixels. The implication is that the true correlation width as given by the crystal is necessarily smaller than what we measured (see ‘Methods’). However, a more accurate and precise measurement of the correlation width will only lead to a tighter EPR violation. Note that this can now be realised with stateoftheart SPAD sensors that boast megapixel arrays and 2.2 μm pixel pitch^{41,42}.
Confidence level analysis
As detailed in the ‘Methods’ section, σ is calculated from the standard deviation of the noise surrounding the coincidence peaks in the sum and minuscoordinate projections of the JPD. For a fixed exposure time and a constant source intensity, σ depends only on the number of frames acquired to compute the JPD^{43}. Figure 4a shows that the measured values of C for different total number of frames N (black crosses) are found to scale as \(\sqrt{N}\) (blue dashed curve, see ‘Methods’). In particular, confident EPR violation (C > 5) is not achieved for N < 2 × 10^{4}. Figure 4b–g shows examples of sum and minuscoordinate projections obtained for a total number of frames N = 2 × 10^{3} (Fig. 4b, e), N = 10^{4} (Figs. 4c, f), and N = 10^{7} (Fig. 4d, g). We clearly observe a decrease of the noise in the projection images with increasing number of frames. Indeed, the average over a larger N in Eq. (2) enables to obtain a better estimation of the accidental term, such that its subtraction yields a more precise JPD. Consequently, after subtraction of the accidentals, the SNR of the JPD increases with the total number of frames, as does our confidence in the EPR violation. However, we observed that the position correlation signal appears noisier than its momentum counterpart. This is because we do not detect a significant part of our signal originating from two photons incident on the same pixel. Given that our SPAD camera cannot resolve photon number, we measure the weaker correlation signal from photons incident on adjacent pixels, owing to the relatively high 80% fill factor.
Certification of highdimensional entanglement
Measurements in two mutually unbiased bases (MUBs) allow the use of a recently developed entanglement witness for certifying highdimensional entanglement^{34}. In this respect, discrete position and momentum basis can be used as two MUBs and are accessible in our experimental setup using the NF and FF configurations^{44}. As shown in Fig. 5a, b, we then select d = 196 pixels uniformly distributed over a central region in a grid of 14 × 14 pixels in both configurations. Modes associated with the chosen pixels are denoted \({\{\leftm\right\rangle \}}_{m\in [0,d1]}\) (discrete position basis) and \(\{{\left\tilde{p}\right\rangle }_{p\in [0,d1]}\}\) (discrete momentum basis). To certify entanglement dimensionality of the generated state ρ, correlation measurements are performed in the two MUBs to compute a lower bound for the fidelity of the state ρ with respect to a maximally entangled target state \(\left\Phi \right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{m = 0}^{d1}\leftmm\right\rangle\). From the correlation matrices measured in Fig. 5c, d, we obtained a lower bound value of the fidelity: \(\tilde{F}(\rho ,\Phi )=0.252(9)\) (see ‘Methods’). The entanglement dimensionality d_{ent} that is certifiable with this method is the maximal r such that
allowing us to certify d_{ent} = 48 dimensions. Finally, it is essential to note that the total acquisition time for performing all the measurements (i.e. in the two MUBs) and certifying the entanglement dimension was only 140 s. As a comparison, one day was required to certify a similar amount of dimensions of entanglement (55) using a stateoftheart singleoutcome projective measurement technique^{45}, representing a speed improvement of ~500× with our method.
Discussion
We have used a SPAD camera to characterise and quantify highdimensional entanglement between photon pairs. By measuring position and momentum correlations using 10^{7} intensity images, we showed a violation of an EPR criterion by 227 sigmas for an acquisition time of 140 s. While EPR violation has been demonstrated by acquiring very few frames with a highly sensitive EMCCD camera^{46}, quantum imaging approaches based on correlation measurements between spatially entangled photon pairs require the measurement of a large number of frames^{26,28,29,31,47,48}, typically on the order of 10^{6}–10^{7}. This is to ensure high enough SNR on the conditional projections to reconstruct the image by exploiting photonpair correlations. Using an EMCCD for example, the reconstruction of the spatial JPD is performed at a frame rate of the order of 100 frames s^{−1}, amounting to a total acquisition time of many hours. Our ability to reduce the JPD measurement time by a factor of 1000× will allow quantum imaging proofofprinciple experiments to evolve towards practical applications.
Furthermore, we have certified highdimensional entanglement up to 48 dimensions in just 140 s, a significant development in quantum information processing with highdimensional quantum states. While certifying highdimensional entanglement is now routinely performed using singleoutcome projective measurement techniques^{34,45,49,50}, these approaches are tedious and prohibitively timeconsuming. Our SPAD camerabased technique outperforms these approaches in term of speed and scalability, with a demonstrated speedup by more than a factor 500× and the potential access to up to 4 × 10^{6} twophoton modes ((32 × 64)^{2}) in parallel, indicating a key role to be played in future quantum information processing systems based on highdimensional entanglement. Finally, a natural combination with recently developed spatial mode sorting devices^{51,52} holds promise for exploring highdimensional entanglement in other types of spatial mode bases, including those carrying orbital angular momentum.
Methods
Details on Γ reconstruction
Equation (2) enables the reconstruction of the spatial JPD from a finite number of frames N acquired with the SPAD camera. This equation is derived from a theoretical model of photonpair detection detailed in ref. ^{38}. In this work, a link is established between the JPD and the measured frames at the limit N → +∞:
where A is a constant coefficient that depends on both the quantum efficiency of the sensor and the power of the pump laser, and
Equation (5) is obtained under hypotheses^{38} that are all verified in our work, including that (i) the quantum efficiency is the same for all pixels of the sensor and (ii) the number of pairs produced by SPDC during the time an exposure follows a Poisson distribution^{53}. Moreover, in our experiment the probability of detecting a photon per pixel per frame is much lower than one (〈I(r)〉 ≪ 1), which allows us to express Eq. (5) as follows:
In the practical case where only a finite number of frames N is measured, the first term on the righthand side in Eq. (8) is estimated by multiplying pixel values within the same frame:
The second term on the righthand side in Eq. (8) is estimated by multiplying the averaged intensity values:
Combining Eqs. (8), (9) and (10) finally leads to Eq (2).
Δr and Δk measurements and uncertainties
Transverse position and momentum correlation widths, Δr and Δk, are estimated by fitting the sum and minuscoordinate projections of the JPD measured in FF and NF configurations by a Gaussian model^{36,37} of the form f(r) = \(a\exp ({r}^{2}/2{\Delta }^{2})\), where a is a fitting parameter and Δ is the desired correlation width value (Δr or Δk). Note that, in the case of the position correlation width measurement, the central point of the minuscoordinate projection is excluded from the fitted data. The presence of noise in the sum and minuscoordinate images induce uncertainties on values Δr and Δk returned by the fitting process. The standard deviation of the noise Σ is measured in an area composed of 40 × 40 pixels surrounding the central peak of coincidence. The link between the correlation width uncertainty δ_{Δ} (δ_{Δ} = δ_{Δr} or δ_{Δk}) and Σ is given by calculating the value of grad[f] at the position r = Δ:
and expanding it at the first order in r:
In our case, the variations δf and δr identify to the uncertainty quantities Σ and δ_{Δ}, respectively, which finally leads to:
All correlation width values and uncertainties are expressed in the coordinate system of the crystal, after taking into consideration the magnifications introduced by the imaging systems detailed in Fig. 1.
Variation of the confidence level C with the number of images N
As defined in Eq. (3), the confidence levels C depends on both Δr ⋅ Δk and its uncertainty σ. For a given nonlinear crystal and a stationary pump, Δr ⋅ Δk is constant, while σ depends on the quality of our measurement, including the total number of acquired frames N. To establish the theoretical link between C and N, we first relate σ to the uncertainties in position and momentum correlation widths (δ_{Δr} and δ_{Δk}) by error propagation:
Then, we replace δ_{Δk} and δ_{Δr} using Eq. (13) to show that σ ∝ Σ. Finally, we use the fact that Reichert et al.^{43} have shown that \(\Sigma \propto 1/\sqrt{N}\) for a constant average pump power and a fixed exposure time. Thus, we conclude that \(C\propto \sqrt{N}.\) As shown in Fig. 4, this theoretical model fits successfully with the experimental data (R^{2} = 0.998).
Effect of pixelation on the Gaussian fit
As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the correlation widths of the photon pairs produced in our experiment are on the order of the pixel size. This pixelation effect introduces uncertainties on the Gaussian fits and the extracted values of the correlation widths. While this error is difficult to quantify, it is essential to note it can only lead to an overestimation of the correlation width values. In the limiting case where the correlation width is much smaller than the size of a pixel (i.e. the correlation image has only one nonzero pixel surrounded by zeros), the Gaussian fit will always return a value that is approximately equal to 20% of the pixel size. Therefore, the confidence value calculated from the correlation width values is a lower bound of the more accurate value that would be measured using a SPAD with more pixels. As a result, the pixelation effect cannot change our conclusion on the presence of entanglement. Simulations of the pixelation effect are discussed in Supplementary Note 1, and graphically illustrated in Supplementary Fig. 1.
Discrete position and momentum basis
In our experiment, we use discrete photonic transverse position and momentum bases given by a set pixel defined on the SPAD camera, which we refer to as the discrete position basis \({\{\leftm\right\rangle \}}_{m\in [1,d]}\) and discrete momentum basis \({\{\left\tilde{p}\right\rangle \}}_{p\in [1,d]}\). Our approach is based on the protocol proposed by Erker et al.^{44}, where these bases are used as two MUBs to certify highdimensional entanglement. More precisely, they are linked according to:
where ω = e^{2πi/d}. Experimentally, these bases are accessed using simple optics, that is, lenses to image or Fourier image the output of the nonlinear crystal producing the photon pairs. A subset of pixels is then selected in the illuminated areas of the sensor to optimise coincidence signals measured. In our case, we selected 196 pixels evenly separated from each other by 1 pixel and located on a square grid of 14 × 14 pixels at the centre of the sensor. The only difference between the scheme proposed by Eker et al. and our work is that only one image is produced on the camera in our case, against two in their proposal using a collinear beam splitter. This setup prevents us from accessing the coincidence rate at the same pixel (e.g. same spatial modes) as already pointed out in Fig. 3. Rather, the coincidence rate of photon pairs in the same pixel is inferred by measuring the coincidence rate between each pixel and its neighbour. This inference leads to a lower value of the intrapixel coincidence rate in the NF configuration. This approximation, therefore, underestimates the actual entanglement witness value.
Derivation of the dimensionality witness
To certify the presence of highdimensional entanglement in the measured state ρ, we employ a recently developed witness that uses correlations in at two MUBs^{34}. In our experiment, the two MUBs are the discrete position basis \({\{\leftm\right\rangle \}}_{m\in [1,d]}\) and discrete momentum basis \({\{\left\tilde{p}\right\rangle \}}_{p\in [1,d]}\) (see previous ‘Methods’ section). Using only coincidence measurements in these two bases, one can determine a lower bound for the fidelity F(ρ, Φ) of the state ρ to a pure bipartite maximally entangled target state \(\left\Phi \right\rangle\). Since the fidelity to a target entangled state also provides information about the dimensionality of entanglement, we use this bound for certifying the dimension of entanglement of the state produced in our experiment.
We consider a maximally entangled target state written as:
with d = 196. The fidelity F(ρ, Φ) of the state ρ to the target state \(\left\Phi \right\rangle\) is defined as:
where
The entanglement dimensionality can be deduced from the fidelity taking into account that for any state ρ of Schmidt number r ≤ d, the fidelity of Eq. (20) is bound by:
Hence, any state with F(ρ, Φ) > B_{r}(Φ) must have an entanglement dimensionality of at least r + 1. Our goal is therefore to obtain a lower bound on the fidelity as large as possible for the target state whose Schmidt rank is as close as possible to the local dimension d. To achieve this experimentally, the method described in ref. ^{34} works the following way: Step 1: Matrix elements {〈mn∣ρ∣mn〉}_{m,n} are calculated from the coincidence counts \({\{{N}_{mn}\}}_{mn}\) measured in the discrete position basis via:
These elements are shown in the matrix in Fig. 5c. They enable to calculate directly the term F_{1}(ρ, Φ) = 0.00170(1) from the definition, Eq. (18).
Step 2: Matrix elements \({\{\langle \tilde{p}\tilde{v} \rho  \tilde{p}\tilde{v}\rangle \}}_{p,v}\) are calculated from the coincidence counts \({\{{\tilde{N}}_{pv}\}}_{pv}\) measured in the discrete momentum basis via:
These elements are shown in the matrix in Fig. 5d. These matrix elements, together those of the discrete position basis, allow us to bound the fidelity term F_{2}(ρ, Φ). This lower bound \({\tilde{F}}_{2}(\rho ,\Phi )=0.250(9)\) is calculated via:
where the prefactor \({\gamma }_{mnm^{\prime} n^{\prime} }\) is given by
A derivation of Eq. (23) can be found in the ‘Methods’ section of ref. ^{34}.
Step 3: A lower bound on entanglement is calculated as \(\tilde{F}(\rho ,\Phi )={F}_{1}(\rho ,\Phi )+{\tilde{F}}_{2}(\rho ,\Phi )=0.252(9)\le F(\rho ,\Phi )\). This lower bound value is finally compared to the certification bound B_{r}(Φ) as
thus certifying entanglement in r + 1 dimensions. In our experiment, we found, accounting for errors, r = 47 and hence certified entanglement in d_{ent} = 48 dimensions.
Assumptions
Using this approach, we note that no assumptions are directly made about the underlying quantum state ρ. However, an assumption is made about our measurement process. Indeed, by using Eq. (2) to measure the JPD of photon pairs, we effectively perform a subtraction of accidental counts. Correcting for accidental coincidence is acceptable in our experiment since we trust our measurement devices and the final goal is only to assess the presence of entanglement and its dimension. However, such an assumption would not be acceptable in an adversarial scenario such as quantum key distribution as it is likely to compromise the security of the protocol. Furthermore, this assumption cannot be used if one wants to perform a loopholefree nonlocality tests, because it is likely to violate the fairsampling assumption.
Data availability
The experimental data that support the findings presented here are available at https://doi.org/10.5525/gla.researchdata.1071.
Code availability
The codes used to process the data are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
References
Migdall, A., Polyakov, S., Fan, J. & Bienfang, J. SinglePhoton Generation and Detection: Physics and Applications, Vol. 45, Experimental Methods in the Physical Sciences (Elsevier, 2013).
Hadfield, R. H. Singlephoton detectors for optical quantum information applications. Nat. Photon. 3, 696 (2009).
Cova, S., Ghioni, M., Lacaita, A., Samori, C. & Zappa, F. Avalanche photodiodes and quenching circuits for singlephoton detection. Appl. Opt. 35, 1956 (1996).
Rochas, A. et al. Single photon detector fabricated in a complementary metaloxidesemiconductor highvoltage technology. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 3263 (2003).
Rochas, A. et al. First fully integrated 2D array of singlephoton detectors in standard CMOS technology. IEEE Photonic. Technol. Lett. 15, 963 (2003).
Bruschini, C., Homulle, H., Antolovic, I. M., Burri, S. & Charbon, E. Singlephoton avalanche diode imagers in biophotonics: review and outlook. Light Sci. Appl. 8, 87 (2019).
Li, D.U. et al. Realtime fluorescence lifetime imaging system with a 32×32 0.13μm CMOS low darkcount singlephoton avalanche diode array. Opt. Express 18, 10257–10269 (2010).
Henderson, R. K. et al. A 192 × 128 Time Correlated Single Photon Counting Imager in 40 nm CMOS technology. In IEEE 44th ESSCIRC, 54–57 (2018).
Bronzi, D. et al. 100 000 Frames/s 64 × 32 singlephoton detector array for 2D imaging and 3D ranging. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum 20, 354–363 (2014).
Gyongy, I. et al. Advances in CMOS SPAD sensors for LIDAR applications. In Emerging Imaging and Sensing Technologies for Security and Defence III; Unmanned Sensors, Systems, Countermeasures, Vol. 10799, 1079907 (2018).
Lindner, S., Zhang, C., Antolovic, I. M., Wolf, M. & Charbon, E. A 252 × 144 SPAD Pixel Flash Lidar with 1728 dualclock 48.8 PS TDCs, integrated histogramming and 14.9to1 compression in 180nm CMOS technology. In IEEE Symposium on VLSI Circuits, 69–70 (2018).
Henderson, R. K. et al. 5.7 A 256 × 256 40nm/90nm CMOS 3DStacked 120dB DynamicRange Reconfigurable TimeResolved SPAD Imager. In IEEE ISSCC, 106108 (2019).
Gariepy, G., Tonolini, F., Henderson, R., Leach, J. & Faccio, D. Detection and tracking of moving objects hidden from view. Nat. Photon. 10, 23 (2016).
Faccio, D., Velten, A. & Wetzstein, G. Nonlineofsight imaging. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 318 (2020).
Lyons, A. et al. Computational timeofflight diffuse optical tomography. Nat. Photon. 13, 575 (2019).
Lubin, G. et al. Quantum correlation measurement with single photon avalanche diode arrays. Opt. Express 27, 32863–32882 (2019).
Unternährer, M., Bessire, B., Gasparini, L., Stoppa, D. & Stefanov, A. Coincidence detection of spatially correlated photon pairs with a monolithic timeresolving detector array. Opt. Express 24, 32863 (2016).
Gariepy, G. et al. Singlephoton sensitive lightinfight imaging. Nat. Commun. 6, 6021 (2015).
Jost, B. M. et al. Spatial correlations of spontaneously downconverted photon pairs detected with a singlephotonsensitive CCD camera. Opt. Express 3, 81 (1998).
Abouraddy, A. F., Nasr, M. B., Saleh, B. E. A., Sergienko, A. V. & Teich, M. C. Demonstration of the complementarity of one and twophoton interference. Phys. Rev. A 63, 063803 (2001).
Pittman, T. B., Shih, Y. H., Strekalov, D. V. & Sergienko, A. V. Optical imaging by means of twophoton quantum entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429 (1995).
Aspden, R. S., Tasca, D. S., Boyd, R. W. & Padgett, M. J. EPRbased ghost imaging using a singlephotonsensitive camera. N. J. Phys. 15, 073032 (2013).
Moreau, P.A., Toninelli, E., Gregory, T. & Padgett, M. J. Ghost imaging using optical correlations. Laser Photonics Rev. 12, 1700143 (2018).
Moreau, P.A. et al. Imaging Belltype nonlocal behavior. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2563 (2019).
Xu, D.Q. et al. Experimental observation of subRayleigh quantum imaging with a twophoton entangled source. Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 171104 (2015).
Toninelli, E. et al. Resolutionenhanced quantum imaging by centroid estimation of biphotons. Optica 6, 347 (2019).
Zhang, Y. et al. Multidimensional quantumenhanced target detection via spectrotemporalcorrelation measurements. Phys. Rev. A 101, 053808 (2020).
Defienne, H., Reichert, M., Fleischer, J. W. & Faccio, D. Quantum image distillation. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0307 (2019).
Gregory, T., Moreau, P.A., Toninelli, E. & Padgett, M. J. Imaging through noise with quantum illumination. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay2652 (2020).
Ianzano, C. et al. Fast camera spatial characterization of photonic polarization entanglement. Sci. Rep. 10, 6181 (2020).
Reichert, M., Defienne, H. & Fleischer, J. W. Massively parallel coincidence counting of highdimensional entangled states. Sci. Rep. 8, 7925 (2018).
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantummechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
Howell, J. C., Bennink, R. S., Bentley, S. J. & Boyd, R. W. Realization of the EinsteinPodolskyRosen Paradox using momentum and positionentangled photons from spontaneous parametric down conversion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 210403 (2004b).
Bavaresco, J. C. et al. Measurements in two bases are sufficient for certifying highdimensional entanglement. Nat. Phys. 10, 1032 (2018).
Gasparini, L. et al. A 32 × 32pixel timeresolved singlephoton image sensor with 44.64μm pitch and 19.48% fillfactor with onchip row/frame skipping features reaching 800kHz observation rate for quantum physics applications. In IEEE ISSCC, 98–100 (2018).
Moreau, P.A., MouginSisini, J., Devaux, F. & Lantz, E. Realization of the purely spatial EinsteinPodolskyRosen paradox in fullfield images of spontaneous parametric downconversion. Phys. Rev. A 86, 010101 (2012).
Edgar, M. et al. Imaging highdimensional spatial entanglement with a camera. Nat. Commun. 3, 984 (2012).
Defienne, H., Reichert, M. & Fleischer, J. W. General model of photonpair detection with an image sensor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 203604 (2018).
Fedorov, M. V., Mikhailova, Y. M. & Volkov, P. A. Gaussian modelling and Schmidt modes of SPDC biphoton states. J. Phys. B 17, 175503 (2009).
Schneeloch, J. & Howell, J. C. Introduction to the transverse spatial correlations in spontaneous parametric downconversion through the biphoton birth zone. J. Opt. 5, 053501 (2016).
Morimoto, K. et al. Megapixel timegated SPAD image sensor for 2D and 3D imaging applications. Optica 7, 346 (2020).
Morimoto, K. & Charbon, E. High fillfactor miniaturized SPAD arrays with a guardringsharing technique. Opt. Express 9, 13068–13080 (2020).
Reichert, M., Defienne, H. & Fleischer, J. W. Optimizing the signaltonoise ratio of biphoton distribution measurements. Phys. Rev. A 98, 013841 (2018).
Erker, P., Krenn, M. & Huber, M. Quantifying high dimensional entanglement with two mutually unbiased bases. Quantum 1, 22 (2017).
Valencia, N. H. et al. Highdimensional pixel entanglement: efficient generation and certification. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.04994.pdf (2020).
Lantz, E., Denis, S., Moreau, P.A. & Devaux, F. EinsteinPodolskyRosen paradox in single pairs of images. Opt. Express 23, 26472–26478 (2015).
Defienne, H., Reichert, M. & Fleischer, J. W. Adaptive quantum optics with spatially entangled photon pairs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 233601 (2018).
Defienne, H., Ndagano, B., Lyons, A. & Faccio, D. Entanglementenabled quantum holography. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01209 (2019).
Schneeloch, J., Tison, C., Fanto, M., Alsing, P. M. & Howland, G. A. Quantifying entanglement in a 68billiondimensional quantum state space. Nat. Commun. 10, 2785 (2019).
Herrera Valencia, N. H., Goel, S., McCutcheon, W., Defienne, H. & Malik, M. Unscrambling entanglement through a complex medium. Nat. Phys. 16, 1112–1116 (2019).
Fontaine, N. K. et al. LaguerreGaussian mode sorter. Nat. Commun. 10, 1865 (2019).
Brandt, F., Hiekkamäki, M., Bouchard, F., Hubert, M. & Fickler, R. Highdimensional quantum gates using fullfield spatial modes of photons. Optica 7, 98 (2020).
Larchuk, T. S., Teich, M. C. & Saleh, B. E. A. Statistics of entangledphoton coincidences in parametric downconversion. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 755, 680 (1995).
Acknowledgements
We thank M. Malik and N.H. Valencia for fruitful discussions. D.F. acknowledges financial support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grants EP/M01326X/1 and EP/R030081/1) and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 801060. H.D. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie SklodowskaCurie grant agreement No. 840958.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.N. performed the experiment. B.N. and H.D. analysed the results. B.N., H.D., A.L. and D.F. conceived and discussed the experiment. F.V. and S.T. provided experimental support with the SPAD camera. All authors contributed to the redaction of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ndagano, B., Defienne, H., Lyons, A. et al. Imaging and certifying highdimensional entanglement with a singlephoton avalanche diode camera. npj Quantum Inf 6, 94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534020003248
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534020003248
This article is cited by

Readoutefficient superconducting nanowire singlephoton imager with orthogonal time–amplitude multiplexing by hotspot quantization
Nature Photonics (2023)

Quantum microscopy of cells at the Heisenberg limit
Nature Communications (2023)

Superresolved quantum ghost imaging
Scientific Reports (2022)

Quantum light transport in phaseseparated Anderson localization fiber
Communications Physics (2022)

Quantum microscopy based on Hong–Ou–Mandel interference
Nature Photonics (2022)