2021
DOI: 10.1002/pssb.202000615
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Error Rates in Deterministic Ion Implantation for Qubit Arrays

Abstract: The theoretical error rates in deterministic ion implantation when using an ion beam governed by a Poisson point process with a detector that counts the impacts are investigated. It is concluded that if the error rates are small, then for spots with nominally one implanted ion the probability of failure to implant the correct number is ≈κ/λ+ηtrue¯+λ/2 for a synchronous (i.e., pulsed) system or K/L+ηtrue¯+Ltnormals for an asynchronous (i.e., continuous beam) system, where ηtrue¯ is the probability that the dete… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The dark‐count value (false‐positive detection rate) of the secondary electron detectors in the P‐NAME system is ≈8 × 10 −6 per typical 1 μs pulse. As shown by Murdin et al, at such a low dark‐count rate, the ability to perform single‐ion deterministic doping is limited solely by the ion implantation detection efficiency [ 10 ] which, for P‐NAME, was measured in the same manner as Cassidy et al, [ 37 ] to be 87 (±7)% for 50 keV Sb into 200 nm SiO 2 on p‐type (boron doped) Si (see Figure S3, Supporting Information). For measuring the detection efficiency, the average number of ions within a given pulse ( λ ) was varied by adjusting the pulse width for a fixed ion beam current.…”
Section: System Overview and Ion Beam Lithographymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The dark‐count value (false‐positive detection rate) of the secondary electron detectors in the P‐NAME system is ≈8 × 10 −6 per typical 1 μs pulse. As shown by Murdin et al, at such a low dark‐count rate, the ability to perform single‐ion deterministic doping is limited solely by the ion implantation detection efficiency [ 10 ] which, for P‐NAME, was measured in the same manner as Cassidy et al, [ 37 ] to be 87 (±7)% for 50 keV Sb into 200 nm SiO 2 on p‐type (boron doped) Si (see Figure S3, Supporting Information). For measuring the detection efficiency, the average number of ions within a given pulse ( λ ) was varied by adjusting the pulse width for a fixed ion beam current.…”
Section: System Overview and Ion Beam Lithographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 8 ] The use of FIB systems specifically for low‐dose impurity‐ion doping has been limited, though its potential is substantial with applications in developing fields such as quantum technologies. For example, when the FIB current is reduced to the point of a single‐ion implantation, it becomes possible to deterministically create color centers for qubit array formation, [ 9–11 ] with control over dopant number and nanoscale positioning being crucial for device performance. [ 12,13 ] Such applications of ion implantation in quantum technologies often also demand the ability to deliver a variety of isotopically selected species for implantation in order to yield optimal performance with regard to properties such as nuclear spin.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%