Statistical studies of photonic heterostructure

nanocavities with an average Q factor of

three million
Yuki Taguchi,1 Yasushi Takahashi,2,3,* Yoshiya Sato,1
Takashi Asano,1 and Susumu Noda1
1
Department of Electronic Science and Engineering and Photonics and Electronics Science and Engineering Center,
Kyoto University, Kyoto 615-8510, Japan
2
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Research Center, Research Organization for the 21st Century,
Osaka Prefecture University, Sakai, Osaka 599-8570, Japan
3
PRESTO, Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), 4-1-8 Honcho Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan
*y-takahashi@21c.osakafu-u.ac.jp

Abstract: We have measured the quality (Q) factors and resonant

wavelengths for 80 photonic crystal nanocavities with the same
heterostructure. In this statistical evaluation, the Q factors varied according
to a normal distribution centered at 3 million and ranging between 2.3
million and 3.9 million. The resonant wavelengths also fluctuated but with a
standard deviation of only 0.33 nm. Such a high average Q factor and highly
controlled resonant wavelength will be important for the development of
advanced applications of photonic crystal nanocavities. Comparing the
experimental values with calculated values suggests that factors other than
structural variations of air holes, which decrease the Q factor, are indeed
present in the fabricated nanocavities.
©2011 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (230.5298) Photonic crystals; (350.4238) Nanophotonics and photonic crystals.

References and links

1. Y. Akahane, T. Asano, B. S. Song, and S. Noda, “High-Q photonic nanocavity in a two-dimensional photonic
crystal,” Nature 425(6961), 944–947 (2003).
2. B. S. Song, S. Noda, T. Asano, and Y. Akahane, “Ultra-high-Q photonic double-heterostructure nanocavity,”
Nat. Mater. 4(3), 207–210 (2005).
3. Y. Takahashi, Y. Tanaka, H. Hagino, T. Sugiya, Y. Sato, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “Design and demonstration of
high-Q photonic heterostructure nanocavities suitable for integration,” Opt. Express 17(20), 18093–18102
(2009).
4. S. Noda, A. Chutinan, and M. Imada, “Trapping and emission of photons by a single defect in a photonic
bandgap structure,” Nature 407(6804), 608–610 (2000).
5. H. Takano, B. S. Song, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “Highly efficient multi-channel drop filter in a two-dimensional
hetero photonic crystal,” Opt. Express 14(8), 3491–3496 (2006).
6. B. S. Song, T. Nagashima, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “Resonant-wavelength control of nanocavities by nanometer-
scaled adjustment of two-dimensional photonic crystal slab structures,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 20(7), 532–
534 (2008).
7. Y. Tanaka, J. Upham, T. Nagashima, T. Sugiya, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “Dynamic control of the Q factor in a
photonic crystal nanocavity,” Nat. Mater. 6(11), 862–865 (2007).
8. J. Upham, Y. Tanaka, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “Dynamic increase and decrease of photonic crystal nanocavity Q
factors for optical pulse control,” Opt. Express 16(26), 21721–21730 (2008).
9. M. Notomi, E. Kuramochi, and T. Tanabe, “Large-scale arrays of ultrahigh-Q coupled nanocavities,” Nat.
Photonics 2(12), 741–747 (2008).
10. M. R. Lee and P. M. Fauchet, “Two-dimensional silicon photonic crystal based biosensing platform for protein
detection,” Opt. Express 15(8), 4530–4535 (2007).
11. S. Kita, K. Nozaki, and T. Baba, “Refractive index sensing utilizing a cw photonic crystal nanolaser and its array
configuration,” Opt. Express 16(11), 8174–8180 (2008).
12. M. Nomura, S. Iwamoto, K. Watanabe, N. Kumagai, Y. Nakata, S. Ishida, and Y. Arakawa, “Room temperature
continuous-wave lasing in photonic crystal nanocavity,” Opt. Express 14(13), 6308–6315 (2006).
13. S. Noda, M. Fujita, and T. Asano, “Spontaneous-emission control by photonic crystals and nanocavities,” Nat.
Photonics 1(8), 449–458 (2007).
14. S. Iwamoto, Y. Arakawa, and A. Gomyo, “Observation of enhanced photoluminescence from silicon photonic
crystal nanocavity at room temperature,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91(21), 211104 (2007).

#146387 - $15.00 USD Received 21 Apr 2011; revised 21 May 2011; accepted 27 May 2011; published 3 Jun 2011
(C) 2011 OSA 6 June 2011 / Vol. 19, No. 12 / OPTICS EXPRESS 11916
15. X. Yang and C. W. Wong, “Coupled-mode theory for stimulated Raman scattering in high-Q/V(m) silicon
photonic band gap defect cavity lasers,” Opt. Express 15(8), 4763–4780 (2007).
16. T. Yoshie, A. Scherer, J. Hendrickson, G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, G. Rupper, C. Ell, O. B. Shchekin, and D. G.
Deppe, “Vacuum Rabi splitting with a single quantum dot in a photonic crystal nanocavity,” Nature 432(7014),
200–203 (2004).
17. K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, M. Winger, D. Gerace, M. Atatüre, S. Gulde, S. Fält, E. L. Hu, and A. Imamoğlu,
“Quantum nature of a strongly coupled single quantum dot-cavity system,” Nature 445(7130), 896–899 (2007).
18. Y. Takahashi, H. Hagino, Y. Tanaka, B. S. Song, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “High-Q nanocavity with a 2-ns photon
lifetime,” Opt. Express 15(25), 17206–17213 (2007).
19. T. Asano, B. S. Song, and S. Noda, “Analysis of the experimental Q factors (~ 1 million) of photonic crystal
nanocavities,” Opt. Express 14(5), 1996–2002 (2006).
20. H. Hagino, Y. Takahashi, Y. Tanaka, T. Asano, and S. Noda, “Effects of fluctuation in air hole radii and
positions on optical characteristics in photonic crystal heterostructure nanocavities,” Phys. Rev. B 79(8), 085112
(2009).
21. M. Borselli, T. J. Johnson, and O. Painter, “Measuring the role of surface chemistry in silicon microphotonics,”
Appl. Phys. Lett. 88(13), 131114 (2006).

1. Introduction
Optical nanocavities in two-dimensional (2D) photonic crystal (PC) slabs have the unique
properties of high quality (Q) factors and small modal volumes [1–3]. They are currently
attracting particular attention as potential components in various advanced applications such
as ultrasmall wavelength-selective filters [4–6], optical pulse memories [7–9], highly sensitive
environmental sensors [10,11], novel emitters [12–15], and quantum information processing
[16,17]. In order to realize such applications, it is important not only to increase the Q factors
but also to precisely control the resonant wavelengths (λ) of the nanocavities.
We have previously presented an important design rule for increasing the theoretical Q
factors (Qideal) of nanocavities [1] and we have proposed photonic heterostructure nanocavities
with Qideal of more than ten million [2,3]. However, to date the highest experimentally
measured Q factor (Qexp) is approximately 2.5 million [2,18]; the values of Qexp for different
nanocavities with the same structure varied between 2.0 million and 2.5 million. Furthermore,
λ fluctuated by several nanometers between different cavities. This discrepancy between Qideal
and Qexp and the partially-defined λ can mainly be attributed to nanometer-scale random
variations in the radii and positions of the air holes that form the 2D PC [19]. We have
recently performed a numerical investigation of the influence of these structural variations on
a heterostructure nanocavity by imposing random fluctuation patterns in which the air holes
are shifted and the radii are varied. Our calculations revealed that Qideal is reduced from 1.5 ×
107 to approximately one million even when the standard deviation of the structural variations
is as small as 1 nm [20]. Furthermore, the value of λ randomly fluctuated on the subnanometer
scale. Knowledge of the magnitude of these fluctuations is important for future applications of
nanocavities, but no quantitative experimental investigation has yet been carried out.
Therefore, no statistical comparison of measured and predicted values of Q and λ has been
performed.
In this paper, we report on experimental evaluations of the fluctuations of Q and λ for the
type of high-Q heterostructure nanocavity that we previously studied theoretically [20]. We
measured Qexp and λ for 80 fabricated nanocavities with the same heterostructure, all of which
were integrated on the same silicon (Si) chip. The values of Qexp varied between 2.3 million
and 3.9 million according to a normal distribution; the average value was 3.0 million. The
value of λ also fluctuated but with a standard deviation of only 0.33 nm. By comparing with
calculated values of Q and λ, we conclude that the standard deviation of the air hole positions
and radii in the fabricated nanocavities is less than 0.58 nm.
2. Sample structure
Figure 1(a) shows the nanocavity studied in this work. The PC consists of a triangular lattice
of circular air holes with radii of 110 nm, formed in a 220-nm-thick Si slab. The nanocavity is
formed by a line defect of 17 missing air holes and by two successive 5 nm shifts of the lattice
constant in the x-direction at the center of the defect [2]. The electric field distribution Ey for
the high-Q nanocavity mode, calculated using the three-dimensional (3D) finite difference

#146387 - $15.00 USD Received 21 Apr 2011; revised 21 May 2011; accepted 27 May 2011; published 3 Jun 2011
(C) 2011 OSA 6 June 2011 / Vol. 19, No. 12 / OPTICS EXPRESS 11917
time domain (FDTD) method, is superimposed on the structure; the values of Qideal and λ were
calculated to be 1.4 × 107 and 1579.21 nm, respectively. We note that the radius of the air
holes and the thickness of the slab were smaller than those considered in our previous reports
in order to reduce the deterioration in Qexp and fluctuation in λ caused by structural variations
of the air holes. Reducing the radius of the air holes should ensure that the effective change of
the refractive index relative to the nanocavity mode due to structural variations is smaller.
Moreover, the use of a thinner slab should reduce the structural variations that arise from the
fabrication process.

Fig. 1. (a) Schematic picture of the high-Q nanocavity, formed by a line defect in a two-step
heterostructure. The lattice constants in the x-direction at the center of the line defect are a1 =
410 nm, a2 = 415 nm and a2’ = 420 nm. The lattice constant in the y-direction is 710 nm in all
regions. (b) Illustration of a measured sample consisting of 10 nanocavities and an extended
excitation waveguide.

Figure 1(b) shows the entire structure of a measured sample. Ten nanocavities and an
extended line-defect waveguide to excite the nanocavities were fabricated in parallel,
separated by 5 rows of air holes. All 10 cavities had the structure shown in Fig. 1(a). The
length of the waveguide is 300 μm with a separation of 20 μm between cavities. In order to
ensure that any field distortion influencing the accuracy of the electron beam (EB) lithography
was steady for all 10 cavities, the pattern for each cavity was drawn at the same position
within the EB field by instead displacing the EB stage (Conversely, this method may produce
slight changes in the height of the EB stage from cavity to cavity). We performed optical
microscopy measurements to determine the values of Qexp and λ. Input light from a tunable-
wavelength laser was coupled into a facet of the excitation waveguide and dropped light
emitted from the nanocavities to free space was measured. The probability that the spectral
resonant peaks of the 10 nanocavities overlap is small because the linewidths of the peaks (<1
pm) are much smaller than the random fluctuation of λ, as shown in Fig. 3. We fabricated 8
such samples on the same Si chip by a process described previously [2,18] and thus efficiently
measured 80 nanocavities with the same structure.
3. Experimental results
Figure 2(a) shows the values of Qexp of the 80 nanocavities, which were derived from the
photon lifetimes of the nanocavities in time-domain measurements [3]. The identification
numbers of the nanocavities are shown on the x-axis. The value of Qexp is greater than 2
million for all 80 nanocavities and the distribution of values is essentially random across the
Si chip. The inset shows that the variation of Qexp corresponds approximately to a normal

#146387 - $15.00 USD Received 21 Apr 2011; revised 21 May 2011; accepted 27 May 2011; published 3 Jun 2011
(C) 2011 OSA 6 June 2011 / Vol. 19, No. 12 / OPTICS EXPRESS 11918
distribution, which agrees with our previous calculations: the reduction of Qexp from Qideal and
the fluctuation is due to the air hole variations [20]. The highest and lowest values are 3.87 ×
106 and 2.30 × 106, which correspond to photon lifetimes of 3.23 ns and 1.92 ns, respectively.
The average Qexp is 3.04 × 106, which is higher than any previously reported values for
photonic crystal cavities. Based on the average Qexp, the Qloss factor is estimated to be 3.88 ×
106 from the relation:
1/ Qexp  1/ Qideal  1/ Qloss (1)

These results imply that we can precisely control the value of Qexp for nanocavities with Qideal
less than 105, such as the L3 cavity [1].
Figure 2(b) shows the variation of λ for the 80 nanocavities, determined using spectral-
domain measurements. During measurements the surrounding temperature fluctuated about by
1 degree corresponding to a λ shift of 0.08 nm. The inset shows that, in similar fashion to Qexp,
λ randomly fluctuates according to a normal distribution; the average value is 1574.37 nm and
the standard deviation is only 0.33 nm. Such a highly controlled λ is very useful not only for
the passive devices as wavelength filters [5,6] and environmental sensors [10,11], but also for
active devices as nanolasers [12]. The difference between the highest and lowest values of λ
among the 80 nanocavities is 1.90 nm. This precision might be sufficient for coarse
wavelength division devices. It should be emphasized that the yield rate of the high-Q
nanocavities was 100% in this study. Similar statistical results in Q and λ were obtained in
different chips. We believe that these developments have been brought about both by
improvements in the fabrication process and by tuning the PC structural parameters as
described above.

Fig. 2. (a) Experimental Q factors of the 80 nanocavities. The average value of Qexp is 3.04 x
106. The inset shows a histogram representing the distribution of Qexp in units of one million.
(b) Resonant wavelengths of the 80 nanocavities. The solid and dashed lines indicate the
average value and its standard deviation. The insert shows a histogram representing the
distribution of λ where the x-axis indicates the deviation from the average value in units of
nanometer.

4. Comparison with simulation results

Finally, we estimate the standard deviation (σhole) associated with remaining variations in the
radii and positions of the air holes in the measured nanocavities. Although it is difficult to
specify the reasons for any remaining variations, it is important to make such an estimation in
order to further improve the fabrication process and to design nanocavity devices. Because
σhole is expected to be less than 1 nm, corresponding to structural deviations that are barely
visible using conventional observation apparatus, we adopted a method to compare our
experimental results with 3D FDTD simulations that take these structural variations into
account. We have presented such a comparison in [18], although statistical experimental data
was not included. Here, our calculations used the structural parameters shown in Fig. 1(a), and

#146387 - $15.00 USD Received 21 Apr 2011; revised 21 May 2011; accepted 27 May 2011; published 3 Jun 2011
(C) 2011 OSA 6 June 2011 / Vol. 19, No. 12 / OPTICS EXPRESS 11919
random variations in the air hole positions and radii were added using 30 different fluctuation
patterns, according to a normal distribution with σhole = 1 nm. Details of these calculations are
given in [20].

Fig. 3. (a) Calculated Q factors and (b) resonant wavelengths of the nanocavity shown in Fig.
1(a) for 30 structural fluctuation patterns with σhole = 1 nm. The x-axis indicates the
identification numbers of the patterns. The solid and dashed lines indicate the average value of
λ and its standard deviation.

Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show the calculated values of Q and λ for the 30 fluctuation patterns.
The calculated Q factors in Fig. 3(a), which we denote as Qfluc, are significantly smaller than
the Qideal of 1.4 × 107 and are randomly distributed between 6.0 × 10 5 and 2.8 × 106. In Fig.
3(b), the average calculated value of λ is 1579.32 nm with a standard deviation of 0.48 nm.
Because the lowest value of Qexp is 2.3 × 106 and the standard deviation of the experimentally
determined λ is 0.33 nm, we can be certain that σhole in our fabricated samples is below 1 nm.
We now introduce an additional factor Qloss_fluc associated with the structural variation of
the air holes, defined as
1/ Qloss_fluc  1/ Qfluc  1/ Qideal (2)

In our previous study, we showed that 1/Qloss_fluc increases with the square of σhole when the
fluctuation pattern is fixed:
1/ Qloss_fluc  Am hole
2
, (3)

where the coefficient Am differs from pattern to pattern. By applying the data in Fig. 3(a) to
Eqs. (2) and (3), the dependence of 1/Qloss_fluc on σhole can be obtained for the 30 fluctuation
patterns without carrying out simulations for individual values of σhole. As a result, the
dependence of the average value of 1/Qloss_fluc and its standard deviation on σhole can be
obtained as follows:
Avg.(1/Qloss_fluc )  7.73 107   hole
2
, (4)

S.D.(1/Qloss_fluc )  2.99  107   hole

2
. (5)

Furthermore, we can estimate Avg.(1/Qloss_fluc) and S.D.(1/Qloss_fluc) for the 80 measured

nanocavities by substituting Qexp for Qfluc in Eq. (2); we obtain values of 2.58 × 107 and 3.85
× 108, respectively. By substituting these values into Eqs. (4) and (5), σhole for the 80
nanocavities is evaluated to be 0.58 nm and 0.36 nm, respectively.
An estimation of σhole is also possible using the standard deviation of λ, which is known to
be proportional to σhole when the fluctuation pattern is fixed. This coefficient is evaluated from
Fig. 3(b) as

#146387 - $15.00 USD Received 21 Apr 2011; revised 21 May 2011; accepted 27 May 2011; published 3 Jun 2011
(C) 2011 OSA 6 June 2011 / Vol. 19, No. 12 / OPTICS EXPRESS 11920
 S.D.( )  0.48   hole . (6)
By substituting the experimental standard deviation of 0.33 nm, we obtain σhole = 0.69 nm,
which is larger than from the analysis based on 1/Qloss_fluc.
It is noted that estimated values from Avg.(1/Qloss_fluc) and S.D.(1/Qloss_fluc) are clearly
different. The corresponding Qloss_fluc for σhole of 0.36 nm is 9.98 × 106 from Eq. (4), which is
different by 6.27 × 106 from the value for Avg.(1/Qloss_fluc). Here, it should be noted that our
estimations based on 1/Qloss_fluc only take into account Qloss factors due to structural variations
of the air holes. If other factors in the fabricated cavities contribute, the evaluation of σhole
from Avg.(1/Qloss_fluc) might be overestimated. If one assumes that S.D.(1/Qloss_fluc) is
unaffected by any additional factors, the smaller σhole estimated from S.D.(1/Qloss_fluc) is likely
to be closer to the actual value, which suggests that other constant Qloss factors of 6.27 × 106
are indeed present in the fabricated nanocavities, such as absorption at the Si surface [21]. In
other words, we can still increase Qexp factor by decreasing the constant Qloss factors. The
larger value of σhole estimated from S.D.(λ) is probably due either to the fluctuation of the
measurement temperature or to tiny fluctuations in the height of the EB stage occurring during
EB lithography, which would only increase the fluctuation of λ. The standard error arising
from the finite number of fluctuation patterns is also a probable cause. Although unknown
factors remain, we conclude that the value of σhole in our nanocavities is less than 0.58 nm.
5. Summary
In summary, we have measured the Qexp factors and resonant wavelengths λ for 80 high-Q
nanocavities with the same heterostructure. The values of Qexp follow a normal distribution
between 2.3 million and 3.9 million, with an average Qexp of three million. The value of λ also
fluctuates but with a standard deviation of only 0.33 nm. Such a high average Qexp and stable λ
will be important for expanding the area of nanocavity applications. Furthermore, we have
used a statistical comparison of our experimental results and FDTD calculations to estimate
that the standard deviation of the structural variations of our air holes is less than 0.58 nm and
that Qloss factors other than Qloss_fluc due to the air hole variations might be present. This
method will be an important tool for further developing high-Q nanocavities .
Acknowledgments
This work was partly supported by the Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and
Technology commissioned by MEXT, by the CREST and PRESTO programs of the JST, by
the Global COE Program, and by KAKENHI (No. 23104721).

#146387 - $15.00 USD Received 21 Apr 2011; revised 21 May 2011; accepted 27 May 2011; published 3 Jun 2011
(C) 2011 OSA 6 June 2011 / Vol. 19, No. 12 / OPTICS EXPRESS 11921