CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 143

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiphoton quantum interference in a multiport integrated photonic device

Metcalf, Benjamin J., Thomas-Peter, Nicholas, Spring, Justin B., Kundys, Dmytro, Broome, Matthew A., Humphreys, Peter C., Jin, Xian-Min, Barbieri, Marco, Steven Kolthammer, W., Gates, James C., Smith, Brian J., Langford, Nathan K., Smith, Peter G.R., Walmsley, Ian A.·2013·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/ncomms2349
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms2349

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The probability of finding two indistinguishable atoms in one trap exceeded the probability for distinguishable atoms by 6 standard deviations.

    “The resulting probability of finding two indistinguishable atoms in one trap exceeded the probability for distinguishable atoms by 6 standard deviations”

    From Two-photon interference: the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect (2021) · cites this paper as [190]

    The section “Demonstrating genuinely quantum operation and circuit complexity” describes interference experiments with photons in an integrated circuit, not atoms in a trap. It reports that one measured visibility exceeded a classical limit by more than one standard deviation, not that a two-atom trap probability exceeded another by six standard deviations. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Several investigations have studied the scalability of BosonSampling in imperfect conditions, including losses, partial distinguishability, and generic experimental errors.

    “Since then, several investigations have been performed to study the scalability in imperfect conditions, such as in the presence of losses [570-573], partial distinguishability [574,575] and generic experimental errors [571,[576][577][578]”

    From Photonic quantum information processing: a review (2019) · cites this paper as [575]

    The Abstract and Discussion say photon loss limits the scaling of integrated photonic circuits, and the Discussion connects the device’s multiphoton interference to boson sampling. The paper does not study BosonSampling scalability under partial distinguishability or generic experimental errors; its discussion of those imperfections concerns this device’s performance, not a scalability analysis. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Two recent experiments have shown a two-atom HOM interference.

    “two recent experiments, both using very different approaches, have shown exactly this: a two-atom HOM interference.”

    From Two-photon interference: the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect (2021) · cites this paper as [190]

  • In one experiment, two laser-cooled Rb atoms trapped in an optical tweezer were perfectly controlled in all internal and external degrees of freedom, making them indistinguishable.

    “two laser-cooled Rb atoms trapped in an optical tweezer were perfectly controlled in all internal and external degrees of freedom, thereby making them indistinguishable [190].”

    From Two-photon interference: the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect (2021) · cites this paper as [190]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Politi A., Cryan M. J., Rarity J. G., Yu S. & O’Brien J. L. Silica-on-silicon waveguide quantum circuits. Science 320, 646–649 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Smith B. J., Kundys D., Thomas-Peter N., Smith P. G. R. & Walmsley I. A. Phase-controlled integrated photonic quantum circuits. Opt. Express 17, 13516–13525 (2009). · DOI
  3. Matthews J., Politi A., Stefanov A. & O’Brien J. L. Manipulation of multiphoton entanglement in waveguide quantum circuits. Nat. Photon 3, 346–350 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Politi A., Matthews J. & O’Brien J. L. Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm on a photonic chip. Science 325, 1221 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Shadbolt P. J. et al. Generating, manipulating and measuring entanglement and mixture with a reconfigurable photonic circuit. Nat. Photon 6, 45–49 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Matthews J., Politi A., Bonneau D., O’Brien J. L. Heralding Two-Photon and Four-Photon Path Entanglement on a Chip. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 163602 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Reed M. D. et al. Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits. Nature 482, 382–385 (2012). · DOI
  8. Thomas-Peter N. L., Smith B. J., Dorner U. & Walmsley I. A. Real-world Quantum Sensors: Evaluating Resources for Precision Measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113603 (2011). · DOI
  9. Thomas-Peter N. et al. Integrated Photonic Sensing. New J. Phys. 13, 055024 (2011). · DOI
  10. Shabani A. et al. Efficient measurement of quantum dynamics via compressive sensing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 100401 (2011). · DOI
  11. Ralph T. Scaling of multiple postselected quantum gates in optics. Phys. Rev. A 70, 012312 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Lu C. -Y., Browne D. E., Yang T. & Pan J.-W. Demonstration of a compiled version of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using photonic qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250504 (2007). · DOI
  13. Barbieri M. et al. Parametric downconversion and optical quantum gates: two’s company, four’s a crowd. J. Mod. Optics 56, 209–214 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lanyon B. P. & Langford N. K. Experimentally generating and tuning robust entanglement between photonic qubits. New J. Phys. 11, 013008 (2009). · DOI
  15. Rahimi-Keshari S. et al. Robust characterisation of any linear photonic device. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6463 (2012). · arXiv
  16. Laing A. & O’Brien J. L. Super-stable tomography of any linear optical device Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2868 (2012). · arXiv
  17. Meany T. et al. Non-classical interference in integrated 3D multiports. Opt. Express 20, 26895–26905 (2012). · DOI
  18. Xiong C. et al. Generation of correlated photon pairs in a chalcogenide As2S3 waveguide. App. Phys. Lett. 98, 051101 (2011). · DOI
  19. Martin A. et al. A polarization entangled photon-pair source based on a type-II PPLN waveguide emitting at a telecom wavelength. New J. Phys. 12, 103005 (2010). · DOI
  20. Eckstein A., Christ A., Mosley P. J. & Silberhorn C. Highly efficient single-pass source of pulsed single-mode twin beams of light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 013603 (2011). · DOI
  21. Martin A., Alibart O., Micheli M. P. D., Ostrowsky D. B. & Tanzilli S. A quantum relay chip based on telecommunication integrated optics technology. New J. Phys. 14, 025002 (2012). · DOI
  22. Nunn J. et al. Enhancing multiphoton rates with quantum memories Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1534 (2012). · arXiv
  23. Gerrits T. et al. On-chip, photon-number-resolving, telecommunication-band detectors for scalable photonic information processing. Phys. Rev. A 84, 060301(R) (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sprengers J. P. et al. Waveguide superconducting single-photon detectors for integrated quantum photonic circuits. App. Phys. Lett. 99, 181110 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Aaronson S. A linear-optical proof that the permanent is # P-hard. Proc. R. Soc. A 467, 3393–3405 (2011). · DOI
  26. Rohde P. & Ralph T. Error tolerance of the boson-sampling model for linear optics quantum computing. Phys. Rev. A 85, 022332 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kundys D. O., Gates J. C., Dasgupta S., Gawith C. & Smith P. G. R. Use of cross-couplers to decrease size of UV written photonic circuits. Photon. Technol. Lett. IEEE 21, 947–949 (2009). · DOI
  28. Mosley P. J. et al. Heralded generation of ultrafast single photons in pure quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 133601 (2008). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Metcalf, B. J., Thomas-Peter, N., Spring, J. B., Kundys, D., Broome, M. A., Humphreys, P. C., Jin, X.-M., Barbieri, M., Steven Kolthammer, W., Gates, J. C., Smith, B. J., Langford, N. K., Smith, P. G. R., & Walmsley, I. A.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-01-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/ncomms2349
Cited by
143
References
11
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review