CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliable quantum certification of photonic state preparations

Aolita, Leandro, Gogolin, Christian, Kliesch, Martin, Eisert, Jens·2015·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/ncomms9498PMC PMC4673657
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Quantum technologies promise a variety of exciting applications. Even though impressive progress has been achieved recently, a major bottleneck currently is the lack of practical certification techniques. The challenge consists of ensuring that classically intractable quantum devices perform as expected. Here we present an experimentally friendly and reliable certification tool for photonic quantum technologies: an efficient certification test for experimental preparations of multimode pure Gaussian states, pure non-Gaussian states generated by linear-optical circuits with Fock-basis states of constant boson number as inputs, and pure states generated from the latter class by post-selecting with Fock-basis measurements on ancillary modes. Only classical computing capabilities and homodyne or hetorodyne detection are required. Minimal assumptions are made on the noise or experimental capabilities of the preparation. The method constitutes a step forward in many-body quantum certification, which is ultimately about testing quantum mechanics at large scales.

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/ncomms9498

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • In 2011, Ma et al. used two polarization entangled photon pairs to study frustration in a tetramer, observing the transition between localized and resonating-valence-bond states at varying Heisenberg interaction strength.

    “In 2011, Ma et al. used two polarization entangled photon pairs to study the process of frustration in a tetramer, a system with four spin-1/2 particles, observing the transition between localized and resonating-valence-bond states at varying Heisenberg interaction strength [632,633]”

    From Photonic quantum information processing: a review (2019) · cites this paper as [632]

    The Results section (‘The certification test’) and Methods sections discuss fidelity bounds and certification measurements, not the tetramer experiment. Searches for Ma et al., frustration, resonating-valence-bond states, polarization-entangled photon pairs, and Heisenberg interactions found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed observation. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 37

  1. Nielsen, M. & Chuang, I. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Cambridge Univ. Press (2000).
  2. Schindler, P. et al. Experimental repetitive quantum error correction. Science 332, 1059–1061 (2011). · DOI
  3. Yao, X.-C. et al. Observation of eight-photon entanglement. Nat. Photon. 6, 225–228 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Huang, Y.-F. et al. Experimental generation of an eight-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state. Nat. Commun. 2, 546 (2012). · DOI
  5. Chen, M., Menicucci, N. C. & Pfister, O. Experimental realisation of multipartite entanglement of 60 modes of the quantum optical frequency comb. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120505–120509 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Yokoyama, S. et al. Optical generation of ultra-large-scale continuous-variable cluster states. Nat. Photon. 7, 982–986 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Spring, J. B. et al. Boson sampling on a photonic chip. Science 339, 798–801 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Tillmann, M. et al. Experimental boson sampling. Nat. Photon. 7, 540–544 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Gogolin, C., Kliesch, M., Aolita, L. & Eisert, J. Boson sampling in the light of sample complexity. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3995 (2013). · arXiv
  10. Aaronson, S. & Arkhipov, A. BosonSampling is far from uniform. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7460 (2013). · arXiv
  11. Carolan, J. et al. On the experimental verification of quantum complexity in linear optics. Nat. Photon. 8, 621 (2014). · DOI
  12. Tichy, M. C., Mayer, K., Buchleitner, A. & Molmer, K. Stringent and efficient assessment of Boson-Sampling devices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020502–020506 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Gross, D., Liu, Y.-K., Flammia, S. T., Becker, S. & Eisert, J. Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150401–150404 (2010). · DOI
  14. Aharonov, D., Ben-Or, M. & Eban, E. Interactive proofs for quantum computation. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5375 (2008). · arXiv
  15. Broadbent, A., Fitzsimons, J. & Kashefi, E. Universal blind quantum computation. Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2009) 517Atlanta, GA (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fitzsimons, J. & Kashefi, E. Unconditionally verifiable blind computation. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5217 (2012). · arXiv
  17. Kapourniotis, T., Kashefi, E. & Datta., A. Verified delegated quantum computing with one pure qubit. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1438 (2014). · arXiv
  18. Toth, G. et al. Permutationally invariant quantum tomography. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250403–250406 (2010). · DOI
  19. Cramer, M. et al. Efficient quantum state tomography. Nat. Commun. 1, 149 (2010). · DOI
  20. da Silva, M. P., Landon-Cardinal, O. & Poulin, D. Practical characterisation of quantum devices without tomography. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 210404–210407 (2011). · DOI
  21. Flammia, S. T., Gross, D., Liu, Y.-K. & Eisert, J. Quantum tomography via compressed sensing: Error bounds, sample complexity, and efficient estimators. N. J. Phys. 14, 095022–095051 (2012). · DOI
  22. Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M. & Emerson, J. Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 180504–180507 (2011). · DOI
  23. Dell’Anno, F., De Siena, S., Albano, L. & Illuminati, F. Continuous-variable quantum teleportation with non-Gaussian resources. Phys. Rev. A 76, 022301–022311 (2007). · DOI
  24. Navarrete-Benlloch, C., García-Patrón, R., Shapiro, J. H. & Cerf, N. J. Enhancing quantum entanglement by photon addition and subtraction. Phys. Rev. A 86, 012328–012336 (2012). · DOI
  25. Dell’Anno, F. et al. Tunable non-Gaussian resources for continuous-variable quantum technologies. Phys. Rev. A 88, 043818–043830 (2013). · DOI
  26. Eisert, J., Browne, D. E., Scheel, S. & Plenio, M. B. Distillation of continuous-variable entanglement. Ann. Phys. (NY) 311, 431–458 (2004). · DOI
  27. Weedbrook, C. et al. Gaussian quantum information. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621–669 (2012). · DOI
  28. Eisert, J. & Plenio, M. B. Introduction to the basics of entanglement theory in continuous-variable systems. Int. J. Quant. Inf 1, 479–506 (2003). · DOI
  29. Pirandola, S., Eisert, J., Weedbrook, C., Furusawa, A. & Braunstein, S. L. Advances in quantum teleportation. Nat. Photon. 9, 641–652 (2015). · DOI
  30. Braunstein, S. L. Squeezing as an irreducible resource. Phys. Rev. A 71, 055801–055804 (2005). · DOI
  31. Reck, M., Zeilinger, A., Bernstein, H. J. & Bertani, P. Experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 58–61 (1994). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Mari, A. & Eisert, J. Positive Wigner functions render classical simulation of quantum computation efficient. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 230503–230507 (2012). · DOI
  33. Veitch, V., Ferrie, C., Gross, D. & Emerson, J. Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation. N. J. Phys. 14, 113011 (2012). · DOI
  34. Veitch, V., Wiebe, N., Ferrie, C. & Emerson, J. Efficient simulation scheme for a class of quantum optics experiments with non-negative Wigner representation. N. J. Phys. 15, 013037 (2013). · DOI
  35. Gu, M., Weedbrook, C., Menicucci, N. C., Ralph, T. C. & van Loock, P. Quantum computing with continuous-variable clusters. Phys. Rev. A 79, 062318–062333 (2009). · DOI
  36. Aolita, L., Roncaglia, A., Ferraro, A. & Acín, A. Gapped two-body Hamiltonian for continuous-variable quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090501–090504 (2010). · DOI
  37. Menicucci, N. C., Flammia, S. T. & van Loock, P. Graphical calculus for Gaussian pure states. Phys. Rev. A 83, 042335–042357 (2011). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Aolita, L., Gogolin, C., Kliesch, M., & Eisert, J.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-11-18
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/ncomms9498
PMC
PMC4673657
Cited by
98
References
16
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