Cited by 178Quantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum optics and atomic interactions

Direct generation of three-photon polarization entanglement

Open access

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/nphoton.2014.218

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • This provides a significantly simpler and more stable platform for three-photon tomography compared to previous realizations.

    “This provides a significantly simpler and more stable platform for three-photon tomography compared to previous realizations.35”

    From Scalable on-chip quantum state tomography (2018) · cites this paper as [35]

    The introduction (p. 1) describes direct triplet production without outcome post-selection and says improved detection rates make three-photon tomography feasible where previous rates did not. The State Production and Characterization section (p. 2) reports completed tomography, but the paper does not establish that its platform is simpler or more stable than previous realizations; it identifies imperfect phase stabilization as a source of error. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]H. H¨ ubel, et al. , American Institute of Physics Conference Series , T. Ralph, P. K. Lam, eds. (2011), vol. 1363, pp. 331-334.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamel, D. R., Shalm, L. K., Hübel, H., Miller, A. J., Marsili, F., Verma, V. B., Mirin, R. P., Nam, S. W., Resch, K. J., & Jennewein, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Hamel, Deny R.
  • Jennewein, Thomas
Venue
Nature Photonics
Published
2014-09-14
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
801-807
ISSN
  • 1749-4885 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-4893
OpenAlex
W2079103083
Cited by
178
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3
FWCI
16.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Photonics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum optics and atomic interactions
Keywords
three-photon entanglement, polarization entanglement, Mermin inequality, Svetlichny inequality, local realism, GHZ states, superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, quantum state tomography, multiqubit entanglement

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