CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Experimental statistical signature of many-body quantum interference

Giordani, Taira, Flamini, Fulvio, Pompili, Matteo, Viggianiello, Niko, Spagnolo, Nicolò, Crespi, Andrea, Osellame, Roberto, Wiebe, Nathan, Walschaers, Mattia, Buchleitner, Andreas, Sciarrino, Fabio·2018·Nature Photonics
DOI 10.1038/s41566-018-0097-4
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/s41566-018-0097-4

Cites

8 of 8 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 continuous-time quantum walk has been adopted to identify signature of bosonic coalescence, to simulate Fano resonance, to shed light on the interplay between quantum coherence and noise for assist transport processes in complex networks, and to quantum fast hitting on hexagonal graphs.

    “The continuous-time QW has been adopted to identify signature of bosonic coalescence [107], to simulate Fano resonance [108], to shed light on the interplay between quantum coherence and noise for assist transport processes in complex networks [40, 41, 109] ( Fig.5d ), and to quantum fast hitting on hexagonal graphs [110].”

    From Integrated photonic quantum technologies (2020) · cites this paper as [108]

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: 36

  1. Dowling, J. P. & Milburn, G. J. Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 361, 1655–1674 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Lo, H.-K., Curty, M. & Tamaki, K. Secure quantum key distribution. Nat. Photon. 8, 595–604 (2014). · DOI
  3. Barz, S., Fitzsimons, J. F., Kashefi, E. & Walther, P. Experimental verification of quantum computation. Nat. Phys. 9, 727–731 (2013). · DOI
  4. Kapourniotis, T., Dunjko, V. & Kashefi, E. On optimising quantum communication in verifiable quantum computing. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06943 (2015). · arXiv
  5. Shin, S. W., Smith, G., Smolin, J. A. & Vazirani, U. How ‘quantum’ is the D-Wave machine? Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7087 (2014). · arXiv
  6. 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
  7. Tichy, M. C., Tiersch, M., De Melo, F., Mintert, F. & Buchleitner, A. Zero-transmission law for multiport beam splitters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 220405 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Tichy, M. C. Entanglement and interference of identical particles PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (2011).
  9. Spring, J. B. et al. Boson sampling on a photonic chip. Science 339, 798–801 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tillmann, M. et al. Experimental boson sampling. Nat. Photon. 7, 540–544 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Lund, A. P., Bremner, M. J. & Ralph, T. C. Quantum sampling problems, boson sampling and quantum supremacy. Quantum Inform. 3, 15 (2017). · DOI
  12. Harrow, A. W. & Montanaro, A. Quantum computational supremacy. Nature 549, 203–209 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Aaronson, S. & Arkhipov, A. Boson sampling is far from uniform. Quantum Inform. Comput. 14, 1383–1423 (2014). · DOI
  14. Tichy, M. C., Mayer, K., Buchleitner, A. & Molmer, K. Stringent and efficient assessment of boson-sampling devices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020502 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Crespi, A. Suppression laws for multiparticle interference in Sylvester interferometers. Phys. Rev. A 91, 013811 (2015). · DOI
  16. Aolita, L., Gogolin, C., Kliesch, M. & Eisert, J. Reliable quantum certification of photonic state preparations. Nat. Commun. 6, 8948 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Liu, K., Lund, A. P., Gu, Y. J. & Ralph, T. C. A certification scheme for the boson sampler. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, 1835–1841 (2016). · DOI
  18. Carolan, J. et al. On the experimental verification of quantum complexity in linear optics. Nat. Photon. 8, 621–626 (2014). · DOI
  19. Bentivegna, M. et al. Bayesian approach to boson sampling validation. Int. J. Quantum Inform. 12, 1560028 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Bentivegna, M. et al. Experimental scattershot boson sampling. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400255 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Crespi, A. et al. Suppression law of quantum states in a 3D photonic fast Fourier transform chip. Nat. Commun. 7, 10469 (2016). · DOI
  22. Wang, H. et al. High-efficiency multiphoton boson sampling. Nat. Photon. 11, 361–365 (2017). · DOI
  23. Loredo, J. C. et al. Boson sampling with single-photon Fock states from a bright solid-state source. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130503 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  24. He, Y. et al. Time-bin-encoded boson sampling with a single-photon device. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 190501 (2017). · DOI
  25. Neville, A. et al. Classical boson sampling algorithms with superior performance to near-term experiments. Nat. Phys. 13, 1153–1157 (2017). · DOI
  26. Walschaers, M. et al. Statistical benchmark for boson sampling. New J. Phys. 18, 032001 (2016). · DOI
  27. Walschaers, M. Efficient Quantum Transport PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (2016).
  28. Bentivegna, M., Spagnolo, N. & Sciarrino, F. Is my boson sampler working? New J. Phys. 18, 041001 (2016). · DOI
  29. Spagnolo, N. et al. Three-photon bosonic coalescence in an integrated tritter. Nat. Commun. 4, 1606 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  30. Agne, S. et al. Observation of genuine three-photon interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 153602 (2017). · DOI
  31. Menssen, A. J. et al. Distinguishability and many-particle interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 153603 (2017). · DOI
  32. Spagnolo, N. et al. General rules for bosonic bunching in multimode interferometers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130503 (2013). · DOI
  33. 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
  34. Clements, W. R. et al. Optimal design for universal multiport interferometers. Optica 3, 1460–1465 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Daryl, A. et al. Photon-number-resolving detection using time-multiplexing. J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1499–1515 (2004). · DOI
  36. Ho, T. K. Random decision forests. Proc. 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition 278–282 (1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Giordani, T., Flamini, F., Pompili, M., Viggianiello, N., Spagnolo, N., Crespi, A., Osellame, R., Wiebe, N., Walschaers, M., Buchleitner, A., & Sciarrino, F.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Photonics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-02-19
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
173-178
ISSN
  • 1749-4885
  • 1749-4893
DOI
10.1038/s41566-018-0097-4
Cited by
83
References
8
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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