The DOI matches its Crossref record; 213 of the 213 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 155 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Single-photon sources
Open accessAbstract
The concept of the photon , central to Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, is exactly 100 years old. Yet, while photons have been detected individually for more than 50 years, devices producing individual photons on demand have only appeared in the last few years. New concepts for single-photon sources, or 'photon guns', have originated from recent progress in the optical detection, characterization and manipulation of single quantum objects. Single emitters usually deliver photons one at a time. This so-called antibunching of emitted photons can arise from various mechanisms, but ensures that the probability of obtaining two or more photons at the same time remains negligible. We briefly recall basic concepts in quantum optics and discuss potential applications of single-photon states to optical processing of quantum information: cryptography, computing and communication. A photon gun's properties are significantly improved by coupling it to a resonant cavity mode, either in the Purcell or strong-coupling regimes. We briefly recall early production of single photons with atomic beams, and the operation principles of macroscopic parametric sources, which are used in an overwhelming majority of quantum-optical experiments. We then review the photophysical and spectroscopic properties and compare the advantages and weaknesses of various single nanometre-scale objects used as single-photon sources: atoms or ions in the gas phase and, in condensed matter, organic molecules, defect centres, semiconductor nanocrystals and heterostructures. As new generations of sources are developed, coupling to cavities and nano-fabrication techniques lead to improved characteristics, delivery rates and spectral ranges. Judging from the brisk pace of recent progress, we expect single photons to soon proceed from demonstrations to applications and to bring with them the first practical uses of quantum information.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review surveys the physics, applications, and material platforms for on-demand single-photon sources, emphasizing antibunching from single quantum emitters and cavity coupling. It concludes that source choice depends on the application: room-temperature emitters suffice for number-state uses, while indistinguishable photons for quantum computation require atoms/ions or cryogenic solid-state emitters.
Key findings
- An ideal single-photon source requires both perfect antibunching and deterministic preparation of the excited state; the emission quantum yield must be unity or close to it. Cavity coupling can enhance emission rates, collection, and spectral properties via Purcell or strong-coupling regimes.
- For quantum key distribution, a single-photon source tolerates more channel loss than faint laser pulses: the security condition is \(T_{AB} > p_{\rm dark}/\eta_{\rm det}\) for a single-photon source versus \(T_{AB} > \sqrt{2p_{\rm dark}}/\eta_{\rm det}\) for attenuated laser pulses.
- Parametric down-conversion remains the workhorse for quantum optics but gives Poissonian photon pairs; a typical rate is \(10^7\) pairs/s at 10 mW cw pump, with about 1% probability of two pairs in a 1 ns slot, yielding \(10^6\) single photons/s with 10% detection on one fiber.
- Emitter comparison: atoms/ions give pure, indistinguishable photons but require complex UHV/trapping setups; molecules, colour centres, and nanocrystals can operate at room temperature but often have broad lines, dark states, or blinking; self-assembled quantum dots are bright and stable at low temperature, with one dot showing >80% photon indistinguishability in a Hong-Ou-Mandel experiment. Cavity examples include Purcell factor \(F_P \approx 5.8\), \(Q \sim 1000\), and \(\beta \approx 80\%\) in a micropost, and \(F_P \approx 6\), \(Q \sim 10^4\) in microdisc cavities.
Methods
- Review article synthesizing quantum optics, cavity QED, and single-emitter photophysics; no new primary experiments are reported.
- Compares source classes—atoms/ions, organic molecules, colour centres, semiconductor nanocrystals, self-assembled quantum dots, and heterostructures—using reported spectroscopic and photophysical properties.
- Summarizes characteristic features in Table 2, described by the authors as estimates for rough comparison.
Limitations
- Stated: many technical problems remain before single-photon sources become as standard and user-friendly as lasers; current setups must be downsized and simplified for routine use.
- Stated: progress on sources cannot be separated from detector progress; higher collection/transmission efficiencies and higher detection yields are needed, especially for near-infrared communication wavelengths.
- Evident from text: this is a review, not a primary study; Table 2 numbers are explicitly estimates, and several source limitations are platform-specific—atoms/ions require complex apparatus, molecules can photobleach or enter dark states, nanocrystals blink, and quantum dots typically require cryogenic temperatures and spectral filtering.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
106 Not checked yet · 87 Own interpretation · 86 No basis given · 1 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The probability of observing n counts for M emitted photons is therefore p x (n) = n M (xT ) n (1 -xT ) M-n . (17”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding the variances (or squared standard deviations) of the two signals, we obtain the following variance for the transmission coefficient measured with the coherent source: T 2 C = 1 xM T (T + 1).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the transmission measurement, the variance becomes T 2 SP = 1 xM T (T + 1 -2xT ).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a similar result for the reference measurement, the ratio of the variances for the squeezed to coherent cases is T 2 SP T 2 C = 1 -2x T 1 + T , (18”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distribution of the detected counts is also Poissonian, with the average number of detected counts (supposed to be large) S C = xMT and with the shot noise (standard deviation) N C = √ xMT .”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a non-zero probability of having more than one photon in a pulse, even for very weak pulses with average photon number n = µ 1.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even with resonant-cavity enhancement, the spontaneous emission lifetimes of the emitters discussed in this paper are longer than 100 ps.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“At about the same time, pairs of correlated photons (twin photons) were obtained at high rates by parametric downconversion (Burnham andWeinberg 1970, Hong andMandel 1986).”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burnham andWeinberg 1970
- Not checked yetcites Hong andMandel 1986
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we send a one-photon state on a beam splitter and place photon-counting detectors on the reflected and transmitted beams, we never observe any coincidence between counts measured by the two detectors, as this would violate energy conservation (see figure 1).”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“From the mid-1980s, single ions in traps provided long observation times with one and the same ion (Diedrich and Walther 1987).”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Diedrich and Walther 1987
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 86
- Probably not a substantial claim. 73
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we now repeat this experiment with an ideal single-photon source, the average number of detected counts is the same, but the distribution of photon counts is now binomial.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standard deviation of the distribution (17) is less than that of a Poisson distribution and leads to the following noise: N SP = xMT (1 -xT ).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(ii) The excited state of the emitter must be prepared with certainty.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it can channel the emitted photons into a well-defined spatial mode to improve collection efficiency and to match further utilization”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A photon gun's properties are significantly improved by coupling it to a resonant cavity mode, either in the Purcell or strong-coupling regimes.”
§ Single-photon sources > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, it acts as a nonlinear filter, eliminating the shot noise of the laser, albeit for short time intervals, and only for those photons redirected into the detection mode.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.3. Antibunching and second-order correlation function
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The low noise level of a single-photon source would be very valuable for such measurements.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The detection of weak absorption signals is in general hampered by photon noise.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A microscopic emitter of light, say an atom, can only realize its full potential as a single-photon source if it is coupled to a resonant cavity, which can fulfil several functions.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, photon antibunching was detected in the fluorescence of single molecules (Basché et al 1992) and in the emission of other individual nano-objects in condensed matter.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Basché et al 1992
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It was first observed in the fluorescence from an attenuated sodium atomic beam, where at most one atom was present in the excitation focus at any time (Kimble et al 1977, Walls 1979, Cresser et al 1982).”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kimble et al 1977
- Not checked yetcites Walls 1979 source
- Not checked yetcites Cresser et al 1982
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recent progress in the fabrication, manipulation and characterization of individual nano-objects, molecules and nanocrystals has opened new routes for the production of number-states containing one single photon.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or it can restrict the spectral range of the emission.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This so-called antibunching of emitted photons can arise from various mechanisms, but ensures that the probability of obtaining two or more photons at the same time remains negligible.”
§ Single-photon sources > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the emission quantum yield must be unity, or as close to it as possible”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A cavity can enhance the spontaneous emission rate and thereby the rate of photon production”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pure spontaneous emission by an ideal two-level system leads to perfectly indistinguishable photons.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.4. Indistinguishable photons
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Antibunching is an essential ingredient for the production of single photons, but as we discuss in section 6, the photophysical mechanisms by which it arises are different for the different kinds of emitters.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the cascading calcium atoms and the faint sodium beam were the first sources of single photons, their brightness was very low, and a further drawback was that the operation of the source was limited by the density and transit times of the atoms and could not be controlled.”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which is the case for most of the emitters we discuss here”
§ Single-photon sources > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mobile emitters such as atoms may deliver different spatial wavepackets at different times or may couple with variable efficiency to the fixed spatial mode of a cavity.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A single-photon source delivers amplitude-squeezed light, which implies that its noise is reduced for intensity measurements (Xiao et al 1987, Polzik et al 1992).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.1. Measurement of weak absorptions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xiao et al 1987
- Not checked yetcites Polzik et al 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to these short-range effects, the lifetime can be considerably altered if the object is placed in a high-finesse cavity, which may amplify or reduce vacuum fluctuations at the emission frequency, thereby 'forcing' or 'blocking' spontaneous emission (see section 4).”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To be used in interference, telecommunication or computation experiments, photons have to be collected and collimated into a given spatial mode.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Two emitted photons separated by a time interval longer than the spectral diffusion time will be distinguishable in principle, because their frequencies will differ and they will not interfere (Santori et al 2002).”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.4. Indistinguishable photons
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santori et al 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indistinguishability requires lifetime-limited sources, i.e. emitters for which dephasing and spectral diffusion are negligible.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: For most systems in condensed matter at room temperature, the dephasing time is by several orders of magnitude shorter than the excited state lifetime, so the linewidth is very far from being lifetime-limited.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The global quantum state of an entangled system, say of two particles, remains non-separable, even when the two particles are widely separated from each other and unable to interact or communicate in any way.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.4. Indistinguishable photons
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For an efficient utilization, the spatial mode of the photon at the output of the source must be matched to those of all subsequent optical components, in particular that of the detector.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the spontaneous emission lifetime eventually limits the rate at which the single photons can be emitted and is an important feature of the source.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a higher level of approximation, the local-field correction depends both on the exact structure of the dielectric around the emitter and on the geometry.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unless the emitter undergoes spatial motion or reorientations, a solid-state source based on a microscopic emitter will in general emit all its photons in the same spatial mode.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“takes its minimum possible value only when dephasing is negligible, i.e. when T * 2 = ∞.In that case, one has a lifetime-limited linewidth.”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two photons consecutively emitted by the same source, or two photons from independent emitters, can display number-interference or coalescence, provided they are sufficiently indistinguishable (see section 2.4).”
§ Single-photon sources > 2.5. Summary: characteristics of the emitted photons
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bell's inequality was later proved experimentally to be violated, in agreement with standard quantum-mechanical predictions.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the PNS attack can be performed when the losses that Bob expects because of the fibre are equal to those introduced by Eve's blocking photons, that is when T AB µ < µ 2 /2, or when the transmission of the Alice-Bob line is less than µ/2.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Eve has unlimited technological power within the laws of physics.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To show that Bell's inequality is violated in a two-particle experiment, it is necessary to perform a statistical experiment: the violation cannot be demonstrated with a single measurement.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Efficient single-photon sources will in principle improve the generation rate.”
§ Single-photon sources > Random numbers are key ingredients at many levels of information processing, from computational methods (Monte Carlo simulations (Alspector et al 1989) for example) to the broader field of cryptography (for the generation of encrypting keys, see section 3.3.5).
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, the quantum correlations arising from entanglement are stronger than classical correlations, for example, those which would arise from hidden variables (Bell 1965, Clauser andShimony 1978).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bell 1965
- Not checked yetcites Clauser andShimony 1978
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It gave an unambiguous violation of Bell's inequalities by tens of standard deviations, and a perfect agreement with quantum mechanics.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aspect et al 1982a
- Not checked yetcites Aspect et al 1982b
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alice may want to decrease the number of two-photon pulses by attenuating her pulses further, but she will be limited by the dark counts of Bob's detectors:”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second loophole arises from the weakness of the detection yield in all experiments so far.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The recorded photon pairs in Bell tests are an unbiased sample of the ensemble.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This loophole has now been closed, first in an experiment by Aspect et al (1982a) where the directions of polarization analysis were switched after the photons left the source, and more recently by Zeilinger's group (Weihs et al 1998), who used sufficiently remote measurement stations, ultrafast and random analyser settings and two completely independent data acquisition systems.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aspect et al 1982a
- Not checked yetcites Weihs et al 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optimal choice for Alice's rate of emission is therefore µ = √ 2p dark , which leads to the combined transmission-and-detection limit,”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This experiment relies on two crucial features of the single-photon source, namely its ability to suppress multiphoton pulses and its ability to generate consecutively two indistinguishable photons.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first one is the possibility of information exchange from one polarizer to the other, by unspecified processes.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The preparation of GHZ states with a single-photon source would provide clearer violation and open series of more accurate tests.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To close that loophole, an ultimate experiment would need a much higher collection and detection efficiency of photon pairs, which could be achieved with an efficient source of single photons.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Eve cannot apply the PNS attack, she must use the simple intercept-resend attack.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Eve has unlimited technological power within the laws of physics.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, from a strictly logical point of view, they still leave two subtle loopholes.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The free-space transmission of quantum-encrypted signals reached first a distance of 150 m as reported in Jacobs and Franson (1996) and then exceeded 1 km under favourable conditions such as night-time (Buttler et al 1998, 2000, Gorman et al 2001).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jacobs and Franson (1996)
- Not checked yetcites Buttler et al 1998, 2000, Gorman et al 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this first experiment with faint laser pulses, 30 cm of air separated Alice and Bob.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bennett et al 1992
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Later, in the mid-1980s, atoms were coupled to single mirrors, planar cavities or spherical Fabry-Perot resonators (Kleppner 1981, Goy et al 1983, Gabrielse and Dehmelt 1985, De Martini et al 1987, Heinzen et al 1987).”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kleppner 1981
- Not checked yetcites Goy et al 1983
- Not checked yetcites Gabrielse and Dehmelt 1985
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Advances in microfabrication techniques enabled the construction of high-quality semiconductor micropost and microdisc microcavities in the late 1980s and early 1990s and triggered series of experiments on solid-state cavity-quantum-electrodynamics (CQED) (Yamamoto et al 1989, Jewell et al 1991, McCall et al 1992, Gérard et al 1998).”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yamamoto et al 1989
- Not checked yetcites Jewell et al 1991
- Not checked yetcites McCall et al 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to efficiently generate single photons, the quantum emitter is coupled to a resonant mode of a high-quality factor cavity.”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lütkenhaus (2000) gives analytical expressions of the minimum amount of transmission to ensure secrecy, taking these algorithms into account, and compares the cases of attenuated laser pulses and of a single-photon source under these conditions.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lütkenhaus (2000)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Depending on the ratio of the coupling parameter, g, to the cavity-field decay rate, γ cav , and to the free-space decay rate of equation ( 14), γ 0 = ω 3 µ 2 eg /3πε 0 hc 3 , we can distinguish two regimes of coupling between the emitter and the cavity field: strong coupling for g > γ cav , γ 0 and weak coupling for g < γ cav , γ 0 (Haroche 1992).”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haroche 1992
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yamamoto's group (Pelton et al 2002, Vuckovic et al 2003) reported enhancement of the emission rate from single quantum dots with a Purcell factor of F P ≈ 5.8, quality factors of the order of 1000 and mode volumes close to the fundamental limit, λ 3 .”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pelton et al 2002
- Not checked yetcites Vuckovic et al 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The first demonstration of a QKD over a 1 km fibre has been reported by Muller et al (1993).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Muller et al (1993) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When the cavity decay time is shorter than the spontaneous decay time in vacuum (γ cav > γ 0 , bad cavity limit), the spontaneous emission decay rate is enhanced and is given by Fermi's golden rule (Yamamoto and Imamoglu 1999):”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yamamoto and Imamoglu 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First experimental demonstrations of the inhibition and enhancement of a spontaneous emission rate were carried out in the 1970s with molecules such as europium complexes in Langmuir-Blodgett films deposited on metallic mirrors (Drexhage et al 1968, Kuhn 1970, Chance et al 1974).”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Drexhage et al 1968 source
- Not checked yetcites Kuhn 1970
- Not checked yetcites Chance et al 1974
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The first experimental QKD was demonstrated in 1989, but the results were published only in 1992 (Bennett et al 1992).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bennett et al 1992
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the strong coupling case, the emitter is coherently coupled to the cavity field, and spontaneous emission is reversible.”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both systems were free-space demonstrations over short distances, 1 m (Waks et al 2002) and 50 m (Beveratos et al 2002).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.5. Quantum cryptography.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Waks et al 2002
- Not checked yetcites Beveratos et al 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These sources are built around a single emitting nanometric object (a nano-object), producing photon distributions which are very far from Poissonian.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.1. Excitation schemes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The emission yield primarily depends on the photophysics of the nano-object at hand, but it can be improved if spontaneous emission is enhanced, for example, by the Purcell effect of a resonant cavity (see section 4).”
§ Single-photon sources > Coherent preparation.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A typical rate of pair generation into single-mode optical fibres, corresponding to 10 mW cw pump power, is 10 7 pairs per second.”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.2. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) sources.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Faint laser pulses and parametric sources of entangled pairs deliver Poisson distributions of photons (or of photon pairs), from which multi-photon events can never be entirely suppressed.”
§ Single-photon sources > 5. Early and macroscopic sources
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most cases, for example, the probability density of emitting two photons at the same time can be completely neglected, whereas it is still high for an attenuated Poisson source with the same brightness.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.1. Excitation schemes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to obtain the same brightness with attenuated laser pulses (with a comparable fraction of two-photon events, n = 0.02), the repetition rate should be 50 MHz, leading to a 50 times higher rate of dark counts than with the parametric source.”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.2. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) sources.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The macroscopic sources we just discussed give a Poisson distribution of photons and must be strongly attenuated to reduce the probability of obtaining two or more photons.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.1. Excitation schemes
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The whispering-gallery modes (WGMs) of these cavities present higher quality factors (in the 10 4 range) but relatively larger mode volumes so that the Purcell factors were comparable (F P ≈ 6) with those obtained in the micropost cavities.”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.1. Weak-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Michler et al 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They observed a strong anticorrelation between the triggered detections on the two sides of the beam splitter, which was a clear signature of a particle-like behaviour of the single photon.”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.1. Atomic cascade.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grangier et al 1986 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to achieve emission at a high repetition rate, and in order to avoid excitation events in which no photons are emitted, two conditions have to be fulfilled:”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.1. Excitation schemes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optimal n value depends on the transmission losses and on assumptions on the eavesdropper's technology ( n ≈ 0.1 is a typical value).”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.1. Faint laser pulses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Besides the heaviness and difficulty of operation of the experimental set-up, the atomic cascade sources suffer from a rather low brightness and from a loss of the polarization correlation when the photons are emitted back to back (due to the recoil of the atom) (Santos 1992).”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.1. Atomic cascade.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santos 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incoherent pumping.These processes rely on a fast relaxation step to prepare the excited state.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.1. Excitation schemes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With type-II phase matching, the signal and idler photons have orthogonal polarizations.They are emitted into two cones, one ordinary, the other extraordinary polarized.”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.2. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) sources.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Therefore, the dark count rate increases with the laser's modulation rate, and the ratio of detected photons to dark counts (i.e. the signal-to-noise ratio) decreases with n (Gisin et al 2002).”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.1. Faint laser pulses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gisin et al 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If more than one atom is present, the number of simultaneously emitted photons can exceed one, which requires that the average number of atoms be very low (Kimble 2003).”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.2. Strong-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kimble 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The key requirement for such networks is their ability to interconvert stationary and flying qubits and to transmit flying qubits between specified locations (Di Vincenzo 2000).”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.2. Strong-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Di Vincenzo 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The lifetime of a trapped atom in the presence of the driving fields (pumping p (t) and repumping fields) limits the number of generated photons to about 10 4 , a few hundreds of which are detected.”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.2. Strong-coupling regime
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKeever et al 2004
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As this state is not coupled to the one-photon manifold, the atom cannot be excited again, which limits the number of photons per pump pulse and atom to one.”
§ Single-photon sources > 4.2. Strong-coupling regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Phase-matching allows one to choose the wavelength and determine the bandwidth of the down-converted photons.”
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.2. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) sources.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of a Doppler effect and of collisions with residual gas, which is the case in practice for cold atoms and trapped ions, the transitions are narrow and lifetime-limited.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also possible to prepare the emitting state with resonant light, but one then has to separate the emitted photon from the excited ones, either temporally, by a timedelayed detection, or spectrally, by detecting a red-shifted photon emitted on a vibrational level of the ground state.”
§ Single-photon sources > Coherent preparation.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although much is known from conventional ensemble spectroscopy about a huge number of colour centres in a variety of hosts (Crawford et al 1972, Gellermann 1991), only a handful of systems have led to observations of individual defects, and even fewer have been shown to possess the photophysical properties suitable for single-photon generation.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4. Colour centres
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Crawford et al 1972 source
- Not checked yetcites Gellermann 1991
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the emitted wavepackets will be transform-limited, and the photons will be perfectly indistinguishable.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A major advantage of inorganic materials, and in particular of diamond, is their mechanical stiffness and stability.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4. Colour centres
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast to emitters in condensed matter, they offer no possibility for fast relaxation between levels in the picosecond range.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The photophysical properties of molecules make them interesting models for understanding the behaviour of strongly confined electron systems such as colour centres and semiconductor nanoparticles, to be discussed later.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.3. Organic molecules
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They never emit two or more photons (with the same wavelength) simultaneously and consequently present strong antibunching.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A big advantage of atoms is that their states are perfectly reproducible and well-known, including the hyperfine structure of the levels.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the right atom or ion, transitions can be found throughout the visible and near-IR parts of the spectrum (Cs at 852 nm, Rb at 780 nm).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main challenge for the attainment of a single-photon source is in the isolation, manipulation and trapping of single atoms, which requires sophisticated and expensive setups, including high-resolution stabilized lasers at several frequencies, and ultra-high vacuum.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Under low-temperature conditions, the fluorescence of single molecules shows deep antibunching and damped Rabi oscillations (Basché et al 1992).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.3.1. Low temperatures.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Basché et al 1992
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the ZPL, the bluest emission at low temperatures, is narrow because its width is determined by the long lifetime of the excited state, nanoseconds.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.3.1. Low temperatures.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Typical radiative lifetimes of allowed atomic transitions are about 30 ns, corresponding to a linewidth of a few megahertz.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It very efficiently prevents emission of two photons at the same time by a coupled system and explains the strong antibunching observed in multiple chromophores (Hofkens et al 2003) and in conjugated polymers (Lee et al 2004).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.3.3. Multichromophoric and conjugated systems.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hofkens et al 2003
- Not checked yetcites Lee et al 2004
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The fluorescence of single molecules at room temperature also shows very strong antibunching (Ambrose et al 1997, Fleury et al 2000), due to the very short lifetime of higher excited levels.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.3.1. Low temperatures.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ambrose et al 1997
- Not checked yetcites Fleury et al 2000
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Defects in low-band-gap semiconductors have been proposed as sources of single photons (Strauf et al 2002) and will be briefly discussed in section 6.6.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4. Colour centres
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strauf et al 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since there is only one atom in the cavity and since only one passage is performed at each laser pulse, only one photon is produced in the cavity (see figure 13).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The first single colour centre ever detected was a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centre in diamond (Gruber et al 1997), at room temperature.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.1. Nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gruber et al 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To obtain indistinguishable, lifetime-limited photons, one has either to select the emission of the ZPL, thus losing 80-90% of the fluorescence, or to stimulate the ZPL emission by coupling to a resonant cavity (section 4), which is not easy for molecular systems in condensed matter, and has never been done so far.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.3.1. Low temperatures.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the electronic wavefunctions and photophysical properties of colour centres are very similar to those of organic molecules, their photostability is much improved, both because of the rigidity of the diamond lattice and because of the protection it affords against small aggressive molecules such as oxygen.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4. Colour centres
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The luminescence spectrum of this defect is a broad band (more than 1000 cm -1 , extending from 640 to 720 nm), with a weak and rather narrow ZPL (at 640 nm, width about 50 cm -1 ), still visible at room temperature thanks to the stiffness of the diamond lattice (Gruber et al 1997).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.1. Nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gruber et al 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The whole oscillator strength is concentrated in one single transition, and because of the absence of non-radiative channels, the fluorescence quantum yield is unity.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.2. Atoms, ions in gas phase
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The stability of the NV-centres is excellent, even at room temperature, because of the rigidity of the diamond lattice.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.1. Nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This improves the collection efficiency by more than a factor of 2 and additionally reduces the background.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.1. Nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Radiative recombination is the main relaxation channel for mono-exciton states and therefore occurs with near-unity quantum yield.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many technical problems must still be solved before single-photon sources become as standard and user-friendly as lasers are.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The emitting transition dipoles are polarized in a plane, leading to a radiation pattern distinctly different from that of a molecule (Empedocles et al 1999, Chung et al 2003).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Empedocles et al 1999
- Not checked yetcites Chung et al 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These off-times follow power-law distributions (Kuno et al 2001) and can be extremely long.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kuno et al 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The well-controlled growth and environment ensure that the surface of the dots is very clean and that the radiative recombination rates and the photostability are excellent.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.6. Self-assembled quantum dots and other heterostructures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The emission line narrows significantly at low temperatures, down to about 1 cm -1 (0.1 meV) in the best cases (Empedocles et al 1996), but never reaches the lifetime limit, probably because of spectral diffusion.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Empedocles et al 1996
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as in organic fluorophores, multiple excitations are excluded by the small size of the system and Kasha's rule.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.1. Nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nanocrystals of II-VI semiconductors such as ZnS have been studied as individual emitters for several years (Empedocles et al 1996), but antibunching in their luminescence was discovered only recently (Lounis et al 2000, Michler et al 2000, Messin et al 2001).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Empedocles et al 1996
- Not checked yetcites Lounis et al 2000
- Not checked yetcites Michler et al 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As soon as an additional charge carrier (or exciton) is present, however, its interaction with the emitter exciton leads to highly excited electron or hole states, for which many onephonon relaxation channels exist.The electronic energy is thus very efficiently dissipated non-radiatively.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The emission quantum yield was recently shown to be very close to unity, but only during the bright periods of their blinking (Brokmann et al 2004b).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brokmann et al 2004b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spectral diffusion and the very long luminescence lifetime are two weak points of nanocrystals for low-temperature applications as single-photon sources.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a neutral, singlyexcited nanocrystal, there are no levels in the gap to which electron or hole can relax.Therefore, a non-radiative transition requires coupling to a large number of phonons at once.The matrix element for such a multi-phonon transition is exceedingly small.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another colour centre of diamond was recently proposed as an alternative to the NV-centre (Gaebel et al 2004), with a similarly perfect photostability.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.2. Nickel-nitrogen complex.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gaebel et al 2004 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The efficient annihilation of multi-excitations is the key mechanism of the strong antibunching observed in nanocrystals and enables their use as single-photon sources (Lounis et al 2000, Brokmann et al 2004a).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.5. Semiconductor nanocrystals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lounis et al 2000
- Not checked yetcites Brokmann et al 2004a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our main conclusion is that the emitter has to be chosen according to the application in view.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In contrast to nanocrystals, multiple excitations can coexist in self-assembled quantum dots and can also coexist with charge carriers, leading to characteristic bi-or multi-exciton lines and to trion or even multi-charged lines when an exciton is combined with an electron or a hole (Michler 2003).”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.6. Self-assembled quantum dots and other heterostructures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Michler 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The breadth of the emission band indicates that the photons produced are very far from being lifetime-limited and therefore are not indistinguishable.”
§ Single-photon sources > 6.4.1. Nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With high-efficiency cavities, localized electronic states of molecules or impurity-bound excitons in semiconductors could present a spectral luminescence purity close to that of atoms.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is a challenging aim to produce entangled pairs of single photons from a compact, solid-state device.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Many quantum processing schemes rely on entangled pairs of particles.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher collection and transmission efficiencies and higher detection yields are indispensable for fully benefiting from the quantum cornucopia.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“A possible scheme would be the emission of polarization-entangled photons from a bi-exciton state in a single quantum dot (Benson et al 2000).”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Benson et al 2000
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the current setups must be downsized and simplified before routine use can be envisaged.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The easiest solution is therefore to rely on cavity enhancement of the current emitters to decrease their emission lifetimes down to some tens of picoseconds.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More sophisticated sources, in which successive photons could be brought to interfere, can in principle be built around single atoms or single quantum dots.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quantum cryptography over large fibre distances will also require progress in fibre transmission.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the realization closest to us seems to be quantum cryptography, the field of quantum information processing is a quickly moving one, and new ideas keep cropping up.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While silicon detectors almost reach unity yield in the red part of the spectrum, efficient and dedicated detectors must be built for near-infrared communication wavelengths.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Silicon detectors almost reach unity yield in the red part of the spectrum.
In the paper
“Even more importantly, all quantum processes consist of an intimate interaction (sometimes called transaction (Cramer 1986)) between emission and detection.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cramer 1986
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coupling to a resonant cavity can improve the efficiency and the characteristics of the single photons.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The manipulation of higher number-states would benefit from detectors capable of distinguishing between multi-photon states, for example superconducting bolometers (Cabrera et al 1998).”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cabrera et al 1998
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A similar effect is observed in fluorescence correlation spectroscopy, for diffusing fluorescent dye molecules in solution.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reduced mode volumes of photoniccrystal microcavities would be particularly interesting for reaching the strong-coupling regime in the solid state.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Progress in the control of quantum processes has been very fast lately on the sources' side, but it cannot be separated from progress on the detectors' side.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The manipulation of single photons has been made possible by the existence of single-photon detectors.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As long as its coherence has not been destroyed by interaction with a macroscopic bath, any quantum process must be considered as open to superposition and interference.”
§ Single-photon sources > 7. Conclusion and outlook
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Number-states of light, except the vacuum state, are unfamiliar and very hard to obtain in practice.
“Except for the trivial vacuum-state (n = 0), number-states of light are unfamiliar and very hard to obtain in practice.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The detection of weak absorption signals is in general hampered by photon noise.
“The detection of weak absorption signals is in general hampered by photon noise, i.e. fluctuations of the number of photons.”
The paper relies on this without support.
An eavesdropper can escape detection while attempting to extract information from a statistical mixture of number-states, but not from a well-prepared number-state.
“An eavesdropper can escape detection while attempting to extract information from a statistical mixture of number-states, but not from a well-prepared number-state.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Real photon-counting detectors have limitations such as dead-time and after-pulses.
“Unfortunately, real photon-counting detectors have their limitations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For most room-temperature emitters, the coherence time is extremely short, often shorter than picoseconds.
“For most room-temperature emitters, however, the coherence time is extremely short (often shorter than picoseconds).”
The paper relies on this without support.
For most systems in condensed matter at room temperature, the dephasing time is by several orders of magnitude shorter than the excited state lifetime, so the linewidth is very far from being lifetime-limited.
“For most systems in condensed matter at room temperature, the dephasing time is by several orders of magnitude shorter than the excited state lifetime, i.e. the linewidth is very far from being lifetime-limited.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In both pseudorandom and physical random number generation approaches, systematic errors and perturbations lead to deviations from a truly random distribution of numbers.
“In both approaches, systematic errors and perturbations lead to deviations from a truly random distribution of numbers.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The recorded photon pairs in Bell tests are an unbiased sample of the ensemble.
“One always assumes that the recorded pairs are an unbiased sample of the ensemble.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Eve is supposed to possess perfect detectors and to be able to forward signals to Bob without any loss.
“In particular, Eve is supposed to possess perfect detectors and to be able to forward signals to Bob without any loss.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Alice and Bob may only use current technology.
“Alice and Bob, on the other hand, may only use current technology.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Eve has unlimited technological power within the laws of physics.
“If we endow Eve with unlimited technological power within the laws of physics”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The cavity mode density is a normalized Lorentzian with a width of ω 0 /Q.
“Assuming a normalized Lorentzian mode density with a width of ω 0 /Q for the cavity”
The paper relies on this without support.
Atoms are usually very stable under laser illumination and, unlike large molecules and semiconductor systems, do not present long-lived dark states (or can be recycled out of them).
“Atoms are usually very stable under laser illumination.In contrast to large molecules and semiconductor systems, they do not present long-lived dark states (or if they do, they can be recycled out of them).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The operation time of an atom-based single-photon source is limited by the dwell time of the atom in the cavity mode, up to seconds for a cold atom in a trap.
“The operation time of an atom-based single-photon source is limited by the dwell time of the atom in the cavity mode, up to seconds for a cold atom in a trap.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some organic dyes and aromatic molecules emit fluorescence with a high quantum yield and were the first condensed-matter systems for which antibunching was demonstrated.
“Some organic dyes and aromatic molecules emit fluorescence with a high quantum yield and were the first condensed-matter systems for which antibunching was demonstrated.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Organic molecules less than a nanometre in size can present optical transitions in the visible or near-IR.
“Organic molecules less than a nanometre in size can present optical transitions in the visible or near-IR.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Compared with atoms, the eigenstates of molecules in condensed matter involve vibrations and phonons, in addition to electronic states.
“As compared with those of atoms, the eigenstates of molecules in condensed matter involve vibrations and phonons, in addition to electronic states.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Zero-phonon linewidths are often lifetime-limited at low temperatures.
“Zero-phonon linewidths are often lifetime-limited at low temperatures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A typical Debye-Waller factor is 0.1, and it decreases quickly for temperatures higher than that of liquid helium, while the width of the ZPL increases steeply because of phonon-induced dephasing processes.
“A typical value is 0.1, and it decreases quickly for temperatures higher than that of liquid helium, while the width of the ZPL increases steeply because of phonon-induced dephasing processes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fluorescence is emitted from the lowest vibration state of the excited electronic state towards vibrational levels of the ground state, giving rise to vibrational fluorescence lines and phonon sidebands.
“Fluorescence is emitted from the lowest vibration state of the excited electronic state towards vibrational levels of the ground state, giving rise to vibrational fluorescence lines (shifted to the red with respect to the ZPL by vibration frequencies, 100-3000 cm -1 ) and to phonon sidebands (width about 100 cm -1 ).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The width of the other vibronic lines is limited by the lifetime of the vibrations, about a few picoseconds.
“The width of the other vibronic lines is limited by the lifetime of the vibrations, about a few picoseconds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The molecular transition is a linear dipole with an oscillator strength of about unity, which corresponds to a spontaneous emission lifetime of a few nanoseconds and to a ZPL linewidth of about 30 MHz.
“The molecular transition is a linear dipole with an oscillator strength of about unity, which corresponds to a spontaneous emission lifetime of a few nanoseconds and to a ZPL linewidth of about 30 MHz.”
The paper relies on this without support.
III-V semiconductor heterostructures benefit from knowhow developed for electronic microlithography, by which whole emitting structures, including the resonant cavity, can be produced in one microfabrication process.
“In the latter class of solid-state sources, III-V semiconductor heterostructures benefit from all the knowhow developed for electronic microlithography, by which whole emitting structures, including the resonant cavity, can be produced in one microfabrication process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A simple photon gun based on a single diamond nanocrystal with a single colour centre at the focus of a microscope objective already exists.
“The simplest version of a photon gun, based on a single diamond nanocrystal with a single colour centre at the focus of a microscope objective, already exists today.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Such simple devices were already employed in early demonstrations of QKD.
“Such devices were already employed in early demonstrations of QKD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Silicon detectors almost reach unity yield in the red part of the spectrum.
“While silicon detectors almost reach unity yield in the red part of the spectrum, efficient and dedicated detectors must be built for near-infrared communication wavelengths.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many quantum processing schemes rely on entangled pairs of particles.
“Many quantum processing schemes rely on entangled pairs of particles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Large aggregates of molecules, for example J-aggregates, present enhanced fluorescence rates due to cooperative interference of the molecules in a coherence domain.
“Large aggregates of molecules, for example J-aggregates, present enhanced fluorescence rates due to cooperative interference of the molecules in a coherence domain.”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“New generations of single-photon sources have been developed: they are based on solid-state devices, atoms, molecules and ions etc. (see Lounis and Orrit, (2005) for a recent review).”
From Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry (2012) · cites this paper as Lounis and Orrit, (2005)
In the citing paper
“Lastly, it is important to note that in the previous pulsed above-bandgap or p-shell excitation experiment, the photon coherence time had to be much larger than the incoherent carrier relaxation time jitter (about tens of ps) in order to obtain a good two-photon interference visibility [6], which fundamentally put a limit on the radiative lifetime shortening through the Purcell effect.”
From On-demand semiconductor single-photon source with near-unity indistinguishability (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“The method of incoherent pumping (via above band-gap or p-shell excitation) typically causes reduced photon coherence times due to homogeneous broadening of the excited state [5] and uncontrolled emission time jitter from the nonradiative high-level to s-shell relaxation [6], leading to a decrease of photon indistinguishability.”
From On-demand semiconductor single-photon source with near-unity indistinguishability (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“This is consistent with the prediction that the pure s-shell resonant excitation can eliminate dephasings associated with the incoherent excitation methods [5,6].”
From On-demand semiconductor single-photon source with near-unity indistinguishability (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Single-photon sources > 5.2.2. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) sources.
“Its value can be varied using an additional birefringent phase shifter (or slightly rotating the nonlinear crystal), giving the possibility of preparing any of the four EPR-Bell states (Shih 2003).”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
“|ϕ + = 1 √ 2 (|H 1 H 2 + |V 1 V 2 ), |ϕ -= 1 √ 2 (|H 1 H 2 -|V 1 V 2 ).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
“If Bob chooses the same basis, he will always obtain the opposite result.”
§ Single-photon sources > 3.3.2. Quantum entanglement, EPR paradox and Bell's inequality.
“|ψ + = 1 √ 2 (|H 1 V 2 + |V 1 H 2 )”
Citations
Cites
Items 201–213 of 213
Sild, O., & Haller, K. (1988) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-73638-4 · Cited by 39
Nonclassical Light from Single Semiconductor Quantum Dots
Michler, P. (2003) · Topics in Applied Physics · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39180-7_8 · Cited by 34 · cited 1×
“In contrast to nanocrystals, multiple excitations can coexist in self-assembled quantum dots and can also coexist with charge carriers, leading to characteristic bi- or multi-exciton lines and to trion or even multi-charged lines when an exciton is combined with an electron or a hole (Michler 2003).”
BackgroundOriented semiconducting polymer nanostructures as on-demand room-temperature single-photon sources
Lee, T.-H., Kumar, P., Mehta, A., Xu, K., Dickson, R. M., & Barnes, M. D. (2004) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/1.1768301 · Cited by 30
Optical investigation of the one-dimensional confinement effects in narrow GaAs/GaAlAs quantum wires
Birotheau, L., Izraël, A., Marzin, J. Y., et al. (1992) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/1.107997 · Cited by 30
Local-field effects on spontaneous emission of impurity atoms in homogeneous dielectrics
Schuurmans, F. J. P., de Vries, P., & Lagendijk, A. (2000) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(99)00855-5 · Cited by 28
Faint laser quantum key distribution: eavesdropping exploiting multiphoton pulses
Félix, S., Gisin, N., Stefanov, A., et al. (2001) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500340110076437 · Cited by 24
Letter Optical quantum random number generator
Stefanov, A., Gisin, N., Guinnard, O., et al. (2000) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/095003400147908 · Cited by 22
Correlation spectroscopy of excitons and biexcitons on a single quantum dot
Zwiller, V., Jonsson, P., Blom, H., Jeppesen, S., Pistol, M., Samuelson, L., Katznelson, A. A., Kotel’nikov, E. Y., Evtikhiev, V. P., & Bjork, G. G. (2002) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.66.053814 · Cited by 21
Comment on “Deterministic Single-Photon Source for Distributed Quantum Networking”
Kimble, H. J. (2003) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.249801 · Cited by 17
Electromagnetic form factors of bound nucleons
Eeg, J. O., Martinis, M., & Pilkuhn, H. M. (1980) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90261-0 · Cited by 16
Secure free-space key exchange to 1.9 km and beyond
Rarity, J., Tapster, P. R., & Gorman, P. M. (2001) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500340110078318 · Cited by 16
FLEURY, L. (1998) · Molecular Physics · doi:10.1080/002689798166332 · Cited by 8
The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation
DiVincenzo, D. P. (2000) · Fortschritte der Physik · doi:10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Alspector J, 1989, Adv. Neutral Inform. Process. Syst., 1, 741
- Bell J S, 1965, Physics (NY), 1, 195
- Bennett C H Brassard G, 1984, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing
- Bennett C H, 1985, IBM Tech. Discl. Bull., 28, 3153
- Cohen-Tannoudji C, 1992, Atom-Photon Interactions
- Drexhage K H, 1974, Progress in Optics, XII, 165
- Drummond P D, 1999, Quantum Squeezing
- Gammon D, 1996, Science, 87, 273
- Haroche S, 1992, Les Houches session LIII, ?Fundamental Systems in Quantum Optics?
- Loudon R, 1983, The Quantum Theory of Light
- Planck M, 1900, Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges., 2, 202
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kimble, H. J. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07127 · Cited by 6,023
Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits
Kok, P., Munro, W. J., Nemoto, K., Ralph, T. C., Dowling, J. P., & Milburn, G. J. (2007) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.79.135 · Cited by 2,904
Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures
Lodahl, P., Mahmoodian, S., & Stobbe, S. (2015) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.347 · Cited by 1,465
Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry
Pan, J.-W., Chen, Z.-B., Lu, C.-Y., Weinfurter, H., Zeilinger, A., & Żukowski, M. (2012) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.777 · Cited by 1,410
“We shall not discuss the above mentioned aspects of quantum optics, as an interested reader can find excellent presentations in, e.g., Walls and Milburn (1994), Mandel and Wolf (1995), Scully and Zubairy (1997), and Lounis and Orrit (2005).”
BackgroundDing, X., He, Y., Duan, Z.-C., Gregersen, N., Chen, M.-C., Unsleber, S., Maier, S., Schneider, C., Kamp, M., Höfling, S., et al. (2016) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.020401 · Cited by 908
Metadata
- Authors
- Lounis, B., & Orrit, M.
- Affiliations
- Université de Bordeaux (FR)
- Leiden University (NL)
- Venue
- Reports on Progress in Physics
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2005-04-21
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1129-1179
- ISSN
- 0034-4885 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6633
- OpenAlex
- W2058874525
- Semantic Scholar
- ad26a62db1c037ba915549d99470bbd1240cf282
- Cited by
- 908
- References
- 213
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 49
- FWCI
- 14.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Reports on Progress in Physics (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Semiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum optics and atomic interactions
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Strong Light-Matter Interactions
- Keywords
- single-photon sources, photon antibunching, quantum optics, quantum information processing, quantum cryptography, quantum computing, quantum communication, cavity quantum electrodynamics, Purcell effect, strong coupling, parametric down-conversion, organic compounds, defect centers, quantum dots, heterostructures, nanoscale emitters
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
