CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Upper bounds on success probabilities in linear optics

Scheel, Stefan, Lütkenhaus, Norbert·2004·New Journal of Physics
DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/051
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/051

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • The NS_N gate defined by Eq. 28 can be implemented with probability 1/N^2.

    “can be implemented with probability 1/N 2 [see also Scheel and Audenaert (2005)].”

    From Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits (2007) · cites this paper as Scheel and Lütkenhaus (2004)

    The Introduction and Special cases section report that the ordinary nonlinear sign-shift gate can be implemented with success probability 1/4, matching 1/N² for the two-photon case. The Conclusion and discussion section says that scaling for generalized nonlinear sign-shift gates was left for future investigation; this paper does not establish the claimed 1/N² probability for general N. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Similar schemes using two ancillary photons have been proposed with success probabilities of 20% and 25%.

    “Secondly, similar schemes using two ancillary photons have been proposed (Zou et al. 2002;Scheel et al. 2004).These protocols have success probabilities of 20% and 25%, respectively.”

    From Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits (2007) · cites this paper as Scheel et al. 2004

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1038/35051009 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.030301 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062311 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.257902 · DOI
  5. Dakna M, 1998, Eur. Phys. J., 3, 295, 10.1007/s100530050177 · DOI
  6. Clausen J, 1999, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt., 1, 332, 10.1088/1464-4266/1/3/306 · DOI
  7. Scheel S, 2003, Phys. Rev., 68, 032310, 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.032310 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ralph T C, 2001, Phys. Rev., 65, 012314, 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.012314 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Knill E, 2003, Phys. Rev., 68, 064303, 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.064303 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Yurke B, 1986, Phys. Rev., 33, 4033, 10.1103/PhysRevA.33.4033 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/0030-4018(87)90015-0 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/0030-4018(87)90271-9 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/0030-4018(87)90275-6 · DOI
  14. Campos M A, 1989, Phys. Rev., 40, 1371, 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1371 · DOI
  15. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.58 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gradsteyn I S, 1965, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products
  17. Knill E, 2002, Phys. Rev., 66, 052306, 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.052306 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Scheel, S., & Lütkenhaus, N.
Venue
New Journal of Physics
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2004-05-15
Volume
6
Pages
51-51
ISSN
1367-2630
DOI
10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/051
Cited by
32
References
0

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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