Cited by 122

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generalized measurements by linear elements

Calsamiglia, John·2002·Physical Review A

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 · 10.1103/physreva.65.030301

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • The inability to perform a deterministic two-qubit gate such as the CNOT with linear optics alone is intimately related to the impossibility of complete Bell measurements with linear optics.

    “The inability to perform a deterministic two-qubit gate such as the CNOT with linear optics alone is intimately related to the impossibility of complete Bell measurements with linear optics (L ütkenhaus et al. 1999;Vaidman and Yoran 1999;Calsamiglia 2002).”

    From Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits (2007) · cites this paper as Calsamiglia 2002

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. M.D. Lukin, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 1419, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1419 · DOI
  2. Y.-H. Kim, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1370, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1370 · DOI · Paper page
  3. T.C. Ralph, 2002, Phys. Rev. A, 65, 012314, 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.012314 · DOI · Paper page
  4. P.G. Kwiat, 1998, Phys. Rev. A, 58, R2623, 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.R2623 · DOI · Paper page
  5. J.-W. Pan, 2001, Nature (London), 410, 1067, 10.1038/35074041 · DOI
  6. D. Bouwmeester, 2001, Phys. Rev. A, 63, R040301, 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.040301 · DOI
  7. B. Huttner, 1996, Phys. Rev. A, 54, 3783, 10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3783 · DOI
  8. R.B.M. Clark, 2001, Phys. Rev. A, 040305, 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.040305 · DOI
  9. Y. Sun, 2001, Phys. Rev. A, 022311, 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022311 · DOI
  10. J. Calsamiglia, 2002, Phys. Rev. A, 65, 012312, 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.012312 · DOI
  11. N. Lütkenhaus, 1999, Phys. Rev. A, 59, 3295, 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.3295 · DOI · Paper page
  12. L. Vaidman, 1999, Phys. Rev. A, 116, 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.116 · DOI · Paper page
  13. J. Calsamiglia, 2001, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt., 72, 67, 10.1007/s003400000484 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Jian-Wei Pan, 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 3891
  15. C.H. Bennett, 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2881, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881 · DOI · Paper page
  16. A. Carollo, 2001, Phys. Rev. A, 64, 022318, 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022318 · DOI
  17. M. Reck, 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 73, 58, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.58 · DOI · Paper page
  18. J.C. Howell, 2000, Phys. Rev. A, 61, 052303, 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052303 · DOI
  19. B.M. Terhal, 2000, Phys. Rev. A, 61, 040301, 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.040301 · DOI · Paper page
  20. H. Weinfurter, 1994, Europhys. Lett., 25, 559, 10.1209/0295-5075/25/8/001 · DOI · Paper page
  21. S.L. Braunstein, 1995, Phys. Rev. A, 51, R1727, 10.1103/PhysRevA.51.R1727 · DOI · Paper page
  22. W. Dür, 2001, Phys. Rev. A, 64, 012317, 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.012317 · DOI
  23. M. Koashi, 2001, Phys. Rev. A, 030301, 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.030301 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Calsamiglia, J.
Venue
Physical Review A
Published
2002-02-05
Volume
65
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
Cited by
122
References
7
Language
en

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