CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Quantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mixing nonclassical pure states in a linear-optical network almost always generates modal entanglement

Open access
Jiang, Zhang, Lang, Matthias D., Caves, Carlton M.·2013·Physical Review A
DOI 10.1103/physreva.88.044301
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In quantum optics a pure state is considered classical, relative to the statistics of photodetection, if and only if it is a coherent state. A different and newer notion of nonclassicality is based on modal entanglement. One example that relates these two notions is the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect, where modal entanglement is generated by a beamsplitter from the nonclassical photon-number state $|1\ensuremath{\rangle}\ensuremath{\bigotimes}|1\ensuremath{\rangle}$. This suggests that beamsplitters or, more generally, linear-optical networks are mediators of the two notions of nonclassicality. In this Brief Report, we show the following: Given a nonclassical pure-product-state input to an $N$-port linear-optical network, the output is almost always mode entangled; the only exception is a product of squeezed states, all with the same squeezing strength, input to a network that does not mix the squeezed and antisqueezed quadratures. Our work thus gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a linear network to generate modal entanglement from pure-product inputs, a result that is of immediate relevance to the boson-sampling problem.

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.88.044301

Cites

12 of 12 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 output state of the passive interferometer is also a product state.

    “Note that the output state is also a product state.”

    From Continuous-variable quantum neural networks (2019) · cites this paper as [103]

    Section IV (p. 5) identifies cases in which a product-state input to a connected linear-optical network also yields a product-state output. The Conclusion (p. 6) says coherent inputs do so, but nonclassical pure-product inputs generally produce entanglement, apart from a specified squeezed-state exception. The unqualified claim omits those conditions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • By allowing phases in the interferometers, entanglement will always be generated by the CV neural network, as long as the inputs are not all coherent states.

    “As a second example, by allowing phases in the interferometers, entanglement will always be generated by the CV neural network, as long as the inputs are not all coherent states.”

    From Continuous-variable quantum neural networks (2019) · cites this paper as [103]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says that nonclassical pure-product inputs to a linear-optical network almost always produce modal entanglement. The Conclusion (p. 6) identifies an exception: certain displaced squeezed-vacuum inputs and networks produce no entanglement. Allowing phases does not, by itself, establish the claim’s unconditional “always,” and the paper’s result is limited to pure-product inputs and connected networks. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. S. Aaronson, 2011, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Jiang, Z., Lang, M. D., & Caves, C. M.
Affiliations
University of New Mexico (US)
ORCID
Caves, Carlton M.
Venue
Physical Review A
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2013-10-07
Volume
88
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
DOI
10.1103/physreva.88.044301
OpenAlex
W1972727241
Cited by
51
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Keywords
nonclassicality, linear optical networks, Hong-Ou-Mandel interference, squeezed states, boson sampling, product states, beam splitter, coherent states

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