Cited by 27

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Superresolving Phase Measurement with Short-Wavelength NOON States by Quantum Frequency Up-Conversion

Zhou, Zhi-Yuan, Liu, Shi-Long, Liu, Shi-Kai, Li, Yin-Hai, Ding, Dong-Sheng, Guo, Guang-Can, Shi, Bao-Sen·2017·Physical Review Applied

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/physrevapplied.7.064025

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Higher Bell state discrimination success rates can be achieved with nonlinear optics, entanglement in auxiliary modes, or feed-forward techniques.

    “Higher success rates can be achieved with nonlinear optics [73], entanglement in auxiliary modes [74,75], or feed-forward techniques [76].”

    From Two-photon interference: the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

    Only the nonlinear-optics portion of the citing sentence is attributed to this source [73]. The paper’s experimental passages describe sum-frequency up-conversion and NOON-state phase measurements, but do not address whether nonlinear optics increases Bell-state discrimination success rates. A Bell-state measurement appears in the References, not as a finding of this paper. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1126/science.1104149 · DOI
  2. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.023601 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/ncomms3426 · DOI
  4. 10.1126/science.1170730 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1348 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.213601 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/nature02493 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.090502 · DOI
  9. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.223601 · DOI
  10. 10.1126/science.1188172 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1126/science.1138007 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1364/OE.15.014244 · DOI
  13. 10.1364/OE.19.024957 · DOI
  14. 10.1364/OL.15.001476 · DOI
  15. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1370 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1038/nature04009 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/nphoton.2010.221 · DOI
  18. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.073602 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/lsa.2016.19 · DOI
  20. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.103601 · DOI
  21. 10.1364/OE.21.013986 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/nphoton.2016.74 · DOI
  23. 10.1038/nature02838 · DOI
  24. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.173901 · DOI
  25. 10.1088/1367-2630/11/1/013032 · DOI
  26. 10.1364/OE.23.028792 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.optcom.2017.03.056 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/BF00702605 · DOI
  29. 10.1063/1.1668320 · DOI
  30. 10.1063/1.123408 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, Z.-Y., Liu, S.-L., Liu, S.-K., Li, Y.-H., Ding, D.-S., Guo, G.-C., & Shi, B.-S.
Venue
Physical Review Applied
Published
2017-06-26
Volume
7
Issue
6
ISSN
2331-7019
Cited by
27
References
3
Language
en
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (11604322, 61275115, 61435011, 61525504, 61605194)
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M590570)
  • Fundamental Research Funds

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