CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coherent Ultrafast Measurement of Time-Bin Encoded Photons

Donohue, John M., Agnew, Megan, Lavoie, Jonathan, Resch, Kevin J.·2013·Physical Review Letters
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.111.153602
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 · 10.1103/physrevlett.111.153602

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Time-bin encoding has been proposed as a suitable scheme for quantum walks and photonic BosonSampling.

    “Besides quantum communication, timebin encoding has been proposed as a suitable scheme also for quantum walks [146-148] and for photonic BosonSampling [149, 150] (see Section 3.2).”

    From Photonic quantum information processing: a review (2019) · cites this paper as [149]

    The BosonSampling part of the citing sentence is the relevant attribution; quantum walks have separate citations. Our copy’s Introduction discusses time-bin encoding for communication and fundamental experiments, and its supplementary section discusses higher-dimensional time-bin states, but neither addresses BosonSampling. Searches for “BosonSampling” and “boson sampling” found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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: 31

  1. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3563 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2594 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4737 · DOI
  4. 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062308 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.180502 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.020301 · DOI
  7. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2205 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1103/PhysRevA.44.4552 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/nphoton.2009.230 · DOI
  10. 10.1109/3.124 · DOI
  11. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.023005 · DOI
  12. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2153 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/09500340408235283 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/nature04009 · DOI
  15. 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.013845 · DOI
  16. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.130501 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1364/OE.19.013770 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/nphoton.2013.47 · DOI
  19. 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.052122 · DOI
  20. 10.1364/OE.17.010976 · DOI
  21. 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.042122 · DOI
  22. 10.1364/OL.23.001117 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S0030-4018(99)00257-6 · DOI
  24. 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.R773 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/073051 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/srep01582 · DOI
  27. 10.1109/JQE.1969.1076303 · DOI
  28. 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.012305 · DOI
  29. 10.1063/1.2969067 · DOI
  30. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.053602 · DOI
  31. 10.1364/OL.38.001310 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Donohue, J. M., Agnew, M., Lavoie, J., & Resch, K. J.
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2013-10-09
Volume
111
Issue
15
ISSN
  • 0031-9007
  • 1079-7114
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.111.153602
Cited by
93
References
2
Language
en
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)

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