The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 25 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor’s Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement
Open accessAbstract
Shor's powerful quantum algorithm for factoring represents a major challenge in quantum computation. Here, we implement a compiled version in a photonic system. For the first time, we demonstrate the core processes, coherent control, and resultant entangled states required in a full-scale implementation. These are necessary steps on the path towards scalable quantum computing. Our results highlight that the algorithm performance is not the same as that of the underlying quantum circuit and stress the importance of developing techniques for characterizing quantum algorithms.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper experimentally implements compiled order-finding circuits for Shor’s algorithm factoring \(N=15\) with \(C=2\) and \(C=4\), using photonic qubits and measurement-induced nonlinearity. It reports near-ideal algorithm outputs but substantially lower circuit/process fidelities, highlighting that algorithm performance is not the same as underlying circuit performance.
Key findings
- The order-2 circuit gave logical probabilities \(\{P_{00},P_{10}\}=\{52,48\}\pm3\%\), and the order-4 circuit gave \(\{P_{000},P_{010},P_{100},P_{110}\}=\{27,23,24,27\}\pm2\%\); after classical processing, half the time the routines yield \(r=2\) or \(r=4\), giving factors 3 and 5.
- Argument-register state fidelities were \(F=99.9\pm0.3\%\) for order-2 and \(F=98.5\pm0.6\%\) for order-4, with linear entropies \(SL=100\pm1\%\) and \(SL=98.1\pm0.8\%\), respectively.
- Post-modular-exponentiation entangled states showed lower circuit performance: order-2 GHZ fidelity \(F_{\mathrm{GHZ}}=59\pm4\%\), \(SL=62\pm4\%\), witness \(W_{\mathrm{GHZ}}=-9\pm4\%\); order-4 Bell-product fidelity \(F=68\pm3\%\), \(SL=52\pm4\%\), with Bell-state tangles \(41\pm5\%\) and \(33\pm5\%\).
- Process fidelities for the order-4 two-qubit gates were \(F_p=85\%,89\%\), giving product circuit fidelity \(F_p=80\%\), versus an algorithm success rate of \(99.7\%\); order-2 decomposed three-qubit gate process fidelities were \(78\%,90\%\), with only a non-useful bound \(F_p\ge20\%\).
Methods
- Photonic linear-optics implementation with polarization-encoded qubits from parametric downconversion, using measurement-induced nonlinearity and nondeterministic gates with one-third success probability when fully prebiased; runs were flagged by fourfold coincidence events.
- Compiled circuits for \(N=15\): the order-2 circuit was implemented directly, while the order-4 circuit was further compiled to a pair of cnot gates; the paper used quantum state and process tomography, with convex-optimization tomography and Monte-Carlo error estimation.
- Analysis included measured density matrices, fidelities, linear entropies, entanglement witnesses/tangles, process \(\chi\)-matrices, and logical correlations between argument and function registers.
Limitations
- The paper states that current experiments are not scalable, that compiled algorithms do not directly imply scalability, and that direct implementation of the order-4 six-photon circuit is currently infeasible due to low six-photon rates and nondeterministic gates.
- It also states that full tomographic characterization becomes exponentially impractical for larger circuits, that order-2 process tomography would require at least 4096 measurements and was infeasible with their count rates, and that the three-qubit gate error bound is not useful.
- Evident from the text: this is a small-scale, compiled demonstration for \(N=15\), not a full Shor implementation; the measured entangled states partially overlap with ideal states and show environmental decoherence, and the circuit fidelities are much lower than the algorithm success rates.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 Not checked yet · 11 No basis given · 10 Own result · 5 Own interpretation · 1 Supported so far
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“These results show that we have near-ideal algorithm performance, far better than we have any right to expect given the known errors inherent in the logic gates [8,29].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] source
The cited paper reports measured process fidelities of 74.6% and 84.0% and identifies imperfect mode matching as a source of gate error (passage 1). This supports the cited point about known errors in the logic gates. The near-ideal algorithm performance is the citing authors’ own result, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked yetcites [29]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We measured relative nonclassical visibilities, V r ≡V meas /V ideal , of 98±2% and 85±6%.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the first time we demonstrate the core processes, coherent control, and resultant entangled states that are required in a full-scale implementation of Shor's algorithm.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we implement a compiled version of Shor's algorithm in a photonic system using single photons and employing the non-linearity induced by measurement.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Here we implement a compiled version of Shor's algorithm, using photonic quantum-logic gates to realise the necessary processes, and verify the resulting entanglement via quantum state and process tomography [17,18].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we measured process fidelities of F p =85%, 89% for the two-qubit gates of the order-4 circuit.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results in Fig. 5 show there is a clear correlation between the argument and function registers, 59 to 83% and 67 to 87% for the order-2 and order-4 circuits, respectively.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have experimentally implemented every stage of a small-scale quantum algorithm.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decomposing the three-qubit gate into a pair of two-qubit gates yields process fidelities F p =78%, 90% (again reflecting differing interferences of independent and dependent photons).”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly this is significantly less than the algorithm success rate of 99.7%.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consequently, by assuming that only these gates induce error, the order-4 circuit process fidelity is simply the product of the individual gate fidelities [32], F bcde p =F bd p F ce p =80%.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Only the two-qubit gates induce error in the order-4 circuit.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We measure output probabilities of 25% to within error, as expected.After classical processing half the time the algorithm finds r=4, again yielding the factors 3 and 5.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the order-2 circuits the binary outputs of the algorithm are 00 or 10: the former represents the expected failure mode of this circuit, the latter a successful determination of r=2; failure and success should have equal probabilities, we measure them to be 50% to within error.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The joint state of both registers after modular exponentiation indicates circuit performance; we find entangled states that partially overlap with the expected states, Fig. 4, indicating some environmental decoherence.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the order-4 circuit, Fig. 1e), reduces to a pair of cnots, allowing us to implement the circuit in Fig. 1g).”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We use a pair of compact optical gates [8,9,10], Fig 2c),e), each operating on a dependent pair of photons, resulting in measured visibilities for both of V r =98±2%.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We present two different implementations of the order-finding routine at the heart of Shor's algorithm, characterising the algorithmic and circuit performances.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measured fidelity with the ideal state, a tensor product of two Bell-states, is F =68±3%.The state is partially-mixed, SL=52±4%, and entangled, with tangles of the component Bell-States of 41±5% and 33±5%.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We use a linear-optical architecture where the required nonlinearity is induced by measurement; current experiments are not scalable, but there are clear paths to a fully scalable quantum architecture [19,20].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Directly encoding the order-4 finding circuit, Fig. 1e), requires six photons and at least one three-qubit and five two-qubit gates.This is currently infeasible: the best sixphoton rate to date [12] is 30 mHz, which would be reduced by six orders of magnitude using non-deterministic gates.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus half the time the algorithm yields r=2, which gives the factors, 3 and 5.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Shor's algorithm can factor a k-bit number using 72k 3 elementary quantum gates, e.g.factoring the smallest meaningful number, 15, requires 4608 gates operating on 21 qubits [13].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The fidelity of the four-qubit state with the ideal, Fig. 4b), is higher than that of the three-qubit state, Fig. 4a), chiefly because the latter requires nonclassical interference of photons produced by independent sources, which suffer higher distinguishability, lowering gate performance [29,30,31].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29]
- Not checked yetcites [30]
- Not checked yetcites [31]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, since the qubits are at all times in a highly mixed state [15], and the dynamics can be fully modelled classically [16], neither the entanglement nor the coherent control at the core of Shor's algorithm can be implemented or verified.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all the circuits Fig. 1b)-g), the consecutive Hadamards in the top qubit of the argument-register cancel each other out (since h 2 =i): consequently both this qubit, and the gate(s) controlled by it, are redundant and need not be implemented experimentally.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Order-finding routines are a specific case of phase-estimation routines, which in turn underpin a wide variety of quantum algorithms, such as those in quantum chemistry [34].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, a bound can be obtained by chaining the gate errors, F p ≥20% [33].This is not a useful bound, c.f. the fidelity between an ideal cz and doing nothing at all of F p =25%!”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We use convex optimisation tomography [26] to estimate errors via Monte-Carlo simulation [6].”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > References
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Application of Hadamard gates in the inverse QFT reset the |k qubits to 0, inhibiting any gates controlled by them”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The |k qubits do not become entangled to the function-register whereas the |a qubits are maximally-entangled to it-consequently after tracing out the function-register, the |a qubits are in a maximally-mixed state and any further gates acting on them are redundant.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After modular exponentiation, the circuit state is 2 n -1 x=0 |x |C x modN : for any two values x and y that differ by an integer, k number of orders, i.e. y-x=k 2 l , C y modN =C x modN , and the state after modular exponentiation becomes 2 n-l -1 k=0 2 l -1 a=0 |k2 l +a |C a modN .”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining argumentregister qubits are maximally-entangled to the functionregister.Since the function-register output is not measured, these argument qubits are maximally-mixed, and the subsequent gates in the inverse QFT are therefore also redundant.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For larger circuits, full tomographic characterisation becomes exponentially impractical.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > FIG. 1: a)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus the inverse QFT in Ref. [14] was unnecessary: indeed, it is straightforward to show this is true for any order-2 l circuit.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final step of the inverse QFT is to swap the first and last qubits of the argument register which can be done after measurement.”
§ Experimental Demonstration of a Compiled Version of Shor's Algorithm with Quantum Entanglement > Additional Online Material.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Only the two-qubit gates induce error in the order-4 circuit.
“by assuming that only these gates induce error”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recently, a compiled version of Shor's algorithm has been demonstrated using four photonic qubits by Lu et al. (2007) and Lanyon et al. (2007).”
From Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry (2012) · cites this paper as Lanyon et al. (2007)
In the citing paper
“Recently there has also been substantial progress in investigations of other possible candidates for AQS, such as photonic systems [31, 32, 34-36], photonic and polariton systems [33, 38-42], artificial lattices in solid state systems [44].”
From Can one trust quantum simulators? (2012) · cites this paper as [31]
Citations
Cites
A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics
Knill, E., Laflamme, R., & Milburn, G. J. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35051009 · Cited by 5,880
James, D. F. V., Kwiat, P. G., Munro, W. J., & White, A. G. (2001) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.64.052312 · Cited by 2,176
Self-citationExperimental realization of Shor's quantum factoring algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance
Vandersypen, L. M. K., Steffen, M., Breyta, G., Yannoni, C. S., Sherwood, M. H., & Chuang, I. L. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/414883a · Cited by 1,738
Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies
Aspuru-Guzik, A., Dutoi, A. D., Love, P. J., & Head-Gordon, M. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1113479 · Cited by 1,418
Experimental one-way quantum computing
Walther, P., Resch, K. J., Rudolph, T., Schenck, E., Weinfurter, H., Vedral, V., Aspelmeyer, M., & Zeilinger, A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03347 · Cited by 1,273
Experimental demonstration of a robust, high-fidelity geometric two ion-qubit phase gate
Leibfried, D., DeMarco, B., Meyer, V., Lucas, D., Barrett, M., Britton, J., Itano, W. M., Jelenković, B., Langer, C., Rosenband, T., et al. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01492 · Cited by 1,083
Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-NOT gate
O'Brien, J. L., Pryde, G. J., White, A. G., Ralph, T. C., & Branning, D. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02054 · Cited by 992
Self-citationRealization of the Cirac–Zoller controlled-NOT quantum gate
Schmidt-Kaler, F., Häffner, H., Riebe, M., Gulde, S., Lancaster, G. P. T., Deuschle, T., Becher, C., Roos, C. F., Eschner, J., & Blatt, R. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01494 · Cited by 875
Complete Characterization of a Quantum Process: The Two-Bit Quantum Gate
Poyatos, J. F., Cirac, J. I., & Zoller, P. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.390 · Cited by 694
Experimental entanglement of six photons in graph states
Lu, C.-Y., Zhou, X.-Q., Gühne, O., Gao, W.-B., Zhang, J., Yuan, Z.-S., Goebel, A., Yang, T., & Pan, J.-W. (2007) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys507 · Cited by 683
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- P. Shor, 1994, Proc. 35th Ann. Symp. Found. Comp. Sci.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ladd, T. D., Jelezko, F., Laflamme, R., Nakamura, Y., Monroe, C., & O’Brien, J. L. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08812 · Cited by 3,592
O'Brien, J. L., Furusawa, A., & Vučković, J. (2009) · Nature Photonics · doi:10.1038/nphoton.2009.229 · Cited by 2,388
Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry
Pan, J.-W., Chen, Z.-B., Lu, C.-Y., Weinfurter, H., Zeilinger, A., & Żukowski, M. (2012) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.777 · Cited by 1,410
The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices
Tilly, J., Chen, H., Cao, S., Picozzi, D., Setia, K., Li, Y., Grant, E., Wossnig, L., Rungger, I., Booth, G. H., et al. (2022) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003 · Cited by 1,031
Boson Sampling on a Photonic Chip
Spring, J. B., Metcalf, B. J., Humphreys, P. C., Kolthammer, W. S., Jin, X.-M., Barbieri, M., Datta, A., Thomas-Peter, N., Langford, N. K., Kundys, D., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1231692 · Cited by 837
Self-citationTowards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer
Lanyon, B. P., Whitfield, J. D., Gillett, G. G., Goggin, M. E., Almeida, M. P., Kassal, I., Biamonte, J. D., Mohseni, M., Powell, B. J., Barbieri, M., et al. (2010) · Nature Chemistry · doi:10.1038/nchem.483 · Cited by 796
Self-citationSimplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional Hilbert spaces
Lanyon, B. P., Barbieri, M., de Almeida, M. P., Jennewein, T. D., Ralph, T. C., Resch, K. J., Pryde, G. J., O’Brien, J. L., Gilchrist, A., & White, A. G. (2008) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys1150 · Cited by 762
Self-citationPhotonic quantum information processing: a concise review
Slussarenko, S., & Pryde, G. J. (2019) · Applied Physics Reviews · doi:10.1063/1.5115814 · Cited by 644
Realization of a scalable Shor algorithm
Monz, T., Nigg, D., Martinez, E. A., Brandl, M. F., Schindler, P., Rines, R., Wang, S. X., Chuang, I. L., & Blatt, R. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad9480 · Cited by 486
Chen, M., Menicucci, N. C., & Pfister, O. (2014) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.120505 · Cited by 468
Shor’s Quantum Factoring Algorithm on a Photonic Chip
Politi, A., Matthews, J. C. F., & O'Brien, J. L. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1173731 · Cited by 477
Operating Quantum States in Single Magnetic Molecules: Implementation of Grover’s Quantum Algorithm
Godfrin, C., Ferhat, A., Ballou, R., Klyatskaya, S. V., Ruben, M., Wernsdorfer, W., & Balestro, F. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.187702 · Cited by 373
Experimental realization of Shor's quantum factoring algorithm using qubit recycling
Martín-López, E., Laing, A., Lawson, T., Alvarez, R., Zhou, X.-Q., & O'Brien, J. L. (2012) · Nature Photonics · doi:10.1038/nphoton.2012.259 · Cited by 349
Experimental demonstration of a hyper-entangled ten-qubit Schrödinger cat state
Gao, W.-B., Lu, C.-Y., Yao, X.-C., Xu, P., Gühne, O., Goebel, A., Chen, Y.-A., Peng, C.-Z., Chen, Z.-B., & Pan, J.-W. (2010) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys1603 · Cited by 348
Computing prime factors with a Josephson phase qubit quantum processor
Lucero, E., Barends, R., Chen, Y., Kelly, J., Mariantoni, M., Megrant, A., O’Malley, P., Sank, D., Vainsencher, A., Wenner, J., et al. (2012) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys2385 · Cited by 311
Can one trust quantum simulators?
Hauke, P., Cucchietti, F. M., Tagliacozzo, L., Deutsch, I., & Lewenstein, M. (2012) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/082401 · Cited by 315
Parametric down-conversion photon-pair source on a nanophotonic chip
Guo, X., Zou, C.-L., Schuck, C., Jung, H., Cheng, R., & Tang, H. X. (2016) · Light: Science & Applications · doi:10.1038/lsa.2016.249 · Cited by 291
Dietrich, C. P., Fiore, A., Thompson, M. G., Kamp, M., & Höfling, S. (2016) · Laser & Photonics Review · doi:10.1002/lpor.201500321 · Cited by 268
On the genesis and evolution of Integrated Quantum Optics
Tanzilli, S., Martin, A., Kaiser, F., De Micheli, M. P., Alibart, O., & Ostrowsky, D. B. (2012) · Laser & Photonics Reviews · doi:10.1002/lpor.201100010 · Cited by 234
Quantum computing for healthcare: a review
Ur Rasool, R., Ahmad, H. F., Rafique, W., Qayyum, A., Qadir, J., & Anwar, Z. (2023) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi15030094 · Cited by 242
Toward large-scale fault-tolerant universal photonic quantum computing
Takeda, S., & Furusawa, A. (2019) · APL Photonics · doi:10.1063/1.5100160 · Cited by 234
Entanglement-Based Machine Learning on a Quantum Computer
Cai, X., Wu, D., Su, Z.-E., Chen, M.-C., Wang, X., Li, L., Liu, N.-L., Lu, C., & Pan, J.-W. (2015) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.110504 · Cited by 207
Experimental generation of an eight-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state
Huang, Y., Liu, B., Peng, L., Li, Y.-H., Li, L., Li, C., & Guo, G. (2011) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms1556 · Cited by 193
Experimental Bayesian Quantum Phase Estimation on a Silicon Photonic Chip
Paesani, S., Gentile, A. A., Santagati, R., Wang, J., Wiebe, N., Tew, D. P., O’Brien, J. L., & Thompson, M. G. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.100503 · Cited by 178
Quantum Factorization of 143 on a Dipolar-Coupling Nuclear Magnetic Resonance System
Xu, N., Zhu, J., Lu, D., Zhou, X., Peng, X., & Du, J. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.130501 · Cited by 187
Temporally unstructured quantum computation
Shepherd, D., & Bremner, M. J. (2009) · Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0443 · Cited by 135
Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm for Factorization and Its Experimental Implementation
Peng, X., Liao, Z., Xu, N., Qin, G., Zhou, X., Suter, D., & Du, J. (2008) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.220405 · Cited by 175
Quantum Annealing for Prime Factorization
Jiang, S., Britt, K. A., McCaskey, A., Humble, T. S., & Kais, S. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-36058-z · Cited by 194
Experimental Quantum Computing to Solve Systems of Linear Equations
Cai, X.-D., Weedbrook, C., Su, Z.-E., Chen, M.-C., Gu, M., Zhu, M.-J., Li, L., Liu, N.-L., Lu, C.-Y., & Pan, J.-W. (2013) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.230501 · Cited by 173
Adding control to arbitrary unknown quantum operations
Zhou, X.-Q., Ralph, T. C., Kalasuwan, P., Zhang, M., Peruzzo, A., Lanyon, B. P., & O'Brien, J. L. (2011) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms1392 · Cited by 173
Self-citationHeralded generation of entangled photon pairs
Barz, S., Cronenberg, G., Zeilinger, A., & Walther, P. (2010) · Nature Photonics · doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.156 · Cited by 169
Multiphoton quantum interference in a multiport integrated photonic device
Metcalf, B. J., Thomas-Peter, N., Spring, J. B., Kundys, D., Broome, M. A., Humphreys, P. C., Jin, X.-M., Barbieri, M., Steven Kolthammer, W., Gates, J. C., et al. (2013) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms2349 · Cited by 143
Self-citationNunn, J., Wright, L. J., Söller, C., Zhang, L., Walmsley, I. A., & Smith, B. J. (2013) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.21.015959 · Cited by 165
Statistical assertions for validating patterns and finding bugs in quantum programs
Huang, Y., & Martonosi, M. (2019) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Computer Architecture/Proceedings · doi:10.1145/3307650.3322213 · Cited by 169
Patel, R. B., Ho, J., Ferreyrol, F., Ralph, T. C., & Pryde, G. J. (2016) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501531 · Cited by 160
Entanglement of bosonic modes through an engineered exchange interaction
Gao, Y. Y., Lester, B., Chou, K. S., Frunzio, L., Devoret, M., Jiang, L., Girvin, S. M., & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0970-4 · Cited by 142
Phase-controlled integrated photonic quantum circuits
Smith, B. J., Kundys, D. O., Thomas-Peter, N. L., Smith, P. G. R., & Walmsley, I. A. (2009) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.17.013516 · Cited by 140
Oversimplifying quantum factoring
Smolin, J. A., Smith, G., & Vargo, A. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12290 · Cited by 132
Bapst, V., Foini, L., Krząkała, F., Semerjian, G., & Zamponi, F. (2012) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.10.002 · Cited by 135
Quantum Walks for Computer Scientists
Venegas-Andraca, S. E. (2008) · Synthesis lectures on quantum computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02511-2 · Cited by 123
Quantum algorithm for obtaining the energy spectrum of molecular systems
Wang, H., Kais, S., Aspuru-Guzik, A., & Hoffmann, M. R. (2008) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/b804804e · Cited by 109
An Efficient Quantum Computing technique for cracking RSA using Shor’s Algorithm
Bhatia, V., & Ramkumar, K. R. (2020) · International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation · doi:10.1109/iccca49541.2020.9250806 · Cited by 117
Direct characterization of linear-optical networks
Rahimi-Keshari, S., Broome, M. A., Fickler, R., Fedrizzi, A., Ralph, T. C., & White, A. G. (2013) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.21.013450 · Cited by 113
Self-citationBapst, V., Foini, L., Krząkała, F., Semerjian, G., & Zamponi, F. (2012) · HAL · Cited by 124
Experimental Blind Quantum Computing for a Classical Client
Huang, H.-L., Zhao, Q., Ma, X., Liu, C., Su, Z.-E., Wang, X., Li, L., Liu, N.-L., Sanders, B. C., Lu, C., et al. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.050503 · Cited by 98
Integrated waveguide circuits for optical quantum computing
Thompson, M. G., Politi, A., Matthews, J. C. F., & O’Brien, J. L. (2011) · IET Circuits Devices & Systems · doi:10.1049/iet-cds.2010.0108 · Cited by 90
Krischek, R., Wieczorek, W., Ozawa, A., Kiesel, N., Michelberger, P., Udem, T., & Weinfurter, H. (2009) · Nature Photonics · doi:10.1038/nphoton.2009.286 · Cited by 87
Gauss Sum Factorization with Cold Atoms
Gilowski, M., Wendrich, T., Müller, T., Jentsch, C., Ertmer, W. A., Rasel, E. M., & Schleich, W. P. (2008) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.030201 · Cited by 80
Constant-optimized quantum circuits for modular multiplication and exponentiationPreprint
Markov, I. L., & Saeedi, M. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.5555/2230996.2230997 · Cited by 80
Ralph, T. C., & Pryde, G. J. (2009) · Progress in optics · doi:10.1016/s0079-6638(10)05409-0 · Cited by 80
Experimental quantum coding against qubit loss error
Lu, C., Gao, W., Zhang, J., Zhou, X., Yang, T., & Pan, J.-W. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0800740105 · Cited by 77
Experimental study of Shor's factoring algorithm using the IBM Q Experience
Amico, M., Saleem, Z. H., & Kumph, M. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.012305 · Cited by 89
Indistinguishable Entangled Photons Generated by a Light-Emitting Diode
Stevenson, R. M., Salter, C. L., Nilsson, J., Bennett, A. J., Ward, M. B., Farrer, I. A., Ritchie, D. A., & Shields, A. J. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.040503 · Cited by 73
Quantum algorithm for obtaining the energy spectrum of molecular systems
Wang, H., Kais, S., Aspuru‐Guzik, A., & Hoffmann, M. R. (2008) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · Cited by 75
Nuclear magnetic resonance for quantum computing: Techniques and recent achievements
Xin, T., Wang, B.-X., Li, K., Kong, X., Wei, S.-J., Wang, T., Ruan, D., & Long, G. (2018) · Chinese Physics B · doi:10.1088/1674-1056/27/2/020308 · Cited by 75
Quantum Algorithm Design: Techniques and Applications
Shao, C., Yang, L., & Li, H. (2019) · Journal of Systems Science and Complexity · doi:10.1007/s11424-019-9008-0 · Cited by 74
Benchmarking quantum computers
Proctor, T. J., Young, K. C., Baczewski, A., & Blume-Kohout, R. (2025) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00796-z · Cited by 116
Five Measurement Bases Determine Pure Quantum States on Any Dimension
Goyeneche, D., Cañas, G., Etcheverry, S., Gómez, E. S., XAVIER, G. B., Lima, G., & Delgado, A. (2015) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.090401 · Cited by 75
Demonstration of Shor’s factoring algorithm for N $$=$$ 21 on IBM quantum processors
Skosana, U., & Tame, M. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95973-w · Cited by 79
Prime factorization algorithm based on parameter optimization of Ising model
Wang, B., Hu, F., Yao, H., & Wang, C. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62802-5 · Cited by 74
Observation of ten-photon entanglement using thin BiB_3O_6 crystals
Chen, L.-K., Li, Z.-D., Yao, X.-C., Huang, M., Li, W., Lu, H., Yuan, X., Zhang, Y.-B., Jiang, X., Peng, C.-Z., et al. (2017) · Optica · doi:10.1364/optica.4.000077 · Cited by 64
Quantum Walks for Computer Scientists
Venegas-Andraca, S. E. (2008) · Synthesis lectures on quantum computing · doi:10.2200/s00144ed1v01y200808qmc001 · Cited by 67
A benchmark test of boson sampling on Tianhe-2 supercomputer
Wu, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, B., Jin, X., Wang, Y., Wang, H., & Yang, X. (2018) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwy079 · Cited by 73
Nonlocal photonic quantum gates over 7.0 km
Liu, X., Hu, X.-M., Zhu, T.-X., Zhang, C., Xiao, Y., Miao, J.-L., Ou, Z.-W., Li, P.-Y., Liu, B., Zhou, Z., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52912-3 · Cited by 75
Calculating unknown eigenvalues with a quantum algorithm
Zhou, X., Kalasuwan, P., Ralph, T. C., & O’Brien, J. L. (2013) · Nature Photonics · doi:10.1038/nphoton.2012.360 · Cited by 59
Barz, S. (2015) · Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics · doi:10.1088/0953-4075/48/8/083001 · Cited by 56
From Spintronic Memristors to Quantum Computing
Qin, J., Sun, B. T., Zhou, G., Guo, T., Chen, Y., Ke, C., Mao, S., Chen, X., Shao, J., & Zhao, Y. X. (2023) · ACS Materials Letters · doi:10.1021/acsmaterialslett.3c00088 · Cited by 49
Quantum interferometers: Principles and applications
Jin, R., Zeng, Z.-Q., You, C., & Yuan, C. (2024) · Progress in Quantum Electronics · doi:10.1016/j.pquantelec.2024.100519 · Cited by 46
Single-photon emission of InAs/InP quantum dashes at 1.55 μm and temperatures up to 80 K
Dusanowski, Ł., Syperek, M., Misiewicz, J., Somers, A., Höfling, S., Kamp, M., Reithmaier, J. P., & Sek, G. (2016) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/1.4947448 · Cited by 44
Demonstration of topological data analysis on a quantum processor
Huang, H.-L., Wang, X., Rohde, P. P., Luo, Y.-H., Zhao, Y., Liu, C., Li, L., Liu, N.-L., Lu, C., & Pan, J.-W. (2018) · Optica · doi:10.1364/optica.5.000193 · Cited by 47
A proposed testbed for detector tomography
Coldenstrodt-Ronge, H. B., Lundeen, J. S., Pregnell, K. L., Feito, Á., Smith, B. J., Mauerer, W., Silberhorn, C., Eisert, J., Plenio, M. B., & Walmsley, I. A. (2008) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500340802304929 · Cited by 41
Xu, K., Xie, T., Li, Z., Xu, X., Wang, M., Ye, X., Kong, F., Geng, J., Duan, C., Shi, F., et al. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.130504 · Cited by 42
Optimising Matrix Product State Simulations of Shor's Algorithm
Dang, A., Hill, C. D., & Hollenberg, L. C. L. (2019) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2019-01-25-116 · Cited by 43
QDB: From Quantum Algorithms Towards Correct Quantum ProgramsPreprint
Huang, Y., & Martonosi, M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/oasics.plateau.2018.4 · Cited by 38
Gavoille, C., Kosowski, A., & Markiewicz, M. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04355-0_26 · Cited by 36
Jin, R., Zhang, J., Shimizu, R., Matsuda, N., Mitsumori, Y., Kosaka, H., & Edamatsu, K. (2011) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.83.031805 · Cited by 37
Adiabatic quantum computing with spin qubits hosted by molecules
Yamamoto, S., Nakazawa, S., Sugisaki, K., Sato, K., Toyota, K., Shiomi, D., & Takui, T. (2014) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c4cp04744c · Cited by 37
Fast quantum algorithm for protein structure prediction in hydrophobic-hydrophilic model
Wong, R., & Chang, W.-L. (2022) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2022.03.011 · Cited by 37
Faster quantum number factoring via circuit synthesis
Markov, I. L., & Saeedi, M. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.87.012310 · Cited by 34
Fast equivalence-checking for quantum circuits
Yamashita, S., & Markov, I. L. (2010) · International Symposium on Nanoscale Architectures · doi:10.5555/1835957.1835965 · Cited by 33
Thomas-Peter, N. L., Langford, N. K., Datta, A., Zhang, L., Smith, B. J., Spring, J. B., Metcalf, B. J., Coldenstrodt-Ronge, H. B., Hu, M., Nunn, J., et al. (2011) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/5/055024 · Cited by 33
Self-citationQuantum Speedup for Protein Structure Prediction
Wong, R., & Chang, W.-L. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience · doi:10.1109/tnb.2021.3065051 · Cited by 35
Analysis of the likelihood of quantum computing proliferation
Rosch-Grace, D., & Straub, J. (2022) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101880 · Cited by 39
Large-Scale Simulation of Shor’s Quantum Factoring Algorithm
Willsch, D., Willsch, M., Jin, F., Raedt, H. A. D., & Michielsen, K. F. L. (2023) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math11194222 · Cited by 40
Scalable photonic quantum technologies
Wang, H., Ralph, T. C., Renema, J. J., Lu, C., & Pan, J.-W. (2025) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/s41563-025-02306-7 · Cited by 54
Geller, M. R., Martinis, J. M., Sornborger, A. T., Stancil, P. C., Pritchett, E., You, H., & Galiautdinov, A. (2015) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.91.062309 · Cited by 31
Factoring numbers with a single interferogram
Tamma, V., Zhang, H., He, X., Garuccio, A., Schleich, W. P., & Shih, Y. H. (2011) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.83.020304 · Cited by 26
Simulating Correlations of Structured Spontaneously Down‐Converted Photon Pairs
Trajtenberg‐Mills, S., Karnieli, A., Voloch‐Bloch, N., Megidish, E., Eisenberg, H. S., & Arie, A. (2020) · Laser & Photonics Review · doi:10.1002/lpor.201900321 · Cited by 27
Digitized adiabatic quantum factorization
Hegade, N. N., Paul, K., Albarrán-Arriagada, F., Chen, X., & Solano, E. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.104.l050403 · Cited by 29
Quantum gate operations using atomic qubits through cavity input-output process
Song, J., Xia, Y., & Song, H. S. (2009) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/87/50005 · Cited by 25
Rasmussen, S. E., & Zinner, N. T. (2020) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033097 · Cited by 25
Factoring 51 and 85 with 8 qubits
Geller, M. R., & Zhou, Z. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep03023 · Cited by 26
Duan, Z.-C., Li, J.-P., Qin, J., Yu, Y., Huo, Y.-H., Höfling, S., Lu, C., Liu, N.-L., Chen, K., & Pan, J.-W. (2020) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.390209 · Cited by 27
NMR implementation of factoring large numbers with Gauß sums: Suppression of ghost factors
Peng, X., & Suter, D. (2008) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/84/40006 · Cited by 23
Scaling laws for Shor's algorithm with a banded quantum Fourier transform
Nam, Y., & Blümel, R. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.87.032333 · Cited by 24
Quantum optics and frontiers of physics: the third quantum revolution
Celi, A., Sanpera, A., Ahufinger, V., & Lewenstein, M. (2016) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/92/1/013003 · Cited by 25
Linear optical CNOT gate with orbital angular momentum and polarization
Lopes, J. H., Soares, W. C., Bernardo, B. D. L., Caetano, D. P., & Canabarro, A. (2019) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-019-2369-4 · Cited by 24
Factorization of numbers with Gauss sums: I. Mathematical background
Wölk, S., Merkel, W., Schleich, W. P., Averbukh, I. S., & Girard, B. (2011) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/10/103007 · Cited by 23
Experimental realization of SWAP operation on hyper-encoded qubits
Stárek, R., Miková, M., Straka, I., Dušek, M., Ježek, M., Fiurášek, J., & Mičuda, M. (2018) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.26.008443 · Cited by 22
Quantum fast hitting on glued trees mapped on a photonic chip
Shi, Z.-Y., Tang, H. L., Feng, Z., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Gao, J., Chang, Y.-J., Wang, T.-Y., Dou, J.-P., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. (2020) · Optica · doi:10.1364/optica.388451 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Lanyon, B. P., Weinhold, T. J., Langford, N. K., Barbieri, M., James, D. F. V., Gilchrist, A., & White, A. G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2007-12-19
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 250505-250505
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W1783862658
- Semantic Scholar
- 7699daaa2beac5d1aecea718fd4c5a433e639b4a
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 22.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Iris (Roma Tre University) (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- 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
- Keywords
- Shor's algorithm, quantum factoring, photonic quantum computing, quantum entanglement, coherent control, quantum circuit compilation, scalable quantum computing
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
