Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical Bell-state analyzer

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
John Calsamiglia, Norbert Lütkenhaus

Quantum Physics · Submitted 18 Jul 2000

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We show, that within this subclass it is not possible to discriminate unambiguously four equiprobable Bell states with a probability higher than 50 %.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDquant-ph/0007058 (version 1)
Pith IDBNU6DONN, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJohn Calsamiglia, Norbert L\"utkenhaus. "Maximum efficiency of a linear-optical Bell-state analyzer." arXiv:quant-ph/0007058 (2000). https://pith.science/paper/BNU6DONN
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,873 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.70 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.02 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.87 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

In a photonic realization of qubits the implementation of quantum logic is rather difficult due the extremely weak interaction on the few photon level. On the other hand, in these systems interference is available to process the quantum states. We formalize the use of interference by the definition of a simple class of operations which include linear optical elements, auxiliary states and conditional operations. We investigate an important subclass of these tools, namely linear optical elements and auxiliary modes in the vacuum state. For this tools, we are able to extend a previous quantitative result, a no-go theorem for perfect Bell state analyzer on two qubits in polarization entanglement, by a quantitative statement. We show, that within this subclass it is not possible to discriminate unambiguously four equiprobable Bell states with a probability higher than 50 %.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 In a photonic realization of qubits the implementation of quantum logic is rather difficult due the extremely weak interaction on the few photon level. background 1.00 0.05 0.02 asserted 1.00
s1 On the other hand, in these systems interference is available to process the quantum states. background 1.00 0.06 0.02 asserted 0.94
s2 We formalize the use of interference by the definition of a simple class of operations which include linear optical elements, auxiliary states and conditional operations. method 0.55 0.89 0.03 asserted 0.99
s3 We investigate an important subclass of these tools, namely linear optical elements and auxiliary modes in the vacuum state. contribution 0.66 0.42 0.03 asserted 0.71
s4 For this tools, we are able to extend a previous quantitative result, a no-go theorem for perfect Bell state analyzer on two qubits in polarization entanglement, by a quantitative statement. contribution 0.94 0.79 0.12 asserted 0.71
s5 We show, that within this subclass it is not possible to discriminate unambiguously four equiprobable Bell states with a probability higher than 50 %. result 1.00 0.93 0.93 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

In a photonic realization of qubits the implementation of quantum logic is rather difficult due the extremely weak interaction on the few photon level. On the other hand, in these systems interference is available to process the quantum states. We formalize the use of interference by the definition of a simple class of operations which include linear optical elements, auxiliary states and conditional operations. We investigate an important subclass of these tools, namely linear optical elements and auxiliary modes in the vacuum state. For this tools, we are able to extend a previous quantitative result, a no-go theorem for perfect Bell state analyzer on two qubits in polarization entanglement, by a quantitative statement. We show, that within this subclass it is not possible to discriminate unambiguously four equiprobable Bell states with a probability higher than 50 %.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

References
How the literature uses it

3 arXiv papers cite this in 4 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.