Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems
19991.2k citationsEmanuel Knill et al.Physical Review Lettersprofile →
Theory of quantum error-correcting codes
1997969 citationsEmanuel Knill, Raymond LaflammePhysical Review Aprofile →
Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices
This map shows the geographic impact of Emanuel Knill's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Emanuel Knill with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Emanuel Knill more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Emanuel Knill. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Emanuel Knill. The network helps show where Emanuel Knill may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Emanuel Knill
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Emanuel Knill.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Emanuel Knill based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Emanuel Knill. Emanuel Knill is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Kotler, Shlomi, G. A. Peterson, Ezad Shojaee, et al.. (2021). Direct observation of deterministic macroscopic entanglement. Science. 372(6542). 622–625.184 indexed citations breakdown →
Gaebler, John, Ting Rei Tan, Yiheng Lin, et al.. (2016). High Fidelity Universal Gate Set for 9Be+ Ion Qubits | NIST. Physical Review Letters.2 indexed citations
7.
Zhang, Yanbao, Scott Glancy, & Emanuel Knill. (2013). Efficient quantification of experimental evidence against local realism | NIST. Physical Review Letters.1 indexed citations
8.
Gaebler, John, Adam M. Meier, Ting Rei Tan, et al.. (2012). Randomized Benchmarking of Multiqubit Gates. Physical Review Letters. 108(26). 260503–260503.72 indexed citations
9.
Zhang, Yanbao, Scott Glancy, & Emanuel Knill. (2011). Asymptotically Optimal Confidences for Rejecting Local Realism | NIST. Physical Review A. 84(6).1 indexed citations
10.
Gerrits, Thomas, Scott Glancy, Tracy S. Clement, et al.. (2010). Generation of optical Schr\"odinger cat states by number-resolved photon subtraction from squeezed vacuum. arXiv (Cornell University).1 indexed citations
Knill, Emanuel. (2006). Protected realizations of quantum information (11 pages). Physical Review A. 74(4). 42301.4 indexed citations
13.
Knill, Emanuel & Scott Glancy. (2006). Error analysis for encoding a qubit in an oscillator (5 pages). Physical Review A. 73(1). 12325–54.2 indexed citations
14.
Chiaverini, John, D. Leibfried, Tobias Schaetz, et al.. (2004). Realization of quantum error correction | NIST. Nature. 432.1 indexed citations
15.
Somma, Rolando D., Gerardo Ortíz, Emanuel Knill, & J. E. Gubernatis. (2003). Quantum Simulations of Physics Problems.13 indexed citations
Knill, Emanuel, et al.. (1992). Abduction in Logic Programming with Equality.. Future Generation Computer Systems. 539–545.4 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.