Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 70 references

ShaNQar: Simulator of Network Quantique

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims ShaNQar reproduces real QKD and quantum teleportation experiments, with 1–4% QBER and at most 2% teleportation error.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new simulator whose central accuracy claim is only qualitatively validated; send to peer review but expect a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15865 v2 pith:MGAZ5745 submitted 2024-11-24 quant-ph

Anand Choudhary , Ajay Wasan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumnetworksimulatorkeydistributionBB84teleportationphotoniccommunicationpolarizationencodingsingle-photondetectiondiscrete-eventsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces ShaNQar, a modular photonic quantum network simulator whose components—photon, laser, weak laser, neutral-density filters, an SPDC entangled-pair source, fiber quantum and classical channels, mirrors, waveplates, beam splitters, single-photon detectors, and nodes—each carry tunable parameters. Its central claim is that ShaNQar can reproduce real-life quantum communication experiments: simulating an all-fiber BB84 QKD setup yields quantum bit error rates of 1–4% and secret key generation rates from about 0.1 Kb/s to 0.1 Mb/s, and simulating quantum teleportation yields at most 2% error. The authors take this agreement as demonstrating that the simulator accounts for component efficiencies, transmittances, noise, dark counts, and timing well enough to be used for tuning hardware and optimizing protocols before deployment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the component stack. Each photon carries a Jones-vector polarization state together with wavelength, linewidth, and temporal width; each optical component transforms that state using Jones matrices, noise channels (polarization rotation, depolarization, amplitude damping, phase damping, and complete decoherence), and probabilistic transmission or reflection; and the node-level detection analysis separates true photon arrivals from dark-count candidates by applying time cutoffs. Timing and synchronization come from a discrete-event simulation engine with effectively no time-resolution limit, and the environment adapts to each photon individually when two entangled photons propagate simultaneously. For teleportation, a 50:50 non-polarizing beam splitter followed by polarizing beam splitters implements partial Bell-state measurement: it distinguishes $|\psi^+\rangle$ and $|\psi^-\rangle$ outcomes, which are the cases used for teleportation, but cannot distinguish $|\phi^+\rangle$ from $|\phi^-\rangle$.

What would settle it

Fix every component parameter to the measured specifications of a single published fiber QKD experiment and a single published teleportation experiment, run the same protocols in ShaNQar, and compare the simulated per-detector click histograms, QBER-versus-distance curve, and teleportation error to the recorded data. If the simulated QBER leaves the 1–4% range or the teleportation error exceeds 2% once parameters are matched to that hardware, the accuracy claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery claim is that a single simulation stack, with no experiment-specific rewriting, reproduces the behavior of two real photonic experiments. For QKD, the simulated BB84 setup produces QBER that rises gradually from about 1% to 4% as the quantum channel grows from 1 km to 20 km, and key generation rates that decrease exponentially with distance, from roughly 0.1 Mb/s down to 0.1 Kb/s at the secret-key stage. For quantum teleportation, the measured states match the target states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ in about 99.5% and 99.6% of cases respectively, corresponding to a maximum error near 2%. The authors conclude that these results validate ShaNQar's reliability and accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claim rests on the assumption that the literature-derived parameter values in Tables I and II faithfully represent the real hardware of the reference experiments, and that the cited experimental ranges (1–4% QBER and about 2% teleportation error) are the right benchmark; the paper never compares its simulated curves or histograms directly with measured data from those experiments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can use ShaNQar to choose laser power, repetition rate, channel length, and detector settings before building hardware, and to estimate the maximum link length that still keeps QBER below a security threshold.
  • Under the modeled parameters, secret key generation decays roughly exponentially with distance, so a 20 km standard-fiber link should expect key rates near 0.1 Kb/s rather than the 0.1 Mb/s seen at short distances.
  • Because ShaNQar's Bell-state measurement is partial, simulated teleportation only succeeds on $|\psi^+\rangle$ and $|\psi^-\rangle$ detection events, so the success count will be lower than what full Bell-state measurement could deliver.
  • The modular design means new encoding schemes (time-bin, phase) and new components (quantum memories) can be added without rewriting the timing and synchronization core.
  • The effectively unlimited time resolution allows the simulator to track femtosecond-scale photon arrival statistics and dispersion-induced temporal broadening that nanosecond-resolution simulators miss.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported evidence establishes range-level agreement with published experiments; a natural next validation step is to fit simulated detection histograms to experimental ones, which would also identify which parameter dominates the residual error.
  • A use the authors do not demonstrate is protocol comparison: because components are modular, a user could hold hardware parameters fixed and compare BB84, decoy-state, or measurement-device-independent QKD under identical noise and loss conditions.
  • If the timing model performs as claimed, the same machinery could predict where quantum repeaters or quantum memories improve entanglement distribution rates on heterogeneous fiber links, since arrival jitter, dispersion, and dark counts are already modeled.
  • A useful next check, not reported in the paper, is the per-shot distribution of teleportation errors, since rare large deviations from polarization rotation or dark-count clustering could dominate practical failure rates even when the average error is 2%.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ShaNQar, a modular photonic quantum network simulator built on the SimPy discrete-event framework. It models photons, lasers, neutral-density filters, entangled-photon-pair sources, quantum channels, mirrors, waveplates, beam splitters, single-photon detectors, and nodes, with a polarization-based (Jones vector) description of quantum states and standard quantum-operation noise models. The authors implement BB84 QKD and a linear-optics quantum teleportation protocol, and they claim to have 'successfully simulated previous real-life experimental setups' for both, reporting QBER 1–4%, key generation rates from 0.1 kb/s to 0.1 Mb/s, and a maximum teleportation error of about 2%. The component-level derivations (e.g., the NPBS unitary and HOM cancellation) are mostly standard and appear sound, but the validation of the central 'reliability and accuracy' claim rests on qualitative agreement with literature ranges rather than quantitative comparison with the cited experiments.

Significance. If the accuracy claim were properly established, ShaNQar would be a useful open-source addition to the quantum network simulator landscape: it offers a modular component library, explicit timing control, and a broad set of tunable parameters, and it ships with public code. The paper also gives a careful derivation of the 50:50 beam-splitter transformation and its use in Bell-state measurement, which is correctly presented. However, the paper's headline contribution is the validation against real experiments, and that validation is not currently convincing. The strengths—open code, modular design, and standard theoretical components—do not by themselves demonstrate that simulations reproduce real hardware behavior without a direct, quantitative comparison to measured data.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.2.2 and IV.2.2] The central accuracy claim is not supported by the evidence presented. In Section III.2.2 the simulated QBER and KGRs are stated to be "in line with previous QKD experiments" with references [37,38], but no measured data from those experiments are overlaid on Figs. 5–6 or compared through any statistical measure. Similarly, Section IV.2.2 states agreement with [40,41] based on a "maximum error of ≈2%", but the reported fidelities of those references are not discussed, and no direct comparison is made to Fig. 8. Because the abstract and conclusion rest on "demonstrating the reliability and accuracy of ShaNQar," this validation gap is load-bearing.
  2. [IV.2.2] Teleportation success counts are internally inconsistent. The text says teleportation was attempted 2500 times per run over 10 runs (25,000 attempts per target state) and reports "≈ 10^4 qubits and 10^6 qubits" successfully transmitted. If these are 10^4 and 10^6, neither matches the approximately 99.5% success implied by a 2% maximum error (about 24,875 successes); 10^6 exceeds the total number of attempts. These numbers need to be corrected and reconciled with the success rate before the simulation results can be interpreted.
  3. [Tables I and II] Parameter provenance is insufficient for a validation claim. The tables describe all parameters as "established from the literature" with aggregated citation groups [1,36,37] and [1,20,39], but individual parameters—especially noise levels such as NL=0.01, γ_amp_damp=0.3, λ_phase_damp=0.45, Fpol=0.90, and p=0.3—are not tied to specific hardware values of the experiments being reproduced. Without per-parameter justification, the reported agreement could be an artifact of the chosen parameters rather than evidence of simulator accuracy.
  4. [III.2.1 and IV.2.1] The comparability of the cited experimental benchmarks is questionable. Section III.2.1 explicitly notes that the inspired setup [36] uses free-space channels while the simulation is all-fiber, and the quoted benchmark [37] is a 122-km fiber experiment, whereas Figs. 5–6 cover 1–20 km. Section IV.2.1 states the setup is inspired by [39] (Bouwmeester et al.), but the validation cites [40,41] without showing that their parameter regimes match. These differences need to be addressed quantitatively before claiming agreement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.2.2] The notation "2.2 100 µa pulses" near the end of the first paragraph is unreadable; it should be typeset as a numeric coefficient times a power of ten divided by µ_a.
  2. [II.10.1] In Eq. (55), the cancelled terms |1⟩_3|1⟩_4 and −|1⟩_3|1⟩_4 appear as display artifacts; the equation should be written so the cancellation is mathematically clear, for example by pairing the terms explicitly.
  3. [References] Reference [28] attributes "Fiber-Optic Communication Systems" to C. C. Gerry and P. L. Knight; the standard author of this book is G. P. Agrawal, so this reference should be corrected or replaced.
  4. [IV.2.2] The phrase "≈ 104 qubits and 106 qubits" lacks superscripts; the intended powers of ten should be typeset consistently as 10^4 and 10^6.
  5. [Fig. 8] The y-axis label "Measured Quantum State [in %]" is ambiguous; it should state that the bars show the percentage of detected events, and the legend labels "% |0" and "% |1" appear truncated.
  6. [II.4] The sentence in Section II.4 that "the energy of the photon(s) transmitted by the ND filter is less than or equal to the maximum allowable value" is physically imprecise: individual photons are not partially attenuated; the model should be described in terms of a probabilistic transmission probability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QBER and teleportation fidelity emerge from independent component models, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing Cascade implementation.

full rationale

The paper's accuracy claim rests on simulated QBERs, KGRs, and teleportation fidelities produced by a discrete-event simulation of Jones-calculus polarization states, Poissonian weak-laser sources, SPDC entanglement sources, fiber loss and noise, detector dark counts, and standard BB84/teleportation post-processing. No target quantity (QBER 1-4%, maximum teleportation error 2%) is used as a fitting target or inserted as an input; the parameters in Tables I and II are stated as 'established from the literature' and the outputs were not shown to be fitted to the cited ranges. The only self-citation is [33] (Choudhary and Wasan) for the Cascade reconciliation implementation; this is a subroutine and does not carry the simulator-validation claim, so it is not load-bearing. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz-by-citation, and no renaming of a known result. The validation is nevertheless weak on non-circularity grounds: Section III.2.2 compares to broad literature ranges without raw-data overlays or statistical tests, Section IV.2.2 compares 98% fidelity to experiments [40,41] that report lower fidelities, and the reported teleportation success counts (about 10^4 and 10^6 qubits with 2500 attempts per run over 10 runs) are internally inconsistent. These are benchmarking and correctness concerns, not circularity, so the circularity score stays near zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

ShaNQar introduces no new physical entities; it is a simulator. Its central accuracy claim rests on hand-set parameters, listed above, and on standard quantum-optics modeling assumptions. The main issue is that the noise and detection parameters are not derived from or benchmarked against a specific experimental dataset.

free parameters (5)
  • Laser and channel noise levels: NL=0.01, gamma_amp_damp=0.3, lambda_phase_damp=0.45, Fpol=0.90, depolarization p=0.3 = NL=0.01, gamma=0.3, lambda=0.45, Fpol=0.90, p=0.3
    Set by hand in Tables I and II; these probabilities directly determine the reported QBER and teleportation fidelity, but the text only says they come from literature with no per-parameter source mapping.
  • Weak laser mean photon number for QKD = 0.2179 photons per pulse (Table I: 10^5 photons/s)
    Hand-picked operating point chosen so that about 128 raw key photons reach Bob; it controls the raw KGR, multi-photon rate, and QBER through detector statistics.
  • Detection analysis cutoff multiplier k = not specified
    User-specified threshold in Section II.12 for defining minimum and maximum photon transmission times; the paper never gives its value in the simulations, though it changes which dark counts are considered true events.
  • Cascade error-probability offset = QBER estimate + 2%
    Chosen in Section III.2.1 to compensate for QBER estimation error; it directly affects whether information reconciliation succeeds and the final secret key rate.
  • Privacy amplification compression factor f = half the reconciled key length
    Set as a worst-case estimate in Section III.2.1; it determines the reported secret key generation rate, and the choice is not derived from a security proof.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption A photon's quantum state is completely described by a polarization Jones vector (Section II.1); all encoding is polarization based.
    This restricts the simulator to polarization qubits and ignores time-bin, phase, and spectral mode encodings that real networks also use.
  • domain assumption Loss, noise, and component imperfections act as trace-preserving quantum operations with probabilities chosen per component (Sections II.1, II.3-II.11).
    The accuracy of the QBER and fidelity claims depends on the validity of these Markovian, memoryless noise models.
  • domain assumption SPDC sources produce the ideal entangled states given by Kwiat et al [21] and White et al [20], with a user-set conversion efficiency (Section II.6).
    The simulation does not model the full spatiotemporal mode structure of down-conversion, only the resulting two-qubit state.
  • domain assumption Fiber transmission is governed by T=10^{-alpha L/10} and dispersion spreads arrival times as a Gaussian with sigma = D_chr Delta_lambda L (Eqs 33-36).
    Standard single-mode fiber model; any real-fiber effects beyond attenuation and first-order chromatic dispersion are omitted.
  • domain assumption The classical channel is lossless, completely reliable, and only adds the mean propagation delay (Section II.7.2).
    This idealization is acceptable for timing but means classical communication errors or delays are not simulated.
  • domain assumption Detector dark counts follow a Poisson process; dead time and timing jitter follow the model in Eq 65 and the detection analysis rules of Section II.12.
    These heuristics, earliest candidate triggers and cutoff-based true/false classification, are not validated against measured detector data.
  • standard math The 50:50 NPBS transformation with t=1/sqrt(2), r=i/sqrt(2) and HOM cancellation of identical photons is correct (Section II.10.1).
    Standard quantum optics result, correctly derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Cascade information reconciliation as optimized in [33] and Toeplitz universal hashing work as assumed (Sections III.1.1-III.1.2).
    The paper relies on a self-cited algorithm and standard hashing; no new proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ShaNQar: Simulator of Network Quantique." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MGAZ5745

@misc{pith2026241115865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ShaNQar: Simulator of Network Quantique},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MGAZ5745}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15865}
}
read the original abstract

The nature-inspired field of quantum communication has witnessed exciting developments over the past few years with countries all over the world working hard to scale their experimental quantum networks to larger sizes and increased coverage. Evidently, quantum network simulators are the need of the hour as they provide a framework for tuning hardware parameters, optimizing control protocols, and testing configurations of large and complex quantum networks before their deployment in the real world. In this work, we present ShaNQar (Simulator of Network Quantique): a modular and customizable photonic quantum network simulator. It comprises models of components such as photons, lasers, neutral density filters, sources of entangled photon pairs, communication channels, mirrors, waveplates, beam splitters, single photon detectors, and nodes which incorporate a diverse set of tunable parameters for variability and versatility. It enables adaptive timing control and synchronization with virtually no simulation time resolution limit and features a 'plug and play' design for faster coding and efficient execution. We successfully simulated previous real-life experimental setups for Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) and quantum teleportation, thereby, demonstrating the reliability and accuracy of ShaNQar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15865 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Different types of noise modelled within the Quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Overview of ShaNQar’s main components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Experimental setup for QKD simulation (The setup is not drawn to scale and is rather enlarged in certain areas for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. QBER v/s QC length for the polarization-encoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. KGRs v/s QC length for the polarization-encoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Experimental setup for QT simulation (The setup is not drawn to scale and is rather enlarged in certain areas for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Post-correction measured quantum states resulting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics, 3rd ed. (Academic Press (Elsevier), 2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [37]

    P. S. Theocaris and E. E. Gdoutos, Matrix Theory of Photoelasticity (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [39]

    C. C. Gerry and P. L. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  4. [1]

    Alice chooses 2 random classical bit strings of length Ntr, say, p and q and then encodes each bit of p in the basis indicated by the correspond- ing bit of q. Thus, q represents a random string of polarization bases: a 0 represents the Rectilin- ear (Horizontal/Vertical) or Z basis while a 1 rep- resents the Diagonal (Diagonal/Anti-Diagonal) or X basis. ...

    work page

  5. [2]

    Further, (here) B denotes the transformation matrix of the NPBS such that: B = t r r t

    and output field modes (subscripts 3 and 4) and t and r represent the transmittance and the reflectance of the NPBS respectively. Further, (here) B denotes the transformation matrix of the NPBS such that: B = t r r t . Since B is unitary, BB † = I and thus, t r r t t∗ r∗ r∗ t∗ = 1 0 0 1 , which upon simplification yields: |t|2 + |r|2 = 1, (44) and tr∗ + r...

    work page

  6. [3]

    |0⟩3 |0⟩4 = 1√ 2 (|1⟩3 |0⟩4 + i |0⟩3 |1⟩4). Hence, the probabilities of obtaining the above 2 states at the output end of the 50:50 NPBS are given by: P (Output = |1⟩3 |0⟩4) = 1√ 2 2 = 1 2 , and P (Output = |0⟩3 |1⟩4) = i√ 2 2 = 1 2 . which clearly means that the transmission and reflection of a single photon incident on a 50:50 NPBS are equiprob- able. N...

    work page

  7. [4]

    (51) Further, expressing |t| as teiθ and |r| as reiϕ and using (45), we get that: |t||r|ei(θ−ϕ) + |r||t|ei(ϕ−θ) = 0 =⇒ 2|t||r| ei(θ−ϕ) + e−i(θ−ϕ) 2 = 0 =⇒ 2|t||r| cos (θ − ϕ) = 0

    (50) Considering the case of a 50:50 NPBS, since |t| = |r|, using (44), we get that: |t| = |r| = 1√ 2 . (51) Further, expressing |t| as teiθ and |r| as reiϕ and using (45), we get that: |t||r|ei(θ−ϕ) + |r||t|ei(ϕ−θ) = 0 =⇒ 2|t||r| ei(θ−ϕ) + e−i(θ−ϕ) 2 = 0 =⇒ 2|t||r| cos (θ − ϕ) = 0. Using (51), we get that: cos (θ − ϕ) = 0. Hence, θ − ϕ = ± π 2 . 9 Since ...

    work page

  8. [5]

    (56) Thus, the 2 photons can be transmitted or reflected to- gether with the same probability

    |0⟩3 |0⟩4 = 1 2 (i |2⟩3 |0⟩4 + |1⟩3 |1⟩4 − |1⟩3 |1⟩4 + i |0⟩3 |2⟩4) (55) = i√ 2 (|2⟩3 |0⟩4 + |0⟩3 |2⟩4). (56) Thus, the 2 photons can be transmitted or reflected to- gether with the same probability. It is however, not pos- sible for one of the photons to be reflected and the other one to be transmitted. This is the Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) effect [26]. Note ...

    work page

Show all 70 references
  1. [6]

    Corresponding to each quantum state |ψpiqi ⟩ sent by Alice, Bob receives the state E(|ψpiqi ⟩⟨ψpiqi |), where, E refers to the quantum operation encap- sulating the effects of both (any possible) eaves- dropping and (the ubiquitous) noise. It is impor- tant to note that in a p...

  2. [7]

    At his end, Bob checks the indices of the bit strings q and q′ so as to figure out a list of indices qidx,same such that ∀ k ∈ qidx,same, qk = q′ k

    With the help of a public (classical) channel, Al- ice then communicates the value of q to Bob. At his end, Bob checks the indices of the bit strings q and q′ so as to figure out a list of indices qidx,same such that ∀ k ∈ qidx,same, qk = q′ k. He then sends across qidx,same t...

  3. [8]

    c is essentially the check list which serves as a check on any unacceptable level of noise and eavesdropping effects

    Alice then randomly chooses a half of the bits in ep such that their indices (together) form a list c of length j Nsif t 2 k . c is essentially the check list which serves as a check on any unacceptable level of noise and eavesdropping effects. Alice and Bob then share with th...

  4. [9]

    In order to correct errors in s′ and hence, obtain a string es′ ≈ s, Alice and Bob perform information reconciliation

    Evidently, even s and s′ wouldn’t be completely equal to one another. In order to correct errors in s′ and hence, obtain a string es′ ≈ s, Alice and Bob perform information reconciliation. Effectively, es′ is Bob’s reconciled key string

  5. [10]

    The information reconciliation stage does involve the exchange of some information regarding the key shared by Alice and Bob over a public channel which may give an eavesdropper additional infor- mation to construct the same key. Consequently, Alice and Bob use a process known...

  6. [11]

    Es- sentially, this is because PBS HV will generally transmit a horizontally polarized photon and re- flect a vertically polarized photon

    If an incoming photon with a quantum state |ψ⟩ ≡ |0⟩ or |ψ⟩ ≡ |1⟩ is reflected by the NPBS to the quantum channel QC PBS HV, it will then be effectively measured in the correct basis by the polarizing beam splitter PBS HV positioned at the receiver end of QC PBS HV (provided t...

  7. [12]

    As noted earlier in Section II.9, (upto an irrelevant global phase factor) such a half- wave plate acts as a Hadamard ( H) gate

    If an incoming photon with a quantum state |ψ⟩ ≡ |+⟩ or |ψ⟩ ≡ |−⟩is reflected by the NPBS to the quantum channel QC HWP, it will then be made to pass through the half-waveplate HWP in- clined at θ = π 8 . As noted earlier in Section II.9, (upto an irrelevant global phase facto...

  8. [13]

    If an incoming photon with a quantum state |ψ⟩ ≡ |+⟩ or |ψ⟩ ≡ |−⟩is reflected by the NPBS to the quantum channel QC PBS HV, it will then be ef- fectively measured in the incorrect basis by the po- larizing beam splitter PBS HV positioned at the receiver end of QC PBS HV. Furth...

  9. [14]

    When such photons are made to pass through HWP, their quantum states will be effectively changed to |+⟩ and |−⟩ respectively

    If an incoming photon with a quantum state |ψ⟩ ≡ |0⟩ or |ψ⟩ ≡ |1⟩ is reflected by the NPBS to the quantum channel QC HWP, it will then be effec- tively measured in the incorrect basis by the polar- izing beam splitter PBS DA. When such photons are made to pass through HWP, the...

  10. [15]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information , 10th Anniversary ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  11. [16]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits, Science 372, 259 (2021)

    2021

  12. [17]

    M. Fore, Chicago expands and activates quantum net- work, taking steps toward a secure quantum internet, https://news.uchicago.edu/story/chicago-quantum -network-argonne-pritzker-molecular-engineering -toshiba (2022)

    2022

  13. [18]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwra, H. Ishizuka, W. Klaus, K. Wakui, M. Takeoka, A. Tanaka, K. Yoshino, Y. Nambu, S. Taka- hashi, A. Tajima, A. Tomita, T. Domeki, T. Hasegawa, Y. Sakai, H. Kobayashi, T. Asai, K. Shimizu, T. Tokura, T. Tsurumaru, M. Matsui, T. Honjo, K. Tamaki, H. Takesue, ...

    2011

  14. [19]

    Y.-A. Chen, Q. Zhang, T.-Y. Chen, W.-Q. Cai, S.-K. Liao, J. Zhang, K. Chen, J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, Z. Chen, and et al., An integrated space-to-ground quantum com- munication network over 4,600 kilometres, Nature 589, 214–219 (2021)

    2021

  15. [20]

    ID Quantique, IDQ and SK Broadband complete phase one of nation-wide Korean QKD Network, https://ww w.idquantique.com/idq-and-sk-broadband-complet e-phase-one-of-nation-wide-korean-qkd-network/ (2022)

    2022

  16. [21]

    Quantum Communications Hub, The UK Quantum Net- work, https://www.quantumcommshub.net/research-c ommunity/about-the-hub/phase-2/work-package-1/ (2020)

    2020

  17. [22]

    Stucki, M

    D. Stucki, M. Legr´ e, F. Buntschu, B. Clausen, N. Felber, N. Gisin, L. Henzen, P. Junod, G. Litzistorf, P. Mon- baron, L. Monat, J. B. Page, D. Perroud, G. Ribordy, A. Rochas, S. Robyr, J. Tavares, R. T. Thew, P. Trinkler, S. Ventura, R. Voirol, N. Walenta, and H. Zbinden, Lo...

    2011

  18. [23]

    M. Ramesh, Building India’s home-grown quantum in- ternet network, https://www.thehindubusinessline.c 22 om/business-tech/building-indias-home-grown-qua ntum-internet-network/article69040549.ece (2023)

    2023

  19. [24]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  20. [25]

    Capra, Shiva’s cosmic dance at cern, https://www

    F. Capra, Shiva’s cosmic dance at cern, https://www. fritjofcapra.net/shivas-cosmic-dance-at-cern/ (2004)

    2004

  21. [26]

    Team SimPy, SimPy, https://simpy.readthedocs.io /en/4.0.2/ (2023)

    2023

  22. [27]

    Hecht, Optics, 5th Global ed

    E. Hecht, Optics, 5th Global ed. (Pearson, 2017)

    2017

  23. [28]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Ghosh, A

    J. Ghosh, A. G. Fowler, and M. R. Geller, Surface code with decoherence: An analysis of three superconducting architectures, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062318 (2012)

    2012

  25. [30]

    Lasota and P

    M. Lasota and P. Kolenderski, Optimal photon pairs for quantum communication protocols, Sci Rep 10, 20810 (2020)

    2020

  26. [31]

    Thyagarajan and A

    K. Thyagarajan and A. Ghatak, Lasers: Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed. (Springer, 2010)

    2010

  27. [32]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  28. [33]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  29. [34]

    A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhard, and P. G. Kwiat, Nonmaximally entangled states: Produc- tion, characterization, and utilization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3103 (1999)

    1999

  30. [35]

    P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4337 (1995)

    1995

  31. [38]

    Paschotta, Beam splitters, RP Photonics Encyclope- dia (2008)

    R. Paschotta, Beam splitters, RP Photonics Encyclope- dia (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  33. [41]

    Hadfield, Single-photon detectors for optical quantum information applications, Nature Photonics 3, 696–705 (2009)

    R. Hadfield, Single-photon detectors for optical quantum information applications, Nature Photonics 3, 696–705 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    C. C. Gerry and P. L. Knight, Fiber-Optic Communica- tion Systems , 5th ed. (Wiley, 2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Diffie and M

    W. Diffie and M. Hellman, New directions in cryptogra- phy, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 22, 644 (1976)

    1976

  36. [44]

    R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adleman, A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosys- tems, Commun. ACM 21, 120–126 (1978)

    1978

  37. [45]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in IEEE Inter- national Conference on Computers Systems and Signal Processing (1984) pp. 175–179

    1984

  38. [46]

    Wiesner, Conjugate coding, SIGACT News 15, 78–88 (1983)

    S. Wiesner, Conjugate coding, SIGACT News 15, 78–88 (1983)

    1983

  39. [47]

    Choudhary and A

    A. Choudhary and A. Wasan, Cracking the curious case of the cascade protocol, IEEE Access 11, 84709 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and J.-M. Robert, Privacy amplification by public discussion, SIAM J. Comput. 17, 210–229 (1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    C.-H. F. Fung, X. Ma, and H. F. Chau, Practical issues in quantum-key-distribution postprocessing, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012318 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    A. Jain, A. Khanna, J. Bhatt, P. V. Sakhiya, and R. K. Bahl, Experimental demonstration of free space quan- tum key distribution system based on the bb84 proto- col, in 2020 11th International Conference on Comput- ing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICC- CNT) (202...

    2020

  43. [51]

    Gobby, Z

    C. Gobby, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Quan- tum key distribution over 122 km of stan- dard telecom fiber, Applied Physics Letters 84, 3762 (2004), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/84/19/3762/18588579/3762 1 online.pdf

    2004

  44. [52]

    Almeida, N

    ´Alvaro J. Almeida, N. J. Muga, N. A. Silva, A. D. Sto- janovic, P. S. Andr´ e, A. N. Pinto, J. Mora, and J. Cap- many, Enabling quantum communications through accu- rate photons polarization control, in 8th Iberoamerican Optics Meeting and 11th Latin American Meeting on Op- t...

    2013

  45. [53]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We- infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum tele- portation, Nature 390, 575 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Valivarthi, M

    R. Valivarthi, M. G. Puigibert, Q. Zhou, G. H. Aguilar, V. B. Verma, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, D. Oblak, and W. Tittel, Quantum teleportation across a metropolitan fibre network, Nature Photonics 10, 676 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    S. Shen, C. Yuan, Z. Zhang, H. Yu, R. Zhang, C. Yang, H. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, G. Deng, H. Song, L. You, Y. Fan, G. Guo, and Q. Zhou, Hertz-rate metropolitan quantum teleportation, Light: Science & Applications 12, 115 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Diadamo, J

    S. Diadamo, J. N¨ otzel, B. Zanger, and M. M. Be¸ se, QuNetSim: a software framework for quantum networks, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    L. Chen, K. Xue, J. Li, N. Yu, R. Li, Q. Sun, and J. Lu, SimQN: a network-layer simulator for the quantum net- work investigation, IEEE Network , 1 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Dahlberg and S

    A. Dahlberg and S. Wehner, SimulaQron — a simula- tor for developing quantum internet software, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Diadamo and J

    S. Diadamo and J. N¨ otzel, QuNetSim: a software frame- work for quantum networks, https://tqsd.github.io /QuNetSim/intro.html (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Chen, Welcome to SimQN’s documentation!, https: //ertuil.github.io/SimQN/introduction.html#overv iew (2022)

    L. Chen, Welcome to SimQN’s documentation!, https: //ertuil.github.io/SimQN/introduction.html#overv iew (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Bartlett, A distributed simulation frame- work for quantum networks and channels (2018), arXiv:1808.07047 [quant-ph]

    B. Bartlett, A distributed simulation frame- work for quantum networks and channels (2018), arXiv:1808.07047 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Satoh, M

    R. Satoh, M. Hajduˇ sek, N. Benchasattabuse, S. Na- gayama, K. Teramoto, T. Matsuo, S. A. Metwalli, P. Pathumsoot, T. Satoh, S. Suzuki, and R. V. Meter, QuISP: a quantum internet simulation package, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QC...

    2022

  55. [63]

    Coopmans, R

    T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, and D. Maier et 23 al., NetSquid, a NETwork Simulator for QUantum Infor- mation using Discrete events, Communications Physics 4, 10.1038/s42005-021-00647-8 (2021)

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    X. Wu, J. Chung, A. Kolar, E. Wang, T. Zhong, R. Ket- timuthu, and M. Suchara, Simulations of photonic quan- tum networks for performance analysis and experiment design, in 2019 IEEE/ACM Workshop on Photonics- Optics Technology Oriented Networking, Information and Computing Sy...

    2019

  57. [65]

    X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Ket- timuthu, and M. Suchara, SeQUeNCe: a customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 045027 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    A. Zang, A. Kolar, J. Chung, M. Suchara, T. Zhong, and R. Kettimuthu, Simulation of entanglement generation between absorptive quantum memories, in2022 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and En- gineering (QCE) (2022) pp. 617–623

    2022

  59. [67]

    Mazza, C

    F. Mazza, C. Zhan, J. Chung, R. Kettimuthu, M. Cal- effi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Simulation of entanglement- enabled connectivity in qlans using sequence (2024), arXiv:2411.11031 [quant-ph]

    2024

  60. [68]

    IEEE, Ieee standard for floating-point arithmetic, IEEE Std 754-2019 (Revision of IEEE 754-2008) , 1 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Ket- timuthu, and M. Suchara, SeQUeNCe: a customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks, https: //github.com/sequence-toolbox/SeQUeNCe (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, M. Suchara, and R. Kettimuthu, Parallel simulation of quantum networks with distributed quantum state management, ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 34, 10.1145/3634701 (2024)

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.