pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06928 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Realistic Simulation of Quantum Repeater with Encoding and Classical Error Correction

Sagar Patange , Caitao Zhan , Bikun Li , Joaquin Chung , Allen Zang , Liang Jiang , Rajkumar Kettimuthu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 00:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum repeaterserror correctionlogical entanglementquantum simulationentanglement swappingCSS codesnetwork protocols
0
0 comments X

The pith

The QRE-CEC protocol suppresses all modeled errors to the second order and distributes logical Bell pairs with 0.91 fidelity over 2000 km.

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

This paper implements a quantum repeater protocol that uses encoding and classical error correction inside a discrete-event network simulator. It adds support for stabilizer codes, encoded operations based on CSS codes, and noise models for gates, measurements, idle decoherence, and initialization. Simulations show the protocol reduces every included error source to second order. The same runs produce logical Bell pairs at 0.91 fidelity after 2000 km under the chosen parameters. The work also surfaces concrete simulator and control-plane issues that theoretical analyses usually omit.

Core claim

By extending a quantum network simulator with a stabilizer backend, CSS-code encoded gates and measurements, and explicit noise channels, the QRE-CEC protocol performs encoded entanglement swapping followed by classical error correction on the measurement outcomes to decide Pauli-frame corrections. Under these conditions every modeled error is suppressed to second order, and logical Bell pairs reach 0.91 fidelity across 2000 km.

What carries the argument

Encoded entanglement swapping with classical error correction applied to the decoding of measurement outcomes to determine Pauli-frame corrections.

If this is right

  • Logical Bell pairs become distributable over continental distances once encoding and classical correction are combined at the repeater nodes.
  • Second-order error suppression removes the dominant error terms that limit raw physical repeaters.
  • Control-plane software must handle Pauli-frame updates and syndrome decoding in real time for the protocol to function.
  • Simulator extensions that include stabilizer operations are required to evaluate any fault-tolerant repeater architecture.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Accurate noise modeling in simulators can reveal control bottlenecks before hardware is built.
  • The same simulation approach could be used to compare different CSS codes or surface-code variants for repeater performance.
  • Practical quantum networks will need tighter coupling between classical error-correction logic and quantum control hardware than most current models assume.

Load-bearing premise

The added stabilizer backend and noise models in the simulator correctly capture the behavior of real quantum hardware when performing encoded operations.

What would settle it

Running the same QRE-CEC sequence on physical hardware and measuring whether the observed error rates remain second-order and the final logical fidelity reaches 0.91 at 2000 km.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06928 by Allen Zang, Bikun Li, Caitao Zhan, Joaquin Chung, Liang Jiang, Rajkumar Kettimuthu, Sagar Patange.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A quantum repeater with encoding has three types of qubits: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The QRE-CEC protocol. (a) Phases one through three: heralded entanglement generation, fault-tolerant logical state preparation, and logical teleported CNOT, which together produce encoded Bell pairs between neigh￾boring nodes. (b) All five phases of QRE-CEC, adding encoded swapping with classical error correction and Pauli-frame correction to generate end-to￾end logical Bell pairs. detector efficiency cont… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Paetznick–Reichardt 8-CNOT encoder with minimal verification [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gate teleportation circuit for the nonlocal CNOT [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of new modules introduced to SeQUeNCe to fully support [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Logical Bell-pair fidelity under sweeps of six physical error parameters for linear topologies with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: End-to-End Logical Bell-pair Fidelity versus the hardware sweep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: End-to-end fidelity (left) and latency (right) versus number of links [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: End-to-end fidelity (left) and latency (right) versus total distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum repeaters are essential for scalable long-distance quantum networking. As quantum information processing moves toward fault-tolerant and error-corrected operations, it becomes increasingly important to study quantum repeaters that also move beyond raw physical entanglement and towards logical entanglement. In this paper, we implement and simulate the quantum repeater with encoding and classical error correction (QRE-CEC) protocol in SeQUeNCe, a discrete-event simulator of quantum networks. The protocol distributes logical Bell pairs, performs encoded entanglement swapping, and uses classical error correction for the decoding of entanglement swapping measurement outcomes to determine Pauli-frame corrections. For this study, we extend SeQUeNCe with a stabilizer-based backend, add support for CSS code-based encoded operations, and integrate gate, measurement, idle decoherence, and state-initialization noise models. Our simulation results show that QRE-CEC suppresses all modeled errors to the second order. Also, QRE-CEC can distribute logical Bell pairs with 0.91 fidelity over a distance of 2000 km under the parameter regimes we study. Beyond protocol-level performance evaluation, our implementation exposes practical simulator and control-plane challenges that are typically abstracted away in theoretical studies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript implements the quantum repeater with encoding and classical error correction (QRE-CEC) protocol in the SeQUeNCe discrete-event simulator. It extends SeQUeNCe with a stabilizer-based backend supporting CSS codes, encoded operations, and phenomenological noise models for gates, measurements, idle decoherence, and initialization. Simulation results are reported showing that QRE-CEC suppresses all modeled errors to second order and distributes logical Bell pairs with 0.91 fidelity over 2000 km, while also identifying practical simulator and control-plane challenges.

Significance. If the new backend extensions are shown to be correctly implemented, the work would provide a useful contribution by enabling realistic performance evaluation of encoded quantum repeaters in a discrete-event setting that includes explicit classical communication and decoding. The explicit treatment of multiple noise channels and the identification of implementation challenges not captured in purely theoretical analyses are strengths that could inform future protocol design and simulator development.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims that QRE-CEC 'suppresses all modeled errors to the second order' and achieves '0.91 fidelity' over 2000 km rest on outputs from the newly added stabilizer backend, CSS gate/measurement support, and noise models. The manuscript states that these extensions were implemented but supplies no cross-validation against analytic formulas for small codes, against other simulators, or against hardware-calibrated rates. Without such checks, it is impossible to rule out simulator-specific artifacts in Pauli-frame tracking, error accumulation during swapping, or decoding that could produce the reported quadratic suppression.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The results are stated to hold 'under the parameter regimes we study' but no specific values are given for gate error probabilities, decoherence times, code distance, or number of simulation runs, limiting the ability to reproduce or interpret the 0.91 fidelity figure.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from including statistical error bars or confidence intervals on the reported fidelity and error-rate curves to allow assessment of the precision of the second-order suppression claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive assessment of our work and for highlighting the importance of validating the new simulator extensions. We address the major comment in detail below and will incorporate the suggested improvements in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims that QRE-CEC 'suppresses all modeled errors to the second order' and achieves '0.91 fidelity' over 2000 km rest on outputs from the newly added stabilizer backend, CSS gate/measurement support, and noise models. The manuscript states that these extensions were implemented but supplies no cross-validation against analytic formulas for small codes, against other simulators, or against hardware-calibrated rates. Without such checks, it is impossible to rule out simulator-specific artifacts in Pauli-frame tracking, error accumulation during swapping, or decoding that could produce the reported quadratic suppression.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit cross-validation for the stabilizer backend is a limitation that should be addressed. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix (and corresponding discussion in the main text) that validates the new backend for small CSS codes under the phenomenological noise model. Specifically, we will demonstrate that the logical error rate for the [[7,1,3]] Steane code scales quadratically with the physical error probability for the modeled gate, measurement, idle, and initialization channels, matching the expected analytic behavior of a distance-3 code. We will also include short-distance (few-hop) simulations of logical Bell-pair fidelity and compare these against direct analytic calculations that omit network-level effects, thereby confirming the correctness of Pauli-frame tracking, encoded swapping, and classical decoding. Direct comparison against other simulators is difficult because of differing modeling assumptions and lack of a common benchmark suite for encoded repeaters, but we will note consistency with existing literature results on error suppression in encoded entanglement distribution. Hardware-calibrated rates are outside the scope of this simulation study, as our parameters are chosen to illustrate protocol scaling rather than to match a particular experimental platform; the phenomenological models remain adjustable for future device-specific studies. These additions will directly address the possibility of simulator-specific artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of discrete-event simulation runs on extended simulator code.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (second-order error suppression and 0.91 logical Bell-pair fidelity at 2000 km) are generated by running the QRE-CEC protocol inside the SeQUeNCe discrete-event simulator after the authors added a stabilizer backend, CSS encoded operations, and phenomenological noise models. These are implementation outputs, not analytic derivations that reduce to the paper's own definitions or fitted parameters. No equations are presented that equate a 'prediction' to an input by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The work is self-contained as a simulation study; any concerns about backend validation belong to correctness or external benchmarking rather than circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulation depends on unstated assumptions about noise model fidelity and the correctness of the new stabilizer backend; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The added gate, measurement, idle decoherence, and state-initialization noise models correctly capture physical error processes.
    Invoked to justify that the simulated error suppression reflects realistic hardware behavior.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5521 in / 1206 out tokens · 50176 ms · 2026-05-11T00:48:19.510128+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,”Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet,

    W. Kozlowski, S. Wehner, R. V . Meter, B. Rijsman, A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, and S. Nagayama, “Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet,” RFC 9340, Mar. 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    InterQnet: A heterogeneous full-stack approach to co-designing scalable quantum net- works,

    J. Chung, D. Dilley, E. Eastman, A. Gonzaleset al., “InterQnet: A heterogeneous full-stack approach to co-designing scalable quantum net- works,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2026, to appear

    2026

  4. [4]

    Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics,

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics,” Nature, vol. 414, pp. 413–418, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Progress in quantum teleportation,

    X. Hu, Y . Guo, B. Liu, C. Li, and G. Guo, “Progress in quantum teleportation,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 5, pp. 339–353, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, “Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 045006, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Distributed quantum computing: A survey,

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Distributed quantum computing: A survey,”Computer Networks, vol. 254, p. 110672, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link,

    D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas, “Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link,”Nature, vol. 638, pp. 383– 388, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    SwitchQNet: Optimizing distributed quantum computing for quantum data centers with switch networks,

    H. Zhang, Y . Xu, H. Hu, K. Yin, H. Shapourian, J. Zhao, R. R. Kompella, R. Nejabatiet al., “SwitchQNet: Optimizing distributed quantum computing for quantum data centers with switch networks,” inISCA, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Distributed quantum sensing,

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, “Distributed quantum sensing,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 043001, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Discrete outcome quantum sensor networks,

    M. Hillery, H. Gupta, and C. Zhan, “Discrete outcome quantum sensor networks,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 107, no. 1, p. 012435, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Quantum sensor network algorithms for transmitter localization,

    C. Zhan and H. Gupta, “Quantum sensor network algorithms for transmitter localization,” inIEEE QCE, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    Quantum advantage in distributed sensing with noisy quantum networks,

    A. Zang, A. Kolar, A. Gonzales, J. Chung, S. K. Gray, R. Kettimuthu, T. Zhong, and Z. H. Saleem, “Quantum advantage in distributed sensing with noisy quantum networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17089, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Optimal scheme for distributed quantum metrology,

    Z. Hu, A. Zang, J. Wang, T. Zhong, H. Yuan, L. Jiang, and Z. H. Saleem, “Optimal scheme for distributed quantum metrology,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18334, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Com- puter science challenges in quantum computing: Early fault-tolerance and beyond,

    J. Palsberg, J. Cong, Y . Ding, B. Fefferman, M. Qureshiet al., “Com- puter science challenges in quantum computing: Early fault-tolerance and beyond,” 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,

    Google Quantum AI, “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,”Nature, vol. 614, pp. 676–681, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersenet al., “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,”Nature, vol. 638, pp. 920–926, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantum computation,

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti ´c, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, “A fault-tolerant neutral-atom architecture for universal quantu...

    2026

  19. [19]

    Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,

    J. Roffe, “Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,”Contempo- rary Physics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 226–245, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Demonstration of Logical Qubits and Repeated Error Correction with Better-than- Physical Error Rates

    A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. Campora III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V . Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, Y . Mat- suoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Siegfr...

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code,

    B. W. Reichardt, D. Aasen, R. Chao, A. Chernoguzov, W. van Dam, J. P. Gaebler, D. Gresh, D. Lucchetti, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, A. Paetznick, A. Paz, P. E. Siegfried, M. P. da Silva, K. M. Svore, Z. Wang, and M. Zanner, “Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract code,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04628, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,”Nature, vol. 638, pp. 920–926, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    One-way quantum repeater based on near-deterministic photon-emitter interfaces,

    J. Borregaard, H. Pichler, T. Schr ¨oder, M. D. Lukin, P. Lodahlet al., “One-way quantum repeater based on near-deterministic photon-emitter interfaces,”Phys. Rev. X, vol. 10, 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Entanglement distribution in quantum repeater with purification and optimized buffer time,

    A. Zang, X. Chen, A. Kolar, J. Chung, M. Suchara, T. Zhong, and R. Kettimuthu, “Entanglement distribution in quantum repeater with purification and optimized buffer time,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2023- IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  25. [25]

    Architecture and protocols for all-photonic quantum repeaters,

    N. Benchasattabuse, M. Hajdu ˇsek, and R. Van Meter, “Architecture and protocols for all-photonic quantum repeaters,” inIEEE QCE, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Boosting end-to-end entanglement fidelity in quantum repeater networks via hybridized strategies,

    P. Pathumsoot, T. Tansuwannont, N. Benchasattabuse, R. Satoh, M. Ha- jduˇsek, P. Chaiwongkhot, S. Suwanna, and R. Van Meter, “Boosting end-to-end entanglement fidelity in quantum repeater networks via hybridized strategies,” inQCNC, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Comparing one- and two- way quantum repeater architectures,

    P. Mantri, K. Goodenough, and D. Towsley, “Comparing one- and two- way quantum repeater architectures,”Communications Physics, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 300, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Hybrid repeaters with encoding for long distance entanglement distribution,

    S. Haldar, S. Guha, D. Towsley, and F. Rozpedek, “Hybrid repeaters with encoding for long distance entanglement distribution,” inIEEE QCE, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Generalized quantum repeater graph states,

    B. Li, K. Goodenough, F. Rozpedek, and L. Jiang, “Generalized quantum repeater graph states,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 134, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    Quantum repeaters with encoding,

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, R. Van Meter, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum repeaters with encoding,”Physical Review A, vol. 79, no. 3, p. 032325, 2009

    2009

  31. [31]

    Sequence: a customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks,

    X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Kettimuthu, and M. Suchara, “Sequence: a customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 045027, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 793–797, 1996

    1996

  33. [33]

    Minimizing resource overheads for fault-tolerant preparation of encoded states of the Steane code,

    H. Goto, “Minimizing resource overheads for fault-tolerant preparation of encoded states of the Steane code,”Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. 19578, 2016

    2016

  34. [34]

    Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communica- tion,

    S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. L ¨utkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, “Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communica- tion,”Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. 20463, 2016

    2016

  35. [35]

    Inside quantum repeaters,

    W. J. Munro, K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and K. Nemoto, “Inside quantum repeaters,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, vol. 21, 2015

    2015

  36. [36]

    Ultrafast and fault-tolerant quantum communication across long dis- tances,

    S. Muralidharan, J. Kim, N. L ¨utkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, “Ultrafast and fault-tolerant quantum communication across long dis- tances,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 112, p. 250501, Jun 2014

    2014

  37. [37]

    Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics,

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, “Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics,”Physical Review A, vol. 71, no. 6, p. 060310(R), 2005

    2005

  38. [38]

    Fault-tolerant ancilla prepara- tion and noise threshold lower bounds for the 23-qubit Golay code,

    A. Paetznick and B. W. Reichardt, “Fault-tolerant ancilla prepara- tion and noise threshold lower bounds for the 23-qubit Golay code,” Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 12, pp. 1034–1080, 2012, arXiv:1106.2190

    work page arXiv 2012

  39. [39]

    Distributed quantum computation based on small quantum registers,

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, “Distributed quantum computation based on small quantum registers,”Physical Review A, vol. 76, no. 6, p. 062323, 2007

    2007

  40. [40]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  41. [41]

    Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 722–725, 1996

    1996

  42. [42]

    QuISP: a quantum internet simulation package,

    R. Satoh, M. Hajdusek, N. Benchasattabuse, S. Nagayama, K. Teramoto, T. Matsuoet al., “QuISP: a quantum internet simulation package,” in IEEE QCE, 2022

    2022

  43. [43]

    NetSquid, a network simulator for quantum information using discrete events,

    T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Nijstenet al., “NetSquid, a network simulator for quantum information using discrete events,”Communications Physics, vol. 4, p. 164, 2021

    2021

  44. [44]

    Quantumsavory: Write symbolically, run on any backend – a unified simulation toolkit for quantum computing and networking,

    H. KimLee, L. Bacciottini, A. Bhatt, A. Kille, and S. Krastanov, “Quantumsavory: Write symbolically, run on any backend – a unified simulation toolkit for quantum computing and networking,” 2025

    2025

  45. [45]

    Simulation of quantum transduction strategies for quantum networks,

    L. d’Avossa, C. Zhan, J. Chung, R. Kettimuthu, A. S. Cacciapuoti, and M. Caleffi, “Simulation of quantum transduction strategies for quantum networks,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Simulation of entanglement-enabled connectivity in qlans using sequence,

    F. Mazza, C. Zhan, J. Chung, R. Kettimuthu, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Simulation of entanglement-enabled connectivity in qlans using sequence,” inIEEE International Conference on Communications, 2025

    2025

  47. [47]

    Simulation of a heterogeneous quantum network,

    H. Miller, C. Zhan, M. Bishof, J. Chung, H. Xu, P. Kumar, and R. Kettimuthu, “Simulation of a heterogeneous quantum network,” 2026

    2026

  48. [48]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,

    C. Gidney, “Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator,”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 497, 2021

    2021

  49. [49]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,”Physical Review A, vol. 70, no. 5, p. 052328, 2004

    2004

  50. [50]

    Surface code with deco- herence: An analysis of three superconducting architectures,

    J. Ghosh, A. G. Fowler, and M. R. Geller, “Surface code with deco- herence: An analysis of three superconducting architectures,”Physical Review A, vol. 86, no. 6, p. 062318, 2012

    2012

  51. [51]

    Design and simulation of the adaptive continuous entanglement generation proto- col,

    C. Zhan, J. Chung, A. Zang, A. Kolar, and R. Kettimuthu, “Design and simulation of the adaptive continuous entanglement generation proto- col,” in2025 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC), 2025

    2025

  52. [52]

    Detecting single infrared photons with 93% system efficiency,

    F. Marsili, V . B. Verma, J. A. Stern, S. Harrington, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, I. Vayshenker, B. Baek, M. D. Shaw, R. P. Mirinet al., “Detecting single infrared photons with 93% system efficiency,”Nature Photonics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 210–214, 2013

    2013

  53. [53]

    Superconducting nanowire single- photon detectors: A perspective on evolution, state-of-the-art, future developments, and applications,

    I. E. Zadeh, J. Chang, J. W. Los, S. Gyger, A. W. Elshaari, S. Steinhauer, S. N. Dorenbos, and V . Zwiller, “Superconducting nanowire single- photon detectors: A perspective on evolution, state-of-the-art, future developments, and applications,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 118, no. 19, p. 190502, 2021

    2021

  54. [54]

    Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network,

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y .-C. Weiet al., “Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network,”Nature, vol. 629, pp. 573–578, 2024

    2024

  55. [55]

    Benchmarking and fidelity response theory of high-fidelity Rydberg entangling gates,

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, S. d. L ´eseleuc, H. J. Manetschet al., “Benchmarking and fidelity response theory of high-fidelity Rydberg entangling gates,”PRX Quantum, vol. 6, p. 010331, 2025

    2025

  56. [56]

    Benchmarking Single-Qubit Gates on a Neutral Atom Quantum Processor

    K. Sheridan, A. C. Hughes, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, and D. M. Lucas, “Single-qubit gates with errors at the10 −7 level,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 134, p. 230601, 2025, arXiv:2509.06881

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits,

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, “A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits,” Nature, vol. 647, pp. 60–67, 2025

    2025

  58. [58]

    Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,”Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 560, pp. 7–11, 2014

    2014