Optimizing Entanglement Distillation Policies via Markov Decision Process Formulation

Jigyen Bhavsar; Rajni Bala; Siddhartha Santra

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Optimizing Entanglement Distillation Policies via Markov Decision Process Formulation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Casting multi-memory entanglement generation and 2-to-1 distillation as a Markov decision process produces deterministic policies that minimize expected waiting time to a target fidelity and beat standard baselines by large margins in many

desk verdict Clean, usable MDP for multi-memory 2-to-1 distillation that beats standard heuristics under ideal memories; the decoherence motivation is stated but not yet inside the model. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.14908 v2 pith:ASMSSHUM submitted 2026-06-12 quant-ph

Jigyen Bhavsar , Rajni Bala , Siddhartha Santra This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords entanglementdistillationMarkovdecisionprocessvalueiterationquantummemoriesexpectedwaitingtimeWernerstatesLOCCrepeaters

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

Two parties share m quantum memory pairs and can probabilistically generate raw entangled links of fidelity f0 or distill pairs of links into higher-fidelity ones. The paper shows that the best sequence of these operations, chosen from the current configuration of stored fidelities, can be found by treating the problem as a finite Markov decision process and solving it with value iteration. The resulting optimal policy reaches a chosen target fidelity fT in less expected time than common heuristics such as greedy matching, nested purification, or entanglement pumping. Waiting time falls as generation success probability or memory count rises, yet varies non-monotonically with the starting fidelity for a fixed fidelity gap. Because waiting time directly limits how often high-fidelity entanglement can be delivered before memories decohere, the framework gives a practical route to faster, resource-aware distillation schedules for quantum networks and repeaters.

What carries the argument

A finite-state Markov decision process whose states are the vectors of attainable fidelities (including empty links) across the m memories, whose actions are all valid simultaneous matchings for 2-to-1 distillation plus generation attempts on free links, whose rewards are the negative classical-communication costs (-1 for generation, -2 for distillation), and whose transitions follow the known success probabilities of generation and Deutsch distillation; the optimal policy is recovered by value iteration of the Bellman equation for expected remaining waiting time.

What would settle it

For a concrete small instance (m=4, chosen p, f0, fT) implement the value-iteration policy and the three baselines on a laboratory or high-fidelity simulator that records actual wall-clock waiting times; if the measured mean waiting time under the MDP policy is not systematically lower than the baselines by the predicted margins, or if introducing realistic memory decoherence reverses the ranking, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When Alice and Bob may generate raw Werner pairs of fidelity f0 across m parallel links and may run any collection of simultaneous 2-to-1 Deutsch distillations on disjoint stored pairs, the configuration-dependent policy that minimizes expected classical-communication time to obtain at least one pair of fidelity at least fT is obtained by solving the associated finite-state Markov decision process with value iteration; the resulting deterministic policies reduce that expected waiting time by as much as roughly 50 percent relative to greedy and 80 percent relative to nested baselines, with the size of the gain depending on p, f0, fT and m.

Load-bearing premise

Quantum memories stay perfect while they wait and every local operation is ideal, so the only costs are fixed classical-communication delays and the only randomness is heralded success or failure.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful core is a concrete finite MDP for two nodes with m parallel memories: states are fidelity vectors from the Deutsch map, actions are simultaneous matchings for 2-to-1 ED plus generation on free links, reward is pure classical-communication cost (−1 EG, −2 ED). Value iteration then returns deterministic policies that minimize expected wait to fT. That construction, plus the numerical map of when the optimum beats pumping/nested/greedy (up to ~50 % and ~80 % in the m=4, Δf=0.04 slices), is what is actually new. Prior MDP work already covered swapping, routing and QEC; this is the first careful state/action design for parallel multi-memory distillation.

They do the standard pieces correctly. Bellman equation, action-space counting, and the Deutsch fidelity/success formulas are used as given. Baselines are the right ones and are specified as stationary policies inside the same MDP, so the comparisons are fair. The non-monotonic Topt(f0) at fixed gap is a real observation, not an artifact of bad numerics, and they correctly flag that state-space size jumps with the number of reachable fidelity levels.

The soft spot the stress-test flags is real but proportionate. The introduction motivates min-wait by decoherence, yet the dynamics keep every fidelity frozen between actions. So the reported rankings hold only in the zero-decay limit; once memories decay, both the optimal map and the ordering versus baselines can change. The authors put this in the future-work section rather than hiding it, and they already note the fT < f∞ restriction and the exponential |S| growth. No code or data release makes bit-exact checks harder than they need to be, but the algorithm is textbook value iteration with ε=10−6, so the gap is practical rather than conceptual.

This is for people building small two-node multi-memory distillation schedulers or writing the next repeater-policy paper. It is not a foundational result and does not claim to be. I would send it to referees: the formulation is clean enough and the ideal-model gains are large enough to deserve a careful look, with the usual request for a decoherence sensitivity check and artifacts. Worth a reading-group slot if the group is doing quantum-network protocols; otherwise optional.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formulates the sequential choice of entanglement generation (EG) and 2-to-1 Deutsch distillation (ED) operations over m parallel memory pairs as a finite-state MDP whose states track attainable Werner fidelities, actions are matchings plus generation vectors, and rewards equal the classical-communication time costs (−1 for EG, −2 for ED). Value iteration (App. A, Bellman Eq. 12) yields deterministic policies that minimize expected waiting time T_opt to a target fidelity f_T. Numerical results for m=4 and fixed Δf=0.04 show T_opt decreases with p and m, is non-monotonic in f_0, and improves on nested, greedy and pumping baselines by up to ~80 %, ~50 % and smaller fractions respectively (Figs. 4–6), with the advantage regime-dependent on (p,f_0,Δf,m).

Significance. If the idealized results hold, the work supplies a systematic, configuration-dependent alternative to the standard heuristic distillation policies (pumping, nested, greedy) under finite memory resources, together with concrete quantitative gains in the studied parameter regimes. The MDP construction is reusable, the Bellman/value-iteration specialization is standard and correctly applied, and the baseline comparisons are explicit. The principal limitation is that the model omits the very decoherence that motivates waiting-time minimization, so the reported policies and percentage improvements are guaranteed only in the zero-decay limit; extensions to decoherence or multi-node repeaters are left for future work.

major comments (2)

Sec. I motivates the entire optimization by the statement that “quantum memories experience decoherence while stored states await further processing,” yet the MDP of Sec. III treats every memory as perfect: fidelities are constant between actions, the only stochasticity is heralded success/failure (p and Eqs. 2–3), and the reward is purely fixed classical-communication cost. Consequently the deterministic policies and the quantitative advantages plotted in Figs. 4–6 (up to ~80 % vs nested, ~50 % vs greedy) are optimal solely for the zero-decay objective. The abstract and concluding claim that the framework enables “systematic design of policies au… in realistic resource-constrained settings” therefore rests on an untested extrapolation. Either a minimal exponential-decay model must be added (so that the true figure of merit becomes expected delivered fidelity after a random waiting time
Fig. 3 and the accompanying text in Sec. V attribute the observed discontinuities in T_opt versus f_0 (fixed Δf=0.04) to “sudden changes in size of MDP state space,” but offer only a conjecture. Because the non-monotonicity is presented as a main numerical finding, a quantitative check—e.g., explicit enumeration of the number of attainable fidelity levels K(f_0,f_T) across the plotted range, or a controlled comparison with a binned approximation—is required to confirm that the jumps are not numerical artefacts of value iteration or of the absorbing-state representation F_T.

minor comments (4)

Eq. (12) and Algorithm 1 retain a discount factor γ whose value is never stated; for pure expected time to absorption the natural choice is γ=1. Clarify the numerical value used and whether any discounting was introduced for numerical stability.
The action-space cardinality formula (Eq. 11) and the remark that |A| scales as O(m^{⌊m/2⌋}·2^m) are correct, yet the text never reports the actual sizes encountered for the m=4 instances that generate all figures; a short table would help readers assess computational feasibility.
Fig. 2 history trees are useful but the caption does not state whether the illustrated trajectories are typical or cherry-picked; a brief note on how the example optimal trajectory was selected would improve transparency.
Typographical inconsistencies appear in the fidelity-gap notation (Δf versus ∆f) and in the rendering of some Greek letters in the arXiv source; these should be uniformized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standard finite MDP solved by value iteration; objective, transitions and baselines are independently specified and not defined in terms of the claimed optimum.

full rationale

The paper constructs an ordinary finite-state MDP whose states are fidelity configurations of m memory pairs, actions are parallel EG attempts and 2-to-1 Deutsch distillations, transition probabilities are the heralded success probabilities of those operations (Eqs. 2–3), and rewards are the fixed classical-communication costs (−1 for EG, −2 for ED). Value iteration then solves the Bellman equation for the minimal expected waiting time; nothing in that construction is defined in terms of the numerical optimum that is later reported. Baseline policies (pumping, nested, greedy) are given by explicit, independent rules and are used only for post-hoc comparison. The single overlapping-author citation supplies the known closed-form expression for the asymptotic fidelity f∞(f0) that bounds the regime of finite state spaces; it is not used to force uniqueness or optimality of the policies themselves. There are no fitted parameters re-labeled as predictions, no self-definitional loops, and no renaming of known empirical patterns. The modeling idealization of perfect memories is a limitation of scope, not a circular derivation.

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

The central claim rests on standard quantum-info models (Werner states, Deutsch 2-to-1 map, heralded EG) plus a conventional finite-horizon-style MDP with hand-chosen time costs. No new physical entities. Free parameters are the usual system knobs (p,f0,fT,m) and algorithmic tolerances; none are fitted to experimental data. The main modeling axioms are ideal memories and fixed CC delays, which the paper itself flags as simplifications.

free parameters (5)

generation probability p
Fixed exogenous success probability for each EG attempt; scanned numerically but not derived.
initial fidelity f0 and target fT (or gap Δf)
Chosen by hand for each experiment; determine the discrete fidelity lattice and state-space size.
memory count m
Hardware resource parameter; results shown mainly for m=4 and small scans.
value-iteration tolerance ε=10^{-6}
Algorithmic stopping threshold (App. A); affects reported near-optimality.
discount factor γ
Appears in Bellman equation (Eq. 12); value not numerically specified in the text (implicitly 1 for pure expected-time minimization).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Entanglement generation produces Werner states of fixed fidelity f0 with independent success probability p; heralding delay is l/c.
Sec. II.A and III; standard midpoint-heralded model [29,30,35].
domain assumption 2-to-1 distillation follows Deutsch protocol with closed-form fd(f1,f2) and pd(f1,f2) (Eqs. 2–3); delay 2l/c.
Sec. II.A; taken from [8] without re-derivation.
ad hoc to paper Memories are perfect (no decoherence); only classical-communication time costs matter.
Implicit throughout Sec. II–V; listed as future work in Sec. VI.
domain assumption State space is finite only for fT < f∞(f0); higher targets require ad-hoc fidelity binning.
Sec. III(a) and Eq. 7; limits exact DP applicability.
standard math Value iteration on a finite MDP converges to an optimal deterministic policy.
App. A citing Sutton & Barto [19].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Entanglement Distillation Policies via Markov Decision Process Formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASMSSHUM

@misc{pith2026260614908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Entanglement Distillation Policies via Markov Decision Process Formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASMSSHUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.14908}
}

abstract

Entanglement distillation is a fundamental operation in quantum information processing used to obtain higher-fidelity entangled pairs from a supply of less entangled quantum states using local operations aided by classical communication (LOCC). In a physically relevant setting, where states with an initial fidelity of $f_0$, probabilistically generated over multiple, $m$, memory pairs distributed between two parties, Alice and Bob, are pairwise distilled, the optimal policy identifies the system-configuration dependent sequence of entanglement generation and distillation operations that need to be performed in order to minimize the expected time to reach some target fidelity $f_T>f_0$. Here, we formulate and systematically analyze this task as a Markov decision problem and using a value iteration algorithm, obtain optimal deterministic policies that minimize the expected waiting time required to reach a target fidelity. Our results show that the expected waiting time under the optimal policy decreases with increasing generation probability $p$ and number of quantum memories $m$ - as expected. In contrast, it exhibits non-monotonic behavior with respect to $f_0$ for a fixed fidelity gap, $(\Delta f = f_T-f_0)$. While the optimal policy consistently outperforms baseline policies such as the greedy, nested and entanglement pumping policies, its relative advantage is regime-dependent, being determined by the system parameters ($p,f_0,f_T,m$), and exhibits a nontrivial dependence on the fidelity gap $\Delta f$. Our results highlight the value of formulating entanglement distillation as a Markov decision problem, enabling the systematic design of policies that achieve target fidelity thresholds for quantum information tasks in realistic resource-constrained settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

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
[2]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018
[3]

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, Quantum internet: Net- working challenges in distributed quantum computing, IEEE Network34, 137 (2020)

2020
[4]

Cuomo, M

D. Cuomo, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Towards a distributed quantum computing ecosystem, IET Quan- tum Communication1, 3 (2020)

2020
[5]

T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Mul- tiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 080501 (2018)

2018
[6]

Zhang and Q

Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Science and Technology6, 043001 (2021)

2021
[7]

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 chan- nels, Physical Review Letters76, 722 (1996)

1996
[8]

Deutsch, A

D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy ampli- fication and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Physical Review Letters77, 2818 (1996)

1996

Show all 42 references

[9]

D¨ ur and H.-J

W. D¨ ur and H.-J. Briegel, Quantum information: Purifi- cation and distillation, in Quantum Information (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016) pp. 231–263

2016
[10]

J.-W. Pan, C. Simon, ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, En- tanglement purification for quantum communication, Na- ture410, 1067 (2001)

2001
[11]

J.-W. Pan, S. Gasparoni, R. Ursin, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental entanglement purification of arbitrary unknown states, Nature423, 417 (2003)

2003
[12]

Ecker, P

S. Ecker, P. Sohr, L. Bulla, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Experimental single-copy entanglement distil- lation, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 040506 (2021)

2021
[13]

Zhou, C.-X

L. Zhou, C.-X. Huang, Y.-B. Sheng, Y. Guo, X.-M. Hu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and B.-H. Liu, Obser- vation of residual entanglement in entanglement purifi- cation, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 050801 (2025)

2025
[14]

H. Yan, Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, E. Dumur, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, and A. N. Cleland, Entanglement purification and protection in a superconducting quantum network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 080504 (2022)

2022
[15]

Childress, J

L. Childress, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Fault-tolerant quantum repeaters with minimal physical resources and implementations based on single- photon emitters, Phys. Rev. A72, 052330 (2005)

2005
[16]

D¨ ur, H.-J

W. D¨ ur, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters based on entanglement purification, Physical Review A59, 169 (1999)

1999
[17]

T. D. Ladd, P. van Loock, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, and Y. Yamamoto, Hybrid quantum repeater based on disper- sive CQED interaction between matter qubits and bright coherent light, New Journal of Physics8, 184 (2006)

2006
[18]

Van Meter, T

R. Van Meter, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, System design for a long-line quantum re- peater, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking17, 1002 (2009)

2009
[19]

R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018)

2018
[20]

Bukov, A

M. Bukov, A. G. R. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control, Phys. Rev. X8, 031086 (2018)

2018
[21]

M. Y. Niu, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and H. Neven, Universal quantum control through deep reinforcement learning, npj Quantum Information5, 33 (2019)

2019
[22]

H. P. Nautrup, N. Delfosse, V. Dunjko, H. J. Briegel, and N. Friis, Optimizing quantum error correction codes with reinforcement learning, Quantum3, 215 (2019), arXiv:1812.08451 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Shchukin and P

E. Shchukin and P. van Loock, Optimal entanglement swapping in quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 150502 (2022)

2022
[24]

e. G. I˜ nesta, G. Vardoyan, L. Scavuzzo, and S. Wehner, Optimal entanglement distribution policies in homoge- neous repeater chains with cutoffs, npj Quantum Infor- mation9, 46 (2023)

2023
[25]

Meuser, J

T. Meuser, J. Weil, A. Lahiri, and M. Paraschiv, Reliq: 12 Scalable entanglement routing via reinforcement learning in quantum networks, IEEE Transactions on Communi- cations74, 1860 (2026)

2026
[26]

Sarovar, T

M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors, Quantum4, 321 (2020)

2020
[27]

Heinz and G

I. Heinz and G. Burkard, Crosstalk analysis for simulta- neously driven two-qubit gates in spin qubit arrays, Phys. Rev. B105, 085414 (2022)

2022
[28]

Cheng, S.-C

L. Cheng, S.-C. Liu, L.-Y. Peng, and Q. Gong, Crosstalk suppression of parallel gates for fault-tolerant quantum computation with trapped ions via optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 034021 (2024)

2024
[29]

L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long- distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature414, 413 (2001)

2001
[30]

D. L. Moehring, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. N. Matsukevich, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, En- tanglement of single-atom quantum bits at a distance, Nature449, 68 (2007)

2007
[31]

˙Zukowski, A

M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, Event-ready-detectors bell experiment via entanglement swapping, Physical Review Letters71, 4287 (1993)

1993
[32]

J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental entanglement swapping: En- tangling photons that never interacted, Physical Review Letters80, 3891 (1998)

1998
[33]

Cabrillo, J

C. Cabrillo, J. I. Cirac, P. Garc´ ıa-Fern´ andez, and P. Zoller, Creation of entangled states of distant atoms by interference, Physical Review A59, 1025 (1999)

1999
[34]

S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Efficient high-fidelity quan- tum computation using matter qubits and linear optics, Physical Review A71, 060310 (2005)

2005
[35]

W. J. Munro, K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and K. Nemoto, In- side quantum repeaters, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics21, 78 (2015)

2015
[36]

Sangouard, C

N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 33 (2011)

2011
[37]

Simon, H

C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, M. Afzelius, N. Sangouard, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Quantum repeaters with pho- ton pair sources and multimode memories, Physical Re- view Letters98, 190503 (2007)

2007
[38]

Sangouard, R

N. Sangouard, R. Dubessy, and C. Simon, Quantum re- peaters with encoding, Physical Review A79, 042340 (2009)

2009
[39]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics, Phys- ical Review A72, 052330 (2005)

2005
[40]

R. Bala, M. S. Mondal, and S. Santra, Statistical anal- ysis of multipath entanglement purification in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A112, 032601 (2025)

2025
[41]

V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, S. Petersen, C. Beat- tie, A. Sadik, I. Antonoglou, H. King, D. Kumaran, D. Wierstra, S. Legg, and D. Hassabis, Human-level con- trol through de...

2015
[42]

L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. W. Moore, Rein- forcement learning: A survey, Journal of Artificial Intel- ligence Research4, 237 (1996)

1996

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

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

[2] [2]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018

[3] [3]

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, Quantum internet: Net- working challenges in distributed quantum computing, IEEE Network34, 137 (2020)

2020

[4] [4]

Cuomo, M

D. Cuomo, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Towards a distributed quantum computing ecosystem, IET Quan- tum Communication1, 3 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Mul- tiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 080501 (2018)

2018

[6] [6]

Zhang and Q

Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Science and Technology6, 043001 (2021)

2021

[7] [7]

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 chan- nels, Physical Review Letters76, 722 (1996)

1996

[8] [8]

Deutsch, A

D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy ampli- fication and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Physical Review Letters77, 2818 (1996)

1996