Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Entanglement Distillation and Swapping Scheduling in Quantum Repeaters with Noisy Memories

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read When quantum memories are noisy, delaying distillation until the end usually beats purifying early or just discarding old pairs.

desk verdict Solid systems paper with clean one-hop analytics and useful two-hop schedule rankings; the “never positive R” claims sit too close to the I_c threshold to take at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24557 v1 pith:XTIDTBB6 submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph

Siddharth Chander , Xinan Chen , Allen Zang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumrepeatersentanglementdistillationswappingnoisymemoriesoperationschedulingcoherentinformationmultiplexedlinks
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

Near-term quantum repeaters must create long-distance entanglement with memories that decohere. That forces a timing choice: purify pairs as soon as they arrive, wait until a deadline, or simply throw away the older pair. This paper works out those tradeoffs on the smallest building blocks—a single link and a two-hop chain. On one hop, short memory times favor discarding the older pair; longer coherence favors waiting to distill at the deadline, which yields higher output quality and more usable entanglement even though success is less frequent. On two hops the same late-distillation idea wins on the paper’s main figure of merit, while a discard-then-swap baseline never produces positive weighted coherent information in the regimes tested. The point is practical: decoherence changes which schedule is best, and the link-level rules found here are meant to guide larger repeater designs.

What carries the argument

Weighted coherent information R_S = P_S · max{I_c(E[ρ_out|success]), 0}, which multiplies success probability by the coherent information of the average successful output state. This single score balances how often a schedule works against how much distillable entanglement the output carries, and is the quantity used to rank ASAP, ALAP, and discard policies.

What would settle it

Re-run the same one-hop analytics and two-hop Monte Carlo with swap success probability 1/2 (linear optics) or with classical round-trip times comparable to the memory coherence time; if late distillation no longer leads on weighted coherent information, the central timing claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Memory decoherence reshapes the optimal timing of distillation and swapping. In the low-coherence regime, discarding the older entangled state gives higher expected output fidelity than distilling early or late. In the high-coherence regime, delaying distillation to the end of the time window gives the highest expected fidelity and, over most deadlines, the highest weighted coherent information, at the cost of lower success probability. On two-hop chains the best weighted coherent information likewise comes from strategies that defer the final distillation, with Distill-ALAP-then-Swap-ALAP and Swap-ASAP-then-Distill-ALAP leading at different operating points, while Discard-Oldest-then-Swap n

Load-bearing premise

Swaps are assumed to always succeed and classical communication delays are ignored, so operation times depend only on when pairs arrive and on a fixed deadline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Link-level schedules should default to late distillation when memories are relatively long-lived, and to discarding the older pair when coherence is short.
  • On two-hop segments, Discard-Oldest-then-Swap is a poor default: it never yields positive weighted coherent information in the tested regimes.
  • Which of Distill-ALAP-then-Swap-ALAP versus Swap-ASAP-then-Distill-ALAP wins depends on the deadline and generation rate, so operating point must be checked rather than assumed.
  • The same ASAP/ALAP ordering principles are intended to compose hierarchically into longer repeater chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Adding realistic classical latency will likely shrink the region where pure ALAP wins, because waiting to the deadline then costs an extra round-trip of decoherence.
  • If more than two pairs per link are stored, the same late-versus-early tension will reappear in how pairs are matched for multi-copy distillation.
  • Combining these timing rules with existing memory-cutoff policies is the natural next control layer for multiplexed repeaters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies how finite memory coherence time shapes the timing and ordering of entanglement distillation and swapping in multiplexed repeater building blocks. For a one-hop link it derives closed-form expressions (Appendix A) for the success probability, expected output fidelity, and weighted coherent information R_S = P_S·max{I_c(E[ρ_out|success]),0} of three strategies (Distill-ASAP, Distill-ALAP, Discard-Oldest) under exponential heralded arrivals and depolarizing memory noise, finding that Discard-Oldest wins at short coherence times while Distill-ALAP wins on fidelity and, over most of the deadline range, on R_S at long coherence times. For a two-hop chain it compares seven strategies by Monte Carlo (10^5 samples), finding that strategies deferring the final distillation to the deadline T achieve the highest R_S (D-ALAP-S-ALAP at short T, S-ASAP-D-ALAP at longer T), while Discard-Swap and D-ASAP-S-ASAP never reach positive R_S in any regime tested.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a clean, well-isolated answer to a practically relevant scheduling question — when to distill and when to swap under memory decoherence — at the level of the elementary links from which larger hierarchies are built. Notable strengths: the one-hop analysis is fully analytical with closed forms in Appendix A; the policies studied are explicitly causal; the fidelity-distribution discussion (Secs. III.E, IV.B) is careful, including the observation that distillation tails exceed F_0 while Discard-Oldest is hard-bounded at F_0; and the evaluation code (Mathematica notebooks plus Python Monte Carlo) is publicly available [29], making the numerical claims reproducible. The robust qualitative conclusion — defer the final distillation to the consumption time — has comfortable margins (R≈0.092 vs 0.061 across distillation strategies) and is a useful link-level design principle. The weaker points are concentrated in the sharpest zero-vs-positive two-hop claims, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (8)-(9)] Sec. II.C, Eqs. (8)–(9): the headline metric evaluates the coherent information of the *average* output state, I_c(E[ρ]), but justifies it operationally via the hashing bound [28]. The hashing rate for an ensemble of output states is E[I_c(ρ)], not I_c(E[ρ]). For isotropic states I_c(F) = 1−h2(F)−(1−F)log2 3 is concave in F, so by Jensen I_c(E[ρ]) ≥ E[I_c(ρ)] — the metric systematically overstates the operational rate, by an amount that grows with the width of the fidelity distribution. The width differs across the strategies being ranked (Sec. III.E: σ=0.056 Discard-Oldest vs 0.048 Distill-ALAP; Fig. 9: broad unimodal vs narrow bimodal), so the bias is not uniform. The metric is defensible as a figure of merit in its own right, but the hashing justification is incorrect as stated and should be corrected; ideally the paper should also report P_S·E[max{I_c,0}] alongside, at least for the
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 8] Sec. IV.A, Fig. 8: the claim that D-ASAP-S-ASAP 'never reaches positive weighted coherent information' rests on its conditional fidelity settling at F̄≈0.809, i.e. 0.002 below the threshold F*≈0.811. With 10^5 Monte Carlo samples, the standard error on a weighted mean fidelity is plausibly of this order, and no error bars or confidence intervals are reported anywhere in Figs. 6–8. A knife-edge claim of this kind requires a stated uncertainty budget (standard errors on F̄ and R_S, ideally per data point). As written, the zero-vs-positive distinction for this strategy is not established by the evidence shown.
  3. [Sec. IV.A] Sec. IV.A and abstract: 'Discard-Oldest-then-Swap never reaches positive weighted coherent information in any regime tested' is plausibly an artifact of the tested (λ, τ, T) grid rather than structural. The paper itself notes the noiseless ceiling F_swap(F0,F0)≈0.813 > F*≈0.811, so for T/τ small enough that both newest pairs arrive nearly fresh (e.g. λ large relative to 1/T and T≪τ), the Discard-Swap average state must have positive I_c. The tested grids (λ=10/s with T up to tens of seconds; distributions at λ=1/s) do not probe this corner. The authors should either extend the grid to locate the crossover, or qualify the claim as grid-dependent in the abstract, Sec. IV.A, and Sec. V.
  4. [Secs. II.A, IV, V] Secs. II.A and V: swaps are assumed deterministic and classical-communication latency is set to zero, so all operation times are governed by arrivals and the deadline T. This is acknowledged as a simplification, but it is load-bearing for the ASAP-vs-ALAP rankings: with probabilistic swaps (e.g. 1/2 for linear optics) or classical round-trips comparable to τ, the benefit of deferring operations to T must be weighed against heralding/confirmation delays, and the identity of the leading strategy can change. The paper would be substantially strengthened by a sensitivity estimate — even a back-of-envelope rescaling or one Monte Carlo rerun at swap success probability 1/2 — showing whether the 'defer final distillation' conclusion survives.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Figs. 6-8] Figs. 6–8 are referenced in the text but, in the version reviewed, the panels lack visible legends/labels in the reproduced figures; ensure each two-hop figure clearly identifies all seven strategies (the color/style mapping is only inferable from the caption).
  2. [Throughout] Equation referencing style is inconsistent: 'Eq. 9' vs '(9)' vs 'Eq. (8)'; please standardize.
  3. [Sec. III.D] Sec. III.D, Eq. (23): the limiting success probability P≈P_dist(F0,F0) is stated for λτ≫1, but the comparison is made at λ=10/s, τ=100 s (λτ=1000) — fine — while Fig. 3 shows the same plateau structure at other τ; it would help to state explicitly which regimes Eq. (23) is meant to describe.
  4. [Sec. II.A] Sec. II.A: the memory-noise expression ρ(∆t)=[N⊗N](ρ0) is given inline in a long sentence; consider displaying it as a numbered equation since it underlies Eq. (2) and all subsequent dynamics.
  5. [Sec. IV] Sec. IV: state the Monte Carlo sample count for Figs. 6–8 explicitly (10^5 is stated only for the distribution plots in Sec. IV.B), and clarify whether arrival times are drawn per segment independently with exactly two parallel sources, as implied by Sec. IV's opening paragraph.
  6. [Abstract, Sec. V] Abstract/Sec. V: 'over most of the deadline range' for one-hop R_S should point to Fig. 4 or specify the range; as stated it is vague.
  7. [References] Reference [29]: 'accessed: 2026' gives no date; please include a full access date and a commit hash or version tag for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: strategy rankings are forward computations from an external noise/arrival model, not fits or self-definitional identities.

full rationale

The paper defines causal ASAP/ALAP/Discard policies, applies a standard depolarizing memory channel and textbook CNOT distillation and swap maps (Eqs. 2–5), and evaluates expected fidelity, success probability, and weighted coherent information by direct integration (one-hop, Appendix A) or Monte Carlo (two-hop). Parameters F0, λ, τ, T are chosen externally; nothing is fitted to reproduce a target ranking. Coherent information of isotropic states is the standard hashing formula. Self-citations to the authors’ prior purification/cutoff work supply background and motivation, not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing premises that force the Distill-ALAP vs Discard ordering. The derivation chain is self-contained and externally falsifiable; no step reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Results are conditional on a standard near-term repeater model: exponential heralded generation, isotropic raw pairs, two-qubit depolarizing memory, deterministic bilocal CNOT distillation, and deterministic swapping, evaluated at a fixed consumer deadline T with at most two pairs per segment. No new physical entities. Operating points (F_0, λ, τ, T) are chosen for illustration, not fitted to experiment. The ledger is mostly domain assumptions imported from the quantum repeater literature.

free parameters (2)
  • F_0 (raw pair fidelity) = 0.9
    Fixed at 0.9 unless noted as a representative near-term source fidelity; rankings could shift at other F_0.
  • λ, τ, T operating grid = illustrative sweeps
    Generation rate, coherence time, and deadline are swept by hand (e.g. λ=10/s, τ∈{0.1,1,100}s) to illustrate regimes; not estimated from data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Heralded entanglement arrivals on each channel are i.i.d. exponential with constant rate λ; stored pairs are not overwritten unless the strategy says so.
    Sec. II.A network model; standard continuous-attempt heralding abstraction.
  • domain assumption Memory noise is independent single-qubit depolarization with coherence time τ, yielding fidelity F(Δt)=1/4+(F_0-1/4)e^{-2Δt/τ} on isotropic states.
    Sec. II.A; chooses one common Pauli noise model and excludes biased/non-Pauli errors.
  • domain assumption 2-to-1 distillation is the CNOT bilocal protocol on twirled isotropic states with success probability and output fidelity as in Eqs. (3)–(4); post-selected output is re-twirled.
    Sec. II.A; optimality claimed only among bilocal Cliffords for Werner inputs.
  • domain assumption Entanglement swapping of isotropic states has fidelity Eq. (5) and succeeds with probability 1.
    Sec. II.A explicitly assumes unit-probability BSM (matter-qubit style); linear-optics 1/2 case deferred.
  • ad hoc to paper All policies are causal: ASAP never waits for a pair that has not yet arrived; evaluation is at fixed deadline T when the state is consumed.
    Sec. II.B strategy class definition; excludes non-causal or adaptive cutoff optimization beyond the named schedules.
  • ad hoc to paper At most two entangled states are stored per link; cross-channel swapping is allowed on the two-hop multiplexed geometry.
    Sec. II and V; keeps state space tractable and matches Fig. 1 multiplexing cartoon.
  • domain assumption Performance is summarized by conditional expected fidelity, success probability, and R_S = P_S max{I_c(E[ρ|success]),0} with I_c of the mean isotropic state.
    Sec. II.C; coherent information via hashing is a standard asymptotic rate proxy, applied here to the average state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement Distillation and Swapping Scheduling in Quantum Repeaters with Noisy Memories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTIDTBB6

@misc{pith2026260724557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement Distillation and Swapping Scheduling in Quantum Repeaters with Noisy Memories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTIDTBB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24557}
}
read the original abstract

Entanglement distillation and entanglement swapping have been extensively studied assuming perfect quantum memories. However, near-term quantum networks will be fundamentally limited by quantum memories with a finite coherence time, resulting in complex choices for the timing and ordering of these operations. In this work, we study entanglement distillation and entanglement swapping at the level of the elementary building blocks of noisy quantum repeater networks, with the goal of elucidating the fundamental tradeoffs induced by memory decoherence. First, we focus on a minimal one-hop setting, where we analytically compare ``distill-as-soon-as-possible'' and ``distill-as-late-as-possible'' strategies against a baseline strategy that simply discards the older entangled state. We find that in the low memory coherence time regime, discarding the older entangled state achieves higher expected output fidelity, while in the high coherence time regime, delaying distillation until the end achieves the highest expected output fidelity and, over most of the deadline range, the highest weighted coherent information, at the expense of a lower success probability. We then extend our analysis to two-hop repeater chains using Monte Carlo simulation. In this setting, we find that the highest weighted coherent information is achieved by strategies that defer distillation to the end of the time window, with \textsf{Distill-ALAP-then-Swap-ALAP} and \textsf{Swap-ASAP-then-Distill-ALAP} leading at different operating points, while \textsf{Discard-Oldest-then-Swap} never reaches positive weighted coherent information in any regime tested. Together, these results clarify how decoherence reshapes the optimal operation timing in quantum networks and provide instructive insights into the link-level principles that govern larger-scale architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrations of (a) a one-hop network and (b) a two-hop network. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The expected fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The success probability Pr(success) for one-hop strategies with λ = 10/s and τ = 0.1, 1, 100 s. Distill-ASAP Distill-ALAP Discard-Oldest 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 T (s) Weighted coherent info λ = 10/s, τ = 0.1s 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 T (s) Weighted coherent info λ = 10/s, τ = 1s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 T (s) Weighted coherent info λ = 10/s, τ = 1… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The weighted coherent information R for one-hop strategies with λ = 10/s and τ = 0.1, 1, 100 s. + Z T 0 dt1 Z T 0 dt2p(t1)p(t2)Pdist(t1, t2), (14) where n is the number of successfully generated entangled states, and Pdist is given by Pdist(t1, t2) = Pdist F(0), F(|t2 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Distribution of final fidelities for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The expected fidelity F¯ for two-hop strategies with λ = 10/s and τ = 0.1, 1, 100 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The success probability Pr(success) for two-hop strategies with λ = 10/s and τ = 0.1, 1, 100 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The weighted coherent information R for two-hop strategies with λ = 10/s and τ = 0.1, 1, 100 s. abilities that decrease with time in the high-coherence regime, since the states they must hold until T decohere and the final distillation becomes correspondingly less like…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Distribution of final swapped fidelities for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [29]

    Quantum repeater protocol analysis code,

    S. Chander, X. Chen, and A. Zang, “Quantum repeater protocol analysis code,” https://github.com/SiddharthRC/ quantum-repeater-protocol-analysis-code-sidrc, 2026, accessed: 2026

    2026

  2. [28]

    Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states,

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, “Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states,”Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathemati- cal, Physical and engineering sciences, vol. 461, no. 2053, pp. 207–235, 2005

  3. [1]

    The quantum internet,

    H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,”Nature, vol. 453, no. 7198, pp. 1023–1030, 2008

    2008

  4. [2]

    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

  5. [3]

    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

  6. [4]

    Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication,

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 81, pp. 5932–5935, Dec 1998. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5932

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.5932 1998

  7. [5]

    Quantum repeaters based on entanglement purification,

    W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum repeaters based on entanglement purification,”Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 169, 1999

    1999

  8. [6]

    Quantum repeater archi- tecture with hierarchically optimized memory buffer times,

    S. Santra, L. Jiang, and V . S. Malinovsky, “Quantum repeater archi- tecture with hierarchically optimized memory buffer times,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 025010, 2019

    2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    Policies for elementary links in a quantum network,

    S. Khatri, “Policies for elementary links in a quantum network,”Quan- tum, vol. 5, p. 537, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    Optimal entanglement distribution policies in homogeneous repeater chains with cutoffs,

    Á. G. Iñesta, G. Vardoyan, L. Scavuzzo, and S. Wehner, “Optimal entanglement distribution policies in homogeneous repeater chains with cutoffs,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 46, 2023

    2023

  3. [9]

    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

  4. [10]

    En- tanglement purification in quantum networks: Guaranteed improvement and optimal time,

    A. Zang, X.-A. Chen, E. Chitambar, M. Suchara, and T. Zhong, “En- tanglement purification in quantum networks: Guaranteed improvement and optimal time,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02286, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [11]

    No- go theorems for universal entanglement purification,

    A. Zang, X. Chen, E. Chitambar, M. Suchara, and T. Zhong, “No- go theorems for universal entanglement purification,”Physical review letters, vol. 134, no. 19, p. 190803, 2025

    2025

  6. [12]

    Reducing classical communication costs in multiplexed quantum repeaters using hardware-aware quasi-local policies,

    S. Haldar, P. J. Barge, X. Cheng, K.-C. Chang, B. T. Kirby, S. Khatri, C. W. Wong, and H. Lee, “Reducing classical communication costs in multiplexed quantum repeaters using hardware-aware quasi-local policies,”Communications Physics, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 132, 2025

    2025

  7. [13]

    Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters,

    V . Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V . Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. Fioretto, Y . Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Telleret al., “Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 130, no. 5, p. 050803, 2023

    2023

  8. [14]

    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,”Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996

    1996

  9. [15]

    Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels,

    D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, “Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels,”Physical review letters, vol. 77, no. 13, p. 2818, 1996

    1996

  10. [16]

    Enumerating all bilocal clifford distillation protocols through symmetry reduction,

    S. Jansen, K. Goodenough, S. de Bone, D. Gijswijt, and D. Elkouss, “Enumerating all bilocal clifford distillation protocols through symmetry reduction,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 715, 2022

    2022

  11. [17]

    Optimizing practical entanglement distillation,

    F. Rozp˛ edek, T. Schiet, D. Elkouss, A. C. Doherty, S. Wehneret al., “Optimizing practical entanglement distillation,”Physical Review A, vol. 97, no. 6, p. 062333, 2018

    2018

  12. [18]

    Optimal two-qubit gates in recurrence protocols of entanglement purification,

    F. Preti, T. Calarco, J. M. Torres, and J. Z. Bernád, “Optimal two-qubit gates in recurrence protocols of entanglement purification,”Physical Review A, vol. 106, no. 2, p. 022422, 2022

    2022

  13. [19]

    Entanglement purification for quantum communication,

    J.-W. Pan, C. Simon, ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, “Entanglement purification for quantum communication,”Nature, vol. 410, no. 6832, pp. 1067–1070, 2001

    2001

  14. [20]

    Exper- imental entanglement purification of arbitrary unknown states,

    J.-W. Pan, S. Gasparoni, R. Ursin, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, “Exper- imental entanglement purification of arbitrary unknown states,”Nature, vol. 423, no. 6938, pp. 417–422, 2003

    2003

  15. [21]

    Long-distance entanglement purification for quantum communication,

    X.-M. Hu, C.-X. Huang, Y .-B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B.-H. Liu, Y . Guo, C. Zhang, W.-B. Xing, Y .-F. Huang, C.-F. Liet al., “Long-distance entanglement purification for quantum communication,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 126, no. 1, p. 010503, 2021

    2021

  16. [22]

    Experimental single-copy entanglement distillation,

    S. Ecker, P. Sohr, L. Bulla, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, “Experimental single-copy entanglement distillation,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 127, no. 4, p. 040506, 2021

    2021

  17. [23]

    Experimental purification of two-atom entanglement,

    R. Reichle, D. Leibfried, E. Knill, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, “Experimental purification of two-atom entanglement,”Nature, vol. 443, no. 7113, pp. 838–841, 2006

    2006

  18. [24]

    Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes,

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. Bakermans, S. J. Kamer- ling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, “Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes,”Science, vol. 356, no. 6341, pp. 928–932, 2017

    2017

  19. [25]

    Entanglement purification and protection in a superconducting quantum network,

    H. Yan, Y . Zhong, H.-S. Chang, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, É. Dumur, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, and A. N. Cleland, “Entanglement purification and protection in a superconducting quantum network,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 128, no. 8, p. 080504, 2022

    2022

  20. [26]

    Maximum efficiency of a linear- optical bell-state analyzer,

    J. Calsamiglia and N. Lütkenhaus, “Maximum efficiency of a linear- optical bell-state analyzer,”Applied Physics B, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 67–71, 2001

    2001

  21. [27]

    Arbitrarily complete bell-state measurement using only linear optical elements,

    W. P. Grice, “Arbitrarily complete bell-state measurement using only linear optical elements,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular , and Optical Physics, vol. 84, no. 4, p. 042331, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    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 & Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 045027, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

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

    T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Nijsten, J. de Oliveira Filho, M. Papendrecht, J. Rabbie, F. Rozp˛ edek, M. Skrzypczyket al., “NetSquid, a network simulator for quantum information using discrete events,”Communications Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 164, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    QuISP: a quantum internet simulation package,

    R. Satoh, M. Hajdušek, N. Benchasattabuse, S. Nagayama, K. Teramoto, T. Matsuo, S. A. Metwalli, P. Pathumsoot, T. Satoh, S. Suzukiet al., “QuISP: a quantum internet simulation package,” in2022 IEEE in- ternational conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE). IEEE, 20...

    2022

  25. [33]

    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,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16752, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.