Interconnection of Quantum Networks at Urban scale: Analysis of Temporal Stability of Entangled Photon Sources

Angela Sara Cacciapuoti; Laura d'Avossa; Marcello Caleffi

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Interconnection of Quantum Networks at Urban scale: Analysis of Temporal Stability of Entangled Photon Sources

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two entangled-photon sources stay synchronized within 120 picoseconds for eight hours across a deployed city fiber loop.

desk verdict Useful 8-hour stability measurement on deployed metro fiber, but the picosecond drift claims lack uncertainty quantification and the 'entanglement distribution' framing overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27906 v1 pith:4T4G74SG submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Laura d'Avossa , Angela Sara Cacciapuoti , Marcello Caleffi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581V80 PACS 03.67.Hk42.50.Ex

keywords quantumnetworksentanglementdistributionclocksynchronizationtemporalstabilitySPDCsourcesmetropolitanfiberHong-Ou-Mandelinterferencetime-taggedcoincidence

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

This paper tries to establish that clock synchronization between independent entangled-photon sources can survive the transition from a controlled lab to a working metropolitan fiber network, staying stable enough for entanglement-swapping operations. It reports an experimental demonstration over eight hours in which two SPDC sources, locked by an electrical clock, keep their correlation peak within roughly 120 ps of drift across a 7 km deployed loop and 5 km spools, with no active feedback. The correlation width stays consistent with detector jitter, meaning the sources themselves do not add temporal broadening. A sympathetic reader would take this as concrete evidence that existing telecom fiber, with its losses and noise, can host the timing backbone of a quantum network.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temporal correlation function built from time-tagged single-photon detection events: a histogram of arrival-time differences between photons from the two sources, accumulated over one 40 ns clock period. A Gaussian fit to each 5-minute histogram supplies the peak position and width; the peak's evolution gives drift, and the interquartile range (P75-P25) of the fit gives temporal dispersion. A shared electrical clock from one source to the other is the locking mechanism, and the metropolitan loop is the stress test for real-world stability.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the raw time-tagged data with Poisson error propagation: if the scatter of successive 5-minute peak positions is comparable to or larger than the claimed drift slopes (12–120 ps), then the sub-150 ps stability claim is not supported by the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports an experimental demonstration that two independent SPDC-based entangled-photon sources, once locked to a shared electrical clock, maintain stable temporal correlations over an 8-hour acquisition in a real metropolitan fiber loop with ~14 dB loss and background noise. The correlation peak drifts at most about 120 ps over that period, and the correlation width stays near the detector jitter limit (~100 ps interquartile range), implying no significant system-induced broadening. The authors see the result as evidence that clock sharing suffices for entanglement swapping in existing telecom infrastructure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaussian fits to the 5-minute coincidence histograms have picosecond-level statistical precision, so the reported 12 ps drifts are real signals rather than fit noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Once clock-locked, two independent sources can be used for Hong-Ou-Mandel interference and entanglement swapping without active recalibration for at least eight hours.
The drift grows with fiber length (up to ~120 ps on 5 km and 7 km paths), so longer links set the recalibration interval for a quantum network.
Since the correlation width is detector-limited, better SNSPD timing resolution would directly tighten the achievable synchronization.
Choosing quieter DWDM channels (25/43) in the C-band allows entanglement distribution even where the fiber carries classical network traffic.
The observed drift is consistent with thermo-optic effects in long fibers, suggesting temperature-induced path-length changes are the dominant stability limit.

Reading between the lines

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

If this stability holds, a natural next step is to measure HOM interference visibility over the same links; the 120 ps drift would predict a quantitative drop in visibility that could be calibrated against the clock.
The method could extend to more than two sources by fanning out the clock, but the paper leaves open how clock-distribution noise scales with fan-out.
Temperature monitoring along the metropolitan fiber might allow predicting or compensating the drift in real time, turning the observed 8-hour limit into an actively corrected longer-term lock.
The reported picosecond-level drift numbers should be treated as upper bounds rather than exact rates until the fit uncertainties are published.

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 paper is an honest engineering report: two commercial SPDC sources locked to one electrical clock maintain visible coincidence peaks across lab fibers, spools, and a 7-km deployed metro loop for eight hours. The noise spectral scan of the loop is a useful public dataset in itself, and the qualitative stability claim is credible from the displayed histograms.

What is actually new is the long-duration stability measurement: drift and width evolution over 8 h on deployed fiber, with maximum fitted drift about 120 ps on the 5-km spool. The authors do not introduce new protocols or theory, but they quantify something network designers need. The paper is clearly written and the experimental description is largely reproducible in principle.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it: the quantitative drift and width values are reported to two decimal places (Table I) with no per-fit uncertainties, no coincidence counts, no goodness-of-fit statistics, and no confidence intervals on the linear slopes. Given the measured peak width is ~110 ps and is dominated by SNSPD jitter, a 12 ps drift or a 4 ps width change may be below statistical resolution. The paper does not show that the fits have picosecond-level precision, so the strongest quantitative claims are under-evident. This is a real weakness, not a manufactured one, and it applies to the central '120 ps max drift' number as much as to the smaller ones.

A second issue is framing: the paper says 'entanglement distribution' is performed, but the measurement is a classical temporal cross-correlation between photons from two independent sources. There is no HOM dip, no Bell-state measurement, no state tomography. The temporal correlation is necessary for entanglement swapping, but it is not evidence of distributed entanglement. That claim should be softened.

The citation pattern is fine. Refs [9] and [10] (which include one of the present authors) already reported synchronized entanglement distribution over deployed fiber; this work is a distinct extension focused on long-term stability. No circular reasoning found.

Bottom line: the qualitative result — locked sources stay synchronized well enough that coincidence peaks remain detector-limited over eight hours on metro fiber — is likely right and worth publishing. The quantitative drift claims need uncertainty quantification and, ideally, raw count data. This paper deserves peer review, but it should not be accepted in its current form.

My recommendation: send to a competent experimental referee; insist on error bars and a re-framing of the entanglement claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of clock-synchronization stability for two rack-mounted SPDC entangled-photon sources sharing a common electrical clock. One photon from each source is detected after propagation over short laboratory links, 500-m and 5-km fiber spools, and a deployed 7-km metropolitan loop. Using 5-minute coincidence histograms, the authors fit Gaussian profiles and track the peak mean and interquartile width over an 8-hour acquisition. They claim that once locked, the temporal correlation peak drifts by at most ~120 ps (mainly on the 5-km spool) and that the correlation width remains consistent with SNSPD jitter, implying negligible additional source or link broadening. The paper also includes a spectral noise characterization of the metropolitan loop to justify the choice of DWDM channels 25 and 43.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the result is a useful practical baseline for synchronizing independent entangled-photon sources for future entanglement-swapping nodes on deployed metropolitan fiber. The experiment's strengths are the use of a real operational fiber loop with ~14 dB loss and background noise, a continuous 8-hour acquisition, visible coincidence peaks in the locked condition, and a preliminary spectral noise characterization. The authors do not demonstrate two-photon interference, polarization entanglement, or an entanglement witness; the contribution is a timing-stability characterization rather than a complete interconnection demonstration. The significance is therefore moderate but real, contingent on the reliability of the reported picosecond-level drift and width numbers.

major comments (4)

[Sec. VI / Table I / Fig. 7] The central quantitative claims—maximum drift ~120 ps, drift rates to two decimal places, width variations of 4–14 ps—are presented with no statistical uncertainties. The manuscript never states the total coincidence counts per 5-minute histogram, count rates, per-fit standard errors, or confidence intervals on the linear slopes in Fig. 7a. With a correlation width of ~110 ps, dominated by SNSPD jitter, resolving a 12 ps mean shift at 95% confidence requires of order a few hundred peak coincidences; resolving a 4 ps width change requires substantially more. Without these numbers, the reader cannot determine whether the reported drifts (e.g., +12.56 ps for CH1-CH2) are statistically distinguishable from zero, or whether the '~120 ps maximum drift' is within fit noise. This is load-bearing for the abstract's stability claim and must be addressed with per-fit errors, count statistics, or ra
[Sec. V / Sec. VI / Figs. 3, 6, 8, 9] Gaussianity is asserted rather than tested. The manuscript repeatedly states that the correlation histograms are 'well approximated' by Gaussians and uses Gaussian fits to extract mean and IQR, but no goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced chi-square, residual analysis) is reported. Figure 6 shows the metropolitan-loop profile as noticeably jagged, and Figure 9 shows a visibly asymmetric correlation. If the fitted distributions are not Gaussian, the table values and drift slopes may be biased. At minimum, the authors should report fit residuals or compare against nonparametric peak estimators.
[Table I vs. Sec. IV] Table I lists the initial time shift for CH1-CH2 as +4500 ps, but Sec. IV and Fig. 3 describe a residual delay of approximately 6.9 ns that is subsequently compensated. The table does not state whether this entry is the offset before or after compensation, and the two passages appear inconsistent. This needs clarification, since the 'initial time shift' values enter the interpretation of the channel-specific delays.
[Abstract / Sec. V] The abstract and Sec. V state that 'entanglement distribution is performed over existing telecommunication infrastructure' and describe the synchronization of two sources as a 'central result' in that context. However, the experiment measures temporal cross-correlations between one signal photon from EPS1 and one signal photon from EPS2; these two photons are not entangled with each other, and no polarization/energy-time entanglement witness, HOM interference, or BSM is performed. The authors should rephrase to avoid implying that entanglement was distributed between the two sources or that photon indistinguishability was demonstrated.

minor comments (4)

[Footnote 7] Footnote 7 states 'as will be clarified in Section V', but Section V precedes this passage in the manuscript. The footnote also seems to contradict the main text: the text says CH1-CH2 was chosen to keep optical path lengths similar, while the footnote says the narrower Gaussian-fit in Fig. 9 arises from different operating conditions. Please revise the cross-reference and clarify the comparison.
[Sec. VI, dispersion paragraph] The sentence 'a variation of approximately 100 ps is observed, estimated as the interquartile range (between P25 and P75) of the distribution' is confusing; it likely means the IQR width is approximately 100 ps, not that the variation is 100 ps. Please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
[Fig. 3 / Fig. 6] The histogram figures lack axis labels and legends. The reader cannot tell whether vertical axes are counts or normalized counts, and the color/line styles for 'no lock', 'lock', and 'phase-shifted' conditions are not defined in the captions. Please add clear axis labels and legends.
[Sec. V, channel notation] The text refers to 'channels 25-43' and 'channels 25 and 43' inconsistently. If the sources are configured on the two specific DWDM channels 25 and 43, the range notation should be avoided to prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the stability claim is an experimental measurement, not a quantity defined by its own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental measurement: the temporal drift and width evolution are estimated by Gaussian fits to time-tagged coincidence histograms over an 8-hour acquisition (Sec. VI, Fig. 7, Table I). The fitted mean, interquartile range, and linear slopes are extracted from detector time tags; they are not defined in terms of the claimed stability. The clock-sharing protocol in Sec. IV is direct experimental synchronization: Fig. 3 shows that without an explicitly shared clock no correlation peak appears, and with the shared clock a peak emerges. This is an operational test, not a self-definitional loop. The comparison of measured correlation width (~110 ps) with detector jitter (~100 ps, ref. [16]) uses an external detector specification as a benchmark rather than as a fitted input. Self-citations in the paper ([1,2,7,8,11,15]) provide background, prior characterization of the loop, and context, but none is load-bearing for the stability result; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The reviewer's concern that picosecond-level drift and broadening are reported without per-fit uncertainties, count statistics, or confidence intervals is a statistical-robustness/correctness issue, not a circularity issue. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity: the measurements and the claims do not reduce to each other by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental measurement; no input is structurally assumed to equal the output. The Gaussian model and the detector-jitter benchmark are the main inherited assumptions, and the fitted peak parameters are descriptive rather than derivational.

free parameters (3)

Per-channel Gaussian-fit initial time shift = CH1-CH2: +4500 ps; CH1-CH3: -5970 ps; CH1-CH4: +2710 ps; CH1-CH5: +6320 ps
Fitted coincidence peak positions used as zero references for drift tracking (Table I).
Linear drift slope per channel pair = +12.56, -11.46, -119.91, -102.16 ps / 8 h
Slopes of Gaussian mean vs time; no error bars given (Fig. 7a, Table I).
Correlation peak width (IQR) per channel pair = Initial: 110-128 ps; mean width variation +4 to +14 ps
Gaussian-fit/IQR widths used to claim detector-limited regime (Table I).

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Coincidence histograms over one clock period are approximately Gaussian.
Gaussian fits are used for all stability metrics (Sec. VI); no goodness-of-fit test is reported.
domain assumption The ~100 ps SNSPD jitter from literature [16] dominates the measured correlation width.
Used to conclude 'detector-limited regime' (Sec. VI); jitter was not independently measured in this setup.
domain assumption Channels 25-43 are free of the metropolitan network's spectral noise.
Selected after noise mapping as 'most stable and least affected' (Sec. V); this is a testbed-specific assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interconnection of Quantum Networks at Urban scale: Analysis of Temporal Stability of Entangled Photon Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4T4G74SG

@misc{pith2026260727906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interconnection of Quantum Networks at Urban scale: Analysis of Temporal Stability of Entangled Photon Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4T4G74SG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27906}
}

read the original abstract

Time synchronization is a fundamental requirement in entanglement-based quantum networks, where the indistinguishability of photons in the time domain is essential for enabling Hong-Ou-Mandel interference and entanglement swapping. In addition to precise temporal alignment, it is equally crucial to ensure the stability of the reference clock over time, as even small fluctuations can degrade the overall performance of the network. In this work, we investigate the stability of clock synchronization for entanglement distribution based on entangled-photon sources operating in the telecommunication C-band. Temporal correlations between photon detection events are analyzed using time-tagged coincidence measurements, enabling the extraction of synchronization peaks and their long-term stability. Experimental results demonstrate that, once locked, the sources exhibit stable temporal correlations over an 8-hour acquisition period, with a maximum observed drift of approximately 120 ps, primarily associated with long fiber links. The width of the correlation peak remains consistent with detector jitter, indicating negligible additional system-induced temporal broadening. A central result of this work is the experimental synchronization between two entanglement-photon sources in a realistic metropolitan deployment, where entanglement distribution is performed over existing telecommunication infrastructure characterized by non-negligible losses and background noise. In this scenario, despite the presence of significant imperfections introduced by the metropolitan-scale fiber network, the observed correlations remain clearly detectable and are consistently well-approximated by Gaussian statistics. This confirms that the two sources can be reliably synchronized not only in controlled laboratory conditions but also under real-world operating constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27906 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Schematic representation of interconnected quantum networks. Multiple independent quantum networks are synchronized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Experimental setup built in the National Quantum Internet.it testbed at the University of Naples Federico II. The setup consists of two polarization-entangled photon sources (EP S1 and EP S2), generating entangled pairs on DWDM channels 25-43. A shared electrical clock from EP S1 is used to synchronize EP S2. Photons from EP S1 are directly sent to the detection stage, while photons from EP S2 are distributed over m… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Correlation histograms between detection channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic of the 7 km fiber loop connecting the Monte Sant’Angelo campus (MSA) and the Engineering faculty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Measured noise count rate across DWDM channels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Temporal evolution of the mean correlation peak and its dispersion across multiple channel pairs over an 8-hour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Temporal correlation analysis for the CH1-CH2 (laboratory reference link) and CH1-CH5 (metropolitan loop) links [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparison between the correlation functions of pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references

[9]

Quantum entanglement distribution coexisting with high- rate, broadband classical optical communications over a real-world fiber connecting remote, synchronized nodes,

G. M. Talcott, A. I. Hess, L. d’Avossa, S. J. Kohlert, F. I. Yeh, J. H. Chen, J. J. Mambretti, T. M. Rambo, G. S. Kanter, J. M. Thomas, and P. Kumar, “Quantum entanglement distribution coexisting with high- rate, broadband classical optical communications over a real-world fiber connecting remote, synchronized nodes,”Optica Quantum, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 342...

2026
[10]

Synchronized entanglement distribution across deployed fiber coexisting with fully-loaded c-band optical communications,

G. M. Talcott, A. I. Hess, J. M. Thomas, L. d’Avossa, S. J. Kohlert, F. I. Yeh, J. H. Chen, J. J. Mambretti, T. M. Rambo, G. S. Kanter et al., “Synchronized entanglement distribution across deployed fiber coexisting with fully-loaded c-band optical communications,” inOptical Fiber Communication Conference. Optica Publishing Group, 2026, pp. Tu2K–2

2026
[1]

Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, “Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing,”IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 137–143, 2019

2019
[2]

When entanglement meets classical communications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum internet,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. Van Meter, and L. Hanzo, “When entanglement meets classical communications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum internet,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3808–3833, 2020

2020
[3]

Designing quantum repeater networks,

R. Van Meter and J. Touch, “Designing quantum repeater networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 64–71, 2013

2013
[4]

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
[5]

Measurement of the bell operator and quantum teleportation,

S. L. Braunstein and A. Mann, “Measurement of the bell operator and quantum teleportation,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 51, pp. R1727–R1730, Mar 1995

1995
[6]

Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference,

C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y . Ou, and L. Mandel, “Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference,”Physical review letters, vol. 59, no. 18, p. 2044, 1987

Show all 16 references

[7]

Quantum transduction: Enabling quantum networking,

M. Caleffi, L. D’Avossa, X. Han, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Quantum transduction: Enabling quantum networking,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2025

2025
[8]

Modelling quantum transduction for multipartite entanglement distribution,

L. d’Avossa, A. S. Cacciapuoti, and M. Caleffi, “Modelling quantum transduction for multipartite entanglement distribution,”IEEE Transac- tions on Communications, 2025

2025
[11]

Optimization of c-band quantum traffic coexisting with o-band classical traffic: preliminary results,

L. d’Avossa, E. Montella, M. Grillo, A. S. Cacciapuoti, and M. Caleffi, “Optimization of c-band quantum traffic coexisting with o-band classical traffic: preliminary results,”IEEE MeditCom 2026: IEEE International Mediterranean Conference on Communications and Networking, 2026

2026
[12]

S. V . Kartalopoulos,DWDM: networks, devices, and technology. John Wiley & Sons, 2002

2002
[13]

What is the best wavelength for fibre quantum communication?

M. J. Clark, R. Yang, R. Wang, R. Nejabati, D. Simeonidou, and S. K. Joshi, “What is the best wavelength for fibre quantum communication?” inQuantum 2.0. Optica Publishing Group, 2024, pp. QTh3A–43

2024
[14]

Official website,

Technology Italy SRL, “Official website,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnphotec.com/en/

2023
[15]

Towards quantum networks: Characterizing raman noise over metropolitan scale fiber network,

M. Caleffi, L. d’Avossa, I. I. M. Flores, M. Grillo, E. Montella, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Towards quantum networks: Characterizing raman noise over metropolitan scale fiber network,”IEEE SMARTCOMP , Invited paper, 2026

2026
[16]

Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors: physics and applications,

C. M. Natarajan, M. G. Tanner, and R. H. Hadfield, “Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors: physics and applications,”Supercon- ductor science and technology, vol. 25, no. 6, p. 063001, 2012

2012

Pith tools

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

[1] [9]

Quantum entanglement distribution coexisting with high- rate, broadband classical optical communications over a real-world fiber connecting remote, synchronized nodes,

G. M. Talcott, A. I. Hess, L. d’Avossa, S. J. Kohlert, F. I. Yeh, J. H. Chen, J. J. Mambretti, T. M. Rambo, G. S. Kanter, J. M. Thomas, and P. Kumar, “Quantum entanglement distribution coexisting with high- rate, broadband classical optical communications over a real-world fiber connecting remote, synchronized nodes,”Optica Quantum, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 342...

2026

[2] [10]

Synchronized entanglement distribution across deployed fiber coexisting with fully-loaded c-band optical communications,

G. M. Talcott, A. I. Hess, J. M. Thomas, L. d’Avossa, S. J. Kohlert, F. I. Yeh, J. H. Chen, J. J. Mambretti, T. M. Rambo, G. S. Kanter et al., “Synchronized entanglement distribution across deployed fiber coexisting with fully-loaded c-band optical communications,” inOptical Fiber Communication Conference. Optica Publishing Group, 2026, pp. Tu2K–2

2026

[3] [1]

Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, “Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing,”IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 137–143, 2019

2019

[4] [2]

When entanglement meets classical communications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum internet,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. Van Meter, and L. Hanzo, “When entanglement meets classical communications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum internet,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3808–3833, 2020

2020

[5] [3]

Designing quantum repeater networks,

R. Van Meter and J. Touch, “Designing quantum repeater networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 64–71, 2013

2013

[6] [4]

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] [5]

Measurement of the bell operator and quantum teleportation,

S. L. Braunstein and A. Mann, “Measurement of the bell operator and quantum teleportation,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 51, pp. R1727–R1730, Mar 1995

1995

[8] [6]

Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference,

C.-K. Hong, Z.-Y . Ou, and L. Mandel, “Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference,”Physical review letters, vol. 59, no. 18, p. 2044, 1987