Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

QPing: a Quantum Ping Primitive for Quantum Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum ping tells two nodes whether their shared entanglement is usable, with minimal resource use.

desk verdict A genuinely useful conceptual primitive for quantum-network diagnostics, but the quantitative claims need proof or simulation before it becomes a building block; worth sending to referees. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03806 v1 pith:573PO7UZ submitted 2025-08-05 quant-ph

Jorge Miguel-Ramiro , Jessica Illiano , Francesco Mazza , Alexander Pirker , Julia Freund , Angela Sara Cacciapuoti , Marcello Caleffi , Wolfgang Dür This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P45
keywords quantumpingnetworksentanglementfidelitysequentialhypothesistestingwitnessingverificationroutingnetworkdiagnostics
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 introduces QPing, a diagnostic primitive for quantum networks that asks whether two nodes can establish shared entanglement whose fidelity clears a time-dependent threshold, rather than merely asking whether a host is reachable. Because quantum measurements consume the entangled state being probed, QPing avoids full state tomography and instead gathers just enough pass/fail statistics, through sequential hypothesis testing, to make a binary accept-or-reject decision. The paper develops three families of strategies — active path-based, active segment-based, and passive resource-based — and argues that a successful ping implicitly validates routing information and can serve as a pre-screening step for entanglement-based quality of service. A correct QPing would let future quantum networks continuously probe candidate links and paths before committing expensive end-to-end entanglement generation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sequential fidelity test: each trial records a pass or fail for the hypothesis that the shared state has fidelity above the time-dependent threshold, and Bayes' rule updates a posterior over fidelity until the posterior probability crosses a confidence level. The named tools are fidelity witnessing for the active strategies, entanglement witnesses and Bell inequalities for the passive strategy, and a bouncing variant in which one qubit traverses the path twice, whose round-trip fidelity for depolarizing noise is $F_{rt}=F^2+(1-F)^2/3$ and must be tested against an effective threshold. The segment-based variant is carried by the composition formula $F_{\text{end}}=\left(\prod_i F_i\right)q_{\text{swap}}^{N-1}$, which combines per-segment fidelities and swapping noise factors. These mechanisms let QPing minimize the expected number of entangled pairs consumed while adapting the threshold to time.

What would settle it

Take a depolarizing channel whose true fidelity exactly equals the threshold $F_0(t)$ and run the sequential QPing test many times at confidence $\eta$; if the empirical acceptance rate differs substantially from the error rate promised by the hypothesis-testing bound, the calibration claim fails. A second concrete check is to let the fidelity cross $F_0(t)$ midway through a ping and observe whether the posterior update detects the crossing within the intended confidence interval.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quantum connectivity can be captured by a formally defined primitive: given nodes $A$ and $B$, decide whether they can establish a state $\rho_{AB}$ with $F(\rho_{AB},|\Phi^+\rangle)(t)>F_0(t)$ with high confidence and minimal quantum resources, where $F_0(t)$ is the minimum fidelity a target application demands at the time of use and decays with memory decoherence, gate errors, and distribution latency. Three concrete realisations are offered: an active path-based ping that triggers entanglement distribution over a route and verifies the end-to-end state with local or bouncing global measurements; an active segment-based ping that tests individual links in parallel and composes their fidelities into an end-to-end estimate; and a passive ping that checks whether a pre-shared graph-state resource can be locally transformed into a usable bipartite state. In the active variants the decision rule is a Bayesian sequential hypothesis test over fidelity, with posterior acceptance when $\Pr(F(t)\ge F_0(t)\mid\text{data})\ge \eta$; in the passive variant the criterion becomes structural, namely whether a connecting path exists in the resource graph and whether the extracted state passes a witness or Bell-type test.

Load-bearing premise

The decision rule assumes every entanglement attempt is an independent draw from a fixed or slowly drifting fidelity distribution with a known prior and a known per-trial pass probability; if network noise, topology, or the prior changes during a ping, the accept/reject verdict is not calibrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A successful active QPing over a chosen path implicitly confirms that the routing information is physically realizable, so ping output can drive path selection and re-routing decisions.
  • Time-adaptive thresholds make QPing a pre-screening tool for quality of service: it can judge whether an entanglement attempt is worth making before the network commits resources.
  • Segment-based pings can run in parallel and identify failing links, which suits unheralded swapping policies and offline resource-allocation diagnostics.
  • Passive QPing on pre-shared resource states can check connectivity with almost no latency, since only local operations and a witness measurement are needed.
  • Bringing QPing into a standard sequential hypothesis-testing framework would give explicit error-rate control and bounds on the number of trials needed for a verdict.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The protocol's cost function is left implicit; a direct extension would derive the expected number of trials as a function of true fidelity and thresholds, giving operators a concrete latency-versus-confidence trade-off before deployment.
  • The accept/reject calibration depends on the fidelity distribution being stationary during the ping; a natural stress test is to run QPing on a channel whose fidelity drifts across the threshold and measure how much the verdict lags the true crossing.
  • If a device-independent variant could be built from the same sequential-testing skeleton, QPing would certify entanglement without trusting the measurement hardware — a stronger guarantee for third-party network infrastructure.
  • The segment-composition formula assumes independent depolarizing noise on each link; correlated noise across segments would make the composed estimate biased, which is an empirically testable concern for real repeaters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QPing, a diagnostic primitive for quantum networks, and defines it as the task of deciding whether two nodes A and B can establish an entangled state whose fidelity exceeds a possibly time-dependent threshold, with high confidence and minimal quantum-resource consumption. The authors propose three families of strategies: active path-based QPing (with end-node and bouncing variants), active segment-based QPing, and passive resource-based QPing. The statistical engine is Bayesian sequential hypothesis testing combined with fidelity witnessing from the authors' earlier work, and the paper includes four propositions: a bouncing noise relation, a prior-based decision rule, a segment-composition formula, and a graph-state passive-ping criterion. The paper is positioned as an architecture-agnostic, layer-agnostic building block complementary to entanglement routing and QoS assessment.

Significance. If the proposed guarantees were fully established, QPing would fill a genuine gap in the quantum-network toolbox: a lightweight, real-time diagnostic for entanglement-based connectivity that complements routing and QoS. The active/passive taxonomy and the segment-based versus path-based distinction are useful organizing ideas, and the paper is refreshingly candid about its proof-of-concept status and about several limitations that are deferred to future work. The bouncing-strategy formula for depolarizing noise is correct, and the use of established verification tools is appropriate. However, the central quantitative claims—high confidence, minimal resource usage, and the segment-composition formula—are not yet rigorously supported; the paper reads more as a proposal for a primitive than as a proof of its performance guarantees. With the technical gaps below addressed, the contribution could be suitable for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A.1, Eq. (2)] The posterior update in Eq. (2) and the surrounding concentration statement require that successive trials are independent draws from a fixed or only slowly drifting fidelity distribution, with a known per-trial pass probability p(F(t)). This i.i.d./stationarity premise is never stated. If F(t) drifts during the ping, k/n converges to a time-averaged pass rate rather than to the fidelity at the decision time, so the posterior in Eq. (3) and the accept/reject rule in step (v) are not calibrated. Since the QPing definition itself makes F0(t) time-dependent, and Sec. V explicitly defers dynamic topologies and noise to future work, the present framework covers only quasi-static windows. The authors should state this restriction at the point where the protocol is defined, not only in the outlook, and should either justify the i.i.d. assumption for the intended operational regimes or add robustness bounds for drift.
  2. [Sec. IV.A.1, decision rule and following paragraph] The statement that this sequential QPing 'minimizes the expected number of entangled-pair trials' is asserted without proof or a precise optimality theorem. Wald's sequential probability ratio test has optimality properties only under specific conditions: i.i.d. observations, fixed simple hypotheses, and prescribed error probabilities. The Bayesian threshold rule with η and δ is not shown to satisfy those conditions, and the authors' own sentence that explicit cost functions 'could be derived' using standard results indicates that the resource-minimality part of the QPing definition is currently unestablished. Please either prove the optimality claim under stated assumptions, or replace it with a weaker, substantiated claim such as 'reduces the average number of trials relative to a fixed-sample test'.
  3. [Prop. 3, Eq. (7)] The multiplicative composition formula Fend = (∏ Fi) qswap^{N−1} is not an equality under independent depolarizing noise. For two Bell-diagonal (Werner) states with fidelities F1 and F2, an ideal entanglement swap yields output fidelity F1F2 + (1−F1)(1−F2)/3, not F1F2; an imperfect swapping operation adds a further depolarizing term. The product form can at best be a first-order approximation in the infidelities (1−Fi). Because the segment-based QPing strategy relies on this relation to certify end-to-end viability, the proposition should be corrected or explicitly qualified, e.g., as holding 'in the high-fidelity limit to first order in 1−Fi', and the impact of the approximation on the segment-based decision rule should be discussed.
  4. [Sec. IV.A.1, step (v), and Sec. V] No quantitative bound is given for the false-accept or false-reject probabilities, nor is any sample-size bound provided; η and δ are free parameters, and Eq. (3) is a posterior probability, not an error rate. The outlook's statement that integrating QPing into a standard sequential hypothesis-testing framework would yield 'rigorous control of error rates' and 'explicit bounds on the required number of trials' implicitly concedes that the current 'high confidence' formulation lacks these guarantees. The authors should either supply such bounds for the proposed decision rule or explicitly define the confidence claim as an informal Bayesian heuristic rather than a certified error-rate guarantee.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.C] The assumption that entanglement-generation, distribution, and routing services are available and truthful is stated early, but it should be restated near the active decision rules, because a successful active QPing validates routing only under that assumption.
  2. [Sec. IV.A.1, Eq. (2)] The quantity p(F(t)) appearing in Eq. (2) is never formally defined; please define it as the per-trial probability of a 'pass' conditional on fidelity F(t).
  3. [Sec. V] There is a typo: 'a active segment-based variant' should read 'an active segment-based variant'.
  4. [References] References [15] and [39] are the same Azuma et al. paper, and references [27] and [52] are the same Van Meter et al. paper; the duplicate entries should be removed or cross-referenced.
  5. [Eq. (7)] The notation 'q N −1 swap' should be written as qswap^{N−1} for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QPing applies standard sequential-hypothesis-testing and fidelity-witnessing tools to a new diagnostic task, and its cited results are independent parameter-free derivations.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a definition and protocol framework, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The active QPing strategies are built on Bayesian updating (Eq. 2) and a decision rule (step v), which are explicit statistical procedures rather than hidden fits or renamed predictions. The cited fidelity-witnessing work [45] and collective-verification work [43] are their own prior results, but they are parameter-free derivations with stated assumptions and do not include QPing's target claim; using them as components of a new diagnostic is legitimate application, not circularity. The bouncing variant's success probability (Eq. 4) and the segment-composition formula (Eq. 7) are physical composition rules that follow from the assumed depolarizing-noise model, not from the desired QPing conclusion. The passive criterion (Prop. 4) is a known graph-state path property, stated with its assumptions. The paper also explicitly defers dynamic settings and explicit cost-function analysis to future work (Sec. V), so there is no pretense that unsupported premises are derived. Concerns about i.i.d./stationarity or the absence of rigorous error-rate bounds are robustness and correctness limitations, not circularity. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central protocol relies on standard verification math and on modeling assumptions about network behavior. The only free choices are operator-set thresholds and priors; no parameters are fitted to data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • confidence threshold η = user-chosen, e.g., 0.9
    The decision rule in Sec. IV.A.1(v) uses η to accept or reject a link; no principled choice is provided.
  • uncertainty parameter δ = optional
    Defines the inconclusive band in Sec. IV.A.1(v); chosen by the operator without guidance.
  • prior fidelity distribution P(F(t)) = uniform if no knowledge
    Eq. (2) requires a prior over path fidelity; the paper suggests uniform when no knowledge exists, but posterior and trial counts depend on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Repeated entanglement attempts are independent and identically distributed with a known per-trial pass probability p(F(t)).
    Eq. (2) and the Hoeffding/Chernoff concentration statements in Sec. IV.A.1 require i.i.d. trials; under drifting noise or correlated routing behavior the posterior and decision rule are not calibrated.
  • domain assumption Core network functionalities, namely entanglement generation, distribution, and routing, are available and consistent.
    Sec. II.C states QPing assumes that the core functionalities are available and can serve the quantum ping operation; a successful active ping is interpreted as validating routing, which presumes routing data are truthful.
  • domain assumption Fidelity degradation is captured by exponential decay F0(t) ≈ F0 exp(-t/τ) plus gate-error factors.
    Sec. III.B lists memory decoherence, gate errors, and stochastic distribution times with these heuristic forms; they are plausible models, not measured calibrations.
  • domain assumption Independent depolarizing noise on links and ideal LOCC at end nodes, with a constant swap fidelity factor q_swap.
    Prop. 3, Eq. (7) uses this model for segment-based composition; the paper does not mention that exact Bell-diagonal swapping includes error-cancellation cross-terms.
  • standard math Graph-state measurement rules: measuring intermediate qubits in Y and neighbors in Z transforms a path into a direct edge.
    Passive QPing (Sec. IV.C) relies on known graph-state transformations from Ref. [65], [66]; Prop. 4 applies them to connectivity criteria.
  • domain assumption A known pre-shared resource state |Ψ_res> is consistently generated, and its ideal LOCC transformation to a Bell pair is known.
    Passive QPing definition in Sec. IV.C explicitly assumes prior knowledge of the resource structure and transformation protocol; if the resource is unknown or generated unreliably, the passive criterion does not apply.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QPing: a Quantum Ping Primitive for Quantum Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/573PO7UZ

@misc{pith2026250803806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QPing: a Quantum Ping Primitive for Quantum Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/573PO7UZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03806}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the concept of Quantum Ping (QPing) as a diagnostic primitive for future quantum networks, designed to assess whether two or more end nodes can establish practical quantum entanglement with efficient resource consumption, limited overhead, and time-adaptive fidelity thresholds. Unlike classical ping, which probes network-layer connectivity through ICMP messages, our proposed quantum version is adapted to the unique features of quantum networks, where connectivity depends on the availability and quality of shared entanglement. We develop a formal framework for QPing and leverage different tools such as sequential hypothesis testing to probe quantum connectivity. We present several strategies, including active strategies, with path-based and segment-based variants, and passive strategies that utilize pre-shared entangled resources. QPing can serve as a flexible diagnostic building block for quantum networks, designed to work alongside fundamental network operations, while remaining suitable to different architectural and protocol design approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General idea of Quantum Ping (QPing). Two nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Active Quantum Ping strategies. (a) Path based. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Passive quantum ping. Entanglement is already pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advances in quantum metrology,

    V . Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, “Advances in quantum metrology,” Nature Photonics, vol. 5, p. 222–229, Mar. 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Quantum error correction for metrology,

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum error correction for metrology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 112, p. 150802, Apr 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Optimal distributed sensing in noisy environments,

    P. Sekatski, S. Wölk, and W. Dür, “Optimal distributed sensing in noisy environments,” Phys. Rev. Research, vol. 2, p. 023052, Apr 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Quantum sensing and commu- nication via non-gaussian states,

    A. Giani, M. Z. Win, and A. Conti, “Quantum sensing and commu- nication via non-gaussian states,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, vol. 6, pp. 18–33, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Quantum cryptogra- phy,

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, “Quantum cryptogra- phy,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 74, pp. 145–195, Mar 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Advances in quantum cryptography,

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V . C. Usenko, G. Val- lone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, “Advances in quantum cryptography,” Advances in Optics and Photonics , vol. 12, p. 1012, Dec. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,

    J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, “Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 59, pp. 4249–4254, Jun 1999

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Verifiable measurement-only blind quan- tum computing with stabilizer testing,

    M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, “Verifiable measurement-only blind quan- tum computing with stabilizer testing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 115, p. 220502, Nov 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    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, pp. 137–143, jan 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Quantum two-way protocol beyond superdense coding: Joint transfer of data and entanglement,

    K. S. Jensen, L. Valentini, R. B. Christensen, M. Chiani, and P. Popovski, “Quantum two-way protocol beyond superdense coding: Joint transfer of data and entanglement,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    The quantum internet,

    H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,” Nature, vol. 453, pp. 1023–1030, June 2008. 10

    2008

  4. [12]

    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, p. eaam9288, oct 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Advances in the quantum internet,

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, “Advances in the quantum internet,” Com- munications of the ACM , vol. 65, p. 52–63, July 2022

    2022

  7. [16]

    Appli- cation Scenarios for the Quantum Internet

    C. Wang, A. Rahman, R. Li, M. Aelmans, and K. Chakraborty, “Appli- cation Scenarios for the Quantum Internet.” RFC 9583, June 2024

    2024

  8. [17]

    Modular architectures for quantum networks,

    A. Pirker, J. Wallnöfer, and W. Dür, “Modular architectures for quantum networks,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 20, p. 053054, May 2018

    2018

  9. [18]

    Towards large-scale quantum networks,

    W. Kozlowski and S. Wehner, “Towards large-scale quantum networks,” in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication , NANOCOM ’19, (New York, NY , USA), Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

    2019

  10. [19]

    Designing a quantum network protocol,

    W. Kozlowski, A. Dahlberg, and S. Wehner, “Designing a quantum network protocol,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies , CoNEXT ’20, p. 1–16, ACM, Nov. 2020

    2020

  11. [20]

    A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglement-based networks,

    A. Pirker and W. Dür, “A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglement-based networks,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 21, p. 033003, Mar. 2019

    2019

  12. [21]

    A link layer protocol for quantum net- works,

    A. Dahlberg, M. Skrzypczyk, T. Coopmans, L. Wubben, F. Rozp˛ edek, M. Pompili, A. Stolk, P. Pawełczak, R. Knegjens, J. de Oliveira Filho, R. Hanson, and S. Wehner, “A link layer protocol for quantum net- works,” in Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communic...

    2019

  13. [22]

    Quantum internet protocol stack: A comprehensive survey,

    J. Illiano, M. Caleffi, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Quantum internet protocol stack: A comprehensive survey,” Computer Networks, vol. 213, p. 109092, Aug. 2022

    2022

  14. [23]

    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

    1998

  15. [24]

    Quantum repeater,

    W. Dür, H. Briegel, P. Zoller, and P. van Loock, “Quantum repeater,” in Quantum Information: From Foundations to Quantum Technology Applications (D. Bruß and G. Leuchs, eds.), p. 691–700, Wiley, April 2016

    2016

  16. [25]

    Designing quantum repeater networks,

    R. Meter and J. Touch, “Designing quantum repeater networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 51, p. 64–71, August 2013

    2013

  17. [26]

    Quantum repeater for w states,

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, “Quantum repeater for w states,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, p. 040323, Nov 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    Path selection for quantum repeater networks,

    R. Van Meter, T. Satoh, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, “Path selection for quantum repeater networks,” Networking Science , vol. 3, p. 82–95, Dec. 2013

    2013

  19. [28]

    A quantum router architecture for high-fidelity entanglement flows in quantum networks,

    Y . Lee, E. Bersin, A. Dahlberg, S. Wehner, and D. Englund, “A quantum router architecture for high-fidelity entanglement flows in quantum networks,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, p. 75, June 2022

    2022

  20. [29]

    Quantum routing for emerging quantum networks,

    W. Shi and R. Malaney, “Quantum routing for emerging quantum networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 38, p. 140–146, Jan. 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey,

    A. Abane, M. Cubeddu, V . S. Mai, and A. Battou, “Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 6, p. 1–39, 2025

    2025

  22. [31]

    Distributing graph states over arbitrary quantum networks,

    C. Meignant, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, “Distributing graph states over arbitrary quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 100, p. 052333, Nov 2019

    2019

  23. [32]

    Genuine network multipartite entanglement,

    M. Navascués, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas-Kerstjens, “Genuine network multipartite entanglement,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 125, p. 240505, Dec 2020

    2020

  24. [33]

    Entanglement-assisted quantum networks: Mechanics, enabling technologies, challenges, and research directions,

    Z. Li, K. Xue, J. Li, L. Chen, R. Li, Z. Wang, N. Yu, D. S. L. Wei, Q. Sun, and J. Lu, “Entanglement-assisted quantum networks: Mechanics, enabling technologies, challenges, and research directions,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2133– 2189, 2023

    2023

  25. [34]

    Optimized quantum net- works,

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, A. Pirker, and W. Dür, “Optimized quantum net- works,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 919, Feb. 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    Optimized distribution of entanglement graph states in quantum networks,

    X. Fan, C. Zhan, H. Gupta, and C. R. Ramakrishnan, “Optimized distribution of entanglement graph states in quantum networks,” arXiv:2405.00222, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    J. F. Kurose and K. W. Ross, Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (6th Edition) . Pearson, 6th ed., 2012

    2012

  28. [37]

    Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers

    R. T. Braden, “Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers.” RFC 1122, Oct. 1989

    1989

  29. [38]

    To- wards real-world quantum networks: A review,

    S. Wei, B. Jing, X. Zhang, J. Liao, C. Yuan, B. Fan, C. Lyu, D. Zhou, Y . Wang, G. Deng, H. Song, D. Oblak, G. Guo, and Q. Zhou, “To- wards real-world quantum networks: A review,” Laser amp; Photonics Reviews, vol. 16, Jan. 2022

    2022

  30. [39]

    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,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 95, p. 045006, Dec 2023

    2023

  31. [40]

    Quantum sequential hypothesis testing,

    E. Martínez Vargas, C. Hirche, G. Sentís, M. Skotiniotis, M. Carrizo, R. Muñoz Tapia, and J. Calsamiglia, “Quantum sequential hypothesis testing,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 126, p. 180502, May 2021

    2021

  32. [41]

    Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements,

    S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, “Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 120, p. 170502, Apr 2018

    2018

  33. [42]

    Optimal verification of general bipartite pure states,

    X.-D. Yu, J. Shang, and O. Gühne, “Optimal verification of general bipartite pure states,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 5, p. 112, Dec. 2019

    2019

  34. [43]

    Collective operations can exponentially enhance quantum state verification,

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, “Collective operations can exponentially enhance quantum state verification,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 129, p. 190504, Oct 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Sequen- tial hypothesis testing of quantum states,

    G. Fields, N. Sangwan, J. Postlewaite, S. Guha, and T. Javidi, “Sequen- tial hypothesis testing of quantum states,” in 2024 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), p. 372–377, IEEE, Nov. 2024

    2024

  36. [45]

    Nondestructive verifica- tion of entangled states via fidelity witnessing,

    F. Riera-Sàbat, J. Miguel-Ramiro, and W. Dür, “Nondestructive verifica- tion of entangled states via fidelity witnessing,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 107, p. 022414, Feb 2023

    2023

  37. [46]

    Entanglement detection,

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, “Entanglement detection,” Physics Reports , vol. 474, p. 1–75, Apr. 2009

    2009

  38. [47]

    Quantum-process tomography: Resource analysis of different strategies,

    M. Mohseni, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar, “Quantum-process tomography: Resource analysis of different strategies,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 77, p. 032322, Mar 2008

    2008

  39. [48]

    Efficient quantum state tomography,

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y .-K. Liu, “Efficient quantum state tomography,” Nature Communications , vol. 1, p. 149, Dec. 2010

    2010

  40. [49]

    Internet Control Message Protocol

    “Internet Control Message Protocol.” RFC 792, Sept. 1981

    1981

  41. [50]

    Experimental demonstration of entanglement delivery using a quantum network stack,

    M. Pompili, C. Delle Donne, I. te Raa, B. van der Vecht, M. Skrzypczyk, G. Ferreira, L. de Kluijver, A. J. Stolk, S. L. Hermans, P. Pawełczak, et al. , “Experimental demonstration of entanglement delivery using a quantum network stack,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, ...

    2022

  42. [51]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  43. [52]

    Path selection for quantum repeater networks,

    R. Van Meter, T. Satoh, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, “Path selection for quantum repeater networks,” Networking Science , vol. 3, pp. 82–95, Dec 2013

    2013

  44. [53]

    Entanglement-gradient routing for quantum networks,

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, “Entanglement-gradient routing for quantum networks,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 14255, 2017

    2017

  45. [54]

    Decentralized base-graph routing for the quantum internet,

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, “Decentralized base-graph routing for the quantum internet,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 98, p. 022310, Aug 2018

    2018

  46. [55]

    Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,

    M. Pant, H. Krovi, D. Towsley, L. Tassiulas, L. Jiang, P. Basu, D. En- glund, and S. Guha, “Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 25, 2019

    2019

  47. [56]

    Delocalized information in quantum networks,

    J. Miguel-Ramiro and W. Dür, “Delocalized information in quantum networks,” New J. Phys. , vol. 22, p. 043011, apr 2020

    2020

  48. [57]

    Protocols for packet quantum network intercommunication,

    N. Yu, C.-Y . Lai, and L. Zhou, “Protocols for packet quantum network intercommunication,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , vol. 2, p. 1–9, 2021

    2021

  49. [58]

    Entanglement swapping in quantum switches: Protocol design and stability analysis,

    W. Dai, A. Rinaldi, and D. Towsley, “Entanglement swapping in quantum switches: Protocol design and stability analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04116, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Flexible quantum data bus for quantum networks,

    J. Freund, A. Pirker, and W. Dür, “Flexible quantum data bus for quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 6, p. 033267, Sep 2024

    2024

  51. [60]

    A. S. Tanenbaum and D. J. Wetherall, Computer Networks . Prentice Hall Press, 5th ed., 2010

    2010

  52. [61]

    Standard forms of noisy quantum operations via depolarization,

    W. Dür, M. Hein, J. I. Cirac, and H.-J. Briegel, “Standard forms of noisy quantum operations via depolarization,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 72, p. 052326, Nov 2005

    2005

  53. [62]

    Randomized compiling 11 for scalable quantum computing on a noisy superconducting quantum processor,

    A. Hashim, R. K. Naik, A. Morvan, J.-L. Ville, B. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, M. Davis, E. Smith, C. Iancu, K. P. O’Brien, I. Hincks, J. J. Wallman, J. Emerson, and I. Siddiqi, “Randomized compiling 11 for scalable quantum computing on a noisy superconducting quantum processor...

    2021

  54. [63]

    Transforming graph states using single- qubit operations,

    A. Dahlberg and S. Wehner, “Transforming graph states using single- qubit operations,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 376, p. 20170325, May 2018

    2018

  55. [64]

    Transforming graph states to bell-pairs is NP-complete,

    A. Dahlberg, J. Helsen, and S. Wehner, “Transforming graph states to bell-pairs is NP-complete,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 348, Oct. 2020

    2020

  56. [65]

    Multiparty entanglement in graph states,

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, “Multiparty entanglement in graph states,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 69, p. 062311, Jun 2004

    2004

  57. [66]

    Entanglement in graph states and its applications,

    M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Nest, and H. Briegel, “Entanglement in graph states and its applications,” in Quantum Com- puters, Algorithms and Chaos, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi, ” Vol. 162, Varenna, 2005, edited by G. Cas...

    2005

  58. [67]

    Influence of noise in entanglement-based quantum networks,

    M. F. Mor-Ruiz and W. Dür, “Influence of noise in entanglement-based quantum networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communica- tions, vol. 42, p. 1793–1807, July 2024

    2024

  59. [68]

    Imperfect quantum networks with tailored resource states,

    M. F. Mor-Ruiz, J. Wallnöfer, and W. Dür, “Imperfect quantum networks with tailored resource states,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1605, Jan. 2025

    2025

  60. [69]

    Entangle- ment estimation from bell inequality violation,

    K. Bartkiewicz, B. Horst, K. Lemr, and A. Miranowicz, “Entangle- ment estimation from bell inequality violation,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 88, p. 052105, Nov 2013

    2013

  61. [70]

    Entanglement certification from theory to experiment,

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik, and M. Huber, “Entanglement certification from theory to experiment,” Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 1, p. 72–87, Dec. 2018

    2018

  62. [71]

    Quantifying entanglement with witness operators,

    F. G. S. L. Brandão, “Quantifying entanglement with witness operators,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 72, p. 022310, Aug 2005

    2005

  63. [72]

    Relations between entanglement witnesses and bell inequalities,

    P. Hyllus, O. Gühne, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein, “Relations between entanglement witnesses and bell inequalities,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 72, p. 012321, Jul 2005

    2005

  64. [73]

    Quantum certification and benchmarking,

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, “Quantum certification and benchmarking,” Nature Reviews Physics , vol. 2, p. 382–390, June 2020. 12

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.