Graph State Fission

Jorge Miguel-Ramiro; Wolfgang D\"ur

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Graph State Fission

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new protocol splits a qubit in a graph state while keeping every edge and using just one ebit of extra entanglement.

desk verdict Fission protocol is a genuinely useful new primitive, but the optimality theorem is overstated: a degree-1 vertex can be split for free. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00197 v1 pith:GY7WAR55 submitted 2024-11-29 quant-ph

Jorge Miguel-Ramiro , Wolfgang Dür This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P68 PACS 03.67.Mn

keywords graphstatesfissionentanglementmanipulationlocalcomplementationBellstateGHZquantumnetworksresourceoptimality

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 'fission,' the reverse of graph-state fusion: a protocol that splits one qubit in an arbitrary graph state into two qubits while preserving all existing edges and letting the experimenter choose which original neighbors attach to each new qubit. The basic version, carrying one neighbor along, consumes exactly one Bell pair (one ebit) of additional entanglement, and the authors prove this is the minimum possible. For arbitrary neighbor selection, the protocol uses an auxiliary GHZ state of the appropriate size. The authors argue this beats straightforward qubit-measurement methods in overhead and security, since only the directly involved parties must cooperate. If correct, the protocol gives quantum networks a flexible tool for dynamic entanglement management.

What carries the argument

The protocol's machinery is the graph-state stabilizer formalism together with local complementation, a unitary operation that rewires a vertex's neighborhood while preserving the state up to local unitaries. Fission works by attaching an auxiliary Bell or GHZ state to the qubit to be split, performing local complementations and Pauli-Z measurements to decouple selected neighbors onto the auxiliary qubits, and finally applying a CZ gate and local complementation to restore the graph structure. The optimality argument rests on the 1-uniformity property of connected graph states and on the fact that local operations cannot increase entanglement across any bipartition.

What would settle it

Take a small concrete graph state, such as a three-qubit path, run the fission protocol with one Bell pair, and compute the final stabilizer generators; if the resulting state is not locally equivalent to the predicted graph state, the protocol's correctness fails. Separately, compute the entanglement entropy between the two central qubits and the rest after the operation: if it is not exactly two ebits for some valid fission, the optimality bound's premise is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that any qubit in a connected graph state can be split into two (or more) qubits with full control over which neighbors remain connected to each fragment, using only local operations plus a single Bell state (for one carried neighbor) or a GHZ state of matched size (for arbitrary selection). This is achieved by entangling the auxiliary state with the involved qubits, applying local complementations and Z-measurements, and disentangling at the end. Theorem 1 states that at least one ebit is necessary for one fission with one neighbor carried along, because a connected graph state is 1-uniform (each single qubit is maximally mixed with the rest) and after fission the central two-qubit party must share two ebits with the rest; since local operations cannot increase entanglement across a bipartition, one extra ebit is needed. The protocol is presented as optimal in this basic configuration and generalizes to k fissions needing at least k ebits.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the described sequence of operations really produces the claimed split graph state, and assumes that after a valid fission the two-qubit central party ends up sharing exactly two ebits with the rest of the graph; the second assumption does not follow from 1-uniformity alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, any fixed graph-state source in a quantum network can be reconfigured on demand by fission, without regenerating entanglement from scratch.
Fusion and fission together give a complete toolbox for splitting and recombining graph states, enabling purify-then-reassemble strategies that improve entanglement purification efficiency.
The protocol's security property, that only the parties directly involved need to cooperate, could support multiparty cryptographic tasks where untrusted nodes are selectively excluded.
The claimed optimality means the resource overhead cannot be reduced below one ebit per fission, setting a benchmark for any alternative splitting method.

Reading between the lines

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

The protocol's reliance on only local complementation and Z-measurements means it should be implementable on any platform that can realize graph states and such measurements, such as photonic cluster states; a concrete circuit-level implementation for a small state is a direct next step.
Fission naturally pairs with existing fusion operations: a network could use fusion to grow states and fission to carve them into wanted topologies, effectively making entanglement distribution programmable.
The resource-optimization idea of pre-applying local complementations to minimize the GHZ size could be generalized into an automated search for the cheapest fission implementation given a target graph and split.
A possible extension beyond graph states is to define fission for general stabilizer states by tracking the stabilizer generators through the splitting operation, which the authors explicitly list as future work.

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

Quick take: the fission protocol itself is a nice new tool — the reverse of fusion, with selective neighbor routing via a Bell/GHZ ancilla plus local complementation and measurements. That is new and likely useful for quantum network people. The figures convey the sequence clearly enough that a competent reader can reconstruct the circuit, though a stabilizer-level proof would be better. The applications talk is speculative but not outrageous; the purification and modular-QEC examples are standard motivators.

The soft spot is Theorem 1. As stated, it is false. For a degree-1 vertex in a two-node graph, you can split without any additional ebits: prepare |+> on an ancilla, SWAP the original qubit with the ancilla, done. The original neighbor ends up entangled with the new qubit, the original qubit is isolated. No additional entanglement is consumed. The proof's step from 1-uniformity to "the two-qubit central party shares two ebits" fails because 1-uniformity only constrains single-qubit reductions; the two-qubit entropy depends on the rank of adjacency rows to the complement, which for a leaf vertex is 1, not 2. The theorem can likely be repaired by requiring the selected qubit to have degree at least 2, in which case the two split qubits have nonempty disjoint outside neighborhoods and the central bipartition has rank 2. But the current statement, and its "k operations need k ebits" generalization, need correction.

Also worth flagging: the paper never gives an explicit stabilizer or circuit-level verification that the Fig. 2 sequence yields the claimed output. I traced it for small cases and it looks right for degree ≥2, but a referee should ask for a clean proof, maybe via local complementation rules.

Bottom line: this is worth engaging with. The fission operation is a legitimate addition to the graph-state manipulation toolbox, and the resource-optimality question is interesting even if the answer needs a degree condition. I would send it to peer review with a request to fix Theorem 1 and add a stabilizer verification. I would not cite it as-is, but I would cite a corrected version.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "graph state fission," a protocol for splitting a selected qubit of a graph state into two qubits while preserving selected neighbor connections. The basic version uses an auxiliary Bell state and is claimed to require exactly one ebit of additional entanglement; a generalized version uses a GHZ state to split off arbitrary neighbor subsets. The authors state an optimality theorem (Theorem 1) for the single-neighbor case, sketch a resource-minimization strategy via local complementation, and discuss applications to purification, modular quantum computing, entanglement routing, and quantum secret sharing. The technical content is presented through figures and terse textual descriptions, with no explicit stabilizer or circuit-level verification of the proposed transformations.

Significance. If established, graph state fission would be a useful addition to the graph-state manipulation toolbox, providing a reverse operation to the well-studied fusion process and potentially enabling flexible entanglement distribution and resource-efficient state partitioning. The paper identifies a genuine gap in the literature and proposes a conceptually simple construction. However, the optimality claim is false as stated, and the correctness of the central protocol is not formally demonstrated. The significance therefore depends on the authors closing these technical gaps; as written, the paper reads as a promising proposal rather than a validated result.

major comments (3)

[Optimality (Theorem 1)] Theorem 1 is false as stated because it quantifies over "any qubit in a connected graph state." For the two-vertex connected graph 1-2, fission of qubit 2 carrying neighbor 1 can be performed with zero additional ebits: prepare an ancilla 2' in |+>, apply a SWAP between qubits 2 and 2' (a local unitary on the central register), yielding the Bell pair on (1,2') and the product state |+> on qubit 2. This contradicts the claimed lower bound of one ebit. The proof's inference that the post-fission two-qubit central party "shares two ebits with the remaining nodes" is invalid: 1-uniformity constrains only single-qubit reduced density operators, while for graph states the entanglement entropy of a subset A is the GF(2) rank of the adjacency submatrix between A and its complement. In the example above that rank is 1, not 2. The theorem may be repairable by restricting to vertices of degree at least 2 and proving a rank-2 condition, but the theorem and proof must be corrected.
[Fission protocol 1 (Fig. 2) and Fission protocol 2 (Fig. 3)] The correctness of the central protocol is only asserted and illustrated; no stabilizer calculation, circuit identity, or graph-state transformation proof is provided for the sequence of local complementations, Z-measurements, and CZ operations. This is the load-bearing claim of the paper: if the protocol does not implement the claimed graph state, the applications do not follow. The authors should provide an explicit step-by-step verification, for example a stabilizer table showing how the graph-state stabilizers evolve under each operation and that the final state is the claimed graph state, including the case of the GHZ-based protocol for arbitrary neighbor subsets.
[Optimality and Minimizing resources] The statements that "a similar argument" proves k fission operations require k ebits, and that local complementation can reduce the required GHZ size, are not substantiated. The k-fold claim requires a careful resource-counting argument, especially because sequential fissions may reuse or disturb previously prepared entanglement. The resource-minimization example in Fig. 4 is qualitative and lacks a proof that the LU-equivalent graph yields the claimed reduction in all cases. These claims support the paper's generality and should either be proved or explicitly qualified as observations.

minor comments (5)

[Fission protocol 2 (text)] The word "wihtout" in the introductory paragraph of "Fission protocol 2. Arbitrary neighbors" should be "without."
[Applications (text)] The phrase "aflexible possibility" should be "a flexible possibility."
[Basic concepts / Theorem 1] The term "1-uniform" is used without definition; either define it explicitly or provide a precise citation. The current citation [49] is an arXiv preprint and may not be the most standard reference for this notion.
[General (formal definitions)] The paper does not formally define "fission" in terms of input graph, selected vertex, allowed operations, and resource metric. A precise definition would clarify the theorem's quantification over "any qubit" and prevent edge cases such as degree-1 vertices.
[Figures 2 and 3] The figure captions and text describe the steps, but the actual operations in each panel are not fully explicit (e.g., which qubits are measured, which CZ gates are applied, and the exact local complementation vertices). A table or explicit circuit diagram would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimality proof relies on independent entanglement facts, despite a genuine (non-circular) gap in its inference about the central two-qubit cut.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper's central contribution is a constructive fission protocol (Bell/GHZ ancillas, local complementations, Z-measurements, CZ operations) and a claimed optimality bound in Theorem 1. The protocol is not defined in terms of its claimed output; it is a concrete operational sequence, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The optimality proof uses two external ingredients: (i) a connected graph state is 1-uniform, cited to [22,49], and (ii) local operations cannot increase entanglement across a bipartition, cited to [21]. Both are parameter-free, standard facts whose assumptions do not include the theorem being proved; the self-citation [22] (which includes one of the present authors) is therefore not load-bearing in a circular sense. The genuine weakness is that the proof infers from 1-uniformity that after any valid fission the two-qubit central party shares exactly two ebits with the remaining nodes. That inference is not valid for a degree-1 selected vertex: the output central party can share only one ebit with the rest, and a SWAP with a |+> ancilla realizes the fission with zero additional ebits. This is an unsupported mathematical inference and a correctness gap, not a circularity: the lower bound is not obtained by assuming the conclusion, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain. Hence the derivation chain is not circular, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The protocol relies only on standard graph state operations and auxiliary Bell/GHZ states. The only non-standard input is the unproven assertion that the specific operation sequence works.

assumptions (3)

standard math A connected graph state is 1-uniform: every single-qubit reduced state is maximally mixed.
Used in the optimality proof to establish the initial 1 ebit across the cut; cited from [22,49].
standard math Local operations and classical communication cannot increase entanglement across any bipartition.
Key monotonicity used in Theorem 1; standard quantum information result.
ad hoc to paper The described sequence of local complementation, Z-measurements, and CZ operations in Protocols 1 and 2 produces the claimed transformed graph state.
This is the central claim, presented via figures and text but not proven with stabilizer calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph State Fission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GY7WAR55

@misc{pith2026241200197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph State Fission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GY7WAR55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00197}
}

read the original abstract

Graph states are a fundamental entanglement resource for multipartite quantum applications which are in general challenging to transform efficiently. While fusion operations for merging entangled states are well-developed, no direct protocol exists for the reverse process, which we term fission. We introduce a simple, yet powerful, protocol that achieves this, allowing a qubit to split while preserving selective connections with minimum entanglement overhead. This tool offers flexible entanglement management with potential applications in secure communication, error correction and adaptive entanglement distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00197 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the fission protocol 1: qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fission protocol 2 for arbitrary neighbor selection: qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Example. Given this graph state where the blue neigh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Pirandola, J

S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Nature Photonics9, 641–652 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

J.-G. Ren, P. Xu, H.-L. Yong, L. Zhang, S.-K. Liao, J. Yin, W.-Y. Liu, W.-Q. Cai, M. Yang, L. Li, K.-X. Yang, X.Han, Y.-Q.Yao, J.Li, H.-Y.Wu, S.Wan, L.Liu, D.-Q. Liu, Y.-W. Kuang, Z.-P. He, P. Shang, C. Guo, R.-H. Zheng, K. Tian, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 549, 70–73 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

X.-M. Hu, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Reviews Physics5, 339–353 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- tonics 5, 222–229 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 150802 (2014)

2014
[6]

Sekatski, S

P. Sekatski, S. Wölk, and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023052 (2020)

2020
[7]

J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchi- avello, Phys. Rev. A59, 4249 (1999)

1999
[8]

Hayashi and T

M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 220502 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 74 references

[9]

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, IEEE Network 34, 137 (2020)

2020
[10]

Gisin, G

N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002)

2002
[11]

Pirandola, U

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. Sham- sul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in Optics and Pho- tonics 1...

2020
[12]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

2009
[13]

Walter, D

M. Walter, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Multipartite entan- glement (2016)

2016
[14]

Pirker and W

A. Pirker and W. Dür, New Journal of Physics21, 033003 (2019)

2019
[15]

Meignant, D

C. Meignant, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052333 (2019)

2019
[16]

Navascués, E

M. Navascués, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas- Kerstjens, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 240505 (2020)

2020
[17]

Zhong, H.-S

Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, A. Bienfait, E. Dumur, M.-H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. Yan, D. I. Schuster, and A. Cleland, Nature590, 571–575 (2021)

2021
[18]

Miguel-Ramiro, A

J. Miguel-Ramiro, A. Pirker, and W. Dür, Quantum7, 919 (2023)

2023
[19]

X. Fan, C. Zhan, H. Gupta, and C. R. Ramakrishnan, arXiv:2405.00222 10.48550/arxiv.2405.00222 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[20]

D. E. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction (California Institute of Technology, 1997)

1997
[21]

M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A69, 062311 (2004)

2004
[22]

Enrico Fermi,

M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Nest, and H. Briegel, in Quantum Computers, Algorithms and Chaos, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Vol. 162, Varenna, 2005, edited by G. Casati, D. L. Shepelyansky, P. Zoller, and G. Benenti (IOS ...

2006
[23]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature409, 46–52 (2001)

2001
[24]

D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010501 (2005)

2005
[25]

Özdemir, E

K. Özdemir, E. Matsunaga, T. Tashima, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, New Journal of Physics13, 103003 (2011)

2011
[26]

Dür, H.-J

W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 59, 169 (1999)

1999
[27]

Azuma, S

K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045006 (2023)

2023
[28]

Miguel-Ramiro, F

J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, PRX Quantum 4, 040323 (2023)

2023
[29]

Thomas, L

P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Nature 629, 912 (2024)

2024
[30]

Yoran and B

N. Yoran and B. Reznik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 037903 (2003)

2003
[31]

Bartolucci, P

S. Bartolucci, P. Birchall, H. Bombín, H. Ca- ble, C. Dawson, M. Gimeno-Segovia, E. Johnston, K. Kieling, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, T. Rudolph, and C. Sparrow, Nature Communications 14, 10.1038/s41467-023-36493-1 (2023)

2023 doi
[32]

Paesani and B

S. Paesani and B. J. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 120603 (2023)

2023
[33]

Fischer and D

A. Fischer and D. Towsley, in2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2021) p. 324–333

2021
[34]

Bugalho, B

L. Bugalho, B. C. Coutinho, F. A. Monteiro, and Y. Omar, Quantum7, 920 (2023)

2023
[35]

G. Avis, F. Rozpędek, and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. A107, 012609 (2023)

2023
[36]

Rimock, K

N. Rimock, K. Cohen, and Y. Oz, arXiv:2406.15666 10.48550/arxiv.2406.15666 (2024)

2024 doi
[37]

J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3891 (1998)

1998
[38]

Zhang, C.-Y

A.-N. Zhang, C.-Y. Lu, X.-Q. Zhou, Y.-A. Chen, Z. Zhao, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. A73, 022330 (2006)

2006
[39]

Raussendorf and H

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

2001
[40]

M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040503 (2004)

2004
[41]

Walther, K

P. Walther, K. J. Resch, T. Rudolph, E. Schenck, H. We- infurter, V. Vedral, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Na- ture 434, 169–176 (2005)

2005
[42]

Epping, H

M. Epping, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, New Journal of Physics 18, 053036 (2016)

2016
[43]

Pirker, J

A. Pirker, J. Wallnöfer, and W. Dür, New Journal of Physics 20, 053054 (2018)

2018
[44]

Miguel-Ramiro, A

J. Miguel-Ramiro, A. Pirker, and W. Dür, npj Quantum Information 7, 135 (2021)

2021
[45]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[46]

Dahlberg and S

A. Dahlberg and S. Wehner, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and En- gineering Sciences 376, 20170325 (2018). 6

2018
[47]

Dahlberg, J

A. Dahlberg, J. Helsen, and S. Wehner, Quantum4, 348 (2020)

2020
[48]

F. Hahn, A. Pappa, and J. Eisert, npj Quantum Infor- mation 5, 76 (2019)

2019
[49]

Sudevan and S

S. Sudevan and S. Das, arXiv:2201.05622 10.48550/arxiv.2201.05622 (2022)

2022 doi arXiv
[50]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722 (1996)

1996
[51]

Deutsch, A

D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2818 (1996)

1996
[52]

Dür and H

W. Dür and H. J. Briegel, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 1381–1424 (2007)

2007
[53]

W. Dür, H. Aschauer, and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107903 (2003)

2003
[54]

Kruszynska, A

C. Kruszynska, A. Miyake, H. J. Briegel, and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. A74, 052316 (2006)

2006
[55]

Monroe, R

C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A89, 022317 (2014)

2014
[56]

Bombin, I

H. Bombin, I. H. Kim, D. Litinski, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, F. Pastawski, S. Roberts, and T. Rudolph, arXiv:2103.08612 10.48550/arxiv.2103.08612 (2021)

2021 doi arXiv
[57]

PRESKILL, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1998) p

J. PRESKILL, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1998) p. 213–269

1998
[58]

Katabarwa, K

A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura, and P. D. John- son, PRX Quantum5, 020101 (2024)

2024
[59]

Childress, J

L. Childress, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 070504 (2006)

2006
[60]

Muralidharan, J

S. Muralidharan, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 250501 (2014)

2014
[61]

Murali, D

P. Murali, D. C. Mckay, M. Martonosi, and A. Javadi- Abhari, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , ASPLOS ’20 (ACM,
[62]

A. Khan, A. Farooq, Y. Jeong, and H. Shin, Quantum Information Processing 18, 90 (2019)

2019
[63]

A. S. Cacciapuoti, J. Illiano, M. Viscardi, and M. Caleffi, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , 1 (2024)

2024
[64]

Zurita, A

J. Zurita, A. A. Casado, C. E. Creffield, and G. Platero, arXiv:2403.15584 10.48550/arxiv.2403.15584 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[65]

F. Xu, W. Chen, S. Wang, Z. Yin, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Zhou, Y. Zhao, H. Li, D. Liu, Z. Han, and G. Guo, Chinese Science Bulletin54, 2991–2997 (2009)

2009
[66]

Davarzani, M

Z. Davarzani, M. Zomorodi, and M. Houshmand, Scien- tific Reports 12, 15421 (2022)

2022
[67]

M. Pant, H. Krovi, D. Towsley, L. Tassiulas, L. Jiang, P. Basu, D. Englund, and S. Guha, npj Quantum Infor- mation 5, 25 (2019)

2019
[68]

C. Li, T. Li, Y.-X. Liu, and P. Cappellaro, npj Quantum Information 7, 10 (2021)

2021
[69]

Y. Zeng, J. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Liu, and Y. Yang, inIEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Com- munications (IEEE, 2022)

2022
[70]

Hillery, V

M. Hillery, V. Bužek, and A. Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829 (1999)

1999
[71]

L. Xiao, G. Lu Long, F.-G. Deng, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052307 (2004)

2004
[72]

Epping, H

M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. macchiavello, and D. Bruß, New Journal of Physics19, 093012 (2017)

2017
[73]

Y. Zhou, J. Yu, Z. Yan, X. Jia, J. Zhang, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 150502 (2018)

2018
[74]

Memmen, J

J. Memmen, J. Eisert, and N. Walk, arXiv:2312.13376 10.48550/arxiv.2312.13376 (2023)

2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Pirandola, J

S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, Nature Photonics9, 641–652 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

J.-G. Ren, P. Xu, H.-L. Yong, L. Zhang, S.-K. Liao, J. Yin, W.-Y. Liu, W.-Q. Cai, M. Yang, L. Li, K.-X. Yang, X.Han, Y.-Q.Yao, J.Li, H.-Y.Wu, S.Wan, L.Liu, D.-Q. Liu, Y.-W. Kuang, Z.-P. He, P. Shang, C. Guo, R.-H. Zheng, K. Tian, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 549, 70–73 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

X.-M. Hu, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Reviews Physics5, 339–353 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Pho- tonics 5, 222–229 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 150802 (2014)

2014

[6] [6]

Sekatski, S

P. Sekatski, S. Wölk, and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023052 (2020)

2020

[7] [7]

J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchi- avello, Phys. Rev. A59, 4249 (1999)

1999

[8] [8]

Hayashi and T

M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 220502 (2015)

work page 2015