Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Rate-Fidelity Control for Wide-Area Quantum Links

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A classical software controller that predicts polarization drift and adaptively tunes pump power and compensation timing can raise mean entanglement distribution rate on a 64 km deployed fiber link by 14% versus optimized static policies…

desk verdict Genuinely new joint control formulation for quantum links, but the 14% headline is a simulation claim that needs a held-out evaluation trace and a better-validated APC model before it should be cited as a deployment gain. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07163 v1 pith:HXBJWTHV submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph cs.NI

Connor Clayton , Cory Nunn , Quinn Carmack , Wayne McKenzie , Anne Marie Richards , Xiaodi Wu , Bobby Bhattacharjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NI MSC 81P4581P40 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Bg
keywords quantumnetworksentanglementdistributionpolarizationdriftrate-fidelitytradeoffadaptivelinkcontrolfiber-opticlinkspumppowertrace-drivensimulation
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

The paper argues that near-term wide-area quantum links are held back not only by quantum hardware but by how existing control knobs are operated, and that a purely software controller can recover a large share of the lost entanglement rate. It poses link operation as a joint control problem between a controllable rate-fidelity tradeoff (source pump power) and uncontrollable polarization drift, then builds a protocol that sets pump power from a conservative quantile of a predicted polarization fidelity, schedules fidelity checks by a value-of-information criterion, and triggers fixed-duration compensations when the instantaneous rate falls below the period average. In trace-driven simulation on 64 km of deployed metropolitan fiber, the adaptive protocol beats the best static policy by 14% mean entanglement rate over 24 hours, lands within 21% of the zero-drift upper bound, and requires no offline policy optimization. The practical point is that this gain comes from software over existing hardware, so it could be deployed near-term on any link exposing the same three abstractions: a rate-fidelity frontier, a drift model, and a compensation primitive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Opt-2 feedback loop: a joint control problem that couples the source-detector operating point to the compensation schedule. It is instantiated through three replaceable interfaces, namely a calibrated rate-fidelity frontier (here, SPDC pump power, where higher power raises rate but multipair emission degrades fidelity), an empirical drift-prediction model that turns past Stokes-vector drift into a belief distribution over the polarization fidelity $F_{\mathrm{pol}}$, and a compensation model, Algorithm 1, which simulates the commercial compensator as a noisy Riemannian gradient descent $\theta_{k+1} = \theta_k - \frac{\eta}{2}\sin\theta_k$ with fitted step size $\eta = 0.062$ and step duration $\Delta = 27.7$ ms. The control law reduces to two threshold rules that carry the argument: pump power keeps the product $F_{\mathrm{sd}}F_{\mathrm{pol}}$ above $F_{\min}$ with probability $1-\delta$, and compensation fires when the rate curve crosses the running period average, which the paper proves (Appendix E) maximizes the period's average rate whenever the rate is decreasing.

What would settle it

Measure the actual compensation durations and resulting fidelities of the commercial APC on the same 64 km link across the same 24-hour window, replace Algorithm 1 in the simulator with the measured response model, and re-run the comparison; if the adaptive protocol's 14% margin over the best static policy shrinks below the static policies' own parameter sensitivity, the central claim fails. A cheaper check is to compare the simulated compensation-time histogram (the paper's Figure 12) against device logs on a live link, since the current fit is judged only visually.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a wide-area link's polarization drift can be treated as a partially predictable disturbance, and a classical controller that (i) chooses source pump power so that $\Pr[F(t) < F_{\min}] \le \delta$ with $\delta = 0.10$ using a drift-prediction model, (ii) initiates a fidelity check only when the expected throughput gain $\Lambda_1 - \Lambda_2$ covers the downtime cost $r(F_{\mathrm{pol}}^\delta) t_{\mathrm{check}}$, and (iii) starts a fixed 1-second polarization compensation exactly when the instantaneous rate meets the period-average rate $r(t) \le \bar{r}(t)$, achieves 14% higher mean entanglement distribution rate over a 24-hour trace than any optimized static configuration of the same five control variables. The controller needs no quantum hardware changes and no offline policy search; its inputs are the fidelity target, a calibrated drift model, and the source-detector rate-fidelity curve. In the same simulations the protocol tracks a continuously varying fidelity demand on the fly, and it stays within 21% of the theoretical no-drift rate ceiling over a day (under 8% at night), which the authors read as bounding the headroom left for better prediction or compensation hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated model of the commercial polarization compensator, Algorithm 1 with fitted step size $\eta = 0.062$ and step duration $\Delta = 27.7$ ms, faithfully represents the real device on this link; the paper assumes vanilla Riemannian gradient descent because the device's algorithm is proprietary and states that deviations from the model may affect results upon deployment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deployed wide-area quantum links can gain roughly 14% mean entanglement rate purely from a software layer over 24 hours, with the margin rising to 16% at night when drift is slower and falling to 6% during the day.
  • The protocol adapts instantaneously to changing application fidelity demands, including continuously varying ones, whereas each static policy must be re-tuned for every new $F_{\min}$ value.
  • The adaptive controller operates within 21% of the zero-drift upper bound over a full day and within 8% at night, with only about 3.4% of night time spent on probes and compensation, so the remaining room for better prediction or compensation is modest.
  • Because the controller is defined over hardware-agnostic interfaces, the same protocol applies to other sources (four-wave mixing, quantum memories), other encodings, and other compensation mechanisms by swapping in recalibrated models.
  • The Opt-2 formulation exposes a per-link feasible set of rate-fidelity operating points that higher layers can exploit, and its online decisions are $O(1)$ computations, so the protocol fits inside 100 ms control loops.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 14% margin survives a true deployment, the paper's implicit claim is that physical-layer classical control is a cheaper performance lever than hardware upgrades; a field deployment that compares the adaptive controller against the same static baselines on a live link is the direct test.
  • The value-of-information criterion for fidelity checks is a general probe-and-compensate scheduling principle that could transfer to other costly measurements on quantum links, such as clock synchronization checks, dispersion monitoring, or quantum-memory calibration.
  • The fixed 1-second compensation policy is a deliberate truncation of a diminishing-returns tail; an untested alternative is letting the timeout scale with the predicted drift rate, which could buy fidelity headroom at night, where the gap to the upper bound is already under 8%.
  • The $\delta$-conservative pump power rule is an empirical chance constraint; a calibrated drift model would allow it to be recast as a rigorous chance-constrained controller with formal safety guarantees, which the paper does not attempt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a classical control layer for single quantum link operation, formulated as a joint optimization problem (Opt-2) over a tunable rate-fidelity source parameter and an uncontrollable, time-varying polarization drift. The authors instantiate the framework on a 64 km deployed fiber in the DC-QNet, using an SPDC entanglement source whose pump power trades fidelity against rate, an empirical polarization drift prediction model built from measured Stokes parameters, and a model of a commercial automated polarization compensator (APC) as noisy Riemannian gradient descent. The adaptive protocol sets pump power conservatively to satisfy a minimum fidelity constraint, schedules fidelity checks by a value-of-information criterion, and triggers fixed-duration polarization compensations. A trace-driven simulator evaluates the protocol over a 24-hour trace and reports a 14% mean entanglement rate improvement over the best optimized static policy, with no offline policy optimization.

Significance. If the quantitative results are reliable, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that software-only physical-layer control can improve near-term quantum link throughput, and it packages the problem in a hardware-agnostic abstraction (Opt-0/Opt-1/Opt-2) that could generalize to other source and compensation technologies. The authors should be credited for releasing simulator source code and trace data, for comparing against an upper bound with zero drift, and for identifying the practical overheads (probe and compensation downtime). However, the headline 14% figure is a simulated outcome whose most consequential submodel is the APC response model, and the manuscript explicitly concedes that deviations from this model may affect the results upon deployment (Section 3.3). The main contributions are therefore significant conditional on additional validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1, Appendix C, Figure 12] The central quantitative claim depends on the modeled exit fidelity of the APC, but the model is validated only against the distribution of compensation durations, not against the final polarization fidelity achieved. Figure 12 compares histograms of compensation time, and Appendix C reports only a visual fit. The controller's benefit, however, comes from both the duration of compensation and the fidelity it restores: Equation 7 and the fixed 1-second compensation policy determine when to compensate, while the resulting Fpol after compensation determines whether the Fmin constraint can be honored and how much rate is recovered. The APC model is also fitted to 70 hours of data from a similar 62 km link rather than the 64 km link used in evaluation, and its algorithm is proprietary, so the paper assumes vanilla Riemannian gradient descent. Given the paper's own caveat that deviations from this model may affect results upon deployment, the manuscript should provide direct validation of modeled exit fidelities against the real APC, or in lieu of hardware validation, a sensitivity analysis over the APC model parameters (eta, Delta, failure rates) showing that the 14% improvement is robust.
  2. [Section 3.2 vs. Section 6.1] The polarization drift prediction model is trained on a 48-hour tracking experiment described in Section 3.2, while the evaluation trace in Section 6.1 spans three days. It is not stated whether the evaluation days are disjoint from the training period. If the same trace is used for both fitting the drift model (including the 0.1-conservative quantile used in Equation 4) and evaluating the protocol, the reported rate improvement may be substantially inflated by in-sample prediction. The manuscript should state explicitly whether the training and evaluation periods are disjoint, and if they are not, the evaluation should be repeated on held-out drift data or with a cross-validated protocol.
  3. [Section 6.2, Figure 7] The headline comparison is a single 24-hour trace without confidence intervals or day-to-day variability. Figure 7 reports one mean rate for each protocol on one trace, and the static baselines are optimized on the same trace used for comparison. Because polarization drift is highly environment-dependent and the paper itself notes that the best static protocol for one day can be very different for another, the 14% and 16% improvements should be accompanied by a multi-day or bootstrapped analysis, or at least a clear statement that these are single-trace results. As written, the quantitative gain is not shown to be statistically reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] The sentence fragment 'Pump power is updated every 100ms. attenuator that sets the pump power to the desired value.' appears to be missing a verb and should be rewritten for clarity.
  2. [Section 2.4] There is a typo in 'the the Washington DC metropolitan quantum network' on the first page of Section 2.4; it should read 'the Washington DC metropolitan quantum network.'
  3. [Section 5.2, Section 5.4, Section 7.1] The statement that 'No parameter choices are required for the adaptive algorithm' is too strong. The protocol requires choosing delta = 0.10, the compensation duration c = 1 s, the model step size eta, and the step duration Delta, all of which affect performance. These are not tuned offline for the policy, but they are free parameters and should be described as such.
  4. [Algorithm 1 and Section 3.3] The sign and semantics of the noise term Delta * d(t) in Algorithm 1 should be specified more precisely. As written, the term can either help or hinder the gradient descent depending on the sign of the drift rate, and it is not clear whether d(t) is the signed rate of change of the drift angle or an unsigned magnitude. This affects both the model fit and the interpretation of Figure 12.
  5. [Section 5.4] The claim that setting Ftarget = 1.0 and T_timeout = c 'ensures that the compensation routine will take time c' relies on the assumption that the APC never reaches unit fidelity before the timeout. The paper argues that continuous drift makes Fpol < 1.0 at all times, but occasional early termination would violate the constant-duration assumption used in Equation 7 and Appendix E; this edge case should be addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the 14% gain is a simulator comparison whose control rules are derived from the stated objective, with residual model-risk and in-sample-training caveats disclosed by the paper.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a 14% mean-rate improvement of an adaptive controller over optimized static policies in a trace-driven simulator. The control rules are derived from the stated objective rather than from the performance metric: Eq. (3) follows from F(t)=Fsd(t)Fpol(t) and the constraint F(t)>=Fmin; Eq. (7) is derived in Appendix E by maximizing the period-average rate; Eq. (5) is an explicit value-of-information heuristic. No fitted parameter is renamed as a predicted output, and no load-bearing conclusion is imported from a self-citation. The main caveats are model validity and possible in-sample overlap: the APC model (Section 3.3) is fit to 70 hours of data from a similar link with an assumed vanilla Riemannian gradient-descent update (Algorithm 1), the drift predictor is built from 48 hours of the same link's Stokes data, and the paper explicitly states "We note that the results in this paper assume this model, and deviations from this model may affect the results upon deployment." If the modeled compensation exit fidelities are wrong, or the drift statistics are non-stationary, the magnitude of the 14% gain could change. Those are empirical risks, not constructional circularity. Self-citations such as [33] identify the deployed DC-QNet infrastructure and [43] supplies static baseline APC parameters; neither carries the derivation of the adaptive policy. Accordingly: no circular steps; the score reflects minor self-citations and disclosed model dependence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol adds no new physical entities. Its behavior is determined by one hand-set safety quantile, one hand-set compensation duration, and two fitted APC model parameters. The modeling axioms are the multiplicative fidelity decomposition, stationarity of the drift statistics, the assumed gradient-descent structure of the proprietary APC, and the transfer of the local source characterization to the deployed link. All four are stated in the paper (Sections 3.1-3.3, 5), and the first is explicitly marked as approximate.

free parameters (4)
  • delta (conservative quantile) = 0.10
    Hand-chosen in Section 5.2. It controls how far below the median predicted drift the pump power is set, directly trading achieved rate against the probability of violating Fmin.
  • fixed compensation duration c = 1 s
    Hand-chosen in Section 5.4 by setting Ftarget=1.0 and Ttimeout=c. All compensation scheduling analysis assumes this constant duration.
  • APC gradient descent step size eta = 0.062
    Fitted to 70 h of APC experimental data in Appendix C. Algorithm 1 uses it to simulate every compensation trajectory.
  • APC step duration Delta = 27.7 ms
    Fitted together with eta in Appendix C. It sets the time step and therefore the noise exposure per iteration in Algorithm 1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption End-to-end fidelity factors as F(t) = Fsd(t) * Fpol(t).
    Stated as approximate in Section 5; the pump power policy (Eq. 3) and all simulations rely on this multiplicative decomposition, which is not validated against measured end-to-end quantum state fidelities.
  • domain assumption Polarization drift is predictable from recent drift statistics via a stationary conditional distribution.
    The drift model in Section 3.2 assumes that consecutive drift angles over durations (dt1, dt2) are representative of future behavior, including the 24-hour evaluation trace.
  • ad hoc to paper The APC behaves as vanilla Riemannian gradient descent with an additive time-dependent noise term.
    Section 3.3 states the algorithm is proprietary; the model is assumed because the device cannot be inspected, and the fit to 70 h of data is the only support.
  • domain assumption The local source-detector characterization transfers to the deployed link under a linear rate normalization.
    Appendix B normalizes rates across measurement days and uses Figure 4a as the rate-fidelity operating curve; the simulations assume this curve represents the deployed link.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rate-Fidelity Control for Wide-Area Quantum Links." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXBJWTHV

@misc{pith2026260807163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rate-Fidelity Control for Wide-Area Quantum Links},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXBJWTHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07163}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum network links must distribute entanglement at high rates while satisfying application-specified fidelity demands. However, wide-area deployed fiber links suffer from polarization drift which destabilizes end-to-end fidelity and forces periodic compensation. Current deployments often use active stabilization with fixed control policies, and improvements generally stem from advances in quantum hardware. Meanwhile, software control remains relatively underexplored. Here, we formulate quantum link operation as a joint control problem over tunable rate-fidelity tradeoffs and uncontrollable link drift. From this framework, we construct a link control protocol that dynamically adapts source pump power and polarization compensation to maximize entanglement distribution rate subject to a minimum fidelity constraint. We evaluate the protocol through trace-driven simulations driven by data from a 64 km deployed optical fiber. Compared with optimized static policies, our adaptive controller improves mean entanglement distribution rate by 14% over a 24 hour trace, without requiring any offline policy optimization. Our results show that software-based physical layer control can provide a practical mechanism for improving near-term quantum link performance without requiring additional quantum hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of our quantum link. Entanglement generation and automated polarization compensation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Metropolitan context of the 64km deployed fiber link, part of the Washington DC metropolitan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of experimental setup used to characterize SPDC entanglement source and receiver with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Controllable rate-fidelity tradeoffs across two entanglement source technologies. In both sources, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measured polarization drift over 48 hours on a 64km fiber link. The top figure shows the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example execution of the adaptive protocol across one period, showing all major characteristics. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results comparing our adaptive link control protocol with static protocols (with different pump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of adaptive protocol against static protocols with changing fidelity targets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Protocol adaptivity under continuously-changing link demands following a sine curve (dashed red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A more detailed diagram of the entanglement source sketched in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Extension of source characterizations in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histograms of APC compensation times generated by Algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H Aghaee Rad, T Ainsworth, RN Alexander, B Altieri, MF Askarani, R Baby, L Banchi, BQ Baragiola, JE Bourassa, RS Chadwick, et al. 2025. Scaling and networking a modular photonic quantum computer.Nature(2025), 1–8

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, and P. G. Kwiat. 2005. Photonic State Tomography. Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 52. Academic Press, 105–159. doi:10.1016/S1049-250X(05)52003-2

    doi:10.1016/s1049-250x(05)52003-2 2005

  3. [3]

    Joseph B Altepeter, Evan R Jeffrey, and Paul G Kwiat. 2005. Photonic state tomography.Advances in atomic, molecular, and optical physics52 (2005), 105–159

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Banner, Steven L

    Patrick R. Banner, Steven L. Rolston, and Joseph W. Britton. 2025. BIFROST: A First-Principles Model of Polarization Mode Dispersion in Optical Fiber. arXiv:2510.01212 [physics.optics] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01212

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Charles H Bennett and Gilles Brassard. 1984. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In Proceedings of the international conference on computers, systems and signal processing. 175–179

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    Starling, Pieter-Jan Stas, Can M

    Eric Bersin, Matthew Grein, Madison Sutula, Ryan Murphy, Yan Qi Huan, Mark Stevens, Aziza Suleymanzade, Catherine Lee, Ralf Riedinger, David J. Starling, Pieter-Jan Stas, Can M. Knaut, Neil Sinclair, Daniel R. Assumpcao, Yan-Cheng Wei, Erik N. Knall, Bartholomeus Machielse, Denis D. Sukachev, David S. Levonian, Mihir K. Bhaskar, Marko Lončar, Scott Hamilt...

    2024

  7. [7]

    Joshua Bienfang, Thomas Gerrits, Paulina Kuo, Alan Migdall, Sergey Polyakov, and Oliver Slattery. 2025. Single-photon Sources and Detectors Dictionary.NIST(Aug. 2025). https://www.nist.gov/publications/ single-photon-sources-and-detectors-dictionary-0 Last Modified: 2025-08-04T15:08-04:00

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Rate-Fidelity Control for Wide-Area Quantum Links

    Connor Clayton and Quinn Carmack. 2026. Source Code for “Rate-Fidelity Control for Wide-Area Quantum Links”. https://github.com/cbclayton/dynamic-quantum-link-control

    work page 2026

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Connor Clayton, Xiaodi Wu, and Bobby Bhattacharjee. 2024. Efficient Routing on Quantum Networks using Adaptive Clustering. In2024 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP). IEEE, 1–12

    2024

  2. [10]

    Alexander N Craddock, Anne Lazenby, Gabriel Bello Portmann, Rourke Sekelsky, Mael Flament, and Mehdi Namazi

  3. [11]

    Alexander N Craddock, Yang Wang, Felipe Giraldo, Rourke Sekelsky, Mael Flament, and Mehdi Namazi. 2024. High-rate subgigahertz-linewidth bichromatic entanglement source for quantum networking.Physical Review Applied21, 3 (2024), 034012

    2024

  4. [12]

    Axel Dahlberg, Matthew Skrzypczyk, Tim Coopmans, Leon Wubben, Filip Rozpędek, Matteo Pompili, Arian Stolk, Przemysław Pawełczak, Robert Knegjens, Julio de Oliveira Filho, et al . 2019. A link layer protocol for quantum networks. InProceedings of the ACM special interest group ...

    2019

  5. [13]

    C Delle Donne, M Iuliano, B Van Der Vecht, GM Ferreira, H Jirovská, TJW Van Der Steenhoven, A Dahlberg, M Skrzypczyk, D Fioretto, M Teller, et al. 2025. An operating system for executing applications on quantum network nodes.Nature639, 8054 (2025), 321–328

    2025

  6. [14]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. 2001. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics.Nature414, 6862 (Nov. 2001), 413–418. doi:10.1038/35106500

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov. 2011. Invited Review Article: Single-photon sources and detectors. Review of Scientific Instruments82, 7 (2011), 071101. doi:10.1063/1.3610677

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Artur K Ekert. 1991. Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem.Physical review letters67, 6 (1991), 661

    1991

  9. [17]

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. 2004. Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit.Science306, 5700 (2004), 1330–1336

    2004

  10. [18]

    Gisin and B

    N. Gisin and B. Huttner. 1997. Combined effects of polarization mode dispersion and polarization dependent losses in optical fibers.Optics Communications142, 1 (1997), 119–125. doi:10.1016/S0030-4018(97)00236-8

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    Daniel Gottesman, Thomas Jennewein, and Sarah Croke. 2012. Longer-Baseline Telescopes Using Quantum Repeaters. Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (Aug 2012), 070503. Issue 7. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.070503

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel. 1987. Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference.Phys. Rev. Lett.59 (Nov 1987), 2044–2046. Issue 18. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2044

    1987 doi

  13. [21]

    Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. 1997. Inseparable Two Spin- 1 2 Density Matrices Can Be Distilled to a Singlet Form.Phys. Rev. Lett.78 (Jan 1997), 574–577. Issue 4. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.574

    1997 doi

  14. [22]

    Jessica Illiano, Marcello Caleffi, Antonio Manzalini, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. 2022. Quantum internet protocol stack: A comprehensive survey.Computer Networks213 (2022), 109092

    2022

  15. [23]

    Richard Jozsa. 1994. Fidelity for Mixed Quantum States.Journal of Modern Optics41, 12 (1994), 2315–2323. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500349414552171 doi:10.1080/09500349414552171

    1994 doi

  16. [24]

    Can M Knaut, Aziza Suleymanzade, Y-C Wei, Daniel R Assumpcao, P-J Stas, Yan Qi Huan, Bartholomeus Machielse, Erik N Knall, Madison Sutula, Gefen Baranes, et al. 2024. Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network.Nature629, 8012 (2024), 573–578

    2024

  17. [25]

    Viktor Krutyanskiy, Maria Galli, Vojtech Krcmarsky, Simon Baier, DA Fioretto, Yunfei Pu, Azadeh Mazloom, Pavel Sekatski, Marco Canteri, Markus Teller, et al. 2023. Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters. Physical Review Letters130, 5 (2023), 050803

    2023

  18. [26]

    Stephan Kucera, Christian Haen, Elena Arenskötter, Tobias Bauer, Jonas Meiers, Marlon Schäfer, Ross Boland, Milad Yahyapour, Maurice Lessing, Ronald Holzwarth, Christoph Becher, and Jürgen Eschner. 2024. Demonstration of quantum network protocols over a 14-km urban fiber link....

    2024

  19. [27]

    Paul G Kwiat, Salvador Barraza-Lopez, Andre Stefanov, and Nicolas Gisin. 2001. Experimental entanglement distillation and ‘hidden’non-locality.Nature409, 6823 (2001), 1014–1017

    2001

  20. [28]

    Dong-Dong Li, Song Gao, Guo-Chun Li, Lu Xue, Li-Wei Wang, Chang-Bin Lu, Yao Xiang, Zi-Yan Zhao, Long-Chuan Yan, Zhi-Yu Chen, Gang Yu, and Jian-Hong Liu. 2018. Field implementation of long-distance quantum key distribution over aerial fiber with fast polarization feedback.Opt. ...

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Zhonghui Li, Kaiping Xue, Jian Li, Lutong Chen, Ruidong Li, Zhaoying Wang, Nenghai Yu, David S. L. Wei, Qibin Sun, and Jun Lu. 2023. Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Networks: Mechanics, Enabling Technologies, Challenges, and Research Directions.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tuto...

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Zhen-Guo Li, Jun Mao, Yi-Jin Zhou, Jia-Wei Guo, Shi Chen, Hao Hao, Yang-Hui Huang, Sai-Ying Ru, Nai-Tao Liu, Zhen Liu, Jie Deng, Fan Yang, Xue-Cou Tu, La-Bao Zhang, Xiao-Qing Jia, Jian Chen, Lin Kang, Jianwei Wang, Qing-Yuan Zhao, Qihuang Gong, and Pei-Heng Wu. 2025. Surpassin...

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Maciej Lipiński, Tomasz Włostowski, Javier Serrano, and Pablo Alvarez. 2011. White rabbit: A PTP application for robust sub-nanosecond synchronization. In2011 IEEE International Symposium on Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Communication. IEEE, 25–30

    2011

  24. [32]

    D Main, P Drmota, DP Nadlinger, EM Ainley, A Agrawal, BC Nichol, R Srinivas, G Araneda, and DM Lucas. 2025. Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature(2025), 1–6

    2025

  25. [33]

    Wayne McKenzie, Anne Marie Richards, Shirali Patel, Thomas Gerrits, T. G. Akin, Steven Peil, Adam T. Black, David Tulchinsky, Alexander Hastings, Ya-Shian Li-Baboud, Anouar Rahmouni, Ivan A. Burenkov, Alan Mink, Matthew Diaz, Nijil Lal, Yicheng Shi, Paulina Kuo, Pranish Shrest...

    2024

  26. [34]

    C. M. Nunn, J. D. Franson, and T. B. Pittman. 2021. Heralding on the detection of zero photons.Phys. Rev. A104 (Sep 2021), 033717. Issue 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.033717

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Jian-Wei Pan, Dik Bouwmeester, Harald Weinfurter, and Anton Zeilinger. 1998. Experimental entanglement swapping: entangling photons that never interacted.Physical review letters80, 18 (1998), 3891

    1998

  28. [36]

    Matteo Pompili, Carlo Delle Donne, Ingmar te Raa, Bart van der Vecht, Matthew Skrzypczyk, Guilherme Ferreira, Lisa de Kluijver, Arian J Stolk, Sophie LN Hermans, Przemysław Pawełczak, et al. 2022. Experimental demonstration of entanglement delivery using a quantum network stac...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Anouar Rahmouni, PS Kuo, Ya-Shian Li-Baboud, IA Burenkov, Yicheng Shi, MV Jabir, N Lal, Dileep Reddy, Mheni Merzouki, Lijun Ma, et al. 2024. 100-km entanglement distribution with coexisting quantum and classical signals in a single fiber.Journal of Optical Communications and N...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Mohsen Razavi and Jeffrey H Shapiro. 2006. Long-distance quantum communication with neutral atoms.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics73, 4 (2006), 042303

    2006

  31. [39]

    Reddy, Robert R

    Dileep V. Reddy, Robert R. Nerem, Sae Woo Nam, Richard P. Mirin, and Varun B. Verma. 2020. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors with 98% system detection efficiency at 1550nm.Optica7, 12 (Dec 2020), 1649–1653. doi:10.1364/OPTICA.400751

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Davide Rusca and Nicolas Gisin. 2024. Quantum Cryptography: an overview of Quantum Key Distribution. arXiv:2411.04044 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04044

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Vinay Shankarkumar, Laurent Montini, Tim Frost, and Greg Dowd. 2017. Precision Time Protocol Version 2 (PTPv2) Management Information Base. RFC 8173. doi:10.17487/RFC8173

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Shouqian Shi and Chen Qian. 2020. Concurrent Entanglement Routing for Quantum Networks: Model and Designs. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM(Virtual Event, USA). 62–75. doi:10.1145/3387514.3405853

    2020

  35. [43]

    Yicheng Shi, Jing Su, Anouar Rahmouni, Pranish Shrestha, Mheni Merzouki, Gabriel Bello Portmann, Anne Lazenby, Mael Flament, Mehdi Namazi, Abdella Battou, et al. 2026. Entanglement distribution over a polarization-stabilized aerial fiber.Journal of Optical Communications and N...

    2026

  36. [44]

    Y. H. Shih and C. O. Alley. 1988. New Type of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Experiment Using Pairs of Light Quanta Produced by Optical Parametric Down Conversion.Phys. Rev. Lett.61 (Dec 1988), 2921–2924. Issue 26. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.2921

    1988 doi

  37. [45]

    P-J Stas, Y-C Wei, M Sirotin, YQ Huan, U Yazlar, F Abdo Arias, E Knyazev, G Baranes, B Machielse, S Grandi, et al. 2026. Entanglement-assisted non-local optical interferometry in a quantum network.Nature651, 8105 (2026), 326–332

    2026

  38. [46]

    Sutcliffe and A

    E. Sutcliffe and A. Beghelli. 2023. Multiuser Entanglement Distribution in Quantum Networks Using Multipath Routing. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering4, 01 (jan 2023), 1–15. doi:10.1109/TQE.2023.3329714

    2023

  39. [47]

    Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson. 2018. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead.Science 362, 6412 (2018), eaam9288

    2018

  40. [48]

    Shi-Hai Wei, Bo Jing, Xue-Ying Zhang, Jin-Yu Liao, Chen-Zhi Yuan, Bo-Yu Fan, Chen Lyu, Dian-Li Zhou, You Wang, Guang-Wei Deng, Hai-Zhi Song, Daniel Oblak, Guang-Can Guo, and Qiang Zhou. 2022. Towards Real-World Quantum Networks: A Review.Laser & Photonics Reviews16, 3 (March 2...

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    William K Wootters and Wojciech H Zurek. 1982. A single quantum cannot be cloned.Nature299, 5886 (1982), 802–803

    1982

  42. [50]

    Zheshen Zhang and Quntao Zhuang. 2021. Distributed quantum sensing.Quantum Science and Technology6, 4 (jul 2021), 043001. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/abd4c3 Rate-Fidelity Control for Wide-Area Quantum Links 23 Fig. 10. A more detailed diagram of the entanglement source sketched in F...

    2021 doi

  43. [2024]

    Automated distribution of polarization-entangled photons using deployed New York City fibers.PRX Quantum 5, 3 (2024), 030330

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.