Entanglement Purification With Finite Latency Classical Communication in Quantum Networks

Alexander Nico-Katz; Boulat A. Bash; Daniel C. Kilper; Marco Ruffini; Vivek Vasan

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Entanglement Purification With Finite Latency Classical Communication in Quantum Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Classical signaling latency decides whether entanglement purification helps or hurts.

desk verdict Solid systems-level modeling paper with new break-even and throughput maps for purification under real latency, but all headline thresholds rest on a single arbitrarily chosen F0=0.75, so treat the numbers as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03667 v1 pith:MQUAHXME submitted 2025-09-03 cs.NI

Vivek Vasan , Alexander Nico-Katz , Boulat A. Bash , Daniel C. Kilper , Marco Ruffini This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NI

keywords entanglementpurificationquantumnetworksclassicalcommunicationlatencyDEJMPSprotocolBBPSSWmemorydecoherencefidelitythresholdsdistillablerate

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

Quantum networks need entangled pairs, but those pairs decay while stored in quantum memory. Entanglement purification can restore fidelity, yet the protocol itself requires classical messages between nodes, and the wait exposes the pairs to more decoherence. This paper asks when purification is a net win, a break-even, or an active loss under realistic internet-style latency. Using a Lindblad decoherence model with measured memory lifetimes and a metropolitan IP latency distribution, it maps sharp break-even contours in the plane of latency versus resource cost and shows that the DEJMPS protocol can deliver orders of magnitude more high-fidelity pairs than BBPSSW where purification works. The practical payoff is a set of design rules: latency budgets, memory coherence targets, and pair-consumption costs for applications such as QKD and distributed quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the break-even iso-fidelity contour in the plane of classical latency versus expected pair consumption: a curve along which the final fidelity after purification equals the starting fidelity F0, separating configurations where purification helps from those where it actively hurts. Inside the model, continuous-time decoherence of idling qubits is captured by a Lindblad master equation with amplitude-damping and dephasing rates derived from measured T1 and T2 times, and the multi-round resource cost is the product E(F_th) = prod_i 2/p(F_i) of inverse success probabilities. The steady-state distillable rate R(F_th) = R_pair/E(F_th) turns that cost into the throughput

What would settle it

Re-run the heatmaps and rate calculations with F0 = 0.70 and F0 = 0.85 for the 40Ca+ platform and check whether the DEJMPS QKD break-even latency moves outside the 20–25 ms band. Alternatively, a laboratory demonstration of repeated DEJMPS rounds at 20 ms one-way classical latency on a 40Ca+ memory starting from fidelity 0.75 would either reach or miss F >= 0.81 and settle the viability claim directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Treating purification as a race between fidelity gained per successful round and fidelity lost while qubits idle during classical signaling, the paper finds sharp operational boundaries. For the two-pair protocols BBPSSW and DEJMPS, starting from a conservative initial fidelity F0 = 0.75 and propagating states under Lindblad dynamics during control-plane waits on a metro IP network, purification either lifts fidelity to high plateaus, flattens below application thresholds, or collapses toward the maximally mixed state F = 1/4. The break-even iso-fidelity contour F = F0 divides the regime where purification pays from a no-gain region where consuming more pairs is worse than doing nothing. The

Load-bearing premise

Every quantitative boundary in the paper is computed at a single initial fidelity F0 = 0.75; if the real starting fidelity of deployed entangled pairs differs, all latency cutoffs and rate curves shift, and the paper does not quantify that sensitivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Network architects receive quantitative latency budgets: for 40Ca+ memories with F0 = 0.75, DEJMPS sustains QKD-grade fidelity up to roughly 20–25 ms one-way latency, while DQC-grade fidelity demands the 0–5 ms band.
There is a well-defined no-gain region below the F = F0 break-even contour, where purification degrades fidelity toward 1/4 and operators should use pairs directly rather than purify.
DEJMPS is the more reliable protocol in practice: its small per-round advantages compound, yielding steady-state distillable rates often orders of magnitude above BBPSSW in the latency range where purification works.
Longer-coherence memories shift the positive-rate region to higher latencies; for rare-earth-ion memories, DEJMPS keeps QKD-grade fidelity across the full 0–50 ms range studied.
High-fidelity thresholds are exponentially expensive in pair consumption, so even a theoretically attainable threshold can be operationally infeasible.

Reading between the lines

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

Because F0 = 0.75 is a single fixed worst-case input, the specific latency cutoffs are point estimates; if real initial fidelities are higher, viable latency windows widen and pair-consumption costs drop, and a sensitivity sweep over F0 would quantify that shift.
The model assumes symmetric one-way latency and conservatively takes the higher of the two directions; real asymmetric or bursty IP delays could make purification success heterogeneous across rounds and alter the break-even contours.
The resource metric E(F_th) assumes symmetric scheduling that only pairs states of matching fidelity; a scheduler that pools unequal-fidelity pairs, or exploits DEJMPS's tolerance for non-Werner input states, could lower consumption at a given latency.
The same latency-versus-coherence race applies to other feedback-based quantum network operations, such as entanglement swapping and repeater chains, so the break-even-contour methodology transfers beyond purification.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a solid systems-level modeling study of entanglement purification under realistic classical latency. It delivers a clear quantitative map of where purification helps, where it hurts, and how fast usable pairs can be delivered; that map is new. But the headline thresholds—e.g., DEJMPS viable up to 20–25 ms for QKD on 40Ca+—are all computed at one arbitrarily chosen initial fidelity, F0=0.75, and there is no sensitivity analysis anywhere. So treat the numbers as conditional until they add a sweep over F0.

What is genuinely good: they couple empirical metropolitan IP latency statistics with a Lindblad treatment of T1/T2 decoherence for several memory platforms, and they map break-even iso-fidelity contours and steady-state distillable rates for BBPSSW and DEJMPS. The forward model is standard and internally consistent, the expected-pair-consumption formula is derived cleanly, and the RK4 convergence check in Appendix A is the right kind of sanity check. The finding that DEJMPS consistently outperforms BBPSSW, by orders of magnitude at low latency, is consistent with the known marginal advantage snowballing through rounds.

The soft spots are real but not load-bearing. The fixed F0 is the major one: the break-even contour is literally F=F0, so the entire phase map is anchored to that assumed value. They call it a 'highly conservative worst-case,' but give no justification and no alternative values. A lower F0 would shrink the viable latency windows; a higher one would expand them. Second, the rate model in Eq. (25) assumes purification starts immediately when pairs are available, ignoring decoherence during finite-rate pair generation; that biases rates upward at low Rpair. Third, they average over 1024 random initial states but show no error bars or spread, and no code or data is released, so independent verification of the specific numbers is not possible.

None of this undermines the qualitative story. The central argument—that finite classical latency shifts the purification viability boundary in a predictable way, and that DEJMPS is the better choice under realistic latency—holds up.

For network engineers deciding latency budgets and memory targets, this is useful. For quantum networking researchers, it is a reasonable baseline to cite. It deserves a serious referee; the requested revision should include a sensitivity sweep over F0 and error bars, and ideally an artifact release.

Recommendation: engage with it, but don't take the specific latency thresholds at face value until the F0 sensitivity is addressed.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether entanglement purification (BBPSSW and DEJMPS) is practically beneficial in quantum networks when the classical coordination channel has realistic, finite latency. The authors model qubit storage decoherence with a Lindblad master equation parameterized by T1 and T2 times of several quantum memory platforms, and use measured metropolitan IP network latency statistics. They derive an expected pair-consumption formula E(Fth) = ∏ 2/p(F_i) and a steady-state distillable rate R(Fth) = R_pair/E(Fth). They then numerically map fidelity evolution over purification rounds, break-even iso-fidelity contours (F = F0), and rate curves versus latency for QKD and DQC thresholds. The central quantitative results are all computed for a single initial fidelity F0 = 0.75.

Significance. If the numerical results are correct and robust, the paper provides a useful engineering methodology for assessing whether purification can run over real control-plane latencies, and for setting latency and memory-coherence budgets. Its strengths are that the forward model is standard, the memory parameters and latency data come from external sources, and the main formulas are derived rather than fitted. The paper also clearly identifies that DEJMPS can outperform BBPSSW by orders of magnitude in steady-state rate, and that sharp break-even boundaries exist. The contribution is significant for quantum network systems engineering, though the lack of sensitivity analysis and a likely sign error in Eq. (20) currently limit confidence in the specific quantitative thresholds.

major comments (3)

[Section III-C1, Eq. (20)] Eq. (20) appears to have a sign error: the numerator should be F^2 + (1-F)^2/9, not F^2 − (1-F)^2/9. With the printed minus sign, F'(0.6) = 0.562 < 0.6, contradicting the claim in Section III-C3 and Fig. 3 that all protocols give F' > F for F > 1/2. The correct plus-sign formula crosses break-even at F = 1/2 as stated. This needs to be fixed and the numerical results checked to ensure they use the correct expression.
[Section IV, Figs. 4–6] All quantitative maps, break-even contours, latency budgets, and rate curves are computed for a single initial fidelity F0 = 0.75. The break-even contour in Fig. 5 is explicitly F = F0, so F0 is not a nuisance parameter but the reference level of the central output. Since the paper advertises concrete design rules (e.g., DEJMPS viable up to 20–25 ms for 40Ca+), a sensitivity analysis over a plausible F0 range (e.g., 0.60–0.85) is necessary. Without it, the reported latency thresholds and rate comparisons are conditional on an arbitrary input.
[Section III-D, Eq. (25)] The rate expression R(Fth) = R_pair/E(Fth) assumes that purification is initiated immediately once two base pairs are available, so no storage decoherence is incurred while waiting for the second pair during finite-rate generation. This idealization is not stated as a limitation and can affect the quantitative rate curves, especially at low R_pair. The authors should either incorporate a waiting-time degradation term or explicitly bound the error introduced by this assumption.

minor comments (6)

[Section II-A] Typo: 'invesitgates' should be 'investigates'.
[Section III-C] Typo: 'environmengtal' should be 'environmental'.
[Section IV-C, Fig. 6 caption] Panel (b) caption says 'Fth = 0.81 required for DQC' but the DQC threshold used throughout the paper is 0.98. Please correct.
[Section IV-A] The text says latencies are 'sampled from the empirical distribution' and the Introduction claims capture of the 'full stochastic impact' of the control plane, but the results are deterministic per fixed T_C. Please clarify that the latency PDF is used as a source of representative fixed values, not propagated through the model.
[Section III-C3, Eqs. (22)–(23)] The notation ΔF' and Δp'_{succ}(F) is inconsistent; in Eq. (22) ΔF' is the fidelity difference, while Eq. (23) defines Δp'_{succ} with a prime. Consider using distinct symbols, e.g., ΔF and Δp_succ.
[General] Figures 5 and 6 report averages over 1024 random initial states but no error bars. Please add error bars or state explicitly that they are smaller than the marker size.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central inputs are external measurements or literature protocol maps; F0=0.75 is an assumed scenario, not a fitted or predicted quantity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked. The Lindblad master equation (Eq. 2) is parameterized by T1 and T2 values in Table I taken from external experimental references; the network latency distribution is taken from Ookla's open Dublin-metro dataset; the BBPSSW fidelity map is the analytic expression of Ref. [3] (Eq. 20) and DEJMPS is computed from the standard protocol of Ref. [4]. The resource metric E(F_th)=∏2/p(F_i) and throughput R(F_th)=R_pair/E(F_th) are definitional rate bookkeeping, not predictions derived from fitted parameters. The chosen F0=0.75 is stated as a 'highly conservative worst-case scenario' input, not a parameter fitted to the break-even or rate outputs; no equation in the paper reduces to F0 by construction. The break-even contour F=F0 in Fig. 5 is the declared definition of break-even rather than a derived result, and the absence of an F0 sensitivity sweep is a robustness limitation, not a circular one. Self-citations [9] and [24] supply prior modeling context and loss figures but are not used to forbid alternatives or to supply a uniqueness theorem; the central claims (DEJMPS > BBPSSW, latency thresholds) follow from forward simulation of literature protocols over external latency and memory data.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on externally measured memory parameters, a chosen initial fidelity, and the standard purification maps. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated burden is the single F0 value.

free parameters (1)

Initial fidelity F0 = 0.75
Set in Section IV as a 'highly conservative worst-case scenario'. All break-even contours and throughput curves are computed relative to this single assumed value; no sensitivity analysis is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Lindblad master equation with amplitude damping and dephasing models memory decoherence during latency
Section II-B uses jump operators with rates 1/T1 and 1/T2; this is a standard but non-universal memory noise model.
domain assumption Initial entangled states can be represented by a single fidelity F with a Werner-like or explicitly constructed random mixture
Section III-A assumes Werner form for analytics and generates random states with a given singlet fidelity for numerics; captures isotropic noise only.
domain assumption The classical communication latency T_C equals the idle time of the source qubits in each purification round
Section II-A and III-D assume symmetric one-way latency and that the pair idles for T_C during measurement-exchange; realistic control planes may have additional delays.
domain assumption The expectation formula E(Fth)=prod_i 2/p(F_i) holds under symmetric scheduling with immediate retries
Section III-D derives total consumed pairs as the product of per-round expectations; this ignores scheduling constraints and finite buffer effects.
standard math Single-step fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration is accurate for the used parameters
Appendix A validates nu=1 vs nu=2,10 for the main parameters; convergence is shown but only for the 40Ca+ platform.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement Purification With Finite Latency Classical Communication in Quantum Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQUAHXME

@misc{pith2026250903667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement Purification With Finite Latency Classical Communication in Quantum Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQUAHXME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03667}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum networks rely on high fidelity entangled pairs distributed to nodes, but maintaining their fidelity is challenged by environmental decoherence during storage. Entanglement purification is used to restore fidelity, but the idle periods imposed by the associated classical communication delays counteract this goal by exposing the states to further decoherence. In this work, we analyze the practical viability of entanglement purification protocols (BBPSSW, DEJMPS), under non-instantaneous classical coordination over Internet protocol (IP) communications networks. We present a comprehensive performance evaluation of these protocols in various network conditions for a range of quantum memory technologies. We employ a microscopic Lindblad treatment of the underlying quantum dynamics, and use current-generation metropolitan IP network latency statistics and parameters drawn from quantum memory testbeds. In doing so we identify the regions in which entanglement purification succeeds and fails, delineated by break-even iso-fidelity contours in the phase space. We then determine the total number of entangled pairs required to complete a multi-round purification protocol, and the steady-state throughput of entangled pairs with purified fidelities that exceed application-specific thresholds. This provides latency budgets, memory quality targets, and resource-overhead estimates for deploying purification on current and near-future networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03667 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Entangled photon pairs are distributed and mapped into quantum memories at nodes A and B, creating multiple bipartite links of certain fidelity. Purification proceeds by performing local two-qubit operations on matching-fidelity pairs and exchanging the resulting measurement outcomes over the classical IP network. If successful, purification boosts the fidelity (𝐹 ′′ > 𝐹′ ) as denoted in the figure. The latency of t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Fidelity degradation due to control plane latency in realistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of BBPSSW and DEJMPS protocols on random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Color coded plots showing fidelity as a function of purification round and classical latency for both (a) BBPSSW and (b) DEJMPS. Results shown for the calcium ion–trap (40Ca+ ) platform with quantum memory parameters 𝑇1 = 1.14 s, 𝑇2 = 0.5 s (see Table I) and initial fi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Heatmaps showing the final achievable Bell singlet fidelities 𝐹 as a function of the expected total number of consumed pairs 𝐸 and the classical latency for both (a) BBPSSW and (b) DEJMPS protocols respectively. Results shown for the Calcium ion trap (40Ca+ ) platform …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distillable rate 𝑅(𝐹th ) as a function of the classical latency. All panels show results for both BBPSSW (solid line with circle markers) and DEJMPS (dotted line with triange markers). Panel (a) shows results for the threshold fidelity 𝐹th = 0.81 required for QKD, and …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Numerical evidence for convergence of the 𝜈-step fourth-order RungeKutta integrator for the Lindblad equation for (a) the parameters used in the main text 𝑇1 = 1.14s, 𝑇2 = 0.5s, and (b) 𝑇1 = 1.14s/20, 𝑇2 = 0.5s/20. B. Fidelity Improvement per Round: Additional Platfor…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Color coded plots showing fidelity as a function of purification round and classical latency for both (a) BBPSSW and (b) DEJMPS. Results shown for the rare-earth ion (167Er3+ ) platform with quantum memory parameters 𝑇1 = 600 s, 𝑇2 = 1.3 s (see Table I) and initial fid…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Color coded plots showing fidelity as a function of purification round and classical latency for both (a) BBPSSW and (b) DEJMPS. Results shown for NV centers in diamond with quantum memory parameters 𝑇1 = 200 s, 𝑇2 = 0.5 s (see Table I) and initial fidelity 𝐹0 = 0.75. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Latency-Constrained Encoded Quantum Teleportation with Punctured Codes
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Under latency constraints, longer quantum error-correcting codes can reduce teleportation reliability because acquiring more entangled pairs delays and degrades them; adaptive puncturing of a base code selects the bes...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Van Meter, Quantum Networking

R. Van Meter, Quantum Networking. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,

W. Dür and H. Briegel, “Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,” Rep. Prog. Phys. , vol. 70, no. 8, p. 1381, 2007

work page 2007
[3]

Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996

work page 1996
[4]

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

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

work page 1996
[5]

Efficient computation of the waiting time and fidelity in quantum repeater chains,

S. Brand, T. Coopmans, and D. Elkouss, “Efficient computation of the waiting time and fidelity in quantum repeater chains,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 619–639, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Efficient optimization of cutoffs in quantum repeater chains,

B. Li, T. Coopmans, and D. Elkouss, “Efficient optimization of cutoffs in quantum repeater chains,” IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. , vol. 2, pp. 1–15, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Entanglement purification on quantum networks,

M. Victora, S. Tserkis, S. Krastanov, A. S. de la Cerda, S. Willis, and P. Narang, “Entanglement purification on quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 033171, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

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

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

arXiv 2025

Show all 26 references

[9]

Control protocol for entangled pair verification in quantum optical networks,

V . Vasan, A. Agrawal, A. Nico-Katz, J. Horgan, B. A. Bash, D. C. Kilper, and M. Ruffini, “Control protocol for entangled pair verification in quantum optical networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07410 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Speedtest by ookla global fixed network performance—2024- 01-01 fixed tiles data,

Ookla, “Speedtest by ookla global fixed network performance—2024- 01-01 fixed tiles data,” 2024, accessed Nov. 4, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://registry.opendata.aws/speedtest-global-performance

2024
[11]

An entanglement-based wavelength-multiplexed quantum communica- tion network,

S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, H. Hübel, and R. Ursin, “An entanglement-based wavelength-multiplexed quantum communica- tion network,” Nature, vol. 564, no. 7735, pp. 225–228, 2018

2018
[12]

Network requirements for distributed quantum computation,

H. Jacinto, É. Gouzien, and N. Sangouard, “Network requirements for distributed quantum computation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08891 , 2025

2025
[13]

Experimental and theoretical study of the 3d d 2-level lifetimes of 40ca+,

A. Kreuter, C. Becher, G. P. T. Lancaster, A. B. Mundt, C. Russo, H. Häffner et al., “Experimental and theoretical study of the 3d d 2-level lifetimes of 40ca+,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 71, no. 3, p. 032504, 2005

2005
[14]

Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour,

P. Wang, C.-Y . Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang et al., “Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour,” Nat. Commun. , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 233, 2021

2021
[15]

Coherence time of over a second in a telecom-compatible quantum memory storage material,

M. Ran ˇci´c, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, and M. J. Sellars, “Coherence time of over a second in a telecom-compatible quantum memory storage material,” Nat. Phys., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 50–54, 2018

2018
[16]

Room- temperature quantum bit memory exceeding one second,

P. C. Maurer, G. Kucsko, C. Latta, L. Jiang, N. Y . Yao et al., “Room- temperature quantum bit memory exceeding one second,” Science, vol. 336, no. 6086, pp. 1283–1286, 2012

2012
[17]

Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of milliseconds single-photon coherence time,

O. Milul, B. Guttel, U. Goldblatt, S. Hazanov, L. M. Joshi et al. , “Superconducting cavity qubit with tens of milliseconds single-photon coherence time,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 030336, 2023

2023
[18]

Quantum memory with millisecond coherence in circuit qed,

M. Reagor, W. Pfaff, C. Axline, R. W. Heeres, N. Ofek et al., “Quantum memory with millisecond coherence in circuit qed,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 94, no. 1, p. 014506, 2016

2016
[19]

Using a lindbladian approach to model decoherence in two coupled nuclear spins via correlated phase damping and amplitude damping noise channels,

H. Singh, Arvind, and K. Dorai, “Using a lindbladian approach to model decoherence in two coupled nuclear spins via correlated phase damping and amplitude damping noise channels,” Pramana – J. Phys. , vol. 94, pp. 1–10, 2020

2020
[20]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems . Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002

2002
[21]

Barchielli and M

A. Barchielli and M. Gregoratti, Quantum Trajectories and Measure- ments in Continuous Time: The Diffusive Case . Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, vol. 782. 13 Purification Round 0 10 20 30 F 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 BBPSSW (a) 5ms 10ms 15ms 20ms 25ms 30ms 35ms 40ms 45ms 50ms Purificat...

2009
[22]

Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 3824, 1996

1996
[23]

System design for a long-line quantum repeater,

R. Van Meter, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, “System design for a long-line quantum repeater,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1002–1013, 2008

2008
[24]

Routing and spectrum allocation in broadband quantum entanglement distribution,

R. Bali, A. N. Tittelbaugh, S. L. Jenkins, A. Agrawal, J. Horgan, M. Ruffini, D. C. Kilper, and B. A. Bash, “Routing and spectrum allocation in broadband quantum entanglement distribution,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , 2025

2025
[25]

Visible- wavelength polarization-entangled photon source for quantum commu- nication and imaging,

A. Sansa Perna, E. Ortega, M. Gräfe, and F. Steinlechner, “Visible- wavelength polarization-entangled photon source for quantum commu- nication and imaging,” Appl. Phys. Lett. , vol. 120, no. 7, p. 071102, 2022

2022
[26]

Robustness of hashing protocols for entanglement purification,

M. Zwerger, H. Briegel, and W. Dür, “Robustness of hashing protocols for entanglement purification,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 90, no. 1, p. 012314, 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Van Meter, Quantum Networking

R. Van Meter, Quantum Networking. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2014

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,

W. Dür and H. Briegel, “Entanglement purification and quantum error correction,” Rep. Prog. Phys. , vol. 70, no. 8, p. 1381, 2007

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996

work page 1996

[4] [4]

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

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

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Efficient computation of the waiting time and fidelity in quantum repeater chains,

S. Brand, T. Coopmans, and D. Elkouss, “Efficient computation of the waiting time and fidelity in quantum repeater chains,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 619–639, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Efficient optimization of cutoffs in quantum repeater chains,

B. Li, T. Coopmans, and D. Elkouss, “Efficient optimization of cutoffs in quantum repeater chains,” IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. , vol. 2, pp. 1–15, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Entanglement purification on quantum networks,

M. Victora, S. Tserkis, S. Krastanov, A. S. de la Cerda, S. Willis, and P. Narang, “Entanglement purification on quantum networks,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 033171, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

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

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

arXiv 2025