pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.03210 · v1 · submitted 2025-01-06 · 💻 cs.NI

Simulation of entanglement based quantum networks for performance characterization

David P\'erez Castro , Juan Fern\'andez-Herrer\'in , Ana Fern\'andez-Vilas , Manuel Fern\'andez-Veigaa , Rebeca P. D\'iaz-Redondo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 05:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI
keywords entanglement distributionquantum switchesNetSquid simulationend-to-end fidelityquantum network topologypurificationerror correctionquantum memory
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations of switch-based quantum networks show that memory quality, gate noise, distances and purification protocols control end-to-end entanglement fidelity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a switch-based topology inside the NetSquid simulator and runs experiments that distribute entanglement across multiple hops. It varies quantum-memory parameters, gate durations, noise strengths, the number of switches, physical distances, and the use of purification or error correction to measure resulting fidelity. A reader would care because these runs identify which hardware and protocol choices most strongly limit usable entanglement for long-distance communication. The experiments produce concrete design guidelines for future entanglement-based networks.

Core claim

By modeling end nodes and quantum switches in NetSquid and executing a sequence of entanglement-distribution experiments, the authors observe that memory technology, gate durations, noise, number of switches, distances, purification, and error correction each produce measurable changes in the fidelity of the final shared entangled state between distant nodes.

What carries the argument

NetSquid simulation of entanglement swapping across a chain of quantum switches whose decoherence, gate noise, and timing parameters are varied to track end-to-end fidelity.

If this is right

  • Higher-quality quantum memories or shorter gate times raise achievable end-to-end fidelity.
  • Increasing the number of switches or link distances lowers fidelity unless compensated by purification or error correction.
  • Purification and error-correction steps can offset some noise but add latency and resource overhead.
  • Design guidelines derived from these runs can be used to set minimum hardware specifications for practical entanglement networks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same simulation framework could be reused to test new purification protocols or different error-correction codes before hardware implementation.
  • Results may guide the choice of memory coherence times required for metropolitan-scale versus long-haul links.
  • Extending the model to include classical control-message delays would reveal additional performance constraints not examined here.

Load-bearing premise

The NetSquid models of quantum memory decoherence, gate noise, and entanglement swapping accurately capture the dominant error sources present in real laboratory hardware at the parameter values chosen for the study.

What would settle it

Running the same parameter sets on a physical multi-switch testbed and finding that measured fidelities deviate systematically from the simulated values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03210 by Ana Fern\'andez-Vilas, David P\'erez Castro, Juan Fern\'andez-Herrer\'in, Manuel Fern\'andez-Veigaa, Rebeca P. D\'iaz-Redondo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two nodes request a connection for end-to-end entanglement throughout a quantum switch, which is orchestrated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: This figure shows the general topology for EBNs and the set of simulation experiments (applications) for this paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) Fidelity of shared states between end nodes for 3 different configurations, with fixed E2E distance of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Network capacity for 5 different configurations, with fixed E2E distance of 5 km. Fidelity is kept constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Request duration for 2 different configurations, with fixed E2E distance. X axis in logarithmic scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Main plot: Capacity of the network as a function of the total network distance for two different network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) Capacity as a function of the total network distance for 4 different network configurations. Y axis in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Color online) Three different results extracted from different teleportation applications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Color online) Evolution of the fidelity when increasing the link distance for different teleportation applications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Entanglement-based networks (EBNs) enable general-purpose quantum communication by combining entanglement and its swapping in a sequence that addresses the challenges of achieving long distance communication with high fidelity associated with quantum technologies. In this context, entanglement distribution refers to the process by which two nodes in a quantum network share an entangled state, serving as a fundamental resource for communication. In this paper, we study the performance of entanglement distribution mechanisms over a physical topology comprising end nodes and quantum switches, which are crucial for constructing large-scale links. To this end, we implemented a switch-based topology in NetSquid and conducted a series of simulation experiments to gain insight into practical and realistic quantum network engineering challenges. These challenges include, on the one hand, aspects related to quantum technology, such as memory technology, gate durations, and noise; and, on the other hand, factors associated with the distribution process, such as the number of switches, distances, purification, and error correction. All these factors significantly impact the end-to-end fidelity across a path, which supports communication between two quantum nodes. We use these experiments to derive some guidelines towards the design and configuration of future EBNs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper implements switch-based topologies in the NetSquid simulator to study entanglement distribution. It runs simulation experiments varying memory technology, gate durations, noise, number of switches, distances, purification, and error correction, reports their effects on end-to-end fidelity, and derives guidelines for the design and configuration of future entanglement-based networks.

Significance. If the NetSquid error models are shown to be representative, the parameter-sweep results would offer useful engineering insights into which factors most strongly limit fidelity in multi-hop quantum networks. The simulation methodology itself is standard and appropriate for exploring design trade-offs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Simulation Setup] Abstract and Simulation Setup: The central claim that the reported fidelity impacts 'can be used to derive guidelines for the design and configuration of future EBNs' requires that the chosen NetSquid models of memory decoherence, gate noise, and entanglement swapping reproduce dominant experimental error channels at the numerical parameter values employed. No comparison of simulated swap success probabilities or end-to-end fidelities against published laboratory benchmarks is provided, nor are sensitivity checks shown for plausible variations in T1/T2, gate-error, or measurement-error rates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results sections: Fidelity trends are presented without reported statistical error bars, number of Monte Carlo runs, or confidence intervals, which would allow readers to judge the reliability of observed differences across parameter sweeps.
  2. [Simulation Setup] The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the ranges and default values chosen for all free parameters (coherence times, distances, noise rates) so that the experiments can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and the constructive suggestion regarding model validation. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the simulation results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Simulation Setup] Abstract and Simulation Setup: The central claim that the reported fidelity impacts 'can be used to derive guidelines for the design and configuration of future EBNs' requires that the chosen NetSquid models of memory decoherence, gate noise, and entanglement swapping reproduce dominant experimental error channels at the numerical parameter values employed. No comparison of simulated swap success probabilities or end-to-end fidelities against published laboratory benchmarks is provided, nor are sensitivity checks shown for plausible variations in T1/T2, gate-error, or measurement-error rates.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation against laboratory benchmarks would strengthen the central claim. The current manuscript uses NetSquid's standard error models with parameter values drawn from published experimental literature on relevant hardware platforms (NV centers, trapped ions, and superconducting qubits), but does not include direct numerical comparisons of simulated swap success probabilities or end-to-end fidelities to specific lab results. We will revise the Simulation Setup section to (1) explicitly cite the experimental sources for each model parameter, (2) add a short discussion of the dominant error channels assumed by the models, and (3) include sensitivity sweeps over plausible ranges of T1/T2, gate-error, and measurement-error rates. These additions will clarify the conditions under which the derived guidelines apply and will support a more cautious phrasing of the abstract claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; simulation outputs are direct results of chosen NetSquid parameters

full rationale

The manuscript describes a NetSquid implementation of switch-based quantum network topologies followed by parameter sweeps over memory technology, gate durations, noise levels, switch counts, distances, purification, and error correction. All reported end-to-end fidelities are produced by executing the simulator with the stated numerical inputs; no equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are derived from the outputs themselves. No self-citations appear in the provided text, and the central claim (that the observed fidelity trends can inform design guidelines) rests on the simulation runs rather than any reduction to prior author work or definitional equivalence. This is a standard simulation study whose results are independent of the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the chosen NetSquid parameter values represent realistic hardware and that the simulator faithfully reproduces the physics of entanglement distribution; these are not derived from first principles within the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • memory coherence times, gate durations, noise rates, distances, switch counts
    Numerical values selected by the authors to represent plausible near-term quantum hardware; not derived inside the paper.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption NetSquid's built-in models of quantum operations and decoherence are sufficiently accurate for deriving design guidelines
    Invoked when the authors treat simulation outputs as actionable engineering advice.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5762 in / 1187 out tokens · 34196 ms · 2026-05-23T05:51:34.953800+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, et al., Proceedings of the ieee international conference on computers, systems and signal processing (1984)

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    Scarani, H

    V . Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Reviews of modern physics 81 (3) (2009) 1301–1350

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453 (7198) (2008) 1023–1030

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical review 47 (10) (1935) 777

    work page 1935

  5. [5]

    Y . Cao, Y . Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Zhang, S. X. Ng, L. Hanzo, The evolution of quantum key distribution networks: On the road to the qinternet, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 24 (2) (2022) 839–894

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Pirandola, End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network, Communications Physics 2 (1) (May 2019)

    S. Pirandola, End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network, Communications Physics 2 (1) (May 2019). doi:10.1038/s42005-019-0147-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-019-0147-3 2019

  7. [7]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication, Physical Review Letters 81 (26) (1998) 5932. January 7, 2025 DRAFT 25

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    P. P. Rohde, The Quantum Internet: The Second Quantum Revolution, Cambridge University Press, 2021. doi:10. 1017/9781108868815

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, I. Tzitrin, Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet, Reviews of Modern Physics 95 (4) (2023) 045006

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. Bäuml, T. Coopmans, D. Elkouss, B. Li, Tools for quantum network design, A VS Quantum Science 3 (1) (2021) 014101. doi:10.1116/5.0024062

    work page doi:10.1116/5.0024062 2021

  11. [11]

    Diadamo, J

    S. Diadamo, J. Nötzel, B. Zanger, M. M. Be¸ se, Qunetsim: A software framework for quantum networks, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2 (2021) 1–12. doi:10.1109/TQE.2021.3092395

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3092395 2021

  12. [12]

    X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Kettimuthu, M. Suchara, Sequence: a customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks, Quantum Science and Technology 6 (4) (2021) 045027. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac22f6

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac22f6 2021

  13. [13]

    Suchara, J

    M. Suchara, J. Kubiatowicz, A. Faruque, F. T. Chong, C.-Y . Lai, G. Paz, Qure: The quantum resource estimator toolbox, in: 2013 IEEE 31st International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD), 2013, pp. 419–426. doi:10.1109/ICCD. 2013.6657074

    work page doi:10.1109/iccd 2013

  14. [14]

    Coopmans, R

    T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Nijsten, J. de Oliveira Filho, M. Papendrecht, J. Rabbie, F. Rozp˛ edek, M. Skrzypczyk, et al., Netsquid, a network simulator for quantum information using discrete events, Communications Physics 4 (1) (2021) 164

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Kozlowski, A

    W. Kozlowski, A. Dahlberg, S. Wehner, Designing a quantum network protocol, in: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on emerging networking experiments and technologies, 2020, pp. 1–16

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Y . Zhao, G. Zhao, C. Qiao, E2E fidelity aware routing and purification for throughput maximization in quantum networks, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, IEEE, 2022, pp. 480–489

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    W. Dai, T. Peng, M. Z. Win, Optimal remote entanglement distribution, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 38 (3) (2020) 540–556. doi:10.1109/jsac.2020.2969005

    work page doi:10.1109/jsac.2020.2969005 2020

  18. [18]

    Chakraborty, D

    K. Chakraborty, D. Elkouss, B. Rijsman, S. Wehner, Entanglement distribution in a quantum network: A multicommodity flow-based approach, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 1 (2020) 1–21. doi:10.1109/tqe.2020. 3028172

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2020 2020

  19. [19]

    Fittipaldi, A

    P. Fittipaldi, A. Giovanidis, F. Grosshans, A linear algebraic framework for dynamic scheduling over memory-equipped quantum networks, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 5 (2024) 1–18. doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3341151

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3341151 2024

  20. [20]

    Gauthier, G

    S. Gauthier, G. Vardoyan, S. Wehner, A control architecture for entanglement generation switches in quantum networks, in: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Quantum Networks and Distributed Quantum Computing, 2023, pp. 38–44

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Vardoyan, S

    G. Vardoyan, S. Guha, P. Nain, D. Towsley, On the stochastic analysis of a quantum entanglement distribution switch, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2 (2021) 1–16. doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3058058

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3058058 2021

  22. [22]

    N. K. Panigrahy, T. Vasantam, D. Towsley, L. Tassiulas, On the capacity region of a quantum switch with entanglement purification (2022). arXiv:2212.01463

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Vardoyan, E

    G. Vardoyan, E. Van Milligen, S. Guha, S. Wehner, D. Towsley, On the bipartite entanglement capacity of quantum networks, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 5 (2024) 1–14

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    N. K. Panigrahy, T. Vasantam, D. Towsley, L. Tassiulas, On the capacity region of a quantum switch with entanglement purification, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2023-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    M. G. de Andrade, E. A. Van Milligen, L. Bacciottini, A. Chandra, S. Pouryousef, N. K. Panigrahy, G. Vardoyan, D. Towsley, On the analysis of quantum repeater chains with sequential swaps (May 2024). arXiv:2405.18252, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2405.18252. January 7, 2025 DRAFT 26

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.18252 2024

  26. [26]

    IEEE Access8, 199523–199538 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS

    M. Caleffi, Optimal routing for quantum networks, IEEE Access 5 (2017) 22299–22312. doi:10.1109/access. 2017.2763325

    work page doi:10.1109/access 2017

  27. [27]

    C. Li, T. Li, Y .-X. Liu, P. Cappellaro, Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks, npj Quantum Information 7 (1) (Jan. 2021). doi:10.1038/s41534-020-00344-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-020-00344-4 2021

  28. [28]

    Cicconetti, M

    C. Cicconetti, M. Conti, A. Passarella, Request scheduling in quantum networks, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2 (2021) 2–17. doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3090532

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3090532 2021

  29. [29]

    H. Gu, Z. Li, R. Yu, X. Wang, F. Zhou, J. Liu, G. Xue, Fendi: Toward high-fidelity entanglement distribution in the quantum internet, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (2024) 1–16 doi:10.1109/tnet.2024.3450271

    work page doi:10.1109/tnet.2024.3450271 2024

  30. [30]

    Sutcliffe, A

    E. Sutcliffe, A. Beghelli, Multiuser entanglement distribution in quantum networks using multipath routing, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 4 (2023) 1–15. doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3329714

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3329714 2023

  31. [31]

    S. Shi, C. Qian, Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum networks: Model and designs, in: Proceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication, SIGCOMM ’20, ACM, 2020. doi:10.1145/3387514.3405853

    work page doi:10.1145/3387514.3405853 2020

  32. [32]

    Zhang, S

    S. Zhang, S. Shi, C. Qian, K. L. Yeung, Fragmentation-aware entanglement routing for quantum networks, Journal of Lightwave Technology 39 (14) (2021) 4584–4591. doi:10.1109/jlt.2021.3070859

    work page doi:10.1109/jlt.2021.3070859 2021

  33. [33]

    Y . Zhao, C. Qiao, Redundant entanglement provisioning and selection for throughput maximization in quantum networks, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2021 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–10. doi:10.1109/ infocom42981.2021.9488850

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Patil, M

    A. Patil, M. Pant, D. Englund, D. Towsley, S. Guha, Entanglement generation in a quantum network at distance-independent rate, npj Quantum Information 8 (1) (May 2022). doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00536-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00536-0 2022

  35. [35]

    Tillman, T

    I. Tillman, T. Vasantam, D. Towsley, K. P. Seshadreesan, Calculating the capacity region of a quantum switch, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18818 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    G. Avis, F. Rozp˛ edek, S. Wehner, Analysis of multipartite entanglement distribution using a central quantum-network node, Physical Review A 107 (1) (2023) 012609

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    G. Avis, T. Coopmans, A. Dahlberg, F. Ferreira da Silva, H. jirovská, D. Maier, J. Rabbie, Netsquid-qrepchain (2020). URL https://gitlab.com/softwarequtech/netsquid-snippets/netsquid-qrepchain

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    B. Kar, P. Kumar, Routing protocols for quantum networks: Overview and challenges (2023). arXiv:2305.00708

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    M. Liu, Z. Li, X. Wang, J. C. S. Lui, Linkselfie: Link selection and fidelity estimation in quantum networks, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2024 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2024, pp. 1421–1430. doi:10.1109/ INFOCOM52122.2024.10621263

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Labay Mora, F

    A. Labay Mora, F. Ferreira da Silva, S. Wehner, Reducing hardware requirements for entanglement distribution via joint hardware-protocol optimization, Quantum Science and Technology (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Pérez Castro, A

    D. Pérez Castro, A. Fernández Vilas, M. Fernández Veiga, M. Blanco Rodríguez, R. P. Díaz Redondo, Simulation of fidelity in entanglement-based networks with repeater chains, Applied Sciences 14 (23) (2024) 11270. doi:10.3390/ app142311270

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Abane, M

    A. Abane, M. Cubeddu, V . S. Mai, A. Battou, Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey (2024). arXiv:2408.01234. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01234

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    W. R. Frensley, Boundary conditions for open quantum systems driven far from equilibrium, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62 (1990) 745–791. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.62.745. January 7, 2025 DRAFT 27

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.62.745 1990

  44. [44]

    Hübel, M

    H. Hübel, M. R. Vanner, T. Lederer, B. Blauensteiner, T. Lorünser, A. Poppe, A. Zeilinger, High-fidelity transmission of polarization encoded qubits from an entangled source over 100 km of fiber, Optics Express 15 (12) (2007) 7853–7862

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Deutsch, A

    D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Physical review letters 77 (13) (1996) 2818

    work page 1996

  46. [46]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Physical review A 52 (4) (1995) R2493

    work page 1995

  47. [47]

    J. N. Becker, J. Görlitz, C. Arend, M. Markham, C. Becher, Ultrafast all-optical coherent control of single silicon vacancy colour centres in diamond, Nature Communications 7 (1) (Nov. 2016). doi:10.1038/ncomms13512. January 7, 2025 DRAFT

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms13512 2016