Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 87 references

Simulating Quantum State Transfer between Distributed Devices using Noisy Interconnects

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A noisy quantum interconnect can simulate a perfect state transfer.

desk verdict Simple, correct QPD with solid proofs and honest hardware tests; calibration at low fidelity is the real weak point, not the math. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01683 v1 pith:YDC242ED submitted 2025-07-02 quant-ph

Marvin Bechtold , Johanna Barzen , Frank Leymann , Alexander Mandl This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P45 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Hk03.67.Lx
keywords quasiprobabilitydecompositionquantumstatetransfersamplingoverheadwirecuttingentanglementfidelitynoisyinterconnectschanneltwirlingdistributedcomputing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a noisy quantum interconnect can be turned into a virtual perfect one by expressing the ideal state-transfer channel as a quasiprobability decomposition (QPD) built from the noisy channel and a measure-and-prepare circuit. The decomposition is governed by a single number: the entanglement fidelity F(C) of the interconnect. Sampling from the QPD simulates the ideal transfer with an overhead κ = 2/F(C) − 1, which falls as the interconnect improves and beats pure wire cutting whenever F(C) > 2^(−n). The authors prove this identity, give a one-time calibration for F(C), test it on three superconducting devices, and find that the two-design version of the QPD achieves lower estimation error than direct teleportation over the same noisy channel.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the depolarizing-channel decomposition $I^{\otimes n} = \frac{1}{p} D_p - \left(\frac{1}{p} - 1\right) D_0$ with $p = F(C)$, combined with channel twirling to realize $D_p$ from the noisy channel C and Lemma 1's construction of $D_0$ from $2^n + 1$ measure-and-prepare circuits. This identity turns one scalar channel-quality parameter into the QPD coefficients, and the minimal circuit construction keeps the number of distinct circuits small. The same decomposition is then adapted to wire cutting with shared non-maximally entangled states, recovering the optimal overhead $2/f(\rho) - 1$ while allowing the resource state to be mixed rather than pure.

What would settle it

For a channel with known coherent errors, run the Pauli-mixing QPD at increasing shot counts and check whether the estimation error plateaus at a value bounded by the sum of the off-diagonal χ-matrix entries; observing no plateau, or a plateau independent of coherent error strength, would contradict Equation (56).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 1: for any n-qubit channel C with entanglement fidelity F(C), the identity channel admits the QPD $I^{\otimes n} = \frac{1}{F(C)} \mathcal{E}_E(C) - \left(\frac{1}{F(C)} - 1\right) \mathcal{E}_V(M)$, where $\mathcal{E}_E(C)$ is a channel twirl that turns C into a depolarizing channel, and $\mathcal{E}_V(M)$ is a twirled measure-and-prepare channel with zero entanglement fidelity. The corresponding sampling overhead is $\kappa = 2/F(C) - 1$, so better interconnects require fewer samples. The paper also shows that the zero-fidelity channel $D_0$ can be realized with the minimal number of $2^n + 1$ measure-and-prepare circuits, and that the QPD's single parameter can be calibrated by measuring the probability that the twirled channel preserves the all-zero state. Hardware experiments confirm that this QPD reduces estimation error relative to direct use of the noisy channel, and that a full two-design is robust to coherent errors while a smaller Pauli-mixing ensemble works well when coherent errors are small.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that one calibration of the interconnect's entanglement fidelity stays valid over the QPD run, because drifting noise would make the QPD coefficients wrong and add systematic bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If F(C) > 2^(−n), the QPD has lower sampling overhead than classical-communication-only wire cutting, and the overhead approaches 1 as the interconnect approaches perfection.
  • On channels with negligible coherent errors, the three-circuit Pauli-mixing ensemble performs as well as the twelve-circuit unitary two-design, so the number of distinct circuits can be reduced without accuracy loss.
  • A single calibration of F(C), measured through the all-zero preservation probability, suffices to set all QPD coefficients for subsequent runs.
  • The simulated state transfer achieves higher effective fidelity than direct transfer over the same noisy interconnect, even when approximations that reduce the number of circuit variants are used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same two-term QPD template could be applied to simulate other distributed operations, such as multi-qubit gates, with the sampling overhead governed by an analogous fidelity parameter rather than by full process tomography.
  • Editorial extension: because the QPD depends on only one scalar, a quantum network could in principle route state transfers through whichever interconnect has the highest current F(C), using the calibration method as a lightweight link-quality probe.
  • Editorial extension: the hardware experiments emulate an inter-device interconnect with teleportation inside a single device; the direct next test is to run the QPD across genuinely remote processors and check that the overhead reduction survives inter-device synchronization and communication latency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The authors propose a quasiprobability decomposition (QPD) that simulates an ideal n-qubit state transfer by combining a twirled noisy channel E_E(C) with a measure-and-prepare-based depolarizing channel E_V(M). Theorem 1 establishes I = (1/F(C)) E_E(C) - (1/F(C)-1) E_V(M) for any channel C with entanglement fidelity F(C), giving sampling overhead kappa = 2/F(C) - 1. The single parameter F(C) is calibrated through the twirl-based relation F(C) = (2^n + 1) P_{0->0}/2^n - 1/2^n (Eq. 42). The paper also studies reduced twirling ensembles (Pauli mixing vs. unitary two-design) and provides an error analysis in Appendix E that separates statistical sampling error from systematic bias. Experiments on three IBM devices emulate a teleportation channel degraded by controlled SWAP operations and report O(1/sqrt(N)) error scaling, lower errors than direct teleportation, and coefficient scans matching the calibration at high fidelity.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a genuinely practical advance: a noisy interconnect can be used as a resource to simulate a perfect state transfer with an overhead that decreases as interconnect quality improves, and the calibration requires only a single scalar parameter. The paper's strengths are substantial: Theorem 1 and Lemma 1 have complete proofs in the appendices, the error analysis in Appendix E is careful (including the coherent-error bound of Eq. 56), the code and data are publicly available, and the hardware experiments on three devices test the predicted scaling rather than curve-fitting it. The experimental evidence that the unitary-two-design QPD beats direct teleportation even on real devices is particularly valuable. The main caveat is that coefficient validation at low fidelity (F ~ 0.52-0.57) is less conclusive than at high fidelity, but this does not affect the correctness of the central theorem.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.5.1, Figure 6] The discrepancy between the computed coefficient c_com and the empirical optimum c_opt in the low-fidelity panels (F ~ 0.52-0.57) is attributed to inverse error magnification, but channel drift or a biased F estimate would produce the same signature; because the third term of Eq. (55) is proportional to |p/p_tilde - 1|, a sentence quantifying the expected bias at these fidelities, or explicitly restricting the validation claim to F > 0.65, would strengthen the calibration section.
  2. [Section 2.2] The text contains a typo: 'representaion' should be 'representation'.
  3. [Section 4.3.4] The text contains a typo: 'fidelites' should be 'fidelities'.
  4. [Section 2.5] The phrase 'twirling any any Pauli channel' contains a duplicated 'any'.
  5. [Section 4.3.5] The description of the core set of 15 circuits would benefit from explicitly stating whether the circuit set includes the resource-state preparation and SWAP degradation operations, since the text says the set is executed 'once for each combination of noise level, one of 25 Haar-random initial states, and observables X and Z'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QPD identity and the single-parameter calibration are self-contained, and only a secondary optimality comparison relies on a minor self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is an exact algebraic identity, not a circular prediction. Equation (35) rearranges the definition of the depolarizing channel, Equation (17), and Theorem 1 substitutes the twirled channel E_E(C) = D_{F(C)} and the explicitly constructed D_0 = E_V(M) from Lemma 1. The resulting sampling overhead kappa = 2/F(C) - 1 follows directly from the coefficients and is not fitted to the experimental error data. The calibration method of Section 3.2 measures F(C) from the probability P_{0->0} of the twirled channel, which is derived independently in Appendix D from the depolarizing-channel structure; this is a physical measurement, not a fit to the later error curves. The experimental scaling of error with F(C) is therefore a consistency check of the derived kappa, not a fitted prediction. The coefficient-scan validation in Figure 6 compares an empirically scanned optimum c_opt with the independently calibrated c_com = 1/F(C); the authors explicitly acknowledge and explain the low-fidelity discrepancy as error magnification in the inverse map, which is a calibration-accuracy limitation rather than circular reasoning. The only mild self-citation is the use of Equation (34), the minimal sampling overhead for wire cutting with non-maximally entangled states, attributed to the authors' prior work [18,19]. This prior result is used to claim optimality of the Section 3.3 NME-state protocol, but it is not needed to derive the main QPD theorem, the calibration procedure, or the headline sampling-overhead reduction; the QPD still provides kappa = 2/F - 1 independently. The paper's Section 5.2 candidly lists experimental limitations (single-qubit transfers, teleportation-based channel emulation, single-device execution, and limited hardware variety), and none of these limitations corresponds to a step where a result is defined in terms of its own output. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained for the central claims, with only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for a secondary optimality statement.

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

The QPD rests on standard quantum-information background (Pauli basis, twirling, LOCC monotonicity) and on one measured input, F(C). The authors introduce no new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities. The only domain assumptions that could invalidate the central claim are the stationarity of the channel noise during calibration and execution (explicitly stated in Section 3.2) and the validity of the Pauli-channel model T_rho for teleportation (Eq 18), with Eq (56) quantifying the error if coherent noise is present.

free parameters (1)
  • Entanglement fidelity F(C) (equivalently QPD coefficient c = 1/F(C)) = Measured: 0.87-0.91 baseline, 0.52-0.69 after SWAP-induced degradation on IBM devices
    The single tunable parameter of the QPD. It is determined experimentally with the calibration protocol of Section 3.2, not fitted to the error outcomes. It is an input measured from the physical channel, so it is a protocol parameter, not a free fit variable.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Pauli operators form an orthogonal basis for linear operators (Eq 6).
    Used throughout, e.g., in the chi-matrix representation of channels (Eq 12) and in the proofs of Lemmas 5-7.
  • standard math Twirling a channel with a unitary two-design yields a depolarizing channel with the same entanglement fidelity (Section 2.5).
    This is the key tool in Theorem 1 to identify E_E(C) = D_{F(C)}. It is a standard result (Horodecki et al., ref [37]).
  • domain assumption LOCC cannot increase the fidelity of distillation f(rho) (Section 2.4, Eq 20).
    Used in Section 3.3.1 to state the optimal wire-cutting overhead floor gamma_rho = 2/f(rho) - 1. Standard quantum information result (Horodecki et al. [36]).
  • domain assumption The noise characteristics of the shared channel are stable over the relevant timescale.
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.2 as the basis for reusing the calibration. If drift occurs, the QPD coefficients become miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption A teleportation protocol with a shared state rho implements the Pauli channel T_rho (Eq 18).
    Used in Section 3.3 and in the experiments. The channel is exactly Pauli only for ideal teleportation operations; hardware imperfections introduce coherent errors, whose effect is bounded by Eq (56).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating Quantum State Transfer between Distributed Devices using Noisy Interconnects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDC242ED

@misc{pith2026250701683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating Quantum State Transfer between Distributed Devices using Noisy Interconnects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDC242ED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01683}
}
read the original abstract

Scaling beyond individual quantum devices via distributed quantum computing relies critically on high-fidelity quantum state transfers between devices, yet the quantum interconnects needed for this are currently unavailable or expected to be significantly noisy. These limitations can be bypassed by simulating ideal state transfer using quasiprobability decompositions (QPDs). Wire cutting, for instance, allows this even without quantum interconnects. Nevertheless, QPD methods face drawbacks, requiring sampling from multiple circuit variants and incurring substantial sampling overhead. While prior theoretical work showed that incorporating noisy interconnects within QPD protocols could reduce sampling overhead relative to interconnect quality, a practical implementation for realistic conditions was lacking. Addressing this gap, this work presents a generalized and practical QPD for state transfer simulation using noisy interconnects to reduce sampling overhead. The QPD incorporates a single tunable parameter for straightforward calibration to any utilized interconnect. To lower practical costs, the work also explores reducing the number of distinct circuit variants required by the QPD. Experimental validation on contemporary quantum devices confirms the proposed QPD's practical feasibility and expected sampling overhead reduction under realistic noise. Notably, the results show higher effective state transfer fidelity than direct transfer over the underlying noisy interconnect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single-qubit teleportation protocol with resource [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Circuit representation of the QPD from Theorem 1. The first term involves applying the channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation results: Error scaling of the channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Entanglement fidelity of the teleportation channel as a function of SWAP operations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error scaling for the QPDs and direct teleportation under varying entanglement fidelity across different quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analysis of the error with QPD coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer

    Peter W. Shor. “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer”. SIAM Journal on Comput- ing 26, 1484–1509 (1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning

    Yunchao Liu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, and Kris- tan Temme. “A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning”. Na- ture Physics17, 1013–1017 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Ibm quantum com- puters: evolution, performance, and future direc- tions

    Muhammad AbuGhanem. “Ibm quantum com- puters: evolution, performance, and future direc- tions”. The Journalof Supercomputing81(2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Evaluating the perfor- mance of quantum process units at large width and depth

    J. A. Montanez-Barrera, Kristel Michielsen, and David E. Bernal Neira. “Evaluating the perfor- mance of quantum process units at large width and depth” (2025). arXiv:2502.06471

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Rajeev Acharya, Dmitry A. Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I. Ander- sen et al. “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold”. Nature 638, 920– 926 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    How to build a quantum supercomputer: Scal- ing from hundreds to millions of qubits

    Masoud Mohseni, Artur Scherer, K. Grace John- son, Oded Wertheim, Matthew Otten et al. “How to build a quantum supercomputer: Scal- ing from hundreds to millions of qubits” (2024). arXiv:2411.10406

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Re- view of distributed quantum computing. from single qpu to high performance quantum com- puting

    David Barral, F. Javier Cardama, Guillermo Díaz, Daniel Faílde, Iago F. Llovo et al. “Re- view of distributed quantum computing. from single qpu to high performance quantum com- puting” (2024). arXiv:2404.01265

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Distributed quantum computing: A survey

    Marcello Caleffi, Michele Amoretti, Davide Fer- rari, Jessica Illiano, Antonio Manzalini et al. “Distributed quantum computing: A survey”. Computer Networks254, 110672 (2024)

    2024

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Entanglement across separate silicon dies in a modular superconducting qubit device

    Alysson Gold, J. P. Paquette, Anna Stock- klauser, Matthew J. Reagor, M. Sohaib Alam et al. “Entanglement across separate silicon dies in a modular superconducting qubit device”. npj Quantum Information7 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Superconducting qubits in a flip-chip architecture

    C. R. Conner, A. Bienfait, H.-S. Chang, M.-H. Chou, É. Dumur et al. “Superconducting qubits in a flip-chip architecture”. Applied Physics Let- ters118 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Violating bell’s in- equality with remotely connected superconduct- ing qubits

    Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, K. J. Satzinger, M.- H. Chou, A. Bienfait et al. “Violating bell’s in- equality with remotely connected superconduct- ing qubits”. Nature Physics15, 741–744 (2019). 22

    2019

  4. [12]

    Distributed quantum com- puting across an optical network link

    D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ain- ley, A. Agrawal et al. “Distributed quantum com- puting across an optical network link”. Nature 638, 383–388 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gambetta. “Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits”. Physical Review Letters119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Circuit knitting with classical communication

    Christophe Piveteau and David Sutter. “Circuit knitting with classical communication”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory70, 2734– 2745 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Optimal wire cutting with classical com- munication

    Lukas Brenner, Christophe Piveteau, and David Sutter. “Optimal wire cutting with classical com- munication” (2023). arXiv:2302.03366

    2023

  8. [16]

    Patterns for Quantum Circuit Cutting

    Marvin Bechtold, Johanna Barzen, Martin Beisel, Frank Leymann, and Benjamin Weder. “Patterns for Quantum Circuit Cutting”. In Pro- ceedings of the 30th Conference on Pattern Lan- guages of Programs. PLoP ’23. The Hillside Group (2023). url: https://dl.acm.org/doi/ 10.5555/3721...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Doubly optimal parallel wire cut- ting without ancilla qubits

    Hiroyuki Harada, Kaito Wada, and Naoki Ya- mamoto. “Doubly optimal parallel wire cut- ting without ancilla qubits”. PRX Quantum5, 040308 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Cutting a wire with non-maximally entangled states

    Marvin Bechtold, Johanna Barzen, Frank Ley- mann, and Alexander Mandl. “Cutting a wire with non-maximally entangled states”. In 2024 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW). IEEE (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Joint wire cutting with non-maximally entan- gled states

    Marvin Bechtold, Johanna Barzen, Frank Ley- mann, Alexander Mandl, and Felix Truger. “Joint wire cutting with non-maximally entan- gled states”. Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2400555 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Heralded entanglement distribu- tion between two absorptive quantum memories

    Xiao Liu, Jun Hu, Zong-Feng Li, Xue Li, Pei- Yun Li et al. “Heralded entanglement distribu- tion between two absorptive quantum memories”. Nature 594, 41–45 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Noise-induced quantum synchronization and maximally en- tangled mixed states in superconducting cir- cuits

    ZiyuTao, FinnSchmolke, Chang-KangHu, Wen- hui Huang, Yuxuan Zhou et al. “Noise-induced quantum synchronization and maximally en- tangled mixed states in superconducting cir- cuits” (2024). arXiv:2406.10457

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Quantum information theory

    Mark M. Wilde. “Quantum information theory”. CambridgeUniversityPress. (2017). 2ndedition

    2017

  15. [23]

    Mutually unbiased binary observ- able sets on n qubits

    Jay Lawrence, Časlav Brukner, and Anton Zeilinger. “Mutually unbiased binary observ- able sets on n qubits”. Physical Review A 65, 032320 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    O(N^3)Mea- surement Cost for Variational Quantum Eigen- solver on Molecular Hamiltonians

    Pranav Gokhale, Olivia Angiuli, Yongshan Ding, KaiwenGui, TeagueTomeshetal. “O(N^3)Mea- surement Cost for Variational Quantum Eigen- solver on Molecular Hamiltonians”. IEEE Trans- actions on Quantum Engineering1, 1–24 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Crypto- graphic distinguishability measures for quantum- mechanical states

    C.A. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf. “Crypto- graphic distinguishability measures for quantum- mechanical states”. IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory45, 1216–1227 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels in diamond dis- tance

    Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, Ryan O’Donnell, and Ewin Tang. “Query-optimal estimation of unitary channels in diamond dis- tance”. In 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). Pages 363–390. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical op- eration

    Michael A Nielsen. “A simple formula for the average gate fidelity of a quantum dynamical op- eration”. Physics Letters A303, 249–252 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Tensor networks and graphi- cal calculus for open quantum systems

    Christopher J. Wood, Jacob D. Biamonte, and David G. Cory. “Tensor networks and graphi- cal calculus for open quantum systems”. Quan- tum Information and Computation 15, 759– 811 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Exponentially tighter bounds on limita- tions of quantum error mitigation

    Yihui Quek, Daniel Stilck França, Sumeet Kha- tri, Johannes Jakob Meyer, and Jens Eis- ert. “Exponentially tighter bounds on limita- tions of quantum error mitigation”. Nature Physics (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Every- thingYouAlwaysWantedtoKnowAboutLOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask)

    Eric Chitambar, Debbie Leung, Laura Mančin- ska, Maris Ozols, and Andreas Winter. “Every- thingYouAlwaysWantedtoKnowAboutLOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask)”. Communications in Mathematical Physics328, 303–326 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Tele- porting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels

    Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Cré- peau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres et al. “Tele- porting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels”. Physical Review Letters70, 1895–1899 (1993)

    1993

  24. [32]

    Teleportation as a depolarizing quantum channel, relative entropy and classical capacity

    G. Bowen and S. Bose. “Teleportation as a depolarizing quantum channel, relative entropy and classical capacity”. Phys. Rev. Lett 87, 267901 (2001) 87, 267901 (2001). arXiv:quant- ph/0107132

    2001

  25. [33]

    General teleportation as a quantum channel

    Yong-Jian Gu, Chun-Mei Yao, Zheng-Wei Zhou, and Guang-Can Guo. “General teleportation as a quantum channel”. Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General37, 2447–2453 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    One-shot entanglement distillation beyond local operations and classical communication

    Bartosz Regula, Kun Fang, Xin Wang, and Mile Gu. “One-shot entanglement distillation beyond local operations and classical communication”. New Journal of Physics21, 103017 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Benchmarking one-shot distillation in general quantum resource theories

    Bartosz Regula, Kaifeng Bu, Ryuji Takagi, and Zi-Wen Liu. “Benchmarking one-shot distillation in general quantum resource theories”. Physical Review A101, 062315 (2020). 23

    2020

  28. [36]

    Quantum en- tanglement

    Ryszard Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, Michal Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. “Quantum en- tanglement”. Rev.Mod.Phys.81:865-942,200981, 865–942 (2007). arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    2007 arXiv

  29. [37]

    General teleportation chan- nel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation

    Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. “General teleportation chan- nel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation”. Phys- ical Review A60, 1888–1898 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    Near-linear constructions of exact unitary 2-designs

    Richard Cleve, Debbie Leung, Li Liu, and Chun- hao Wang. “Near-linear constructions of exact unitary 2-designs”. Quantum Information and Computation 16, 721–756 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs

    D. Gross, K. Audenaert, and J. Eisert. “Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs”. Journal of Mathematical Physics48 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Unitary designs and codes

    Aidan Roy and A. J. Scott. “Unitary designs and codes”. Designs, Codes and Cryptography 53, 13–31 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Ge- ometry of quantum states: An introduction to quantum entanglement

    Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol Życzkowski. “Ge- ometry of quantum states: An introduction to quantum entanglement”. Cambridge University Press. (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Exact and approx- imate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation

    ChristophDankert, RichardCleve, JosephEmer- son, and Etera Livine. “Exact and approx- imate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation”. Physical Review A 80, 012304 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Unconditionally secure key distri- bution in higher dimensions by depolarization

    H.F. Chau. “Unconditionally secure key distri- bution in higher dimensions by depolarization”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 51, 1451–1468 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Fastquantumcircuitcuttingwithrandom- ized measurements

    Angus Lowe, Matija Medvidović, Anthony Hayes, Lee J. O’Riordan, Thomas R. Bromley etal. “Fastquantumcircuitcuttingwithrandom- ized measurements” (2022). arXiv:2207.14734

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey

    Amar Abane, Michael Cubeddu, Van Sy Mai, and Abdella Battou. “Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey”. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering6, 1–39 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Operational interpretation of the choi rank through exclusion tasks

    Benjamin Stratton, Chung-Yun Hsieh, and Paul Skrzypczyk. “Operational interpretation of the choi rank through exclusion tasks”. Physical Re- view A110, l050601 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs

    Aram W. Harrow and Richard A. Low. “Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs”. Communications in Mathematical Physics291, 257–302 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Efficient unitary designs with a system-size independent number of non-clifford gates

    J. Haferkamp, F. Montealegre-Mora, M. Hein- rich, J. Eisert, D. Gross et al. “Efficient unitary designs with a system-size independent number of non-clifford gates”. Communications in Math- ematical Physics397, 995–1041 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Data repository for “Simulating Quantum State Transfer between Distributed De- vices using Noisy Interconnects

    Marvin Bechtold, Johanna Barzen, Frank Leymann, and Alexander Mandl. “Data repository for “Simulating Quantum State Transfer between Distributed De- vices using Noisy Interconnects”” (2025). https://doi.org/10.18419/DARUS-5034

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    In-situ characterization of quantum devices with error correction

    Joshua Combes, Christopher Ferrie, Chris Ce- sare, MarkusTiersch, G.J.Milburnetal. “In-situ characterization of quantum devices with error correction” (2014). arXiv:1405.5656

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    IBM Quantum De- vices

    IBM Quantum. “IBM Quantum De- vices” (2025). https://quantum.ibm.com/ services/resources

    2025

  44. [52]

    Thebitter truth about gate-based quantum algorithms in the nisq era

    FrankLeymannandJohannaBarzen. “Thebitter truth about gate-based quantum algorithms in the nisq era”. Quantum Science and Technology 5, 044007 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Qiskit: VF2Layout

    IBM Quantum. “Qiskit: VF2Layout” (2025). https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/ qiskit.transpiler.passes.VF2Layout

    2025

  46. [54]

    Calibra- tion and performance evaluation of a supercon- ducting quantum processor in an hpc center

    Xiaolong Deng, Stefan Pogorzalek, Florian Vi- gneau, Ping Yang, Martin Schulz et al. “Calibra- tion and performance evaluation of a supercon- ducting quantum processor in an hpc center”. In ISC High Performance 2024 Research Paper Pro- ceedings (39th International Conference)....

    2024

  47. [55]

    Quantum-process tomography: Resource analy- sis of different strategies

    M. Mohseni, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar. “Quantum-process tomography: Resource analy- sis of different strategies”. Physical Review A77, 032322 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication

    Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Caroline Tornow, Diego Ristè, Stefan Woerner, Maika Takita et al. “Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication”. Nature (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Unitary 2-designs from random X- and Z-diagonal unitaries

    Yoshifumi Nakata, Christoph Hirche, Ciara Mor- gan, and Andreas Winter. “Unitary 2-designs from random X- and Z-diagonal unitaries”. Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics58, 052203 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Distributed quantum computing and network control for accelerated vqe

    Stephen DiAdamo, Marco Ghibaudi, and James Cruise. “Distributed quantum computing and network control for accelerated vqe”. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1– 21 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Operational re- source theory of quantum channels

    Yunchao Liu and Xiao Yuan. “Operational re- source theory of quantum channels”. Physical Review Research2, 012035 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Fundamental limitations on distillation of quantum channel re- sources

    Bartosz Regula and Ryuji Takagi. “Fundamental limitations on distillation of quantum channel re- sources”. Nature Communications12 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Probabilistic channel dis- tillation via indefinite causal order

    Spiros Kechrimparis, James Moran, and Hyukjoon Kwon. “Probabilistic channel dis- tillation via indefinite causal order” (2025). arXiv:2501.13696. 24

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Virtual quantum resource distillation: General framework and applications

    Ryuji Takagi, Xiao Yuan, Bartosz Regula, and Mile Gu. “Virtual quantum resource distillation: General framework and applications”. Physical Review A109, 022403 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Virtual quantum resource distillation

    Xiao Yuan, Bartosz Regula, Ryuji Takagi, and Mile Gu. “Virtual quantum resource distillation”. Physical Review Letters132, 050203 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Experimental vir- tual distillation of entanglement and coherence

    Ting Zhang, Yukun Zhang, Lu Liu, Xiao-Xu Fang, Qian-Xi Zhang et al. “Experimental vir- tual distillation of entanglement and coherence”. Physical Review Letters132, 180201 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Shadow simulation of quantum processes

    Xuanqiang Zhao, Xin Wang, and Giulio Chiri- bella. “Shadow simulation of quantum processes”. Physical Review Letters133, 120804 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    An alternative approach to op- timal wire cutting without ancilla qubits

    Edwin Pednault. “An alternative approach to op- timal wire cutting without ancilla qubits” (2023). arXiv:2303.08287

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Construct- ing a virtual two-qubit gate by sampling single- qubit operations

    Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii. “Construct- ing a virtual two-qubit gate by sampling single- qubit operations”. New Journal of Physics 23, 023021 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Cutting multi-control quantum gates with ZX calculus

    Christian Ufrecht, Maniraman Periyasamy, Se- bastian Rietsch, Daniel D. Scherer, Axel Plinge et al. “Cutting multi-control quantum gates with ZX calculus”. Quantum7, 1147 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Optimal joint cutting of two- qubit rotation gates

    Christian Ufrecht, Laura S. Herzog, Daniel D. Scherer, Maniraman Periyasamy, Sebastian Ri- etsch et al. “Optimal joint cutting of two- qubit rotation gates”. Physical Review A 109, 052440 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quan- tum circuit evaluations

    Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Jef- frey Larson, and Margaret Martonosi. “Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quan- tum circuit evaluations”. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architec- tural Support for Programming Languages and O...

    2021

  63. [71]

    Optimal partitioning of quantum circuits using gate cuts and wire cuts

    Sebastian Brandhofer, Ilia Polian, and Kevin Kr- sulich. “Optimal partitioning of quantum circuits using gate cuts and wire cuts”. IEEE Transac- tions on Quantum Engineering5, 1–10 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Scalable cir- cuit cutting and scheduling in a resource- constrained and distributed quantum sys- tem

    Shuwen Kan, Zefan Du, Miguel Palma, Samuel A Stein, Chenxu Liu et al. “Scalable cir- cuit cutting and scheduling in a resource- constrained and distributed quantum sys- tem” (2024). arXiv:2405.04514

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Quantum cir- cuit cutting with maximum likelihood tomogra- phy

    Michael A. Perlin, Zain H. Saleem, Martin Suchara, and James C. Osborn. “Quantum cir- cuit cutting with maximum likelihood tomogra- phy”. npj Quantum Information7 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Quantum divide and compute: Exploring the effect of different noise sources

    Thomas Ayral, François-Marie Le Régent, Zain Saleem, Yuri Alexeev, and Martin Suchara. “Quantum divide and compute: Exploring the effect of different noise sources”. SN Computer Science 2, 132 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    In- vestigating the effect of circuit cutting in qaoa for the maxcut problem on nisq devices

    Marvin Bechtold, Johanna Barzen, Frank Ley- mann, Alexander Mandl, Julian Obst et al. “In- vestigating the effect of circuit cutting in qaoa for the maxcut problem on nisq devices”. Quantum Science and Technology8, 045022 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Unbiased simulation of near-clifford quantum circuits

    Ryan S. Bennink, Erik M. Ferragut, Travis S. Humble, Jason A. Laska, James J. Nutaro et al. “Unbiased simulation of near-clifford quantum circuits”. Physical Review A95, 062337 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Operational applications of the diamond norm and related measures in quantifying the non- physicality of quantum maps

    Bartosz Regula, Ryuji Takagi, and Mile Gu. “Operational applications of the diamond norm and related measures in quantifying the non- physicality of quantum maps”. Quantum 5, 522 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Topological quantum computing with a very noisy network and local error rates ap- proaching one percent

    Naomi H. Nickerson, Ying Li, and Simon C. Ben- jamin. “Topological quantum computing with a very noisy network and local error rates ap- proaching one percent”. Nature Communica- tions4 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Fault- tolerantconnectionoferror-correctedqubitswith noisy links

    Joshua Ramette, Josiah Sinclair, Nikolas P. Breuckmann, and Vladan Vuletić. “Fault- tolerantconnectionoferror-correctedqubitswith noisy links”. npj Quantum Information10(2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Quantum low-density parity-check codes for modular ar- chitectures

    Armands Strikis and Lucas Berent. “Quantum low-density parity-check codes for modular ar- chitectures”. PRX Quantum4, 020321 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Distributed quantum error correc- tion based on hyperbolic floquet codes

    Evan Sutcliffe, Bhargavi Jonnadula, Claire Le Gall, Alexandra E. Moylett, and Coral M. Westoby. “Distributed quantum error correc- tion based on hyperbolic floquet codes” (2025). arXiv:2501.14029

    2025

  74. [82]

    Quan- tum computation and quantum information

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. “Quan- tum computation and quantum information”. Cambridge University Press. (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Introduction to quantum gate set tomography

    Daniel Greenbaum. “Introduction to quantum gate set tomography” (2015). arXiv:1509.02921

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Simulating quantum cir- cuitswithrestrictedquantumcomputers

    Christophe Piveteau. “Simulating quantum cir- cuitswithrestrictedquantumcomputers” (2025). arXiv:2503.21773

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    The case of equality in hölder’s inequality for matrices and operators

    G. Larotonda. “The case of equality in hölder’s inequality for matrices and operators”. Mathe- matical Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 118A, 1 (2018). 25 A Pauli Operators and fundamental lemmas This appendix introduces several fundamental properties of Pauli operators ...

    2018

  78. [86]

    Applying Hölder’s inequality∥A†B∥1≤∥A∥∞∥B∥1 enables the norm of the observableO to be factored out [85]

    (191) The final inequality follows from| Tr[A]| =|∑ iλi|≤ ∑ i|λi| =∥A∥1 with λi representing the eigenvalues ofA and∥A∥1 being the trace norm ofA. Applying Hölder’s inequality∥A†B∥1≤∥A∥∞∥B∥1 enables the norm of the observableO to be factored out [85]. AsO =O†, the bound become...

  79. [87]

    (192) To eliminate the dependence on the stateρ, we employ the diamond norm, which upper bounds the trace norm for any input state: ‖‖˜I(ρ)−ρ ‖‖ 1 = ‖‖˜I(ρ)−I (ρ) ‖‖ 1≤ ‖‖˜I−I ‖‖ ⋄. (193) Decomposing the ideal identityI and implemented identity channel˜I using the QPD asI =p−1...

Pith tools

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