Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Instruction-Set Architecture for Programmable NV-Center Quantum Repeater Nodes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NV-center repeater nodes can be programmed through an instruction-set architecture in which the nuclear-spin register acts as a control program; preparing that register in a superposition lets the node interference-test its own operations.

desk verdict A clean architectural proposal for NV repeater programmability; the math is honest and the ISA framing is new, but the coherent-control diagnostics rest on pulse-level assumptions the paper doesn't back up. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14995 v2 pith:W5537MLZ submitted 2026-02-16 quant-ph cs.NI

Vinay Kumar , Claudio Cicconetti , Riccardo Bassoli , Marco Conti , Andrea Passarella This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NI PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Lx
keywords quantumnetworksrepeatersNVcentersprogrammablenodesinstruction-setarchitecturecontroller-drivenoperationsfidelitywitnessinglinearcombinationofunitaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces a formal instruction-set architecture (ISA) for controller-driven programming of nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center quantum repeater nodes. The electron spin is the data qubit and the nuclear spins form a control register. In deterministic mode, the register selects one operation per instruction; in coherent mode, the register is prepared in a superposition so that multiple operations act together on the electron state. The authors show that coherent mode turns the node into an interferometric fidelity witness: with two phase settings, the node extracts the complex overlap between two unitaries and certifies how close their outputs are on a probed input state, without full process tomography. The formalism is illustrated on an entanglement purification protocol and connected to linear-combination-of-unitaries (LCU) and Kraus operator decompositions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conditional unitary U_repeater = Σ_k |k⟩⟨k| ⊗ U_k on the joint electron–nuclear space, together with projection of the nuclear register onto a general readout state. This single construction yields the effective electron-side operator K_j = Σ_k d*_{j,k} c_k U_k, which is a linear combination of unitaries (LCU) with complex coefficients set by the program-register amplitudes and the measurement basis. The same identity supports deterministic control (one branch selected), coherent control (superposition of branches), fidelity witnessing (two-branch interference of the overlap a), and the Kraus/LCU reformulation.

What would settle it

Run a two-branch experiment on a single NV center: initialize the electron in a known state, prepare the nuclear register as (|0⟩+e^{iφ}|1⟩)/√2, apply U0=I and U1=X under register control, and measure the nuclear spin in the X-basis for φ=0 and φ=−π/2. The recovered overlap a=(2p_+^{(1)}−1)+i(2p_+^{(2)}−1) should equal ⟨ψ_E|X|ψ_E⟩; for |ψ_E⟩=|0⟩ that is zero, so both corrected probabilities must be 1/2. Any systematic deviation beyond measurement noise refutes the coherent-control diagnostic claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the map (⟨ϕ|⊗I) U_repeater (|ψ_N⟩⊗|ψ_E⟩) = (Σ_k d*_k c_k U_k)|ψ_E⟩ is the engine of programmability. When the nuclear register is prepared in |ψ_N⟩=Σ_k c_k|k⟩ and projected onto |ϕ⟩=Σ_k d_k|k⟩, the electron spin experiences a linear combination of the branch unitaries U_k. For two branches, measuring the register in the X-basis yields outcome probabilities p_± = 1/2 [1 ± Re⟨ψ_E|U_0†U_1|ψ_E⟩]; introducing a phase φ on the register gives p_±(φ) = 1/2 [1 ± Re(e^{iφ}⟨ψ_E|U_0†U_1|ψ_E⟩)]. From two phase settings, φ=0 and φ=-π/2, the real and imaginary parts of the overlap a are recovered as a=(2p_+^{(1)}−1)+i(2p_+^{(2)}−1), and the state fidelity F=|a|^2 is known. This ma

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme assumes the decoder can prepare arbitrary superposition states of the nuclear register, apply electron operations conditioned on those states, and read out in a rotated basis—all inside one network time slot and before the shortest qubit coherence time elapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A network controller can express a protocol such as entanglement purification as a short sequence of instruction vectors; each node decodes them into microwave and radio-frequency pulses, providing a clean hardware–software interface for quantum repeater nodes.
  • Coherent register control realizes an arbitrary linear combination of unitaries on the electron spin with coefficients (d*_k c_k), directly connecting node-level programmability to quantum simulation and channel decomposition techniques.
  • A node can extract the complex overlap between two implemented unitaries from two phase-swept measurements and thereby witness the state-dependent fidelity F=|⟨ψ_E|U_0†U_1|ψ_E⟩|^2, enabling in situ calibration without process tomography.
  • Larger nuclear registers expand the addressable instruction set (2^r operations) but increase re-initialization time; the paper's throughput model quantifies this trade-off, with round rate R≈1/(fixed overhead + τ_reset·r).
  • The ISA extends to nodes with multiple electron spins, each with its own control register, allowing independent parallel operation at the node level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-phase witness can be generalized to more than two branches, letting a single node compare several candidate unitaries or certify an entire pulse sequence against a target on a chosen input state.
  • If the coherent-control primitives are demonstrated on current NV platforms, the fidelity witness could be incorporated into automatic drift-correction loops that run periodically without taking the node offline, a practical way to maintain repeater calibration.
  • The LCU connection suggests a path beyond diagnostics: a node with a coherent register could implement non-unitary maps or small Hamiltonian simulations locally, which may be useful for network-level quantum information processing.
  • A concrete near-term test would set U_0=I, U_1=X, and |ψ_E⟩=|0⟩; the predicted probabilities are p_+^{(1)}=p_+^{(2)}=1/2, and any reproducible deviation would signal decoherence or control errors in the purported coherent operation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an instruction-set architecture (ISA) for NV-center quantum repeater nodes, in which a classical controller broadcasts instruction vectors to each node. Each instruction selects an electron-spin operation via a nuclear-spin register, either deterministically (register in a basis state) or coherently (register in a superposition). The coherent mode is analyzed as a controlled unitary whose post-measurement effect on the electron spin is a linear combination of unitaries; by sweeping a relative phase in the register, the paper shows that the state-dependent overlap a = ⟨ψ_{E0}|U0†U1|ψ_{E0}⟩ can be extracted from two probability measurements, giving a fidelity witness and calibration tool. The paper also sketches a BBPSSW purification realization, a throughput model for register re-initialization, an extension to multiple electron spins, and a reformulation in terms of LCU and Kraus/instrument maps. Appendices C and D contain the algebraic derivations of the interference probabilities and two-phase extraction.

Significance. If the execution model is physically realizable, the paper offers a clean controller-level abstraction for programmability of NV repeater nodes and a useful diagnostic that does not require full process tomography. The core algebra in Sections III-B and Appendices C-D is correct, and the paper is appropriately careful to state that the measured quantity is an input-state-dependent overlap, not a global gate fidelity. The connection between coherent register control and LCU/Kraus instruments is clearly presented and may be valuable for protocol design. However, the central 'coherent diagnostics' claim rests on an unvalidated pulse-level execution model; the manuscript needs to either supply a concrete sequence and timing budget or explicitly frame the capability as conditional on that model.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-B and §IV-B] The claimed capability of coherent register control rests on an execution model that is asserted rather than demonstrated. Within a single control slot the decoder must (i) prepare the nuclear register in an arbitrary superposition, (ii) apply the conditional unitary U_repeater = Σ_k |k⟩⟨k| ⊗ U_k, and (iii) read out the register in a rotated basis, all within the coherence time of the electron spin. The paper states that instructions are 'realized through local MW and RF control fields' and that the decoder configures the pulses, but no pulse-level decomposition or timing budget is given for the cited NV hardware. The demonstrations in [21] and [32] concern static registers, not slotted reprogramming with arbitrary conditional unitaries and rotated-basis readout. Without this evidence, Eqs. (21) and (56) are algebraically correct but their operational status in the proposed node is uncle
  2. [Appendix B] The entanglement-transfer protocol as written is incorrect. After the two local CNOTs, Eq. (42) gives |Ψ⟩ = (|0⟩_EA |0⟩_NA |0⟩_EB |0⟩_NB + |1⟩_EA |1⟩_NA |1⟩_EB |1⟩_NB)/√2. If the electron spins are measured in the computational (Z) basis, the nuclear state is either |0⟩_NA |0⟩_NB or |1⟩_NA |1⟩_NB depending on the outcome — a product state, not a Bell state. The footnote's claim that even without measurement the nuclear spins 'remain entangled' is also incorrect: tracing out the electrons leaves a separable mixture. A Bell state is obtained only if the electrons are measured in a superposition basis (e.g., projecting onto (|00⟩_E ± |11⟩_E)/√2) and the outcome is conditioned on. Please correct this appendix or remove the claim; it is peripheral to the main diagnostic result but is a factual error.
  3. [§III-B and §IV-C] The register-superposition assumption is stronger than stated. In §III-B the two-nuclear example uses an independent product superposition |Ψ_N1N2⟩ = (α0|0⟩+α1|1⟩) ⊗ (β0|0⟩+β1|1⟩), giving rank-one coefficients α_i β_j, while the generalized formulation in Eq. (11) and the LCU/Kraus section in Eq. (37) allow arbitrary coefficients c_k. Preparing arbitrary c_k generally requires entangling gates among the nuclear spins (e.g., electron-mediated controlled rotations), not just single-nuclear rotations. The paper does not discuss how the decoder realizes these. Please state which class of superpositions is assumed and, if arbitrary superpositions are needed, describe the preparation sequence or cite a demonstration of dynamic register preparation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §I] The phrase 'tools unavailable in classical programmability' should be qualified. The paper demonstrates this only under the coherent-control execution model, so 'enables in principle' or 'can enable, subject to the execution model' would be more precise.
  2. [§IV-B] The throughput model in Eq. (32) treats t_MW, t_RF, t_meas, and t_class as constants but does not include electron coherence time. A sentence noting the requirement t_slot < T_2* would make the model more relevant to the feasibility of coherent diagnostics.
  3. [After Eq. (23)] The Note appropriately distinguishes the state-dependent overlap from global gate fidelity. It could be expanded to state explicitly that F_state in Eq. (23) depends on the chosen input state and does not bound the diamond-norm distance between channels.
  4. [Appendix A] The BBPSSW example is presented as a 'compact realization,' but the parity-check sifting step is only described in words. A short equation or pseudocode for the keep/discard condition would improve precision.
  5. [References] Reference [3] is listed as a 'submitted' Ph.D. dissertation; if it is not publicly available, consider replacing it with a published reference or a preprint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the overlap/fidelity-witness formula is an algebraic consequence of the controlled-unitary model and projective measurement, with no fitted inputs; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

Score 0. The central diagnostic claim in Sec. III-B is derived from the controlled-unitary model (Eq. 11), a superposition register state, and a rotated-basis nuclear measurement. Equations (18)-(21) and (56) give a = <psi_E0|U0^dag U1|psi_E0> = (2p_+^(1)-1) + i(2p_+^(2)-1). This is a direct inversion of the Born-rule probabilities p_+ = (1 + Re a)/2 and p_+ = (1 + Im a)/2, with no free constants and no fitted parameter called a prediction. The fidelity witness in Eqs. (22)-(23) is the squared modulus of that measured overlap. The LCU/Kraus section (Sec. IV-C) is explicitly a reformulation: Eq. (36) says K_j = <phi_j|U_repeater|psi_N> = sum_k d*_{j,k} c_k U_k, and the text itself says 'Equation (36) directly implements a Linear Combination of Unitaries (LCU)'. That is a relabeling of Eq. (13), not an independent load-bearing derivation. Self-citations ([1], [3]) appear only in the background/dissertation context and do not support the derivation; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper's physical feasibility does rely on an asserted execution model — arbitrary nuclear-superposition preparation, conditional electron operations, and rotated-basis readout within one coherence-limited control slot (Sec. III and IV-B) — but that is an unvalidated experimental or engineering assumption, not a circularity: the algebra would still be self-contained if the hardware assumption fails. Separately, Appendix B's claim that a computational-basis electron measurement leaves the nuclear spins in a Bell state is physically incorrect (it yields product states correlated with outcomes), but this is a peripheral correctness issue outside the circularity pass.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics and on two domain assumptions: that the NV hardware can realize the instruction set (including arbitrary coherent register preparation/readout) and that a slotted global controller model is valid. The paper provides no pulse-level validation for the first; the second is explicitly stated. The throughput model introduces two categories of free timing parameters, none fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • tMW, tRF, tmeas, tclass (fixed per-slot overhead times) = unspecified
    Appear in the throughput model Eq. (32) as 'configuration-dependent constants' but no values are given; Fig. 4 is illustrative.
  • τ_reset (per-nuclear-spin reset time) = swept 10^1–10^2 μs in Fig. 4
    A hand-chosen variable in the throughput model, not fitted to experimental data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Controlled-unitary evolution and projective measurements obey standard quantum mechanics
    Invoked in Eqs. (4), (9), (11)-(14), Appendices C-D.
  • domain assumption The NV electron spin can be initialized, coherently controlled, and read out, and nuclear-spin registers can store coherence for the protocol duration
    Required for the ISA to be physically meaningful; supported by cited experiments [15]-[23], but the slotted reprogramming assumption is stronger.
  • domain assumption A centralized classical controller can broadcast synchronized instruction vectors in time slots
    The entire execution model of Sec. III assumes this; flagged by the authors as 'implicitly assumes a time-slotted schedule'.
  • ad hoc to paper The decoder can map any OPCODE/PARAMS/PATTERN to a valid MW/RF pulse sequence within one slot
    This is the paper's core architectural premise; no pulse-level construction is provided.
  • standard math LCU decomposition is valid for the constructed K operators
    Sec. IV-C connects Eq. (36) to LCU; this is standard linear algebra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instruction-Set Architecture for Programmable NV-Center Quantum Repeater Nodes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W5537MLZ

@misc{pith2026260214995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instruction-Set Architecture for Programmable NV-Center Quantum Repeater Nodes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W5537MLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14995}
}
read the original abstract

Programmability is increasingly central in emerging quantum network software stacks, yet the node-internal controller-to-hardware interface for quantum repeater devices remains under-specified. We introduce the idea of an instruction-set architecture (ISA) for controller-driven programmability of nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center quantum repeater nodes. Each node consists of an optically interfaced electron spin acting as a data qubit and a long-lived nuclear-spin register acting as a control program. We formalize two modes of programmability: (i) deterministic register control, where the nuclear register is initialized in a basis state to select a specific operation on the data qubit; and (ii) coherent register control, where the register is prepared in superposition, enabling coherent combinations of operations beyond classical programmability. Network protocols are expressed as controller-issued instruction vectors, which we illustrate through a compact realization of the BBPSSW purification protocol. We further show that coherent register control enables interferometric diagnostics such as fidelity witnessing and calibration, providing tools unavailable in classical programmability. Finally, we discuss scalability to multi-electron and multi-nuclear spin architectures and connection to Linear combination of unitaries (LCU) and Kraus formulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two node example. A classical controller broadcasts the instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Programmability modes. Deterministic mode initializes the nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example: BBPSSW purification protocol in NV-center nodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-electron round throughput R vs Per-nuclear spin reset time τreset for register sizes r ∈ {1, 2, 4, 8, 16} with fixed overheads (tMW+tRF+tmeas+tclass). Larger r expands the ISA address space (more programmable operation choices) but increases re-initialization time.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Entanglement transfer from electron-electron spin to nuclear-nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [21]

    ”A ten-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute.” Physical Review X 9.3 (2019): 031045

    Bradley, Conor E., et al. ”A ten-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute.” Physical Review X 9.3 (2019): 031045

    2019

  2. [32]

    ”Fault-tolerant operation of a logical qubit in a diamond quantum processor.” Nature 606.7916 (2022): 884-889

    Abobeih, Mohamed H., et al. ”Fault-tolerant operation of a logical qubit in a diamond quantum processor.” Nature 606.7916 (2022): 884-889

    2022

  3. [1]

    Kumar, V ., Cicconetti, C., Conti, M., & Passarella, A. (2025). Quantum internet: Technologies, protocols, and research challenges. International Journal of Networked and Distributed Computing, 13(2), 22

    2025

  4. [2]

    P., Huang, Z., Ouyang, Y ., Huang, H

    Rohde, P. P., Huang, Z., Ouyang, Y ., Huang, H. L., Su, Z. E., Devitt, S., ... & Munro, W. J. (2025). The Quantum Internet (Technical Version). arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12107

    arXiv 2025

  5. [3]

    Making Quantum Networks Work: Routing, Calibration, and Programmable Quantum Repeaters

    Kumar, V ., “Making Quantum Networks Work: Routing, Calibration, and Programmable Quantum Repeaters.” (2026). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pisa, submitted

    2026

  6. [4]

    C., Hanson, R.,

    Rozpedek, F., Yehia, R., Goodenough, K., Ruf, M., Humphreys, P. C., Hanson, R., ... & Elkouss, D. (2019). Near-term quantum-repeater experiments with nitrogen-vacancy centers: Overcoming the limitations of direct transmission. Physical Review A, 99(5), 052330

    2019

  7. [5]

    ”Photonic quantum networks formed from NV- centers.” Scientific reports 6.1 (2016): 26284

    Nemoto, Kae, et al. ”Photonic quantum networks formed from NV- centers.” Scientific reports 6.1 (2016): 26284

    2016

  8. [6]

    Jing, Y ., & Razavi, M. (2022). Quantum repeaters with encoding on nitrogen-vacancy-center platforms. Physical Review Applied, 18(2), 024041

    2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    ”OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks.” ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review 38.2 (2008): 69-74

    McKeown, Nick, et al. ”OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks.” ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review 38.2 (2008): 69-74

    2008

  2. [8]

    ”Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey.” Proceedings of the IEEE 103.1 (2014): 14-76

    Kreutz, Diego, et al. ”Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey.” Proceedings of the IEEE 103.1 (2014): 14-76

    2014

  3. [9]

    ”P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44.3 (2014): 87-95

    Bosshart, Pat, et al. ”P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44.3 (2014): 87-95

    2014

  4. [10]

    ”An operating system for executing applica- tions on quantum network nodes.” Nature 639.8054 (2025): 321-328

    Delle Donne, Carlo, et al. ”An operating system for executing applica- tions on quantum network nodes.” Nature 639.8054 (2025): 321-328

    2025

  5. [11]

    ”Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres.” Nature 497.7447 (2013): 86-90

    Bernien, Hannes, et al. ”Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres.” Nature 497.7447 (2013): 86-90

    2013

  6. [12]

    ”Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres.” Nature 526.7575 (2015): 682-686

    Hensen, Bas, et al. ”Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres.” Nature 526.7575 (2015): 682-686

    2015

  7. [13]

    ”Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes.” Science 356.6341 (2017): 928-932

    Kalb, Norbert, et al. ”Entanglement distillation between solid-state quantum network nodes.” Science 356.6341 (2017): 928-932

    2017

  8. [14]

    Childress, Lilian, et al. ”Fault-tolerant quantum repeaters with minimal physical resources and implementations based on single-photon emit- ters.” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 72.5 (2005): 052330

    2005

  9. [15]

    Jelezko, F., & Wrachtrup, J. (2006). Single defect centres in diamond: A review. physica status solidi (a), 203(13), 3207-3225

    2006

  10. [16]

    V ., et al

    Dobrovitski, V . V ., et al. ”Quantum control over single spins in dia- mond.” Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 4.1 (2013): 23-50

    2013

  11. [17]

    ”Coherent dynamics of coupled electron and nuclear spin qubits in diamond.” Science 314.5797 (2006): 281-285

    Childress, L., et al. ”Coherent dynamics of coupled electron and nuclear spin qubits in diamond.” Science 314.5797 (2006): 281-285

    2006

  12. [18]

    ”Room-temperature quantum bit memory exceeding one second.” Science 336.6086 (2012): 1283-1286

    Maurer, Peter Christian, et al. ”Room-temperature quantum bit memory exceeding one second.” Science 336.6086 (2012): 1283-1286

    2012

  13. [19]

    ”Single-shot readout of a single nuclear spin.” science 329.5991 (2010): 542-544

    Neumann, Philipp, et al. ”Single-shot readout of a single nuclear spin.” science 329.5991 (2010): 542-544

    2010

  14. [20]

    Quantum error correction in a solid-state hybrid spin register,

    G. Waldherr et al., “Quantum error correction in a solid-state hybrid spin register,” Nature, vol. 506, no. 7487, pp. 204–207, 2014

    2014

  15. [22]

    ”One-second coherence for a single electron spin coupled to a multi-qubit nuclear-spin environment.” Nature communications 9.1 (2018): 2552

    Abobeih, Mohamed H., et al. ”One-second coherence for a single electron spin coupled to a multi-qubit nuclear-spin environment.” Nature communications 9.1 (2018): 2552

    2018

  16. [23]

    ”Universal control and error correction in multi-qubit spin registers in diamond.” Nature nanotechnology 9.3 (2014): 171-176

    Taminiau, Tim Hugo, et al. ”Universal control and error correction in multi-qubit spin registers in diamond.” Nature nanotechnology 9.3 (2014): 171-176

    2014

  17. [24]

    ”Field programmable spin arrays for scalable quantum repeaters.” Nature Communications 14.1 (2023): 704

    Wang, Hanfeng, et al. ”Field programmable spin arrays for scalable quantum repeaters.” Nature Communications 14.1 (2023): 704

    2023

  18. [25]

    ”Routing entanglement in the quantum internet.” npj Quantum Information 5.1 (2019): 25

    Pant, Mihir, et al. ”Routing entanglement in the quantum internet.” npj Quantum Information 5.1 (2019): 25

    2019

  19. [26]

    ”Distributed routing in a quantum internet.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11630 (2019)

    Chakraborty, Kaushik, et al. ”Distributed routing in a quantum internet.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11630 (2019)

    1907 arXiv

  20. [27]

    ”Quantum internet architecture: unlocking quantum-native routing via quantum addressing.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19655 (2025)

    Caleffi, Marcello, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. ”Quantum internet architecture: unlocking quantum-native routing via quantum addressing.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19655 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    ”A modular quantum network architecture for integrating network scheduling with local program execution.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12582 (2025)

    Beauchamp, Thomas R., et al. ”A modular quantum network architecture for integrating network scheduling with local program execution.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12582 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A., & Chuang, I

    Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (1997). Programmable quantum gate arrays. Physical Review Letters, 79(2), 321

    1997

  23. [30]

    ”Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels.” Physical review letters 76.5 (1996): 722

    Bennett, Charles H., et al. ”Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels.” Physical review letters 76.5 (1996): 722

    1996

  24. [31]

    ”Room-temperature entanglement between single defect spins in diamond.” Nature Physics 9.3 (2013): 139-143

    Dolde, Florian, et al. ”Room-temperature entanglement between single defect spins in diamond.” Nature Physics 9.3 (2013): 139-143

    2013

  25. [33]

    ”Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    Childs, Andrew M., and Nathan Wiebe. ”Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    pair to keep

    Chakraborty, Shantanav. ”Implementing any linear combination of uni- taries on intermediate-term quantum computers.” Quantum 8 (2024): 1496. APPENDIXA INSTRUCTION FORMAT FORBBPSSWPURIFICATION PROTOCOL EXAMPLE The instruction format to execute the BBPSSW purification protocol i...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.