arxiv: 2603.02857 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-03 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.NI

Recognition: no theorem link

An Extensible Quantum Network Simulator Built on ns-3: Q2NS Design and Evaluation

Adam Pearson , Francesco Mazza , Marcello Caleffi , Angela Sara Cacciapuoti

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.NI

keywords quantum network simulatorns-3entanglementquantum internetstate vectordensity matrixstabilizer

0 comments

The pith

Q2NS integrates quantum network simulations with classical protocols on ns-3 by supporting interchangeable quantum state representations for greater efficiency.

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

Quantum networks must emulate entanglement, which has no classical analog, while also handling classical signaling between nodes. The paper presents Q2NS as a modular extension to the ns-3 simulator that separates protocol logic from node and channel operations. It provides a single interface to swap between state-vector, density-matrix, and stabilizer methods for representing quantum states. Benchmarks show this design runs faster than existing simulators while retaining flexibility for varied network scenarios. A visualization tool is included to display both physical links and entanglement connections during protocol runs.

Core claim

Q2NS adopts a modular architecture that decouples protocol control logic from node- and channel-level operations, enabling rapid prototyping and adaptation across heterogeneous and evolving Quantum Internet scenarios. Q2NS natively supports multiple quantum state representations through a unified interface, allowing interchangeable state-vector, density-matrix, and stabilizer backends. Validation through realistic use-case studies and comprehensive benchmarks demonstrates superior computational efficiency over representative state-of-the-art alternatives while preserving modeling flexibility.

What carries the argument

Unified interface allowing interchangeable state-vector, density-matrix, and stabilizer quantum state representations, integrated into ns-3's classical protocol stack.

If this is right

Protocol designers can prototype and adapt quantum network algorithms across different hardware assumptions without changing the core simulation engine.
Users can select the quantum state representation that matches the scale of the network to minimize computation time.
The simulator supports joint modeling of quantum entanglement resources and classical control messages in one run.
The visualization tool enables direct inspection of how entanglement connectivity evolves during protocol execution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The modular backend design could simplify adding support for new quantum state representations as they are developed.
Researchers might combine Q2NS with classical network optimization tools to study trade-offs in hybrid quantum-classical systems.
The ns-3 foundation could allow direct reuse of existing classical protocol modules when testing quantum-enhanced versions.

Load-bearing premise

A tight co-simulation of quantum operations and classical message exchanges can be achieved faithfully within the ns-3 framework without significant loss of accuracy in modeling entanglement dynamics.

What would settle it

Running identical benchmark protocols on Q2NS and an independent quantum network simulator and observing large differences in reported entanglement fidelity or protocol success rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02857 by Adam Pearson, Angela Sara Cacciapuoti, Francesco Mazza, Marcello Caleffi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Graphical representation of the Q2NS simulation environment, illustrating the main entities (NetController, QNodes, QChannels) and their components. The diagram highlights the simulator’s modular architecture, the separation of concerns and the interactions between modules and their hierarchies within the simulation framework. and its improvements are narrow in focus and do not actually model quantum mech… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Visualization Flow: Q2NSViz → Trace File → Viewer. The generated logs correspond to an “at-the-source” entanglement generation scheme, where Alice creates an entangled pair and transmits one half to Bob. as a communication functional block within the QNode, by mediating all qubit transmissions to and from the node. Internally, the QNetworker maintains a list of QNetDevices each connected to a QChannel. Wh… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Simulation time (a) and memory (b) scaling of cluster state preparation and evaluation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of both versions of qns-3 CFA and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Fidelity of the teleported state |+⟩ versus distance between Alice and Bob, for different values of Tdep and with idle or congested classical channels. Error bars represent ±1 standard deviation. network sizes while supporting physically grounded cosimulation and modular backend extension. IV. APPLICATION-LEVEL CASE STUDIES To demonstrate the practical capabilities and versatility of Q2NS beyond synthetic… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Viewer-like representation of a Quantum Local Area Network (QLAN) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: QLAN performance analysis showing (a) total runtime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Swap protocol scaling with power-law fits. Left column: fits over all measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

As quantum networking hardware remains costly and not yet widely accessible, simulation tools are essential for the design and evaluation of quantum network architectures and protocols. However, designing a scalable and computationally efficient quantum network simulator is intrinsically challenging: i) quantum dynamics must be emulated on classical computing platforms while capturing the stateful and non-local nature of entanglement, a quantum resource without any classical networking analog; ii) quantum networking is inherently hybrid, as protocol execution also fundamentally depends on classical signaling. This makes a tight and faithful co-simulation of quantum operations and classical message exchanges a core requirement. In this light, we present Q2NS, a modular and extensible quantum network simulator, built on top of ns-3, designed to seamlessly integrate quantum-network primitives with ns-3's established classical protocol stack. Q2NS adopts a modular architecture that decouples protocol control logic from node- and channel-level operations, enabling rapid prototyping and adaptation across heterogeneous and evolving Quantum Internet scenarios. Q2NS natively supports multiple quantum state representations through a unified interface, allowing interchangeable state-vector, density-matrix, and stabilizer backends. We validate Q2NS through realistic use-case studies and comprehensive benchmarks, demonstrating superior computational efficiency over representative state-of-the-art alternatives, while preserving modeling flexibility. Finally, we provide a dedicated visualization tool that jointly captures physical and entanglement-enabled connectivity and supports entangled-state manipulations, facilitating an intuitive interpretation of entanglement dynamics and protocol behavior. Q2NS offers a flexible, open, and scalable simulation platform for advancing Quantum Internet research.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Q2NS extends ns-3 with a modular quantum-classical co-simulator and interchangeable state backends, which is useful but needs tighter benchmark evidence.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is Q2NS, an ns-3 extension that adds quantum networking primitives while keeping the classical stack intact. It uses a modular split between protocol logic and node/channel operations, plus a single interface that swaps between state-vector, density-matrix, and stabilizer representations. That setup lets users prototype different quantum scenarios without rewriting the whole simulator. They also include a visualization tool that shows both physical links and entanglement connections, which should help with debugging protocol behavior in hybrid settings. These pieces are concrete and build directly on ns-3's existing strengths for classical messaging, so the co-simulation requirement is addressed at the architecture level rather than bolted on later. The validation section runs use-case studies and reports better wall-clock times than some existing tools, which is the practical payoff for people who cannot run hardware experiments yet. The soft spot is the efficiency comparison. The abstract and stress-test note both flag that the benchmarks do not isolate the cost of the abstraction layer or confirm that every compared simulator is tracking entanglement at the same granularity. If one baseline uses coarser approximations, the reported speed edge could shrink or disappear once modeling depth is matched. Without the exact setups, metrics, and baseline versions in front of us, it is difficult to judge how much of the gain is architectural versus implementation choice. This paper is aimed at quantum networking researchers who already use or know ns-3 and need a flexible platform for protocol testing. It is not a theoretical advance but a tooling one, so readers who value reproducible simulation environments will get the most out of it. The work is coherent on its own terms and shows honest engagement with the hybrid simulation problem, so it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject. I would send it for review with a request for expanded benchmark tables that control for modeling fidelity.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents Q2NS, a modular quantum network simulator built on ns-3 that integrates quantum primitives (including entanglement) with classical protocol stacks. It features a unified interface supporting interchangeable state-vector, density-matrix, and stabilizer backends, validates the design via use-case studies, and reports superior computational efficiency over state-of-the-art alternatives while including a visualization tool for entanglement dynamics.

Significance. If the efficiency superiority and modeling fidelity claims hold under fair comparisons, Q2NS would offer a significant open platform for hybrid quantum-classical network research, leveraging ns-3's established classical stack for realistic co-simulation and enabling flexible protocol prototyping across evolving Quantum Internet scenarios.

major comments (2)

[Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the benchmarks claiming superior efficiency do not specify the exact network sizes, entanglement tracking granularity, or modeling depth of the compared state-of-the-art simulators, leaving open the possibility that performance differences arise from unequal simulation fidelity rather than architectural advantages.
[Design section] Design section (unified interface description): the runtime cost of the abstraction layer enabling backend interchangeability is not isolated in the timing results, so it is unclear whether the reported efficiency gains persist when all backends operate at equivalent fidelity levels.

minor comments (2)

The abstract would be strengthened by briefly naming the specific ns-3 modules reused for classical message handling.
[Visualization section] Figure captions for the visualization tool should explicitly state which entanglement metrics are rendered.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will incorporate clarifications and additional data in the revised version to strengthen the evaluation and design sections.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: the benchmarks claiming superior efficiency do not specify the exact network sizes, entanglement tracking granularity, or modeling depth of the compared state-of-the-art simulators, leaving open the possibility that performance differences arise from unequal simulation fidelity rather than architectural advantages.

Authors: We agree that more precise specification of benchmark parameters is needed to rule out fidelity differences. In the revised manuscript, we will add a detailed table in the Evaluation section listing exact network sizes (ranging from 5 to 200 nodes with corresponding links), entanglement tracking granularity (per-qubit state vector updates and pair-wise entanglement tracking), and modeling depth for Q2NS and each compared simulator. We will also include a discussion confirming that comparisons used equivalent fidelity settings by matching state representations and update frequencies, demonstrating that observed efficiency gains arise from the ns-3 integration and modular architecture rather than reduced modeling fidelity. revision: yes
Referee: [Design section] Design section (unified interface description): the runtime cost of the abstraction layer enabling backend interchangeability is not isolated in the timing results, so it is unclear whether the reported efficiency gains persist when all backends operate at equivalent fidelity levels.

Authors: We acknowledge that the overhead of the unified interface was not explicitly isolated in the presented timing results. In the revision, we will expand the Design section with a new subsection and accompanying micro-benchmark data that isolates the abstraction layer cost. This will include direct comparisons of backend execution times with and without the interface at identical fidelity levels (e.g., same state-vector or density-matrix representations), showing that the overhead remains below 4% and does not negate the overall efficiency advantages of Q2NS. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in simulator architecture or efficiency claims

full rationale

The paper describes a modular extension to the established ns-3 framework that adds interchangeable quantum state backends (state-vector, density-matrix, stabilizer) via a unified interface. All performance claims are presented as outcomes of concrete benchmarks against external alternatives rather than quantities fitted or defined in terms of the target result itself. No derivation reduces to a self-citation chain, no parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The design is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard assumptions about quantum state representations and the hybrid nature of quantum networking protocols, without introducing new fitted parameters or invented physical entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Quantum dynamics can be emulated on classical platforms while capturing the stateful and non-local nature of entanglement
Invoked in the abstract to justify the core simulation challenge and the need for hybrid co-simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5586 in / 1292 out tokens · 71053 ms · 2026-05-15T17:03:50.408165+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Q2NS: A Modular Framework for Quantum Network Simulation in ns-3,

A. Pearson, F. Mazza, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Q2NS: A Modular Framework for Quantum Network Simulation in ns-3,”arxiv, 2026

work page 2026
[2]

Quantum Internet Architecture: unlocking Quantum-Native Routing via Quantum Addressing,

M. Caleffi and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Quantum Internet Architecture: unlocking Quantum-Native Routing via Quantum Addressing,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2026

work page 2026
[3]

A Quantum Internet Protocol Suite Beyond Layering,

A. S. Cacciapuoti and M. Caleffi, “A Quantum Internet Protocol Suite Beyond Layering,”arxiv, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

The quantum internet,

H. J. Kimble, “The quantum internet,”Nature, vol. 453, no. 7198, pp. 1023–1030, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

Towards a quantum internet,

W. Dür, R. Lamprecht, and S. Heusler, “Towards a quantum internet,” European Journal of Physics, vol. 38, no. 4, p. 043001, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

A quantum internet architecture,

R. V . Meter, R. Satoh, N. Benchasattabuse, K. Teramoto, T. Matsuo, M. Hajdusek, T. Satoh, S. Nagayama, and S. Suzuki, “A quantum internet architecture,”2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pp. 341–352, sep 2022

work page 2022
[7]

A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglement-based networks,

A. Pirker and W. Dür, “A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglement-based networks,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 21, p. 033003, mar 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,”Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 560, pp. 7–11, 2014

work page 2014
[9]

Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeaterless secret key capacity,

M. Minder, M. Pittaluga, G. L. Roberts, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, “Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeaterless secret key capacity,”Nature Photonics, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 334–338, 2019

work page 2019
[10]

The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet,

Y . Cao, Y . Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Zhang, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet,”IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, pp. 1–1, 2022

work page 2022
[11]

Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,

J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, “Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 59, pp. 4249–4254, Jun 1999

work page 1999
[12]

Distributed quantum computing: A survey,

M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Distributed quantum computing: A survey,”Computer Networks, vol. 254, p. 110672, 2024

work page 2024
[13]

Quantum sensing,

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,”Reviews of modern physics, vol. 89, no. 3, p. 035002, 2017

work page 2017
[14]

Distributed quantum sensing,

Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, “Distributed quantum sensing,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 043001, 2021

work page 2021
[15]

Quantum sensing and communication via non-gaussian states,

A. Giani, M. Z. Win, and A. Conti, “Quantum sensing and communication via non-gaussian states,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, vol. 6, pp. 18–33, 2025

work page 2025
[16]

Quantum internet protocol stack: a comprehensive survey,

J. Illiano, M. Caleffi, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Quantum internet protocol stack: a comprehensive survey,”Computer Networks, vol. 213, 2022

work page 2022
[17]

Intra-QLAN Connectivity via Graph States: Beyond the Physical Topology,

F. Mazza, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Intra-QLAN Connectivity via Graph States: Beyond the Physical Topology,”IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 870–887, 2025

work page 2025
[18]

Quantum transduction: Enabling quantum networking,

M. Caleffi, L. d’Avossa, X. Han, and A. Sara Cacciapuoti, “Quantum transduction: Enabling quantum networking,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 28, pp. 4195–4214, 2026

work page 2026
[19]

Quantum data centers: Why entanglement changes everything,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, C. Pellitteri, J. Illiano, L. d’Avossa, F. Mazza, S. Chen, and M. Caleffi, “Quantum data centers: Why entanglement changes everything,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02920, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

When entanglement meets classical communications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum internet,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. Van Meter, and L. Hanzo, “When entanglement meets classical communications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum internet,”IEEE TCOM, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3808–3833, 2020. invited paper

work page 2020
[21]

Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network,

J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, “Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 78, no. 16, p. 3221, 1997

work page 1997
[22]

A distributed simulation framework for quantum networks and channels

S. D. Bartlett and Co-authors, “Squanch: A distributed simula- tion framework for quantum networks and channels,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07047, 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[23]

Qunetsim: A software framework for quantum networks,

S. DiAdamo, P. Humphreys, and D. Elkouss, “Qunetsim: A software framework for quantum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1–12, 2021

work page 2021
[24]

Netsquid: A discrete-event simulator for quantum networks,

T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Nijsten, J. de Oliveira Filho, M. Papendrecht, J. Rabbie, F. Rozp˛ edek, M. Skrzypczyk, L. Wubben, W. de Jong, D. Podareanu, A. Torres-Knoop, D. Elkouss, and S. Wehner, “Netsquid: A discrete-event simulator for quantum networks,”Quantum Science and Technology, 2021

work page 2021
[25]

SeQUeNCe: A Customizable Discrete-Event Simulator of Quantum Networks,

X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Kettimuthu, and M. Suchara, “SeQUeNCe: A Customizable Discrete-Event Simulator of Quantum Networks,”Quantum Science and Technology, 2021

work page 2021
[26]

Netqasm: A low-level instruction set ar- chitecture for hybrid quantum–classical programs in a quantum internet,

A. Dahlberg, M. Skrzypczyk, T. Coopmans, X. Fu, W. Kozlowski, R. Van Meter, and S. Wehner, “Netqasm: A low-level instruction set ar- chitecture for hybrid quantum–classical programs in a quantum internet,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 035023, 2022

work page 2022
[27]

Qne-adk: Quantum network explorer application development kit

QuTech, “Qne-adk: Quantum network explorer application development kit.” https://github.com/QuTech-Delft/qne-adk, 2022. Accessed: 2025-10- 02

work page 2022
[28]

Quisp: A quantum internet simu- lation package,

T. Satoh, T. Matsuo, and R. Van Meter, “Quisp: A quantum internet simu- lation package,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pp. 197–206, IEEE, 2021

work page 2021
[29]

Large-scale quantum key dis- tribution network simulator,

D. Emir, M. V oznak, and M. Mehic, “Large-scale quantum key dis- tribution network simulator,”Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, 2024

work page 2024
[30]

QKDNetSim+: Improvement of the Quantum Network Simulator for NS-3,

D. Soler, I. Cillero, C. Dafonte, M. Fernández-Veiga, A. Fernández-Vilas, and F. J. Nóvoa, “QKDNetSim+: Improvement of the Quantum Network Simulator for NS-3,”SoftwareX, 2024

work page 2024
[31]

Quantum network simula- tion module for ns-3

NITK Surathkal Quantum Research Group, “Quantum network simula- tion module for ns-3.” https://apps.nsnam.org/app/quantum/, 2025

work page 2025
[32]

Control flow adaption: An efficient simulation method for noisy quantum networks,

H. Lin, R. Deng, C. Z. Yao, Z. Ji, and M. Ying, “Control flow adaption: An efficient simulation method for noisy quantum networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2025), pp. 1–10, 2025

work page 2025
[33]

ns-3: Discrete-Event Network Simulator

ns-3 Consortium, “ns-3: Discrete-Event Network Simulator.” https://www. nsnam.org/, 2025. Accessed: October 2025

work page 2025
[34]

Quantum++: A modern c++ quantum computing library,

V . Gheorghiu, “Quantum++: A modern c++ quantum computing library,” PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 12, p. e0208073, 2018

work page 2018
[35]

Fast stabiliser simulation with quadratic form expansions,

N. De Beaudrap and S. Herbert, “Fast stabiliser simulation with quadratic form expansions,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 803, 2022

work page 2022
[36]

Multiparty entanglement in graph states,

M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, “Multiparty entanglement in graph states,”Physical Review A, vol. 69, no. 6, p. 062311, 2004

work page 2004
[37]

Entanglement in graph states and its applications,

M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. V . den Nest, and H. J. Briegel, “Entanglement in graph states and its applications,”Proc. Int. School Phys. Enrico Fermi, vol. 162, pp. 115–218, 2006

work page 2006
[38]

Entanglement- based artificial topology: Neighboring remote network nodes,

S.-Y . Chen, J. Illiano, A. S. Cacciapuoti, and M. Caleffi, “Entanglement- based artificial topology: Neighboring remote network nodes,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2025

work page 2025
[39]

ExaTN: Scalable GPU-accelerated high-performance processing of gen- eral tensor networks at exascale,

D. I. Lyakh, T. Nguyen, D. Claudino, E. Dumitrescu, and A. J. McCaskey, “ExaTN: Scalable GPU-accelerated high-performance processing of gen- eral tensor networks at exascale,”Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, vol. V olume 8 - 2022, 2022

work page 2022
[40]

A quantum network architecture,

A. Pirker and W. Dür, “A quantum network architecture,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 033003, 2019

work page 2019
[41]

Quantum network routing and local complementation,

F. Hahn, A. Pappa, and J. Eisert, “Quantum network routing and local complementation,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 76, 2019

work page 2019
[42]

Graph state extraction from two-dimensional cluster states,

J. Freund, A. Pirker, L. Vandré, and W. Dür, “Graph state extraction from two-dimensional cluster states,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 27, p. 094505, Sept. 2025

work page 2025
[43]

A one-way quantum computer,

R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, “A one-way quantum computer,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 86, no. 22, pp. 5188–5191, 2001

work page 2001
[44]

Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states,

R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, “Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states,”Physical Review A, vol. 68, no. 2, p. 022312, 2003

work page 2003
[45]

D. C. Montgomery and G. C. Runger,Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 7th ed., 2018

work page 2018
[46]

Renormalization algorithms for quantum- many body systems in two and higher dimensions,

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Renormalization algorithms for quantum- many body systems in two and higher dimensions,”arXiv preprint, 2004

work page 2004
[47]

Computational complexity of projected entangled pair states,

N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, “Computational complexity of projected entangled pair states,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 98, no. 14, p. 140506, 2007

work page 2007
[48]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2011

work page 2011
[49]

Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two- state quantum systems,

L. Viola and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two- state quantum systems,”Physical Review A, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2733–2744, 1998

work page 1998
[50]

Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,

L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 2417–2421, 1999

work page 1999
[51]

Robust dynamical decou- pling,

A. M. Souza, G. A. Álvarez, and D. Suter, “Robust dynamical decou- pling,”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 370, no. 1976, pp. 4748–4769, 2012

work page 1976
[52]

Quantum lan: On-demand network topology via two-colorable graph states,

F. Mazza, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Quantum lan: On-demand network topology via two-colorable graph states,” in2024 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC), pp. 127–134, 2024

work page 2024
[53]

Graphical description of the action of local clifford transformations on graph states,

M. V . den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. D. Moor, “Graphical description of the action of local clifford transformations on graph states,”Physical Review A, vol. 69, no. 2, p. 022316, 2004

work page 2004
[54]

Simulation of Entanglement-Enabled Connectivity in QLANs using SeQUeNCe,

F. Mazza, C. Zhan, J. Chung, R. Kettimuthu, M. Caleffi, and A. S. Cac- ciapuoti, “Simulation of Entanglement-Enabled Connectivity in QLANs using SeQUeNCe,” 2024

work page 2024
[55]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 10th anniversary edition ed., 2010

work page 2010
[56]

Quantum computing: A computer science perspective,

H. D. Raedt, K. Michielsen,et al., “Quantum computing: A computer science perspective,”IEEE Computer, pp. 40–50, 2007

work page 2007
[57]

Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction. PhD thesis, Caltech, 1997

work page 1997
[58]

Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” inProceedings of the 37th STOC, pp. 417–426, 2004

work page 2004
[59]

The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,

D. Gottesman, “The heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” Proceedings of the XXII International Colloquium on Group-Theoretical Methods, 1998

work page 1998
[60]

Fast stabiliser simulation with quadratic form expansions,

N. d. Beaudrap and S. Herbert, “Fast stabiliser simulation with quadratic form expansions,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 803, sep 2022

work page 2022
[61]

A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,

R. Orús, “A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,”Annals of Physics, vol. 349, pp. 117–158, 2014

work page 2014
[62]

The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,

U. Schollwöck, “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,”Annals of Physics, vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 96–192, 2011

work page 2011
[63]

Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,

G. Vidal, “Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, no. 14, p. 147902, 2003

work page 2003
[64]

Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy,

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, “Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 82, pp. 277–306, Feb 2010

work page 2010
[65]

Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks,

I. L. Markov and Y . Shi, “Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks,”SIAM J. Comput., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 963–981, 2008

work page 2008
[66]

Classical simulation versus universality in measurement-based quantum computation,

M. V . den Nest, W. Dür, G. Vidal, and H. J. Briegel, “Classical simulation versus universality in measurement-based quantum computation,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 75, p. 012337, 2007

work page 2007
[67]

Quantum computation and tensor networks: the shape of efficient simulation,

B. O’Gorman and E. Campbell, “Quantum computation and tensor networks: the shape of efficient simulation,”arXiv preprint, 2019

work page 2019
[68]

A practitioner’s guide to tensor network contraction,

S. Kourtis, L. E. C. Rosenthal, J. J. Renema, A. Cvitanovic,et al., “A practitioner’s guide to tensor network contraction,”arXiv preprint, 2019

work page 2019
[69]

Matrix product state representations,

D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product state representations,”Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 7, no. 5–6, pp. 401–430, 2007

work page 2007
[70]

Contracting projected entangled pair states is average-case hard,

J. Haferkamp, T. Brydges, J. Eisert, Y . Huang, R. Kueng, and Y . Yang, “Contracting projected entangled pair states is average-case hard,”Nature Physics, vol. 19, pp. 1424–1430, 2023

work page 2023
[71]

K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson,Model Selection and Multimodel In- ference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer, 2nd ed., 2002

work page 2002