Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

To Purify or Not to Purify: Entanglement Purification under Input Fidelity Asymmetry in Quantum Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A purification attempt improves entanglement only when the two input pairs have nearly the same fidelity; beyond a gap of about 0.076 it always does harm.

desk verdict A clean closed-form result on when BBPSSW purification helps under asymmetric fidelities, wrapped in a network-policy layer that has a known but real gap in its no-purification branch. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.08771 v2 pith:Y5BXJMMS submitted 2026-05-09 quant-ph

Anoosha Fayyaz , Prashant Krishnamurthy , Kaushik Seshadreesan , Amy Babay , David Tipper This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081P45 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Mn
keywords entanglementpurificationquantumrepeaternetworksfidelityasymmetryBBPSSWprotocolmemorydecoherencepolicyend-to-endWernerstates
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 argues that entanglement purification, standardly assumed to improve fidelity whenever it succeeds, often degrades entanglement in quantum repeater networks because the two resource pairs are created at different times and the older pair decays in memory. The authors derive a fidelity-asymmetry tolerance δ(F) for the BBPSSW two-pair purification protocol: a purification attempt improves the state only when the fidelity gap between the inputs is below δ(F), and never when the gap exceeds about 0.076. Under exponential memory decoherence, simulations place only about 14% of purification attempts inside the useful window. They conclude that no-purification is the right policy when swapping alone can meet the fidelity target, and that when purification is needed, it should be gated by the local δ(F) check. This matters because near-term repeater designs that purify unconditionally will waste resources and deliver worse entanglement than doing nothing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is δ(F), the asymmetry-tolerance function obtained by inverting the BBPSSW output-fidelity formula for two Werner states; given the better input fidelity F1, the worst usable fidelity for the second pair is F2,min(F1) = (2F1^2 - 6F1 + 1)/(8F1^2 - 12F1 + 1), and δ(F1) = F1 - F2,min(F1). Maximizing δ over valid fidelities yields the universal cap δ_max ≈ 0.076. A companion quantity, F_lim, is the optimistic end-to-end fidelity achievable by swapping alone; comparing the application threshold F_th to F_lim decides whether purification is needed at all, and comparing the observed gap to δ(F) decides whether a particular attempt is worth making.

What would settle it

Prepare many Bell pairs with known Werner fidelities separated by gaps larger than 0.076, run BBPSSW purification, and check whether any output fidelity exceeds the better input; a single such case would falsify the universal bound under the paper's assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: for the BBPSSW two-pair purification protocol acting on Werner states, a purification attempt is beneficial exactly when the input fidelity gap ΔF = |F1-F2| is below a state-dependent threshold δ(F), and beneficial attempts are impossible for any ΔF exceeding a universal δ_max ≈ 0.076. The paper derives δ(F) in closed form from the protocol's output-fidelity formula, identifies the worst-case location (better input near 0.81, worse near 0.735), and shows that with asynchronous heralding plus memory decoherence most observed gaps exceed the tolerance. Consequently, in a two-hop repeater chain with exponential memory decay, only about 14% of purification attempts yield a fidelit

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of δ(F) and the 0.076 cap relies on the BBPSSW output formula for two Werner-state inputs; if the physical states or protocol output differ, the exact tolerance and bound do not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum repeater controllers should not treat BBPSSW purification as a default; in most attempts under memory decoherence it lowers the fidelity of the best available pair.
  • If the application's fidelity target is reachable by entanglement swapping alone, skipping purification yields shorter delivery times, and the advantage grows with repeater chain length.
  • When purification is necessary, the decision can be made locally: attempt purification only when the observed fidelity gap falls below δ(F); this makes the policy scalable.
  • A simple screening rule falls out of the algebra: any two resource pairs whose fidelities differ by more than about 0.076 should never be purified together, no matter how good the better pair is.
  • DeltaPurify, which applies the F_lim and δ(F) checks, cuts the time to serve a fidelity-threshold request relative to both naive purification and no-purification in the simulated settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's stated claims, the 14–16% beneficial-fraction figures should be read as indicative: they depend on an unspecified coherence-time-to-generation-rate ratio, and different hardware parameters will shift the percentage while preserving the structural conclusion.
  • The same δ(F) logic suggests r-to-1 distillation protocols will suffer more, since coordinating more than two stochastic generation events widens the fidelity spread; the paper notes this direction only qualitatively.
  • A tighter F_lim that includes memory decay would reduce the no-purification regime, changing the exact boundary where DeltaPurify switches strategies.
  • If failed-δ pairs were reassigned to other requests in a multi-demand network, the resource waste DeltaPurify avoids would shrink further; the paper assumes single-demand operation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper questions the common assumption that entanglement purification is unconditionally beneficial in quantum repeater networks once the two resource pairs have unequal fidelities, as happens when the first pair decoheres while the second is generated. It derives a closed-form asymmetry tolerance δ(F) for the BBPSSW protocol and a maximum tolerable asymmetry δmax ≈ 0.076, claims that under linear or exponential memory decoherence the majority of purification attempts are counterproductive, and compares No-Pur, Purify-Swap, and Swap-Purify policies under three network objectives. It then proposes DeltaPurify, a policy that skips purification when the fidelity threshold Fth is judged achievable through swapping alone (Fth ≤ Flim) and otherwise conditions purification attempts on the local δ(F) criterion. The central analytical derivation is simple and parameter-free, but the network-policy layer relies on an unachievability gap in Flim and on empirical claims that are not reproducible as stated.

Significance. If the analytical results hold, the paper provides a practically useful local rule for deciding whether a BBPSSW purification attempt can improve fidelity: threshold the observed input asymmetry against δ(F). The δmax ≈ 0.076 bound is a clean, protocol-specific consequence of the BBPSSW formula and is correctly identified as necessary but not sufficient. This is a genuine contribution to repeater control, where symmetric-input assumptions are common. However, the paper's broader conclusions about network policy — that no-purification is superior whenever Fth ≤ Flim and that DeltaPurify reduces time-to-serve across all thresholds and hop counts — are not yet supported: the Flim condition is only an upper bound, not an achievability guarantee, and the quantitative results depend on an unstated coherence-time value and lack statistical uncertainty quantification. The paper is therefore promising but needs substantial revision before its network-level claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A and Figs. 4-6] The empirical statistics 14.3% (EMM) and 16.3% (LMM) are central to the abstract and policy conclusions, but the memory coherence time T_coh used in Eq. (6) is never specified. Under the geometric generation process, the fidelity gap ΔF is determined by waiting times relative to T_coh: as T_coh → 0 almost every attempt is counterproductive, while as T_coh → ∞ one recovers the CMM 100% beneficial regime. Without T_coh (and the discrete-time-step units), the numbers are not reproducible and the policy ordering could invert in other regimes. Please report the exact T_coh used, and provide a sensitivity sweep over T_coh (and ideally over pe, ps, F0) with confidence intervals or quantile summaries.
  2. [Section V, Algorithm 1 lines 1-8 and Eq. (15)] The no-purification branch of DeltaPurify is triggered when Fth ≤ Flim, but Flim is explicitly an 'optimistic upper bound' computed under no memory decay (Section IV-B2), and the paper itself notes that a tighter Flim accounting for decoherence is future work (Section VI). The condition Fth ≤ Flim does not imply that swap-ASAP generation can actually deliver fidelity ≥ Fth. Under EMM with finite T_coh, the true maximum swap-only fidelity is strictly lower than Flim, so there are parameter regimes — for instance, n=5, F0=0.99, pe=0.1, ps=0.9, short T_coh, and Fth between the actual maximum and Flim — in which the algorithm's no-purification branch loops forever even though a purification-based policy could succeed. This is not a minor gap: it affects the central comparison in Figures 11 and 12 in exactly the regime the policy is designed to handle. The policy and its performance claims ne
  3. [Section IV-B and Figs. 7-12] The statements that No-Pur is 'the optimal purification policy' and that DeltaPurify 'reduces time-to-serve across all thresholds and hops' are made from a single simulation configuration (F0=0.99, pe=0.1, ps=0.9, unspecified T_coh) with no confidence intervals, no error bars, and no statistical comparison across random seeds. The waiting-time distributions are heavy-tailed and the fraction of beneficial purification attempts depends strongly on T_coh, as noted above. The paper should report the full simulation configuration, use multiple seeds, and present confidence intervals or at least quantile spreads for medians/means. Without this, the universal wording of the abstract and Section VII is not justified.
  4. [Section III-C, Result 2 and Abstract] δmax ≈ 0.076 is called a 'universal upper bound' both in the abstract and in Result 2. As the paper itself acknowledges in Section VI, the criterion is specific to BBPSSW and to Werner-state inputs. The word 'universal' is only justified in the sense that the bound does not depend on the absolute fidelity values within that model; it is not universal across purification protocols. Please qualify the wording in the abstract and in Result 2 to avoid overstatement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'closed-formfidelity' should be 'closed-form fidelity'.
  2. [Section IV-B2] The text says 'If Fth < Flim, the results above confirm that No-Pur is the superior choice' while Algorithm 1 uses 'Fth ≤ Flim'. The boundary case should be handled consistently.
  3. [Section IV-B/C] Phrases such as 'No-Pur is the optimal purification policy' and 'No-Pur is the best purification policy' are oxymoronic; no-purification is a policy, but not a purification policy. Rephrase to 'no-purification policy' or 'among the considered policies'.
  4. [Figures 4-12] The figures show medians and distributions but no confidence intervals or sample-size annotation. At minimum, report quantiles and the number of successful runs underlying each boxplot.
  5. [Eq. (14)] The unified δ(F) is notationally overloaded: it is defined piecewise as a downward tolerance when F is the higher-fidelity input and an upward tolerance when F is the lower-fidelity input. Consider defining δ_high(F) and δ_low(F) explicitly to avoid confusion when the criterion is applied in Algorithm 1.
  6. [Section VI] The discussion of first-completion path selection cites the authors' own prior work [23] as a future extension. This is fine as a pointer, but it should not be read as evidence supporting the current paper's claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: δ(F) and δmax are algebraic consequences of the externally sourced BBPSSW formula; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central analytical result (Eqs. 10–12) is derived by solving the condition Fpur > F1 using Eq. 4, the standard BBPSSW two-Werner-state output fidelity formula cited to [5]. No parameter is fitted to the paper's own simulation outputs; δmax ≈ 0.076 is the numeric maximum of the closed-form expression, and Result 1 is a direct inequality transformation of the external formula. The DeltaPurify policy uses δ(F) as a decision rule and is evaluated empirically against No-Pur and SP; its reported advantage is a simulation outcome, not an identity. The only self-citation ([23]) appears in §VI as a suggested complementary first-completion strategy in one regime and is not load-bearing for the derivation. The manuscript explicitly flags its own limitation at §IV-B2: "The full derivation of F lim accounting for memory decay and stochastic generation is out of the scope of this work. As an optimistic upper bound, we apply Eq. 2 recursively across n hops under the assumption of no memory decay" (Eq. 15). That is a scope/correctness caveat about the policy layer, not circular reasoning. The weaker assumptions — Werner-state inputs, BBPSSW-specific δ, and the unspecified Tcoh/pe timescale behind the 14.3% statistic — are external validity or parameterization concerns, not self-referential reductions. No equation in the paper reduces to a fitted constant or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The δ(F)/δmax result is parameter-free once the Werner ansatz and the inherited BBPSSW formula are granted. The network-level percentages and policy comparisons depend on the chosen system parameters (pe, ps, F0) and on the unstated Tcoh value; these are inputs, not fitted outputs.

free parameters (4)
  • pe (entanglement generation success probability) = 0.1
    Chosen for main simulations (Section IV); not derived from the formalism.
  • ps (swap success probability) = 0.9
    Chosen for main simulations (Section IV); not derived from the formalism.
  • F0 (initial link fidelity) = 0.99 (main), 0.9 (sensitivity)
    Chosen for simulations; not derived. The 14% statistic is sensitive to this choice, as the paper itself shows.
  • Tcoh (memory coherence time) = not stated
    Controls the decoherence rate in Eq. (6); never assigned a numerical value anywhere in the manuscript, yet it drives the 14.3%/16.3% beneficial-fraction and the policy ordering.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BBPSSW output fidelity for two Werner states with unequal fidelities is Fpur(F1,F2) = [F1F2 + (1/9)(1-F1)(1-F2)] / [(8/9)F1F2 - (2/9)(F1+F2) + 5/9] (Eq. 4).
    Inherited from prior literature [5]; no derivation in the text. All of Section III rests on this formula.
  • domain assumption Generated entangled states are Werner states, so a state is fully characterized by its fidelity parameter F and the memory decay is depolarizing (Eq. 6).
    Section II-B/C; this ansatz is needed for the BBPSSW formula and for the memory models. Non-Werner noise could break the derivation.
  • standard math Entanglement swapping of two Bell pairs yields fidelity Fswap = 1/4 + (3/4)((4F_AB-1)/3)((4F_BC-1)/3) (Eq. 2).
    Standard quantum-information result; used to define F_lim and to simulate swapping.
  • domain assumption Memory fidelity decay follows the Exponential, Linear, or Constant model defined in Section II-C.
    The quantitative results depend on these models; the qualitative asymmetry argument does not.
  • domain assumption Simulation uses swap-ASAP scheduling, sufficient memory, no resource contention, and single-demand operation.
    Stated in Section IV-B and V-A; these idealizations isolate decoherence effects but may not hold in contended networks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of To Purify or Not to Purify: Entanglement Purification under Input Fidelity Asymmetry in Quantum Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5BXJMMS

@misc{pith2026260508771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: To Purify or Not to Purify: Entanglement Purification under Input Fidelity Asymmetry in Quantum Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5BXJMMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.08771}
}
read the original abstract

Entanglement purification with two entangled resource pairs is widely employed in the literature on quantum repeater networks to counteract fidelity degradation introduced by noisy quantum memories and entanglement swapping across multiple hops. Standard purification protocols assume both resource pairs carry identical fidelity. In practice, entanglement generation is stochastic, the two resource pairs are heralded at different times, and so the first pair decoheres in memory while the second is being generated. Thus a fidelity asymmetry is a structural feature of any network operating under realistic memory conditions, leading to the question: when is it beneficial to perform purification? We derive a closed-form fidelity asymmetry tolerance delta(F) that governs whether a purification attempt is beneficial. We determine a universal upper bound delta_max of approximately 0.076 beyond which purification is always counterproductive. Our simulations show that with exponential memory decoherence, purification yields benefits in only approximately 14% of purification attempts on two resource pairs in a two-hop repeater chain. We define three network objectives: fidelity only, time only, and a combination of time and fidelity, to deliver end-to-end entanglement. We show that when the application fidelity requirement is achievable through swapping alone, no-purification is the superior policy, with its advantage increasing with the number of hops. When the fidelity requirement cannot be met with swapping alone and purification is necessary, to be effective, it must be conditioned on delta(F) between resource pairs. We introduce DeltaPurify, a policy that conditions purification decisions on local fidelity information, and show it reduces time-to-serve relative to both naive purification and no-purification across several fidelity thresholds and hops of a repeater chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08771 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Fidelity decay under temporal decoherence and its consequence for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The heatmap illustrates the net fidelity gain, defined as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of fidelity gain ∆Fgain under three memory models. Under the CMM, purification is unconditionally beneficial. Under the LMM and EMM, the bulk of the distribution lies below zero, indicating that purification actively degrades the best available input in the majority of trials. The δ(F) criterion requires only local fidelity information and translates directly into Eq. 9. The operational conse￾quences ar… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of end-to-end entanglement delivery times for No [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Entanglement delivery rates η ∈ [0, 1] as a function of fidelity threshold Fth (y-axis) and time budget N (x-axis) for No-Pur (left), SP (centre), and PS (right). those in which pairs spent longer in memory, and the resulting asymmetry drags the mean fidelity down as n…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean end-to-end delivery time as a function of hop count for No-Pur, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Entanglement delivery rate η ∈ [0, 1] as a function of Fth (y-axis) and N (x-axis) for No-Pur (left), SP (centre), and PS (right), for n = 3 hops. No-Pur maintains the widest feasible operating region across the joint parameter space. The relative ordering of policies…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of time to serve for No-Pur, SP, and DeltaPurify across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Enhancing Entanglement Purification with Shared Randomness

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Accumulating and randomly shuffling stored entangled pairs before a bilocal Clifford purification protocol provably improves expected success probability and success-weighted fidelity for arbitrary Werner sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Qubit teleportation between non-neighbouring nodes in a quantum network,

    S. Hermans, M. Pompili, H. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Borregaard, and R. Hanson, “Qubit teleportation between non-neighbouring nodes in a quantum network,”Nature, vol. 605, no. 7911, pp. 663–668, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network,

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y .-C. Wei, D. R. Assumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y . Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes,et al., “Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network,”Nature, vol. 629, no. 8012, pp. 573–578, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    EPB and Qubitekk launch com- mercial quantum network to accelerate development and adoption of quantum products

    EPB of Chattanooga and Qubitekk, “EPB and Qubitekk launch com- mercial quantum network to accelerate development and adoption of quantum products.” https://epb.com/newsroom/press-releases/epb-and-q ubitekk-launch-commercial-quantum-network-to-accelerate-developme nt-and-adoption-of-quantum-products/, November 2022. Press release. Accessed: February 2026

    2022

  4. [4]

    High-rate scalable entanglement swapping between remote entanglement sources on deployed new york city fibers,

    A. N. Craddock, T. Cowan, N. Bigagli, S. Yekasiri, D. Robinson, G. B. Portmann, Z. Guo, M. Kilzer, J. Zhao, M. Flament,et al., “High-rate scalable entanglement swapping between remote entanglement sources on deployed new york city fibers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15653, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

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

    1996

  6. [6]

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

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

    1996

  7. [7]

    Quantum repeaters based on entanglement purification,

    W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum repeaters based on entanglement purification,”Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 169, 1999

    1999

  8. [8]

    High-fidelity entanglement routing in quantum networks,

    H. Hu, H. Lun, Z. Deng, J. Tang, J. Li, Y . Cao, Y . Wang, Y . Liu, D. Wu, H. Yu,et al., “High-fidelity entanglement routing in quantum networks,” Results in Physics, vol. 60, p. 107682, 2024

    2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Entanglement purification on quantum networks,

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

    2023

  2. [10]

    An efficient scheduling scheme of swapping and purification operations for end-to-end entanglement distribution in quantum networks,

    Z. Wang, J. Li, K. Xue, D. S. Wei, R. Li, N. Yu, Q. Sun, and J. Lu, “An efficient scheduling scheme of swapping and purification operations for end-to-end entanglement distribution in quantum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3...

    2023

  3. [11]

    From entanglement purification scheduling to fidelity-constrained multi-flow routing,

    Z. Jia and L. Chen, “From entanglement purification scheduling to fidelity-constrained multi-flow routing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08243, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Purification scheduling control for throughput maximization in quantum networks,

    Z. Xiao, J. Li, K. Xue, N. Yu, R. Li, Q. Sun, and J. Lu, “Purification scheduling control for throughput maximization in quantum networks,” Communications Physics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 307, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Optimal fidelity-aware entanglement distribution in linear quantum networks,

    I. Koutsopoulos, “Optimal fidelity-aware entanglement distribution in linear quantum networks,” inMILCOM 2024-2024 IEEE Military Com- munications Conference (MILCOM), pp. 1124–1129, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Reducing classical communication costs in multiplexed quantum repeaters using hardware-aware quasi-local policies,

    S. Haldar, P. J. Barge, X. Cheng, K.-C. Chang, B. T. Kirby, S. Khatri, C. W. Wong, and H. Lee, “Reducing classical communication costs in multiplexed quantum repeaters using hardware-aware quasi-local policies,”Communications Physics, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 132, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Exact rate anal- ysis for quantum repeaters with imperfect memories and entanglement swapping as soon as possible,

    L. Kamin, E. Shchukin, F. Schmidt, and P. Van Loock, “Exact rate anal- ysis for quantum repeaters with imperfect memories and entanglement swapping as soon as possible,”Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 023086, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Parameter regimes for a single sequential quantum repeater,

    F. Rozp˛ edek, K. Goodenough, J. Ribeiro, N. Kalb, V . C. Vivoli, A. Reis- erer, R. Hanson, S. Wehner, and D. Elkouss, “Parameter regimes for a single sequential quantum repeater,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 034002, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics,

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, “Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 71, no. 6, p. 060310, 2005

    2005

  11. [19]

    Enumerating all bilocal clifford distillation protocols through symmetry reduction,

    S. Jansen, K. Goodenough, S. de Bone, D. Gijswijt, and D. Elkouss, “Enumerating all bilocal clifford distillation protocols through symmetry reduction,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 715, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    On noise in swap asap repeater chains: exact analytics, distributions and tight approximations,

    K. Goodenough, T. Coopmans, and D. Towsley, “On noise in swap asap repeater chains: exact analytics, distributions and tight approximations,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1744, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

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

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

    2020

  14. [22]

    On the analysis of quantum repeater chains with sequential swaps,

    M. G. de Andrade, E. A. Van Milligen, L. Bacciottini, A. Chandra, S. Pouryousef, N. K. Panigrahy, G. Vardoyan, and D. Towsley, “On the analysis of quantum repeater chains with sequential swaps,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18252, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On selecting paths for end-to-end entanglement creation in quantum networks,

    A. Fayyaz, P. Krishnamurthy, K. P. Seshadreesan, D. Tipper, and A. Babay, “On selecting paths for end-to-end entanglement creation in quantum networks,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1, pp. 1225–1236, IEEE, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

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