Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 23 references

This paper proposes a standardized set of quantum network performance metrics—quality, throughput/latency, timing, and exogenous factors—as the foundation for real-time observability, benchmarking, and adaptive control, demonstrated with a

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 08:24 UTC pith:DSBPOF2E

load-bearing objection A useful metric taxonomy for quantum networks, but the temperature experiment used to claim empirical validation doesn't support the causal claim it carries. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05642 v2 pith:DSBPOF2E submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph cs.NI

Towards Quantum Network Performance Metrics: Challenges and Demonstration

Mohamed Shaban , Mariam Kiran , Muhammad Ismail This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.NI
keywords quantum networksentanglement distributionquantum network monitoringquantum performance metricsquantum observabilityquantum communication testbedsquantum network controlsoftware-defined quantum networks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Quantum networks today lack a common vocabulary for saying what 'healthy' means. This paper tries to build one: a structured set of performance metrics spanning entanglement quality (fidelity, QBER, loss, dark counts), throughput and latency (entanglement rate, waiting time), timing (coincidence window, jitter), and environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, vibration). The claim is that these metrics, monitored in real time, enable fault diagnosis, adaptive timing, routing, benchmarking, and eventually autonomous control of quantum networks. To show this is practical, the authors deploy a non-invasive temperature and humidity monitor on a working quantum network and report that a 20–30 °C source-temperature sweep shifts photon count rates by roughly 23–29% while the coincidence-derived entanglement rate rises from about 5.5×10³ to 7.2×10³ ebits/s. A sympathetic reader would care because without a framework like this, entanglement-based networks remain opaque and cannot be tuned or trusted at scale.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a standardized, three-category metric framework—quality, throughput/latency, and timing, plus exogenous factors—provides a structured foundation for observability in quantum networks. It defines each metric precisely: entanglement fidelity as the closeness of the distributed state to the ideal Bell state, QBER as the fraction of erroneous qubit outcomes, entanglement rate as successful pairs delivered per second, and coincidence window as the arrival-time tolerance for correlated detections. It argues that real-time collection of these metrics enables concrete control actions—diagnosing faults, adapting coincidence windows to observed jitter, choosing routes

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the metric taxonomy itself, together with the measurement chain that realizes it. The taxonomy divides observables into quality (fidelity, QBER, loss, dark count rate), throughput/latency (entanglement rate, photon count rate, waiting time), timing (coincidence window, production jitter, coincidence jitter), and exogenous factors (source temperature, room temperature, moisture, vibrations). What carries the argument is the claim that these categories map onto measurable physical quantities—entanglement rate is obtained by counting coincidence events within a temporal window, jitter by the spread of arrival-time differences—so that a monitoring system can observe netw

Load-bearing premise

The framework's practical utility depends on the assumption that quality, rate, and timing metrics can be measured continuously without destroying or diverting the entanglement they describe; for the temperature demonstration, it also assumes the co-located source temperature is the dominant cause of the observed rate changes.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment that holds source temperature fixed while independently varying detector bias, pump power, or polarization—or that logs dark counts and polarization drift alongside temperature—would show whether the reported ~29% count drop and ~31% coincidence-rate rise are actually driven by temperature. If the effect persists under a constant-temperature control, the paper's causal claim is falsified; error bars on the 100-second-averaged points would also settle whether the trends are statistically significant.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Real-time fault diagnosis: a control system can track fidelity, QBER, and environmental data to alert on degradation and isolate faulty links or components.
  • Adaptive timing control: live jitter and coincidence-window measurements let the network widen or narrow coincidence windows dynamically to maximize genuine entanglement detections while suppressing false coincidences.
  • Routing and resource allocation: paths can be chosen by jointly optimizing fidelity, entanglement rate, and waiting time, allowing application-specific trade-offs (e.g., QKD prioritizes QBER, distributed computing prioritizes fidelity).
  • Benchmarking: a common metric set makes results comparable across different hardware, simulations, and protocols, giving the community a shared measure of progress.
  • Autonomous control: the framework is a foundation for closed-loop control and software-defined quantum networking, where environmental readings trigger recalibration (e.g., compensating source temperature drift) without human intervention.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A likely consequence the paper only gestures at: the reported sign mismatch—count rates falling 23–29% while coincidence-derived entanglement rate rises ~31%—implies temperature may not be the sole causal channel; if confirmed in controlled experiments, this would strengthen the case that exogenous factors must be correlated with multiple quantum metrics to avoid misattribution.
  • The paper's 'minimal observability' question could be tested directly with the prototype's time-series data: check whether a small subset (temperature, count rate, coincidence rate) predicts fidelity/QBER well enough to reduce monitoring overhead.
  • The non-invasive monitoring principle, extended to timing metrics, suggests a testable design: infer production and coincidence jitter from passive arrival-time histograms rather than splitting photon streams, keeping observability without diverting quantum signal.
  • Standardizing metrics across vendors would make different quantum hardware report health in a common format, but that requires community agreement on measurement conventions—a governance step the paper leaves implicit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a structured monitoring framework for quantum networks, organizing performance metrics into quality (fidelity, QBER, loss, dark count rate), throughput/latency (entanglement rate, photon count rate, waiting time), timing (coincidence window, production jitter, coincidence jitter), and exogenous environmental factors (temperature, humidity, vibrations). It argues that these standardized metrics enable real-time observability, benchmarking, fault diagnosis, adaptive control, and eventual quantum software-defined networking. The paper also reports a prototype environmental monitoring system deployed at ORNL using a Raspberry Pi, SHT35 sensor, Prometheus, and Grafana, and presents a Section 5.1 experiment claiming that source temperature variations from 20–30 °C significantly affect photon count rates and entanglement rates. The main theoretical content is definitional and taxonomic; the main empirical evidence is the temperature-dependence demonstration.

Significance. If the framework and empirical demonstration are accepted, the paper would provide a useful common language for quantum network monitoring and a concrete example of low-cost, non-invasive environmental telemetry integrated with a quantum testbed. The metric definitions are mostly standard and the equations (1)–(5) are simple and mathematically sound. The paper honestly discusses the fundamental trade-off between observability and signal destruction in Section 6.1, which is an important constraint for the field. However, the empirical validation in Section 5.1 is the only experimental support for the paper's central 'practical feasibility' claim, and that experiment is not currently reported to the standard needed to establish the claimed causal effect. The significance therefore depends on whether that experiment can be strengthened or the claims appropriately weakened.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figures 4 and 5] The causal claim that source temperature drives the observed changes in detection rates and entanglement rate is not supported by the reported data. Each point is a 100-second average with no error bars, no information about the number of runs, no randomized order, and no control measurement (e.g., fixed-temperature monitoring over the same time span). Moreover, the sign pattern is internally puzzling: both single-arm count rates fall by roughly 23% and 29% as temperature rises, while the coincidence-derived entanglement rate rises from about 5.5×10^3 to 7.2×10^3 ebits/s. In a PPLN SPDC source, a temperature-induced phase-matching drift would typically reduce pair generation and hence reduce both singles and genuine coincidences. The opposite trend for coincidences could arise from dark-count drift, laser power changes, polarization drift, or changes in coincidence-window/jitter settings
  2. [Section 3.1.3, Eq. (4)] The loss probability definition conflates channel transmissivity with system efficiency. Earlier in the same section, the authors correctly distinguish channel attenuation (Eq. (3)) from system efficiency, which includes detector quantum efficiency, coupling losses, and filter insertion loss. Equation (4), however, defines η as 'the ratio of photons successfully detected at the receiver to the total number of photons emitted by the source,' which is a system-efficiency quantity, not a channel transmissivity. Using the same symbol for both concepts weakens the precision of a proposed standardized metric. Please align the notation and definitions, e.g., define η as transmissivity and introduce a separate system-efficiency parameter for end-to-end success probability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 heading] The heading reads 'iming metrics' and should be 'Timing metrics.'
  2. [Section 3.1.2] The sentence 'Lower QBER values indicate higher integrity...' is duplicated verbatim. Please remove the duplicate.
  3. [Section 1.1] The phrase 'measure throughout, latency and loss' should be 'measure throughput, latency and loss.'
  4. [Section 5] The alert thresholds (23 °C, 60%/20% RH) are presented without justification. Since these are ad hoc parameters, a one-sentence rationale or a statement that they are placeholder values would improve the reproducibility of the prototype description.
  5. [Section 5.1] The text says the 'source temperature' was varied, but the earlier prototype description says temperature is monitored 'through the laser diode mount.' Please clarify whether the reported temperature is the PPLN crystal temperature or the laser diode mount temperature, as these are physically different quantities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: the metric framework is definitional, the temperature experiment is an observation, and the only self-citations are non-essential examples.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a taxonomy of quantum-network performance metrics, presented as definitions rather than as predictions derived from fitted parameters. The empirical demonstration reports measured count rates and coincidence-derived entanglement rates as functions of source temperature; no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to predict the same or closely related quantity. The only self-references, [17] and [18], appear in related work as examples of prior use of fidelity in protocol evaluation and are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The paper explicitly concedes in Section 6.1 that monitoring often reduces the available quantum signal, a stated limitation rather than a circular justification. The temperature result's lack of error bars and controls is a validity concern, not evidence that any derivation reduces to its inputs. Therefore the manuscript is self-contained except for minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no parameters. Its definitions (fidelity Eq. 1, QBER Eq. 2, loss Eq. 4, entanglement rate Eq. 5) are standard quantities imported from prior literature. The load-bearing premises are domain assumptions: that the chosen metric set sufficiently characterizes quantum-network performance, and that the probabilistic waiting-time model holds. The empirical section additionally assumes stationarity of 100-second averages and causal dominance of the co-located temperature reading. The alert thresholds and cadence/window choices are hand-picked operational values, not fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Alert thresholds (23°C temperature, 60%/20% RH humidity) = 23°C; 60% RH high, 20% RH low
    Hand-chosen operational thresholds for the Grafana alerting demo (Section 5). Not load-bearing for the framework claim, but arbitrary without a documented basis.
  • Measurement cadence and averaging window = 5 s collection; 100 s averaging per point
    Methodological choices (Sections 5 and 5.1) that affect the reported rates but are not fitted to any model.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Standard quantum measurement formalism: fidelity F = ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩, QBER = n_e/n_t, loss probability = 1−η
    Eqs. 1, 2, and 4 are textbook definitions imported from prior literature (e.g., Jozsa [12]); they are assumed without derivation.
  • domain assumption Entanglement generation is probabilistic; waiting time is a random variable with distribution P(W ≤ t)
    Section 3.2.3 asserts the probabilistic waiting-time model as the basis for the waiting-time metric; no empirical support is given for the specific distributional claim.
  • domain assumption The proposed metric set is a sufficient characterization of quantum network performance
    Section 3 and Table 1 present the catalog as comprehensive for observability; the paper notes in Section 7.3 that a smaller subset might suffice, conceding the completeness premise is unproven.
  • ad hoc to paper Stationarity and causal dominance of the co-located temperature reading in the Section 5.1 experiment
    The temperature sweep assumes that 100-second averages are stationary and that source temperature is the dominant causal channel for the observed count/coincidence changes; no control measurements (laser power, dark counts, polarization drift) are provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15141 in / 12840 out tokens · 124299 ms · 2026-08-02T08:24:54.572752+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Quantum Network Performance Metrics: Challenges and Demonstration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSBPOF2E

@misc{pith2026260705642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Quantum Network Performance Metrics: Challenges and Demonstration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSBPOF2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05642}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As quantum networks move toward practical deployment, standardized performance monitoring becomes essential. This article proposes a structured monitoring framework for quantum networks with performance metrics, including quality (e.g., entanglement fidelity, QBER, loss, dark count rate), throughput and latency (e.g., entanglement rate, waiting time), timing (e.g., coincidence window, production and coincidence jitter), and exogenous factors (e.g., temperature, humidity, vibrations). These measurements enable real-time observability, benchmarking, and control, supporting use cases such as fault diagnosis, adaptive timing, and entanglement routing. Additionally, we implement a non-invasive prototype environmental monitoring system integrated with the quantum network infrastructure at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, demonstrating practical feasibility of live data collection and alert generation. Furthermore, we discuss the challenges of real-time monitoring and the trade-offs between observability and system performance. This work establishes a foundation for developing advanced quantum network monitoring systems and lays the groundwork for future autonomous control and quantum software-defined networking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05642 by Mariam Kiran, Mohamed Shaban, Muhammad Ismail.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Monitoring in a classical network, showing a three￾node topology instrumented with perfSONAR hosts (PS1 and PS2) to collect active measurement data, where NetFlow and SNMP denote flow-level traffic records exported by network devices and device/interface statistics, respectively. like perfSonar allows one to measure throughout, latency and loss used to measure performance. Quantum networking research has p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the ORNL quantum local area network, spanning three interconnected quantum nodes labeled Alice, Bob, and Charlie. The central diagram illustrates the architectural layout and major components of each node. A zoomed-in laboratory image highlights the physical quantum optics setup at one site. Each laboratory includes a prototype monitoring system based on a Raspberry Pi 5 connected to an SHT… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of timing metrics in quantum networks, showing an entanglement source emitting multiple photon pairs, each pair encoded with a distinct color to differentiate them, as they travel toward two detectors. This visualization highlights the differences between production jitter, coinci￾dence jitter, and the coincidence window. Production jitter represents the variability in emission times between c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of source temperature on photon detection rates in the two entanglement arms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: These observations demonstrate that variations in source temperature can significantly influence photon detec￾tion rates and entanglement generation behavior. Even small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey

    Abane, A., Cubeddu, M., Mai, V.S., Battou, A., 2025. Entanglement routing in quantum networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Trans- actions on Quantum Engineering 6, 1–39. doi:10.1109/TQE.2025. 3541123

    doi:10.1109/tqe.2025 2025

  2. [2]

    Reconfigurable quantum local area network over deployed fiber

    Alshowkan,M.,Williams,B.P.,Evans,P.G.,Rao,N.S.,Simmerman, E.M.,Lu,H.H.,Lingaraju,N.B.,Weiner,A.M.,Marvinney,C.E.,Pai, Y.Y., Lawrie, B.J., Peters, N.A., Lukens, J.M., 2021. Reconfigurable quantum local area network over deployed fiber. PRX Quantum 2, 040304. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2. 040304, doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040304

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2 2021

  3. [3]

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

    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Woot- ters, W.K., 1993. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895–1899. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 70.1895, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 1993

  4. [4]

    Remote-entanglement protocols for stationary qubits with photonic interfaces

    Beukers, H.K., Pasini, M., Choi, H., Englund, D., Hanson, R., Bor- regaard, J., 2024. Remote-entanglement protocols for stationary qubits with photonic interfaces. PRX Quantum 5, 010202. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010202,doi:10.1103/ PRXQuantum.5.010202

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.010202 2024

  5. [5]

    Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing

    Cacciapuoti, A.S., Caleffi, M., Tafuri, F., Cataliotti, F.S., Gherardini, S., Bianchi, G., 2020. Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing. IEEE Network 34, 137–143. doi:10.1109/MNET.001.1900092

    doi:10.1109/mnet.001.1900092 2020

  6. [6]

    Optimal routing for quantum networks

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

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum Key Distribution (QKD): Experimental Assessment

    Cerutti, I., Lewis, A., Bonavitacola, F., 2023. Quantum Key Distribution (QKD): Experimental Assessment. Technical Report JRC132426. Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission. Luxembourg. doi:10.2760/804200

    work page doi:10.2760/804200 2023

  8. [8]

    Analysis of point-to-point packet delay in an operational network, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2004, pp

    Choi, B.K., Moon, S., Zhang, Z.L., Papagiannaki, K., Diot, C., 2004. Analysis of point-to-point packet delay in an operational network, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2004, pp. 1797–1807 vol.3. doi:10.1109/INFCOM. 2004.1354590

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    A link layer protocol for quantum networks, in: Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    Dahlberg, A., Skrzypczyk, M., Coopmans, T., Wubben, L., Rozpun- defineddek, F., Pompili, M., Stolk, A., Pawełczak, P., Knegjens, R., de Oliveira Filho, J., Hanson, R., Wehner, S., 2019. A link layer protocol for quantum networks, in: Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    iPerf3: A TCP, UDP, and SCTP Network Bandwidth MeasurementTool.https://software.es.net/iperf/

    ESnet, 2025. iPerf3: A TCP, UDP, and SCTP Network Bandwidth MeasurementTool.https://software.es.net/iperf/. Accessed:June 4, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Privatequantumcomputation:anintroduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols

    Fitzsimons,J.F.,2017. Privatequantumcomputation:anintroduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols. npj Quantum In- formation 3, 23. URL:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3, doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3

    doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3 2017

  12. [12]

    Fidelity for mixed quantum states

    Jozsa, R., 1994. Fidelity for mixed quantum states. Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2315–2323. URL:https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500349414552171, doi:10.1080/09500349414552171, arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500349414552171

    doi:10.1080/09500349414552171 1994

  13. [13]

    A quantum network of clocks

    Kómár, P., Kessler, E.M., Bishof, M., Jiang, L., Sørensen, A.S., Ye, J., Lukin, M.D., 2014. A quantum network of clocks. Nature Physics 10, 582–587. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3000, doi:10.1038/nphys3000

    doi:10.1038/nphys3000 2014

  14. [14]

    nuttcp: A network performance measurement tool

    Mah, B.A., . nuttcp: A network performance measurement tool. https://www.nuttcp.net/. Accessed: June 4, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Dark current andsinglephotondetectionby1550nmavalanchephotodiodes:dead time corrected probability distributions and entropy rates

    Menkart, N., Hart, J.D., Murphy, T.E., Roy, R., 2022. Dark current andsinglephotondetectionby1550nmavalanchephotodiodes:dead time corrected probability distributions and entropy rates. Opt. Ex- press 30, 39431–39444. URL:https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract. cfm?URI=oe-30-22-39431, doi:10.1364/OE.466330

    doi:10.1364/oe.466330 2022

  16. [16]

    The security of practical quan- tum key distribution

    Scarani, V., Bechmann-Pasquinucci, H., Cerf, N.J., Dušek, M., Lütkenhaus, N., Peev, M., 2009. The security of practical quan- tum key distribution. Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1301–1350. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1301, doi:10.1103/ M. Shaban et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 12 of 13 revmodphys.81.1301

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1301 2009

  17. [17]

    Shaban, M., Ismail, M., Kiran, M., 2024a. QNTN: Establishing a regional quantum network in tennessee, in: SC24-W: Workshops of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Net- working, Storage and Analysis, pp. 810–818. doi:10.1109/SCW63240. 2024.00115

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    SPARQ: Efficient en- tanglement distribution and routing in space–air–ground quantum networks

    Shaban, M., Ismail, M., Saad, W., 2024b. SPARQ: Efficient en- tanglement distribution and routing in space–air–ground quantum networks. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 5, 1–20. doi:10.1109/TQE.2024.3464572

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Private network parameter estimation with quantum sensors

    Shettell, N., Hassani, M., Markham, D., 2022. Private network parameter estimation with quantum sensors. URL:https://arxiv. org/abs/2207.14450,arXiv:2207.14450

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    perfsonar: Instantiating a global network measurement framework

    Tierney, B., Metzger, J., Boote, J., Boyd, E., Brown, A., Carlson, R., Zekauskas, M., Zurawski, J., Swany, M., Grigoriev, M., 2009. perfsonar: Instantiating a global network measurement framework. SOSP Wksp. Real Overlays and Distrib. Sys 28

    2009

  21. [21]

    Quantumnetworkutilitymaximiza- tion,in:2023IEEEInternationalConferenceonQuantumComputing and Engineering (QCE), pp

    Vardoyan,G.,Wehner,S.,2023. Quantumnetworkutilitymaximiza- tion,in:2023IEEEInternationalConferenceonQuantumComputing and Engineering (QCE), pp. 1238–1248. doi:10.1109/QCE57702.2023. 00140

    arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead

    Wehner, S., Elkouss, D., Hanson, R., 2018. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science 362, eaam9288. doi:10.1126/ science.aam9288

    2018

  23. [23]

    Entanglement-efficient bipartite- distributed quantum computing

    Wu,J.Y.,Matsui,K.,Forrer,T.,Soeda,A.,Andrés-Martínez,P.,Mills, D., Henaut, L., Murao, M., 2023. Entanglement-efficient bipartite- distributed quantum computing. Quantum 7, 1196. doi:10.22331/ q-2023-12-05-1196. M. Shaban et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 13 of 13

    2023