Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Merging-Based Quantum Repeater

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A merging-based quantum repeater that patches entanglement after failed fusion operations achieves higher secret key rates than swapping-based repeaters in simulated double-distance protocols.

desk verdict A fresh repeater design that recycles entanglement after failed fusions, honestly simulated, but the claimed advantage over swapping is conditional on probabilistic swapping. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04450 v1 pith:FNNVCF45 submitted 2025-02-06 quant-ph

Maria Flors Mor-Ruiz , Jorge Miguel-Ramiro , Julius Wallnöfer , Tim Coopmans , Wolfgang Dür This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881P45 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Mn
keywords quantumrepeatersentanglementswappingtype-Ifusionmergingoperationsclusterstatessecretkeyratememorydephasingrecycling
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

Quantum repeaters are the proposed solution for distributing entanglement over distances where direct transmission fails, and their efficiency is limited by operations that succeed only probabilistically. This paper introduces a repeater design that builds a growing one-dimensional cluster state by merging small entangled pieces, using type-I fusion operations, and patches the gap left when a merge fails instead of restarting from scratch. The authors compare this merging-based protocol with the standard swapping-based double-distance repeater using Monte Carlo waiting-time simulation and a noisy stabilizer formalism for dephasing memory noise. They find that the merging-based scheme consistently gives higher secret key rates in the studied regimes, with the advantage growing for longer chains and better quantum memories. The reported advantages are proof-of-principle: they hold under the paper's equal-success-probability comparison and its dephasing-only noise model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the merging operation (type-I fusion) acting on the boundary qubits of two one-dimensional cluster states, together with the patching routine that repairs the entanglement gap left by a failed merge. The operation is modeled as a CNOT followed by a $\sigma_z$ measurement of the target qubit; if it fails, the two affected qubits are discarded but the rest of the cluster remains. The protocol then calls a recursive patch: it regenerates two elementary links, merges them into a three-qubit cluster, and attaches that block to the existing cluster. A growth limit $g_l$ caps how many times a gap is allowed to grow before the chain is restarted, and the hierarchical double-distance structure lets the waiting-time simulation be split into independent recursive calls.

What would settle it

Run the paper's recursive Monte Carlo simulation on a four- or eight-segment chain with deterministic swapping ($p_{\mathrm{swap}}=1$) and probabilistic merging ($p_{\mathrm{merge}}=0.5$), using the same dephasing times and generation parameters; if the merging-based secret key rate no longer exceeds the swapping baseline, the reported advantage is an artifact of the equal-probability assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a repeater can be built from entanglement-merging operations rather than swapping operations, and that the resulting protocol recycles entanglement after failures. Each successful merge joins two one-dimensional cluster states into a larger cluster; a failed merge discards only the two qubits involved, leaving a localized entanglement gap that is repaired by generating two fresh elementary links, forming a three-qubit cluster, and merging it into the gap. Because the whole entangled structure survives most failures, the average time to establish an end-to-end Bell pair is shorter than in swapping-based repeaters, where one failed swap destroys the entanglement accumulated so far. This waiting-time advantage outweighs the extra memory dephasing that the longer-lived multipartite structure incurs, so the overall secret key rate $S = Rr$ is higher across the simulated regimes despite generally lower final fidelities. Once the full cluster is formed, intermediate qubits are measured in the $\sigma_y$ basis to deliver an end-to-end bipartite connection, and the choice of which stations connect can be deferred until that final step.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison treats swapping and merging as equally likely to fail, an assumption stated in the 'Double distance protocol' section; if in practice swapping can be made deterministic while type-I fusion remains probabilistic, the merging scheme's raw-rate advantage shrinks or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the simulated double-distance protocol, the merging-based repeater yields higher secret key rates than the swapping-based one for equal success probabilities, and the gap widens as the number of repeater stations grows.
  • Allowing entanglement gaps to grow and be patched more times (larger $g_l$) improves performance, especially for chains with more stations.
  • Longer quantum-memory coherence times favor the merging-based approach; the secret-key-rate improvement over swapping grows with dephasing time.
  • Because the intermediate resource is a multipartite cluster, the choice of which two stations connect can be postponed, and parallel or multipartite connections become possible.
  • The merging-based protocol generally stores qubits longer and therefore has lower final fidelity, so its secret key rate falls at shorter distances than swapping; the raw-rate gain is what drives the overall improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own claims, an immediate test of the comparison's scope is to rerun the same simulation with deterministic swapping ($p_{\mathrm{swap}}=1$) against probabilistic fusion; the reported advantage would be reduced if swapping's probability is not the limiting factor.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims, the deferred-connection property of the intermediate cluster states suggests a natural extension to on-demand entanglement routing or multi-pair and multipartite distribution in a network where demand is not known in advance.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims, adding entanglement purification tailored to cluster or GHZ states could offset the memory-noise penalty and extend the advantage to shorter coherence times, although the paper does not simulate purification.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims, the waiting-time reduction itself is observable: for a small chain of four to eight segments, the distribution of protocol completion times should show the predicted gap between merging and swapping when both fail with probability $p=0.5$.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum repeater protocol based on merging (type-I fusion) operations rather than entanglement swapping. The protocol grows one-dimensional cluster states and, on a failed merging operation, preserves the existing entanglement and patches the resulting gap instead of restarting the whole chain. The authors analyze the double-distance protocol through Monte Carlo simulations, using the Noisy Stabilizer Formalism to track dephasing noise, and compare the secret key rate against a swapping-based baseline. They report that the merging-based approach yields higher secret key rates across the studied parameter regimes, with the advantage growing with the number of repeater segments and with longer memory coherence times.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the merging-based repeater offers a conceptually new way to mitigate the impact of probabilistic operations in quantum repeaters, with potential flexibility gains from delaying the choice of the final connection. The paper provides a clearly described simulation framework, public code, and an analytical verification of one special case. However, the strength of the claimed consistent advantage depends on the assumption that swapping is also probabilistic, which is not the case for all physical platforms. The manuscript is honest in its conclusion by qualifying the result to realistic cases of probabilistic operations, but the abstract and introduction omit this qualifier. The work is a valuable proof-of-principle contribution, but the generality of the performance claim needs to be tightened or explicitly scoped.

major comments (4)
  1. [Double distance protocol section and Appendix A] The paper sets p = pswap = pmerge in the 'Double distance protocol' section, justifying it by modeling swapping as a merging operation followed by a sigma_y measurement in Appendix A. This model is legitimate for probabilistic swapping implementations (e.g., linear-optical fusion), but it does not cover deterministic swapping, which is available in matter-based platforms such as trapped ions or NV centers. Since the reported advantage in Figs. 3 and 6 is dominated by the raw-rate gain from patching failed operations, and since the swapping baseline in the current model restarts on every failed swap, the comparison does not establish that merging-based repeaters outperform swapping-based repeaters with deterministic swaps. The conclusion already qualifies the result as being valid 'when focusing on realistic cases of probabilistic operations,' but the abstract and introduction do not. The authors should either restrict the claim to probabilistic swapping or add a sensitivity analysis that varies p_swap relative to p_merge, including p_swap = 1.
  2. [Performance and results, Figs. 3 and 6] No error bars, confidence intervals, or numbers of Monte Carlo runs are reported in Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, or Fig. 7. The central claim that the merging-based protocol 'consistently outperforms' the swapping-based protocol requires that the differences shown in Fig. 3 exceed the statistical uncertainty, especially in regions where the curves approach each other or where the absolute rates are small. Please add error bars or otherwise quantify the sampling error, and state how many simulation rounds were used.
  3. [Performance and results section] The claimed verification of the waiting-time simulation against the analytically computed waiting time for four segments is described only in words; the analytical Markov-chain calculation and the numerical comparison are not shown. Since this is the only positive control for the simulation methodology reported in the paper, the authors should provide the analytical derivation or display the comparison in a table or figure so that the reader can assess the level of agreement.
  4. [Appendix B, Data analysis] The secret key rate is computed from sample-averaged quantum bit error rates, but r is a nonlinear function of these error rates through the binary entropy. Thus r(mean e) is not equal to the mean of r(e) unless the distribution of error rates is sharply concentrated. If the storage-time distributions differ significantly between the merging-based and swapping-based protocols, this estimation could bias the comparison. The authors should justify that this averaging procedure is valid for their simulations or report the distribution of QBERs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract states that the merging-based approach 'consistently outperforms' swapping-based strategies, while the Conclusions restrict this to 'realistic cases of probabilistic operations.' Please harmonize the wording so that the abstract reflects the same scope as the rest of the paper.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a stray character after 'Latt' in the expression for pgen (a misplaced '„'), which should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix B, Code details] The paper does not state how many Monte Carlo samples were used to produce the averages in Figs. 3, 5, 6, and 7. Adding this information, either in the main text or the appendix, would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Performance and results section] The definition of the growth limit gl as 'the maximum number of times we allow the protocol to attempt to grow gaps' is terse. A short example illustrating how gl counts gap-growth attempts would help the reader understand its role in the protocol.
  5. [Appendix C] The choice to limit patching to segments with more than four segments is justified qualitatively in Appendix C, but no sensitivity analysis over this threshold is presented. A short scan of the threshold value would indicate how sensitive the reported rates are to this protocol parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the merging-vs-swapping comparison is a direct Monte Carlo simulation under a stated equal-success-probability assumption, not a fit or a self-imported uniqueness claim.

full rationale

The central claim is evaluated by simulating the waiting-time distributions of both protocols and computing the secret key rate S = Rr from sampled waiting times and QBERs via the Noisy Stabilizer Formalism; no parameter is fitted to the target outcome, and the final key rate is not defined in terms of the claimed improvement. The equality p = p_merge = p_swap is an explicit modeling assumption intended to ensure a fair comparison between merging and swapping, justified by the operational similarity of the two operations, rather than a quantity whose definition already contains the result. The advantage of the merging-based protocol follows from the gap-patching behavior after failed operations, which is a real algorithmic difference and not a tautology. The four-segment analytical Markov-chain check provides an independent verification of the simulated waiting times. Self-citations such as the NSF [48], the graph-state implementation [88], and the merging/swapping decomposition [65,71] supply tools and equivalences whose assumptions are stated and do not include the outperformance result, so they function as independent support rather than circular load-bearing. The main limitation, namely that the comparison is conditional on probabilistic swapping operations with p = 0.5, is a scope restriction and not an instance of circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard fusion/graph-state properties, a noise model, and two hand-chosen protocol knobs (growth limit and patching threshold). The simulation is self-contained and verified on one analytical case.

free parameters (2)
  • growth limit gl = 1 and 2 (simulated)
    Maximum number of times a growing entanglement gap is allowed before full restart; chosen by the authors, and larger gl increases the reported secret key rate advantage but also requires longer memory storage.
  • patching threshold (minimum segment size) = segments > 4 (and segment > 2*gtemp+2 for grown gaps)
    Patching is only attempted above this threshold; Appendix C shows that patching in the first two steps hurts performance, so the authors design the protocol to avoid it. This rule is a hand-chosen optimization that the central performance claim depends on.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A failed type-I fusion discards the two fused qubits and leaves the remaining cluster state intact, creating only a localized gap.
    Used throughout the protocol description; from type-I fusion properties cited to Browne and Rudolph [51].
  • domain assumption Entanglement swapping can be modeled as a merging operation followed by a sigma_y measurement on the source qubit.
    Appendix A states this equivalence, citing [65,71]; it underlies the choice p_merge = p_swap and the noise analysis.
  • domain assumption The Noisy Stabilizer Formalism correctly propagates single-qubit dephasing through the operations used.
    Appendix A relies on ref [48]; this is prior published work, accepted as a tool.
  • domain assumption Memory noise is limited to independent single-qubit dephasing with a single time constant T, and initially generated Bell pairs are noiseless.
    Equation (1) and Appendix A; the authors flag the initial-noise neglect and argue it does not bias the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Merging-Based Quantum Repeater." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNNVCF45

@misc{pith2026250204450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Merging-Based Quantum Repeater},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNNVCF45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04450}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce an alternative approach for the design of quantum repeaters based on generating entangled states of growing size. The scheme utilizes quantum merging operations, also known as fusion type-I operations, that allow the reintegration and reuse of entanglement. Unlike conventional swapping-based protocols, our method preserves entanglement after failed operations, thereby reducing waiting times, enabling higher rates, and introducing enhanced flexibility in the communication requests. Through proof-of-principle analysis, we demonstrate the advantages of this approach over standard repeater protocols, highlighting its potential for practical quantum communication scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04450 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the steps in a one-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Patching process. Entanglement gap generated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Secret key rate in terms of the total distance, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Repeater chain of two segments. At time tm the merging operation is performed be￾tween qubits b and c. Prior to the operation, each qubit undergoes a noise process described by Eq. (1) with t = tm, such that the state is described by Ea(tm)Eb(tm)Ec(tm)Ed(tm)ρ, where ρ …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Raw rate (a) and secret key fraction (b) in terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ratio of improvement on the secret key rate of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Secret key rate in terms of the success probability of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Kozlowski and S

    W. Kozlowski and S. Wehner, inProceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication , NANOCOM ’19 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. Bäuml, T. Coopmans, D. Elkouss, and B. Li, AVS Quantum Sci.3, 014101 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  6. [6]

    E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 150802 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Eldredge, M

    Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. A97, 042337 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Sekatski, S

    P. Sekatski, S. Wölk, and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023052 (2020)

    2020

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  2. [10]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Nat. Photonics8, 595 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchi- avello, Phys. Rev. A59, 4249 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    Hayashi and T

    M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 220502 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Catal- iotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, IEEE Netw.34, 137 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Jozsa, D

    R. Jozsa, D. S. Abrams, J. P. Dowling, and C. P. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2010 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    W. Dür, H. Briegel, P. Zoller, and P. van Loock, inQuan- tum Information: From Foundations to Quantum Tech- nology Applications , edited by D. Bruß and G. Leuchs (Wiley, 2016) p. 691–700

    2016

  9. [17]

    Van Meter, T

    R. Van Meter, T. Satoh, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Netw. Sci.3, 82–95 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    N. K. Bernardes, L. Praxmeyer, and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012323 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Meter and J

    R. Meter and J. Touch, IEEE Commun. Mag.51, 64–71 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Azuma, K

    K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Nat. Commun.6, 6787 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Epping, H

    M. Epping, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, New J. Phys. 18, 053036 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Epping, H

    M. Epping, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, New J. Phys. 18, 103052 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    W. J. Munro, K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and K. Nemoto, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.21, 78–90 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Jones, D

    C. Jones, D. Kim, M. T. Rakher, P. G. Kwiat, and T. D. Ladd, New J. Phys.18, 083015 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Z.-D. Li, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, L.-Z. Liu, Y. Hu, Y.-Q. Fang, Y.-Y. Fei, X. Jiang, J. Zhang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Photonics13, 644–648 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Wallnöfer, F

    J. Wallnöfer, F. Hahn, M. Gündoğan, J. S. Sidhu, F. Wiesner, N. Walk, J. Eisert, and J. Wolters, Commun. Phys. 5, 169 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Shchukin and P

    E. Shchukin and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 150502 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Patil, M

    A. Patil, M. Pant, D. Englund, D. Towsley, and S. Guha, npj Quantum Inf.8, 51 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Kaur and S

    E. Kaur and S. Guha, in2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , Vol. 01 (2023) pp. 1154–1164

    2023

  22. [30]

    Miguel-Ramiro, F

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, F. Riera-Sàbat, and W. Dür, PRX Quantum 4, 040323 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Romanova and P

    A. Romanova and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013117 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3891 (1998)

    1998

  25. [33]

    S. Liu, Y. Lou, Y. Chen, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 060503 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Ning, X.-J

    W. Ning, X.-J. Huang, P.-R. Han, H. Li, H. Deng, Z.-B. Yang, Z.-R. Zhong, Y. Xia, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and S.-B. Zheng, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 060502 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. A. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller, J. Schupp, J. Bate, M. Meraner, N. Sangouard, B. P. Lanyon, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 050803 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    P.-S. Yan, L. Zhou, W. Zhong, and Y.-B. Sheng, EPL 136, 14001 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Dür, H.-J

    W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 59, 169 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, arXiv:quant-ph/9608012 [quant-ph] (1996)

    1996 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Jiang, J

    L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, R. Van Meter, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A79, 032325 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Muralidharan, L

    S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, Sci. Rep.6, 20463 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Borregaard, H

    J. Borregaard, H. Pichler, T. Schröder, M. D. Lukin, P. Lodahl, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. X10, 021071 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Zhang, C.-Y

    A.-N. Zhang, C.-Y. Lu, X.-Q. Zhou, Y.-A. Chen, Z. Zhao, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. A73, 022330 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Nature 629, 567–572 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Shchukin, F

    E. Shchukin, F. Schmidt, and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032322 (2019). 6

    2019

  38. [46]

    Brand, T

    S. Brand, T. Coopmans, and D. Elkouss, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 38, 619–639 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    J.Wallnöfer, F.Hahn, F.Wiesner, N.Walk,andJ.Eisert, PRX Quantum 5, 010351 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    M. F. Mor-Ruiz and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. A107, 032424 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Abruzzo, S

    S. Abruzzo, S. Bratzik, N. K. Bernardes, H. Kamper- mann, P. van Loock, and D. Bruß, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052315 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010501 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev . A69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Enrico Fermi

    M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Van den Nest, and H.-J. Briegel, in Quantum Computers, Al- gorithms and Chaos , Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Vol. 162, edited by G. Casati, D. L. Shepelyansky, P. Zoller, and G. Benenti (IOS P...

    2006

  46. [54]

    S. Guha, H. Krovi, C. A. Fuchs, Z. Dutton, J. A. Slater, C. Simon, and W. Tittel, Phys. Rev. A92, 022357 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    M.Lucamarini, Z.L.Yuan, J.F.Dynes,andA.J.Shields, Nature 557, 400–403 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Rozpędek, K

    F. Rozpędek, K. Goodenough, J. Ribeiro, N. Kalb, V. C. Vivoli, A. Reiserer, R. Hanson, S. Wehner, and D. Elk- ouss, Quantum Sci. Technol.3, 034002 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Khatri, C

    S. Khatri, C. T. Matyas, A. U. Siddiqui, and J. P. Dowl- ing, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 023032 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Langenfeld, P

    S. Langenfeld, P. Thomas, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 230506 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Kamin, E

    L. Kamin, E. Shchukin, F. Schmidt, and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023086 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theor. Comput. Sci.560, 7 (2014), theoretical Aspects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84

    2014

  53. [61]

    Epping, H

    M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bruß, New J. Phys.19, 093012 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Miguel-Ramiro and W

    J. Miguel-Ramiro and W. Dür, New J. Phys.22, 043011 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    I. B. Djordjevic, in 2020 IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC) (2020) pp. 1–2

    2020

  56. [64]

    G. Avis, F. Rozpędek, and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. A107, 012609 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    M. F. Mor-Ruiz and W. Dür, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Com- mun. 42, 1793 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    W. J. Munro, K. A. Harrison, A. M. Stephens, S. J. De- vitt, and K. Nemoto, Nat. Photonics4, 792–796 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Wengerowsky, S

    S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, H. Hübel, and R. Ursin, Nature564, 225–228 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Asavanant, Y

    W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoen- sombutamon, H.Emura, R.N.Alexander, S.Takeda, J.-i. Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furu- sawa, Science 366, 373–376 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Haldar, P

    S. Haldar, P. J. Barge, X. Cheng, K.-C. Chang, B. T. Kirby, S. Khatri, C. W. Wong, and H. Lee, arXiv:2401.13168 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Shi and C

    S. Shi and C. Qian, inProceedings of the Annual Confer- ence of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Commu- nication on the Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication, SIGCOMM ’20 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2020

  63. [71]

    Pirker, J

    A. Pirker, J. Wallnöfer, and W. Dür, New J. Phys.20, 053054 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Miguel-Ramiro, A

    J. Miguel-Ramiro, A. Pirker, and W. Dür, Quantum7, 919 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Freund, A

    J. Freund, A. Pirker, and W. Dür, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033267 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Zhong, M

    M. Zhong, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, J. G. Bartholomew, S. E. Beavan, S. M. Wittig, J. J. Longdell, and M. J. Sellars, Nature517, 177–180 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    C. J. Picken, R. Legaie, K. McDonnell, and J. D. Pritchard, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 015011 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, W. R. Milner, D. Kedar, M. A. Norcia, E. Oelker, N. Schine, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature 588, 408–413 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Wang, C.-Y

    P. Wang, C.-Y. Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, M. Gu, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Nat. Commun. 12, 233 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    M. F. Mor-Ruiz, T. Coopmans, J. Miguel-Ramiro, and J. Wallnöfer, merging_based_qr_archive (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Quantum3, 181 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Anders and H

    S. Anders and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A73, 022334 (2006)

    2006

  74. [82]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  75. [83]

    Developers, Cirq, Zenodo (2024)

    C. Developers, Cirq, Zenodo (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (1997)

    1997

  77. [85]

    Van den Nest, J

    M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A 69, 022316 (2004)

    2004

  78. [86]

    M. F. Mor-Ruiz, J. Wallnöfer, and W. Dür, Quantum9, 1605 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  80. [88]

    Wallnöfer and M

    J. Wallnöfer and M. F. Mor-Ruiz, Noisy Graph States 0.3, Zenodo (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    Borregaard, P

    J. Borregaard, P. Kómár, E. M. Kessler, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A92, 012307 (2015). Appendix A: Noise analysis As outlined in the main text, we consider that all quan- tum memories are subject to single-qubit time-dependent dephasing noise, modeled by Eq. (...

    2015

  82. [90]

    Within the NSF framework, all operations are constrained to preserve the graph-state structure. Notably, Pauli measurements include correc- tion operations to ensure that the resulting states remain graph states, although these corrections can performed at a later stage of the...

  83. [91]

    side-to-side

    Note that the only updated noise map that differs from the initial configuration isE ′ c, which adopts the same structure as the noise map for qubit b, such that the combined effect simplifies toE ′ b(t)E ′ c(t)ρ′ = E ′ b(2t)ρ′. From this example there are two main takeaway me...

  84. [92]

    large enough

    Code details The Monte Carlo simulation provides samples from the output distribution of waiting times, i.e., how long it takes until the repeater end nodes share an entangled Bell pair. Furthermore, it also tracks how much time each of the qubits in the final cluster state (b...

  85. [93]

    Data analysis As described in the main text, the secret key rate is calculated as S = Rr, where R represents the raw rate and r the secret key fraction. Specifically, the raw rate is the inverse of the average number of rounds needed to successfully distribute a Bell pair betw...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.