Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Space-time Peer-to-Peer Distribution of Multi-party Entanglement for Any Quantum Network

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that graph-state entanglement can be distributed peer-to-peer, treating each vertex's entangling connections as files that any holding node can re-share, and that this approach cuts shot and memory usage by up to 50%…

desk verdict Fresh P2P-style graph-state distribution with real algorithmic ideas; the 50% resource advantage needs a no-truncation rerun before I'd trust the headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14757 v3 pith:OITV3LP5 submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph cs.NI

Yuexun Huang , Xiangyu Ren , Bikun Li , Yat Wong , Zhiding Liang , Liang Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NI PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Mn
keywords quantumnetworksgraphstatespeer-to-peerentanglementdistributionspace-timenetworkmemorymanagementroutingNP-hardnessdistributedcomputation
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

Distributing a multiparty entangled state across a quantum network is normally done by creating the whole state at one center and teleporting qubits outward. This paper argues that graph states—entangled states whose vertices are qubits and edges are entanglements—can instead be distributed peer-to-peer: a node holding a vertex's connections can use one Bell pair to create an ancilla at another node, so those connections behave like a file that any holder can re-share. The authors build two algorithms on this idea, P2PGSD (peer-to-peer graph state distribution) and the space-time version ST-P2PGSD, prove that optimizing shots, Bell-pair use, or memory for the general problem is NP-hard, and simulate that the peer-to-peer family beats the center-based MGST algorithm by up to 50% in shot usage and cumulative memory on sparse graph states such as trees, grids, and star graphs. If the result holds, resource-efficient multiparty entanglement distribution across arbitrary network topologies becomes a plausible network-layer primitive rather than an expensive central service, with direct consequences for distributed quantum computation and quantum secret sharing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the reversed fusion operation: a node holding a vertex's connections can create an ancilla at another node through one Bell pair, so the vertex's entanglements behave like a redistributable file and the graph-state topology is exploited rather than ignored. The paper tracks this through a Vertex Reaching Map (VRM), a dictionary from each graph-state vertex to the set of network nodes that can currently host its ancilla; routing an edge becomes a shortest-path search between the two endpoint sets. For memory, the space-time network makes one copy of the network for each time shot and adds memory links from $(n_i,k)$ to $(n_i,k+1)$, so cumulative memory usage is a cost exactly symmetric to cumulative Bell-pair usage; ST-P2PGSD plans paths on this augmented graph, jointly optimizing shots and memory. The recovery layer (Expected Union Method) chooses which qubits to switch at each node to maximize the probability of completing a path.

What would settle it

Run the paper's reference simulation settings from Section 4.2 on a 50-node random network with distance-decaying channel success near 0.87, distributing a sparse tree and a grid graph with 9 to 200 vertices, and record the median shot usage and cumulative memory for P2PGSD, ST-P2PGSD, and MGST; if the peer-to-peer family does not beat MGST by roughly the claimed margin on these instances, the central advantage claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the multiparty generalization of entanglement routing has a peer-to-peer structure: a vertex's entanglement with the rest of the graph state can be separated from the qubit itself, distributed as an ancilla over a Bell pair, and later fused back, so the same 'file' can be re-shared without cloning any quantum information. The paper formalizes this as the General Graph State Distribution Problem with three resources—number of shots, Bell-pair consumption, and cumulative memory usage—and proves all three minimization problems are NP-hard, with a tight $\lfloor |V_S|/2 \rfloor$ shot upper bound under unlimited memory. It then proposes P2PGSD, a greedy protocol that routes graph edges using a Vertex Reaching Map and a modified shortest-path search, and ST-P2PGSD, which runs the same search on a space-time network in which memory links and Bell-pair links are symmetric. Simulations on random networks show the peer-to-peer family using fewer shots and less cumulative memory than the modified center-based MGST algorithm for star, tree, grid, and sparse random graph states, with the advantage growing with state size and reaching up to 50%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproved local-optimality assumption in the modified shortest-path search: whenever P2PGSD routes an edge, it assumes no cheaper path exists between the other currently reachable nodes of the two endpoints, so if that assumption fails, the algorithm can route edges wastefully and the claimed resource savings shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For sparse target states—trees, grids, star (GHZ) states, and low-degree random graphs—the peer-to-peer distribution algorithms use fewer shots and less cumulative memory than center-based transfer, and the advantage grows with the number of vertices, reaching up to 50% in the reported simulations.
  • The optimization problems for shots, Bell-pair consumption, and cumulative memory are NP-hard even for injective assignments and connected target graphs, so no exact efficient algorithm exists for the general problem and heuristics are justified.
  • With unlimited memory, any distribution takes at most $\lfloor |V_S|/2 \rfloor$ shots, and this bound is tight, so the shot complexity of graph-state distribution is linear in the state size in the worst case.
  • The space-time network turns memory management into a routing problem: choosing which qubits to keep for the next shot becomes a choice of memory links, which lets one algorithm optimize both time and memory together.
  • A distributed graph state can teleport an entire layer of CZ gates at once using only local operations, so efficient graph-state distribution directly lowers the resource cost of distributed quantum computation and quantum secret sharing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the space-time construction should apply to any distributed quantum protocol whose resource cost is a weighted sum of Bell-pair and memory terms: one can tune the memory weight and get the same trade-off curve the paper observes between its standard, maximum-memory, and space-time variants.
  • A natural test is to compose P2PGSD with a preprocessing step that finds a local-complementation-equivalent graph state with fewer edges, since the paper's own outlook notes the peer-to-peer advantage is strongest when the target graph is sparse; this could extend the advantage to denser states.
  • The unproved local-optimality assumption in the modified shortest-path search can be probed directly: on small random instances, compare P2PGSD's cost against an exact optimizer or the linear-programming approach cited in the paper and measure how often the greedy step is suboptimal and how large the penalty is.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes the distribution of an arbitrary graph state over a stochastic quantum network as a triple (network, graph state, assignment), introduces the metrics #S (shots), #B (Bell-pair usage), and #M (cumulative memory usage), and proves NP-hardness of optimizing each of these metrics. It also claims a tight worst-case upper bound on #S under unlimited memory. The main algorithmic contribution is a pair of decentralized heuristics, P2PGSD and ST-P2PGSD, inspired by classical peer-to-peer file distribution, together with an adaptation of the earlier GST algorithm, called MGST. The protocols are evaluated in a custom simulator against MGST for tree, star, grid, Bell-pair, and sparse Erdős-Rényi graph states on random Waxman topologies, with the abstract claiming resource improvements of up to 50% for general sparse graph states. A scheme for distributing quantum computations by teleporting a layer of CZ gates is also proposed.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: it gives a general mathematical model for multiparty graph-state distribution in stochastic networks, introduces a spacetime-network accounting method that treats memory symmetrically with Bell-pair usage, and provides decentralized algorithms with a plausible scaling advantage over centralized schemes for sparse target graphs. The comparison against a modified version of Fischer and Towsley's GST is an appropriate baseline, and the paper's explicitly formulated resource metrics are sensible. The main weaknesses are that several load-bearing proofs are presented as sketches or with omitted details, the correctness of the modified Dijkstra step is explicitly unproven, and the headline empirical improvement is based on simulation data from which the upper tail of the resource distribution has been discarded. These issues need to be addressed before the paper's central claims can be regarded as established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem A.2] The proof of the claimed tight upper bound on #S is not rigorous. The key step asserts without proof that 'removing or reversing a subset of paths passing a specific node will not increase the absolute flow values in the channels connecting to it', then moves the root to the downstream endpoint and reverses paths. This argument does not show that the modified flow still satisfies the reachability condition of Definition 2.6 at every intermediate step, nor that the capacity constraints are respected after the root is moved. A formal exchange or uncrossing argument is needed; as written, the claimed tightness and the subsequent optimality discussion are not established.
  2. [Section 3.3, modified Dijkstra] The correctness of the modified Dijkstra pathfinding is explicitly omitted, and the stated condition ('no path from other n_{v_{s1,i}}/n_{v_{s2,j}} to other n_{v_{s1,i'}}/n_{v_{s2,j'}} with smaller cost exists') is effectively the property the algorithm is supposed to verify. Since P2PGSD is greedy and its resource-minimization claim depends on these paths being near-optimal, the paper needs either a proof of correctness under precise assumptions or a characterization of when the greedy choice is optimal. In the absence of such a proof, the simulation results cannot be attributed to the algorithm's intended optimality properties.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Fig. 8] The empirical claim of 'an improvement of up to 50%' is supported by simulation data in which samples consuming more than 200 shots are discarded, as stated in the Fig. 8 caption. Resource usage in a probabilistic network with success probabilities down to 0.4 is heavy-tailed, so truncating the upper tail can substantially lower the reported means, and the bias may differ across algorithms because MGST and the P2PGSD variants have different tail behavior. The paper should report untruncated means and medians, the number of discarded samples per algorithm and data point, and ideally a rerun without the 200-shot cutoff, before the 'up to 50%' claim can be accepted.
  4. [Appendix A, Theorem A.1] The NP-hardness reductions are presented at the level of sketches rather than complete proofs. The restriction to unit-width channels and unlimited memory is justified by 'one can easily persuade oneself', and the modification that makes G_S connected in the edge-disjoint-paths reduction is asserted with 'we omit the details of the proof here'. Since intractability of all three resource metrics is a principal theoretical contribution, the reductions need to be spelled out completely, including the connected-G_S construction and the verification that the Steiner-tree reduction for #B and the memory-cost reduction for #M preserve optimality exactly.
  5. [Appendix A, Theorem A.4] The proof that any GST flow solution can be converted into a simply executable path set in N shots divides the flow by N and invokes the integral flow theorem, but it does not demonstrate that the resulting paths are executable within the original channel width constraints at each shot, nor that the implied memory strategy respects the W_m capacities. Because Theorem A.4 underlies the validity of the MGST baseline used throughout the evaluation, a complete proof is necessary rather than optional.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (6)] The cost C_B is written as -b_i sum_i log(P_i); the placement of b_i inside the prefactor and the missing index range on the sum make the formula ambiguous.
  2. [Fig. 7] The text refers to a 'cell topology network shown in Fig. 7 (g)', but the figure contains panels (a)-(f); the caption and the in-text reference need to be aligned.
  3. [Section 4.1] The repository link appears as '[?]' rather than as a citation to reference [75]; this should be fixed.
  4. [Definition 2.6] The base case of the recursive reachability definition uses n_i in both V_N and V_N x [N+1]; the notation should distinguish spacetime nodes from physical nodes, otherwise the definition is confusing.
  5. [Section 3.4] The hyperparameters m_f and the memory-cost prefactor are introduced but their values in the simulations are not reported; a sensitivity analysis or at least a statement of the chosen values is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are validated against an independent MGST baseline and the hardness results reduce to external NP-hard problems; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The performance claims are benchmarked against MGST, an adaptation of Fischer and Towsley's GST (reference 30), which is an independent external algorithm; no parameter is fitted to that baseline and then reported as a prediction. The P2PGSD and ST-P2PGSD constructions use standard graph-state fusion, Dijkstra pathfinding, and a spacetime network lifted from classical ad hoc routing literature (references 76-77); the spacetime network is a presentation and memory-accounting tool, not a conclusion imported from the authors' prior work. The hardness theorems reduce to Steiner tree and multi-pair edge-disjoint paths, both external NP-hard problems, so the intractability claim does not assume its own conclusion. The space-time symmetry used for memory management is motivated by classical literature and by the paper's own cumulative-memory definitions, not by a self-citation chain. Self-citations (references 23, 41, 53, 58, 75) appear only as background, physical-motivation, or code-availability references and do not carry the load-bearing claims. The paper does disclose two genuine limitations: Section 3.3 omits the proof of the modified Dijkstra correctness and states that correctness relies on a local-optimality assumption, and the Fig. 8 caption reports discarding samples that consume more than 200 shots. These affect the robustness of the empirical resource-saving claims by censoring the upper tail of a heavy-tailed resource distribution, but they are correctness and statistics caveats, not circular reductions: no equation is defined in terms of its predicted quantity, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard quantum network abstractions: synchronized slots, heralded probabilistic links, and limited long-term memory. The only ad hoc item is the unproven modified Dijkstra condition, which the authors explicitly flag. The spacetime network and VRM are analytical constructs, not new physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • cost factor m_f
    Hyperparameter in ST-P2PGSD that rescales effective channel probability per shot (Eq. 11); the paper says it can be optimized but gives no value or systematic sweep in the main results.
  • memory cost
    Hyperparameter for memory link cost in ST-P2PGSD and ST-EUM (Appendix B, memCost default -log(0.8)); affects the shot/memory trade-off in reported simulations.
  • prefactor for second-shot channels in ST-EUM
    Small prefactor assigned to second-shot channel probabilities to favor current-shot resource use (Appendix B); value not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Network is globally synchronized in time slots and information propagates across the whole network within one slot.
    Section 3.1 assumption (1); underpins the shot-based model and the spacetime network.
  • domain assumption Each channel establishes Bell pairs independently with probability P_c(e), and successes follow a binomial distribution when width is shared.
    Section 3.1 assumption (2) and Eq. (7); used in cost metric and recovery algorithms.
  • domain assumption CZ operations are probabilistic but heralded with probability P_s; single-qubit operations are deterministic.
    Section 3.1 assumption (3); affects fusion-based distribution.
  • domain assumption Short-term memory is infinite, long-term memory is limited by W_m(n).
    Section 3.1 assumption (4); defines #M metric and the memory strategies.
  • ad hoc to paper Modified Dijkstra pathfinding returns a lowest-cost path only if no smaller-cost path between other reachable-node pairs exists.
    Section 3.3, the authors state the correctness relies on this assumption and omit the proof; load-bearing for P2PGSD's path choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Space-time Peer-to-Peer Distribution of Multi-party Entanglement for Any Quantum Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OITV3LP5

@misc{pith2026241214757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Space-time Peer-to-Peer Distribution of Multi-party Entanglement for Any Quantum Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OITV3LP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14757}
}
read the original abstract

Graph states are a class of important multiparty entangled states, of which bell pairs are the special case. Realizing a robust and fast distribution of arbitrary graph states in the downstream layer of the quantum network can be essential for further large-scale quantum networks. We propose a novel quantum network protocol called P2PGSD inspired by the classical Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network to efficiently implement the general graph state distribution in the network layer, which demonstrates advantages in resource efficiency and scalability over existing methods for sparse graph states. An explicit mathematical model for a general graph state distribution problem has also been constructed, above which the intractability for a wide class of resource minimization problems is proved and the optimality of the existing algorithms is discussed. In addition, we leverage the spacetime quantum network inspired by the symmetry from relativity for memory management in network problems and used it to improve our proposed algorithm. The advantages of our protocols are confirmed by numerical simulations showing an improvement of up to 50% for general sparse graph states, paving the way for a resource-efficient multiparty entanglement distribution across any network topology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The basic principle of P2P entanglement distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The space-time symmetry. (a) A general commu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration for MGST algorithm. (a) The con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration for P2PGSD algorithm. (a) When the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration for STP2PGSD algorithm. (a) A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration for adaptive graph state distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Shots (bar) and cumulative memory (scatter) usage of protocols based on various algorithms versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The performance of protocols based on vari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Runtime of various algorithms versus scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of distributed quantum computa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Construction of 𝒫 from the multi-pair edge-disjoint paths instance. (a) Constructing 𝐺𝑁 from 𝐺 as well as the requested pairs by adding the ancilla nodes as well as ancilla edges(orange). (b) Construct the 𝐺𝑆 from the given instance. The red dotted line is for further…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Construction of 𝒫 and 𝓈𝑁 from Steiner’s Tree instance. The left side is the Steiner’s Tree instance with orange nodes indicating the vertices from 𝑆. The right side is the constructed two-shot ST network, where we have omitted the ancilla shot. The blue links are the …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The illustration for the two demonstrative examples. The black circles and lines represent the nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [75]

    William K Wootters and Wojciech H Zurek. 1982. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature 299, 5886 (1982), 802–803

    work page 1982

  2. [1]

    Jeremy C Adcock, Sam Morley-Short, Axel Dahlberg, and Joshua W Silverstone. 2020. Mapping graph state orbits under local complementation. Quantum 4 (2020), 305

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Joël Alwen and Vladimir Serbinenko. 2015. High parallel complexity graphs and memory-hard functions. InProceedings of the forty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing . 595–603

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Koji Azuma. 2023. Minimum-cost aggregation of quantum repeaters. In Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging XXI. SPIE, PC1269204

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin

    Koji Azuma, Sophia E. Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin. 2023. Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (Dec 2023), 045006. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045006

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045006 2023

  6. [5]

    David Barkai. 2001. Peer-to-peer computing: technologies for sharing and collaborating on the net . Intel Press

    work page 2001

  7. [6]

    Stefanie Barz, Elham Kashefi, Anne Broadbent, Joseph F Fitzsimons, Anton Zeilinger, and Philip Walther. 2012. Demonstration of blind quantum computing. science 335, 6066 (2012), 303–308

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Paul Beame and Niels Kornerup. 2023. Cumulative memory lower bounds for randomized and quantum computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05680 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    Charles H Bennett and Gilles Brassard. 2014. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Theoretical computer science 560 (2014), 7–11. Space-time Peer-to-Peer Distribution of Multi-party Entanglement for Any Quantum Network 23

    2014

  2. [9]

    Charles H Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K Wootters. 1993. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical review letters 70, 13 (1993), 1895

    1993

  3. [10]

    Bennett, David P

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. 1996. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction.Phys. Rev. A54 (Nov 1996), 3824–3851. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824

    1996 doi

  4. [11]

    Hannes Bernien, Bas Hensen, Wolfgang Pfaff, Gerwin Koolstra, Machiel S Blok, Lucio Robledo, Tim H Taminiau, Matthew Markham, Daniel J Twitchen, Lilian Childress, et al. 2013. Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres. Nature 497, 7447 (2013), 86–90

    2013

  5. [12]

    Dimitris Bertsimas and John Tsitsiklis. 1993. Simulated annealing. Statistical science 8, 1 (1993), 10–15

    1993

  6. [13]

    Harry Buhrman, Noah Linden, Laura Mančinska, Ashley Montanaro, and Maris Ozols. 2022. Quantum majority vote. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11729 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Angela Sara Cacciapuoti, Marcello Caleffi, Francesco Tafuri, Francesco Saverio Cataliotti, Stefano Gherardini, and Giuseppe Bianchi. 2019. Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing. IEEE Network 34, 1 (2019), 137–143

    2019

  8. [15]

    Marcello Caleffi. 2017. Optimal routing for quantum networks. Ieee Access 5 (2017), 22299–22312

    2017

  9. [16]

    Kaushik Chakraborty, Filip Rozpedek, Axel Dahlberg, and Stephanie Wehner. 2019. Distributed routing in a quantum internet. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11630 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Richard Cleve, Daniel Gottesman, and Hoi-Kwong Lo. 1999. How to share a quantum secret. Physical review letters 83, 3 (1999), 648

    1999

  11. [18]

    Bob Coecke. 2010. Quantum picturalism. Contemporary physics 51, 1 (2010), 59–83

    2010

  12. [19]

    Marti Cuquet and John Calsamiglia. 2012. Growth of graph states in quantum networks. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 86, 4 (2012), 042304

    2012

  13. [20]

    Axel Dahlberg, Matthew Skrzypczyk, Tim Coopmans, Leon Wubben, Filip Rozpędek, Matteo Pompili, Arian Stolk, Przemysław Pawełczak, Robert Knegjens, Julio de Oliveira Filho, et al . 2019. A link layer protocol for quantum networks. In Proceedings of the ACM special interest group...

    2019

  14. [21]

    Niel de Beaudrap and Martin Roetteler. 2014. Quantum linear network coding as one-way quantum computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.3533 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Simon J Devitt. 2016. Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud.Physical Review A 94, 3 (2016), 032329

    2016

  16. [23]

    Dawei Ding and Liang Jiang. 2024. Coordinating Decisions via Quantum Telepathy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21723 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Efim A Dinic. 1970. Algorithm for solution of a problem of maximum flow in networks with power estimation. In Soviet Math. Doklady, Vol. 11. 1277–1280

    1970

  18. [25]

    Michael Epping, Hermann Kampermann, and Dagmar Bruss. 2016. Robust entanglement distribution via quantum network coding. New Journal of Physics 18, 10 (2016), 103052

    2016

  19. [26]

    Michael Epping, Hermann Kampermann, Dagmar Bruß, et al. 2017. Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribution in networks. New Journal of Physics 19, 9 (2017), 093012

    2017

  20. [27]

    P ERDdS and A R&wi. 1959. On random graphs I. Publ. math. debrecen 6, 290-297 (1959), 18

    1959

  21. [28]

    Shimon Even, Alon Itai, and Adi Shamir. 1975. On the complexity of time table and multi-commodity flow problems. In 16th annual symposium on foundations of computer science (sfcs 1975) . IEEE, 184–193

    1975

  22. [29]

    Xiaojie Fan, Caitao Zhan, Himanshu Gupta, and CR Ramakrishnan. 2024. Optimized Distribution of Entanglement Graph States in Quantum Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00222 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Alex Fischer and Don Towsley. 2021. Distributing graph states across quantum networks. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) . IEEE, 324–333

    2021

  24. [31]

    Joseph F Fitzsimons. 2017. Private quantum computation: an introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols. npj Quantum Information 3, 1 (2017), 23

    2017

  25. [32]

    Lester Randolph Ford and Delbert R Fulkerson. 1956. Maximal flow through a network.Canadian journal of Mathematics 8 (1956), 399–404

    1956

  26. [33]

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. 2008. Quantum private queries. Physical review letters 100, 23 (2008), 230502

    2008

  27. [34]

    Daniel Gottesman, Thomas Jennewein, and Sarah Croke. 2012. Longer-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters. Physical review letters 109, 7 (2012), 070503

    2012

  28. [35]

    Fenglei Gu, Shankar G Menon, David Maier, Antariksha Das, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Wolfgang Tittel, Hannes Bernien, and Johannes Borregaard. 2024. Hybrid Quantum Repeaters with Ensemble-based Quantum Memories and Single-spin Photon Transducers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12395 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Hagberg, Daniel A

    Aric A. Hagberg, Daniel A. Schult, and Pieter J. Swart. 2008. Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function using NetworkX. In Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference , Gaël Varoquaux, Travis Vaught, and Jarrod Millman (Eds.). Pasadena, CA USA, 11 – 15. 24 Hu...

    2008

  30. [37]

    Connor T Hann, Chang-Ling Zou, Yaxing Zhang, Yiwen Chu, Robert J Schoelkopf, Steven M Girvin, and Liang Jiang

  31. [38]

    Marc Hein, Wolfgang Dür, Jens Eisert, Robert Raussendorf, Maarten Van den Nest, and H-J Briegel. 2006. Entanglement in graph states and its applications. In Quantum computers, algorithms and chaos . IOS Press, 115–218

    2006

  32. [39]

    Khabat Heshami, Duncan G England, Peter C Humphreys, Philip J Bustard, Victor M Acosta, Joshua Nunn, and Benjamin J Sussman. 2016. Quantum memories: emerging applications and recent advances. Journal of modern optics 63, 20 (2016), 2005–2028

    2016

  33. [40]

    Mark Hillery, Vladimír Bužek, and André Berthiaume. 1999. Quantum secret sharing. Physical Review A 59, 3 (1999), 1829

    1999

  34. [41]

    Yuexun Huang, Francisco Salces-Carcoba, Rana X Adhikari, Amir H Safavi-Naeini, and Liang Jiang. 2024. Vacuum beam guide for large scale quantum networks. Physical Review Letters 133, 2 (2024), 020801

    2024

  35. [42]

    Tingxiang Ji, Jianqing Liu, and Zheshen Zhang. 2024. Distributing Arbitrary Quantum Cluster States by Graph Transformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05537 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Richard Jozsa. 2006. An introduction to measurement based quantum computation. NATO Science Series, III: Computer and Systems Sciences. Quantum Information Processing-From Theory to Experiment 199 (2006), 137–158

    2006

  37. [44]

    Anders Karlsson, Masato Koashi, and Nobuyuki Imoto. 1999. Quantum entanglement for secret sharing and secret splitting. Physical Review A 59, 1 (1999), 162

    1999

  38. [45]

    Richard M Karp. 2010. Reducibility among combinatorial problems . Springer

    2010

  39. [46]

    Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi. 2011. The disjoint paths problem: Algorithm and structure. In W ALCOM: Algorithms and Computation: 5th International Workshop, W ALCOM 2011, New Delhi, India, February 18-20, 2011. Proceedings 5. Springer, 2–7

    2011

  40. [47]

    H Jeff Kimble. 2008. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 7198 (2008), 1023–1030

    2008

  41. [48]

    Zoltán Király and Péter Kovács. 2012. Efficient implementations of minimum-cost flow algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.6381 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Hirotada Kobayashi, François Le Gall, Harumichi Nishimura, and Martin Rötteler. 2010. Perfect quantum network communication protocol based on classical network coding. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2686–2690

    2010

  43. [50]

    Peter Komar, Eric M Kessler, Michael Bishof, Liang Jiang, Anders S Sørensen, Jun Ye, and Mikhail D Lukin. 2014. A quantum network of clocks. Nature Physics 10, 8 (2014), 582–587

    2014

  44. [51]

    Seid Koudia. 2023. The quantum internet: an efficient stabilizer states distribution scheme. Physica Scripta 99, 1 (2023), 015115

    2023

  45. [52]

    Seok-Hyung Lee and Hyunseok Jeong. 2023. Graph-theoretical optimization of fusion-based graph state generation. Quantum 7 (2023), 1212

    2023

  46. [53]

    Bikun Li, Kenneth Goodenough, Filip Rozpędek, and Liang Jiang. 2024. Generalized quantum repeater graph states. arXiv:2407.01429 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01429

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Ming Li, Yan-Lei Zhang, Hong X Tang, Chun-Hua Dong, Guang-Can Guo, and Chang-Ling Zou. 2020. Photon-photon quantum phase gate in a photonic molecule with𝜒 (2) nonlinearity. Physical Review Applied 13, 4 (2020), 044013

    2020

  48. [55]

    S-YR Li, Raymond W Yeung, and Ning Cai. 2003. Linear network coding. IEEE transactions on information theory 49, 2 (2003), 371–381

    2003

  49. [56]

    Daniel Litinski and Naomi Nickerson. 2022. Active volume: An architecture for efficient fault-tolerant quantum computers with limited non-local connections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15465 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Junyu Liu, Connor T Hann, and Liang Jiang. 2023. Data centers with quantum random access memory and quantum networks. Physical Review A 108, 3 (2023), 032610

    2023

  51. [58]

    Dominic Mayers and Andrew Yao. 1998. Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus. In Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No. 98CB36280) . IEEE, 503–509

    1998

  52. [59]

    Clément Meignant, Damian Markham, and Frédéric Grosshans. 2019. Distributing graph states over arbitrary quantum networks. Physical Review A 100, 5 (2019), 052333

    2019

  53. [60]

    Janka Memmen, Jens Eisert, and Nathan Walk. 2023. Advantage of multi-partite entanglement for quantum cryptogra- phy over long and short ranged networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13376 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Mihir Pant, Hari Krovi, Don Towsley, Leandros Tassiulas, Liang Jiang, Prithwish Basu, Dirk Englund, and Saikat Guha

  55. [62]

    Stefano Pirandola, Riccardo Laurenza, Carlo Ottaviani, and Leonardo Banchi. 2017. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications. Nature communications 8, 1 (2017), 1–15

    2017

  56. [63]

    npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019), 25

    Routing entanglement in the quantum internet. npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019), 25

    2019

  57. [64]

    A Pirker, J Wallnöfer, and W Dür. 2018. Modular architectures for quantum networks. New Journal of Physics 20, 5 (2018), 053054

    2018

  58. [65]

    Alexander Pirker and Wolfgang Dür. 2019. A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglement-based networks. New Journal of Physics 21, 3 (2019), 033003. Space-time Peer-to-Peer Distribution of Multi-party Entanglement for Any Quantum Network 25

    2019

  59. [66]

    Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Kaitlin N Smith, Pranav Gokhale, and Frederic T Chong. 2021. Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). IEEE, 39–50

    2021

  60. [67]

    Robert Raussendorf and Hans J Briegel. 2001. A one-way quantum computer. Physical review letters 86, 22 (2001), 5188

    2001

  61. [68]

    Youngkyu Sung, Leon Ding, Jochen Braumüller, Antti Vepsäläinen, Bharath Kannan, Morten Kjaergaard, Ami Greene, Gabriel O Samach, Chris McNally, David Kim, et al. 2021. Realization of high-fidelity CZ and ZZ-free iSWAP gates with a tunable coupler. Physical Review X 11, 2 (2021...

    2021

  62. [69]

    Shouqian Shi and Chen Qian. 2020. Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum networks: Model and designs. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for comput...

    2020

  63. [70]

    Xiaodong Wang, Lei Wang, Yingjie Wu, et al. 2009. An Optimal Algorithm for Prufer Codes. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 2, 2 (2009), 111–115

    2009

  64. [71]

    Joan Alfina Vaccaro, Joseph Spring, and Anthony Chefles. 2007. Quantum protocols for anonymous voting and surveying. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 75, 1 (2007), 012333

    2007

  65. [72]

    Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson. 2018. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science 362, 6412 (2018), eaam9288

    2018

  66. [73]

    Bernard M Waxman. 1988. Routing of multipoint connections. IEEE journal on selected areas in communications 6, 9 (1988), 1617–1622

    1988

  67. [74]

    Wenbo Xie, Wenhan Dai, and Don Towsley. 2021. Graph State Distribution: Integer Formulation. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) . IEEE, 475–476

    2021

  68. [76]

    Shashidhar Merugu Mostafa Ammar Ellen Zegura. 2004. Routing in Space and Time in Networks with Predictable Mobility. (2004)

    2004

  69. [77]

    Xiangyu Ren Yuexun Huang. 2024. P2PEntanglementDistribution. https://github.com/yesunhuang/ P2PEntanglementDistribution

    2024

  70. [79]

    Wei Zhang, Hong Ma, Tao Wu, Xueshu Shi, and Yiwen Jiao. 2019. Efficient topology control for time-varying spacecraft networks with unreliable links. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 15, 9 (2019), 1550147719879377. A PROOF OF THE THEOREMS AND STATEMENTS In t...

    2019

  71. [2019]

    Physical review letters 123, 25 (2019), 250501

    Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems. Physical review letters 123, 25 (2019), 250501

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.