- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Quantum advantage in distributed sensing with noisy quantum networks

Allen Zang1,*, Alexander Kolar1, Alvin Gonzales2, Joaquin Chung3, Stephen K. Gray4, Rajkumar Kettimuthu3, Tian Zhong1, and Zain H. Saleem2,†

  • *Contact author: yzang@uchicago.edu
  • †Contact author: zsaleem@anl.gov
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033040 – Published 10 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/7n9w-9xd4

Abstract

We show that quantum advantage in distributed sensing can be achieved with noisy quantum networks that only distribute noisy entangled states. We derive a closed-form expression of the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for estimating the average of local parameters using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-diagonal probe states, a representative distributed sensing scenario. From the QFI, we obtain the necessary condition to achieve quantum advantage over the optimal local sensing strategy, which can also serve as an optimization-free entanglement detection criterion for multipartite states. We further explore the impacts from imperfect local entanglement generation and local measurement constraint, and our results imply that the quantum advantage is more robust against quantum network imperfections than local operation errors. Notably, these implications still hold when we explicitly consider dephasing during the sensing dynamics. Our results significantly advance the understanding of the achievability of quantum advantage in noisy distributed sensing. They also offer practical guidance for real-world implementation of quantum sensor networks.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (152)

  1. T. Proctor, P. Knott, and J. Dunningham, Networked quantum sensing, arXiv:1702.04271.
  2. T. J. Proctor, P. A. Knott, and J. A. Dunningham, Multiparameter estimation in networked quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 080501 (2018).
  3. J. Rubio, P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, and J. A. Dunningham, Quantum sensing networks for the estimation of linear functions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 344001 (2020).
  4. H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature (London) 453, 1023 (2008).
  5. S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018).
  6. S. Steinert, F. Dolde, P. Neumann, A. Aird, B. Naydenov, G. Balasubramanian, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, High sensitivity magnetic imaging using an array of spins in diamond, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 043705 (2010).
  7. L. M. Pham, D. Le Sage, P. L. Stanwix, T. K. Yeung, D. Glenn, A. Trifonov, P. Cappellaro, P. R. Hemmer, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, et al., Magnetic field imaging with nitrogen-vacancy ensembles, New J. Phys. 13, 045021 (2011).
  8. L. Hall, G. Beart, E. Thomas, D. Simpson, L. McGuinness, J. Cole, J. Manton, R. Scholten, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, et al., High spatial and temporal resolution wide-field imaging of neuron activity using quantum NV-diamond, Sci. Rep. 2, 401 (2012).
  9. L. Rondin, J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, J.-F. Roch, P. Maletinsky, and V. Jacques, Magnetometry with nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamond, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 056503 (2014).
  10. P. C. Humphreys, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum enhanced multiple phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 070403 (2013).
  11. P. Komar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nat. Phys. 10, 582 (2014).
  12. S. E. Crawford, R. A. Shugayev, H. P. Paudel, P. Lu, M. Syamlal, P. R. Ohodnicki, B. Chorpening, R. Gentry, and Y. Duan, Quantum sensing for energy applications: Review and perspective, Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2100049 (2021).
  13. G. Barontini, L. Blackburn, V. Boyer, F. Butuc-Mayer, X. Calmet, J. C. López-Urrutia, E. Curtis, B. Darquie, J. Dunningham, N. Fitch, et al., Measuring the stability of fundamental constants with a network of clocks, EPJ Quantum Technol. 9, 12 (2022).
  14. J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024).
  15. A. J. Brady, C. Gao, R. Harnik, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, Entangled sensor-networks for dark-matter searches, PRX Quantum 3, 030333 (2022).
  16. B. M. Roberts, P. Delva, A. Al-Masoudi, A. Amy-Klein, C. Baerentsen, C. Baynham, E. Benkler, S. Bilicki, S. Bize, W. Bowden, et al., Search for transient variations of the fine structure constant and dark matter using fiber-linked optical atomic clocks, New J. Phys. 22, 093010 (2020).
  17. J.-D. Yue, Y.-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Quantum-enhanced metrology for multiple phase estimation with noise, Sci. Rep. 4, 5933 (2014).
  18. Y.-R. Zhang and H. Fan, Quantum metrological bounds for vector parameters, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043818 (2014).
  19. D. W. Berry, M. Tsang, M. J. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, Quantum Bell-Ziv-Zakai bounds and Heisenberg limits for waveform estimation, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031018 (2015).
  20. M. Gessner, L. Pezzè, and A. Smerzi, Sensitivity bounds for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130503 (2018).
  21. F. Albarelli, J. F. Friel, and A. Datta, Evaluating the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound for multiparameter quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 200503 (2019).
  22. S. Roy, Fundamental noisy multiparameter quantum bounds, Sci. Rep. 9, 1038 (2019).
  23. F. Albarelli and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Probe incompatibility in multiparameter noisy quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011039 (2022).
  24. Y. Yang, B. Yadin, and Z.-P. Xu, Quantum-enhanced metrology with network states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210801 (2024).
  25. L. Pezzè, M. A. Ciampini, N. Spagnolo, P. C. Humphreys, A. Datta, I. A. Walmsley, M. Barbieri, F. Sciarrino, and A. Smerzi, Optimal measurements for simultaneous quantum estimation of multiple phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 130504 (2017).
  26. W. Ge, K. Jacobs, Z. Eldredge, A. V. Gorshkov, and M. Foss-Feig, Distributed quantum metrology with linear networks and separable inputs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 043604 (2018).
  27. K. Qian, Z. Eldredge, W. Ge, G. Pagano, C. Monroe, J. V. Porto, and A. V. Gorshkov, Heisenberg-scaling measurement protocol for analytic functions with quantum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A 100, 042304 (2019).
  28. T. Qian, J. Bringewatt, I. Boettcher, P. Bienias, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal measurement of field properties with quantum sensor networks, Phys. Rev. A 103, L030601 (2021).
  29. J. Bringewatt, I. Boettcher, P. Niroula, P. Bienias, and A. V. Gorshkov, Protocols for estimating multiple functions with quantum sensor networks: Geometry and performance, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033011 (2021).
  30. W. Górecki and R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Multiple-phase quantum interferometry: Real and apparent gains of measuring all the phases simultaneously, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040504 (2022).
  31. A. Ehrenberg, J. Bringewatt, and A. V. Gorshkov, Minimum-entanglement protocols for function estimation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033228 (2023).
  32. Z. Hu, A. Zang, J. Wang, T. Zhong, H. Yuan, L. Jiang, and Z. H. Saleem, Optimal scheme for distributed quantum metrology, arXiv:2509.18334.
  33. B. K. Malia, Y. Wu, J. Martínez-Rincón, and M. A. Kasevich, Distributed quantum sensing with mode-entangled spin-squeezed atomic states, Nature (London) 612, 661 (2022).
  34. P. Sekatski, S. Wölk, and W. Dür, Optimal distributed sensing in noisy environments, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023052 (2020).
  35. S. Wölk, P. Sekatski, and W. Dür, Noisy distributed sensing in the Bayesian regime, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 045003 (2020).
  36. A. Hamann, P. Sekatski, and W. Dür, Approximate decoherence free subspaces for distributed sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 025003 (2022).
  37. A. Hamann, P. Sekatski, and W. Dür, Optimal distributed multi-parameter estimation in noisy environments, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035005 (2024).
  38. M. Fadel, B. Yadin, Y. Mao, T. Byrnes, and M. Gessner, Multiparameter quantum metrology and mode entanglement with spatially split nonclassical spin ensembles, New J. Phys. 25, 073006 (2023).
  39. E. A. Van Milligen, C. N. Gagatsos, E. Kaur, D. Towsley, and S. Guha, Utilizing probabilistic entanglement between sensors in quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064085 (2024).
  40. C. Knaut et al., Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network, Nature (London) 629, 573 (2024).
  41. J.-L. Liu et al., Creation of memory–memory entanglement in a metropolitan quantum network, Nature (London) 629, 579 (2024).
  42. A. J. Stolk, K. L. van der Enden, M.-C. Slater, I. te Raa-Derckx, P. Botma, J. van Rantwijk, J. B. Biemond, R. A. Hagen, R. W. Herfst, W. D. Koek, et al., Metropolitan-scale heralded entanglement of solid-state qubits, Sci. Adv. 10, eadp6442 (2024).
  43. J. A. Gross and C. M. Caves, One from many: Estimating a function of many parameters, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 014001 (2021).
  44. T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, 14-qubit entanglement: Creation and coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011).
  45. C. Song, K. Xu, H. Li, Y.-R. Zhang, X. Zhang, W. Liu, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, W. Ren, J. Hao, et al., Generation of multicomponent atomic Schrödinger cat states of up to 20 qubits, Science 365, 574 (2019).
  46. A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, et al., Generation and manipulation of Schrödinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays, Science 365, 570 (2019).
  47. W. W. Ho, C. Jonay, and T. H. Hsieh, Ultrafast variational simulation of nontrivial quantum states with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052332 (2019).
  48. I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler, et al., Compact ion-trap quantum computing demonstrator, PRX Quantum 2, 020343 (2021).
  49. G. J. Mooney, G. A. White, C. D. Hill, and L. C. Hollenberg, Generation and verification of 27-qubit Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states in a superconducting quantum computer, J. Phys. Commun. 5, 095004 (2021).
  50. Y. Zhao, R. Zhang, W. Chen, X.-B. Wang, and J. Hu, Creation of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states with thousands of atoms by entanglement amplification, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 24 (2021).
  51. T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, and T. Roscilde, Multipartite entangled states in dipolar quantum simulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 150503 (2022).
  52. X. Zhang, Z. Hu, and Y.-C. Liu, Fast generation of GHZ-like states using collective-spin XYZ model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113402 (2024).
  53. A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. L. Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. D. Oppong, et al., Multi-qubit gates and Schrödinger cat states in an optical clock, Nature (London) 634, 315 (2024).
  54. C. Yin, Fast and accurate GHZ encoding using all-to-all interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 130604 (2025).
  55. N. Shettell and D. Markham, Graph states as a resource for quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110502 (2020).
  56. W. Dür, M. Hein, J. I. Cirac, and H.-J. Briegel, Standard forms of noisy quantum operations via depolarization, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052326 (2005).
  57. J. Emerson, M. Silva, O. Moussa, C. Ryan, M. Laforest, J. Baugh, D. G. Cory, and R. Laflamme, Symmetrized characterization of noisy quantum processes, Science 317, 1893 (2007).
  58. C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012304 (2009).
  59. G. Tóth and J. J. García-Ripoll, Efficient algorithm for multiqudit twirling for ensemble quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 75, 042311 (2007).
  60. C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231 (1969).
  61. Ł. Czekaj, A. Przysiężna, M. Horodecki, and P. Horodecki, Quantum metrology: Heisenberg limit with bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062303 (2015).
  62. M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 07, 125 (2009).
  63. D. Petz and C. Ghinea, Introduction to quantum Fisher information, Quantum Probability and Related Topics (World Scientific, 2011), pp. 261–281.
  64. G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014).
  65. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2020).
  66. J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996).
  67. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  68. O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009).
  69. W. Laskowski and M. Żukowski, Detection of N-particle entanglement with generalized Bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. A 72, 062112 (2005).
  70. N. D. Mermin, Extreme quantum entanglement in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990).
  71. K. Nagata, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Configuration of separability and tests for multipartite entanglement in Bell-type experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 260401 (2002).
  72. M. Seevinck and J. Uffink, Partial separability and entanglement criteria for multiqubit quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 78, 032101 (2008).
  73. W. Dür and J. I. Cirac, Classification of multiqubit mixed states: Separability and distillability properties, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042314 (2000).
  74. A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
  75. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of n-particle mixed states: Necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps, Phys. Lett. A 283, 1 (2001).
  76. O. Gühne and M. Seevinck, Separability criteria for genuine multiparticle entanglement, New J. Phys. 12, 053002 (2010).
  77. E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about LOCC (but were afraid to ask), Commun. Math. Phys. 328, 303 (2014).
  78. S. Zhou, C.-L. Zou, and L. Jiang, Saturating the quantum Cramér–Rao bound using LOCC, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 025005 (2020).
  79. Y. Cao and X. Wu, Distributed quantum sensing network with geographically constrained measurement strategies, in ICASSP 2023-IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2023), pp. 1–5.
  80. S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Improvement of frequency standards with quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 (1997).
  81. R. Chaves, J. Brask, M. Markiewicz, J. Kołodyński, and A. Acín, Noisy metrology beyond the standard quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120401 (2013).
  82. T.-X. Zheng, A. Li, J. Rosen, S. Zhou, M. Koppenhöfer, Z. Ma, F. T. Chong, A. A. Clerk, L. Jiang, and P. C. Maurer, Preparation of metrological states in dipolar-interacting spin systems, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 150 (2022).
  83. Z. H. Saleem, A. Shaji, and S. K. Gray, Optimal time for sensing in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 108, 022413 (2023).
  84. W. Dür, M. Skotiniotis, F. Froewis, and B. Kraus, Improved quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 080801 (2014).
  85. E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum error correction for metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150802 (2014).
  86. G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, Increasing sensing resolution with error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150801 (2014).
  87. P. Sekatski, M. Skotiniotis, J. Kołodyński, and W. Dür, Quantum metrology with full and fast quantum control, Quantum 1, 27 (2017).
  88. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, J. Czajkowski, and P. Sekatski, Adaptive quantum metrology under general Markovian noise, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041009 (2017).
  89. S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Achieving the Heisenberg limit in quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Nat. Commun. 9, 78 (2018).
  90. A. Zang, T.-X. Zheng, P. C. Maurer, F. T. Chong, M. Suchara, and T. Zhong, Enhancing noisy quantum sensing by GHZ state partitioning, arXiv:2507.02829.
  91. M. Gessner, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè, Multiparameter squeezing for optimal quantum enhancements in sensor networks, Nat. Commun. 11, 3817 (2020).
  92. L. Pezzè and A. Smerzi, Advances in multiparameter quantum sensing and metrology, arXiv:2502.17396.
  93. K. Chakraborty et al., Distributed routing in a quantum internet, arXiv:1907.11630.
  94. A. Kolar, A. Zang, J. Chung, M. Suchara, and R. Kettimuthu, Adaptive, continuous entanglement generation for quantum networks, in IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2022), pp. 1–6.
  95. Á. G. Iñesta and S. Wehner, Performance metrics for the continuous distribution of entanglement in multiuser quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052615 (2023).
  96. M. Ghaderibaneh, H. Gupta, C. Ramakrishnan, and E. Luo, Pre-distribution of entanglements in quantum networks, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2022), pp. 426–436.
  97. A. Zang, J. Chung, R. Kettimuthu, M. Suchara, and T. Zhong, Analytical performance estimations for quantum repeater network scenarios, in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), Vol. 1, pp. 1960–1966.
  98. C. Zhan, J. Chung, A. Zang, A. Kolar, and R. Kettimuthu, Design and simulation of the adaptive continuous entanglement generation protocol, in 2025 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2025), pp. 127–134.
  99. A. Wu, Y. Ding, and A. Li, QuComm: Optimizing collective communication for distributed quantum computing, in Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (ACM, 2023), pp. 479–493.
  100. J. Liu, A. Zang, M. Suchara, T. Zhong, and P. D. Hovland, Hardware-software co-design for distributed quantum computing, in 2025 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) (IEEE, 2025), pp. 1–6.
  101. Y. Huang, F. Salces-Carcoba, R. X. Adhikari, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, and L. Jiang, Vacuum beam guide for large scale quantum networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 020801 (2024).
  102. C. Meignant, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Distributing graph states over arbitrary quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052333 (2019).
  103. S. de Bone, R. Ouyang, K. Goodenough, and D. Elkouss, Protocols for creating and distilling multipartite GHZ states with Bell pairs, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 1, 1 (2020).
  104. A. Fischer and D. Towsley, Distributing graph states across quantum networks, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2021), pp. 324–333.
  105. G. Avis, F. Rozpędek, and S. Wehner, Analysis of multipartite entanglement distribution using a central quantum-network node, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012609 (2023).
  106. L. Bugalho, B. C. Coutinho, F. A. Monteiro, and Y. Omar, Distributing multipartite entanglement over noisy quantum networks, Quantum 7, 920 (2023).
  107. M. Ghaderibaneh, H. Gupta, and C. Ramakrishnan, Generation and distribution of GHZ states in quantum networks, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2023), Vol. 1, pp. 1120–1131.
  108. X. Fan, C. Zhan, H. Gupta, and C. Ramakrishnan, Optimized distribution of entanglement graph states in quantum networks, arXiv:2405.00222.
  109. H. Shimizu, W. Roga, D. Elkouss, and M. Takeoka, Simple loss-tolerant protocol for GHZ-state distribution in a quantum network, Phys. Rev. A 111, 022624 (2025).
  110. R. Negrin, N. Dirnegger, W. Munizzi, J. Talukdar, and P. Narang, Efficient multiparty entanglement distribution with DODAG-X protocol, arXiv:2408.07118.
  111. Y. Huang, X. Ren, B. Li, Y. Wong, Z. Liang, and L. Jiang, Peer-to-peer distribution of graph states across spacetime quantum networks of arbitrary topology, Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst. 9, 1 (2025).
  112. X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Kettimuthu, and M. Suchara, SeQUeNCe: A customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 045027 (2021).
  113. SeQUeNCe: Simulator of QUantum network communication, GitHub, 2023, https://github.com/sequence-toolbox/SeQUeNCe.
  114. N. Shettell, M. Hassani, and D. Markham, Private network parameter estimation with quantum sensors, arXiv:2207.14450.
  115. L. Bugalho, M. Hassani, Y. Omar, and D. Markham, Private and robust states for distributed quantum sensing, Quantum 9, 1596 (2024).
  116. M. Hassani, S. Scheiner, M. G. Paris, and D. Markham, Privacy in networks of quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 030802 (2025).
  117. A. Datta, L. Zhang, N. Thomas-Peter, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Quantum metrology with imperfect states and detectors, Phys. Rev. A 83, 063836 (2011).
  118. Y. Ouyang, N. Shettell, and D. Markham, Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 68, 1809 (2021).
  119. Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 043001 (2021).
  120. Y. Xia, W. Li, W. Clark, D. Hart, Q. Zhuang, and Z. Zhang, Demonstration of a reconfigurable entangled radio-frequency photonic sensor network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 150502 (2020).
  121. X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sensing in a continuous-variable entangled network, Nat. Phys. 16, 281 (2020).
  122. S.-R. Zhao, Y.-Z. Zhang, W.-Z. Liu, J.-Y. Guan, W. Zhang, C.-L. Li, B. Bai, M.-H. Li, Y. Liu, L. You, et al., Field demonstration of distributed quantum sensing without post-selection, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031009 (2021).
  123. L.-Z. Liu, Y.-Z. Zhang, Z.-D. Li, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, Y.-Y. Fei, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, et al., Distributed quantum phase estimation with entangled photons, Nat. Photon. 15, 137 (2021).
  124. D.-H. Kim, S. Hong, Y.-S. Kim, Y. Kim, S.-W. Lee, R. C. Pooser, K. Oh, S.-Y. Lee, C. Lee, and H.-T. Lim, Distributed quantum sensing of multiple phases with fewer photons, Nat. Commun. 15, 266 (2024).
  125. D. Awschalom, K. K. Berggren, H. Bernien, S. Bhave, L. D. Carr, P. Davids, S. E. Economou, D. Englund, A. Faraon, M. Fejer, et al., Development of quantum interconnects (QUICs) for next-generation information technologies, PRX Quantum 2, 017002 (2021).
  126. D. D. Awschalom, H. Bernien, R. Brown, A. Clerk, E. Chitambar, A. Dibos, J. Dionne, M. Eriksson, B. Fefferman, G. D. Fuchs, et al., A roadmap for quantum interconnects, Technical Report Nos. ANL-22/83; 179439, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (USA), 2022, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1900586.
  127. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016).
  128. A. Hashim, R. K. Naik, A. Morvan, J.-L. Ville, B. Mitchell, J. M. Kreikebaum, M. Davis, E. Smith, C. Iancu, K. P. O’Brien, et al., Randomized compiling for scalable quantum computing on a noisy superconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041039 (2021).
  129. H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998).
  130. W. J. Munro, K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and K. Nemoto, Inside quantum repeaters, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 21, 78 (2015).
  131. S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication, Sci. Rep. 6, 20463 (2016).
  132. K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045006 (2023).
  133. D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations, Nature (London) 402, 390 (1999).
  134. J. Eisert, K. Jacobs, P. Papadopoulos, and M. B. Plenio, Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052317 (2000).
  135. L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Distributed quantum computation based on small quantum registers, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007).
  136. D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Resource-efficient linear optical quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010501 (2005).
  137. A. Pirker, J. Wallnöfer, and W. Dür, Modular architectures for quantum networks, New J. Phys. 20, 053054 (2018).
  138. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996).
  139. D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2818 (1996).
  140. A. Ruskuc, C.-J. Wu, E. Green, S. L. Hermans, J. Choi, and A. Faraon, Scalable multipartite entanglement of remote rare-earth ion qubits, arXiv:2402.16224.
  141. V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Canteri, M. Teller, et al., Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 050803 (2023).
  142. R. Sahu, L. Qiu, W. Hease, G. Arnold, Y. Minoguchi, P. Rabl, and J. M. Fink, Entangling microwaves with light, Science 380, 718 (2023).
  143. N. Lütkenhaus, J. Calsamiglia, and K.-A. Suominen, Bell measurements for teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3295 (1999).
  144. A. Zang, X. Chen, E. Chitambar, M. Suchara, and T. Zhong, No-go theorems for universal entanglement purification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 190803 (2025).
  145. S. Khatri, Policies for elementary links in a quantum network, Quantum 5, 537 (2021).
  146. A. Zang, X.-A. Chen, E. Chitambar, M. Suchara, and T. Zhong, Entanglement purification in quantum networks: Guaranteed improvement and optimal time, arXiv:2505.02286.
  147. J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  148. X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, M. Suchara, and R. Kettimuthu, Parallel simulation of quantum networks with distributed quantum state management, ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 34, 1 (2024).
  149. A. Zang, X. Chen, A. Kolar, J. Chung, M. Suchara, T. Zhong, and R. Kettimuthu, Entanglement distribution in quantum repeater with purification and optimized buffer time, in IEEE INFOCOM 2023-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2023), pp. 1–6.
  150. J. Chung, M. Hajdušek, N. Benchasattabuse, A. Kolar, A. Singal, K. S. Soon, K. Teramoto, A. Zang, R. Kettimuthu, and R. Van Meter, Cross-validating quantum network simulators, in IEEE INFOCOM 2025-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2025), pp. 1–6.
  151. L. Hartmann, B. Kraus, H.-J. Briegel, and W. Dür, Role of memory errors in quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032310 (2007).
  152. A. Zang, A. Kolar, J. Chung, M. Suchara, T. Zhong, and R. Kettimuthu, Simulation of entanglement generation between absorptive quantum memories, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2022), pp. 617–623.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033040– Published 10 July, 2026
  • Received 1 October 2024
  • Revised 23 January 2025
  • Accepted 22 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation