MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043137390 · doi:10.1103/physreva.80.032301

Quantum repeaters with imperfect memories: Cost and scalability

2009· article· en· W2043137390 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Razavi, Marco Piani, Norbert Lütkenhaus

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum entanglementComputer scienceScalabilityProbabilistic logicFault toleranceCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)QuantumConnection (principal bundle)Quantum memoryImperfectNode (physics)Topology (electrical circuits)Quantum networkMathematicsDistributed computingQuantum mechanicsPhysicsStatisticsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory dephasing and its impact on the rate of entanglement generation in quantum repeaters is addressed. For systems that rely on probabilistic schemes for entanglement distribution and connection, we estimate the maximum achievable rate per employed memory for our optimized partial nesting protocol, when a large number of memories are being used in each node. The above rate scales polynomially with distance, $L$, if quantum memories with infinitely long coherence times are available or if we employ a fully fault-tolerant scheme. For memories with finite coherence times and no fault-tolerant protection, the above rate optimistically degrades exponentially in $\sqrt{L}$, regardless of the employed purification scheme. It decays, at best, exponentially in $L$ if no purification is used.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations126
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207