Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Game Theory Meets With Quantum Networks
Game Theory Meets With Quantum Networks
Game Theory Meets With Quantum Networks
Abstract—Classical game theory is a powerful tool focusing on optimized resource distribution, allocation and sharing in classical wired
and wireless networks. As quantum networks are emerging as a means of providing true connectivity between quantum computers, it
is imperative and crucial to exploit game theory for addressing challenges like entanglement distribution and access, routing, topology
extraction and inference for quantum networks. Quantum networks provide the promising opportunity of employing quantum games
arXiv:2306.08928v1 [cs.NI] 15 Jun 2023
owing to their inherent capability of generating and sharing quantum states. Besides, quantum games offer enhanced payoffs and
winning probabilities, new strategies and equilibria, which are unimaginable in classical games. Employing quantum game theory to
solve fundamental challenges in quantum networks opens a new fundamental research direction necessitating inter-disciplinary efforts.
In this article, we introduce a novel game-theoretical framework for exploiting quantum strategies to solve, as archetypal example, one
of the key functionality of a quantum network, namely, the entanglement distribution. We compare the quantum strategies with classical
ones by showing the quantum advantages in terms of link fidelity improvement and latency decrease in communication. In future, we
will generalize our game framework to optimize entanglement distribution and access over any quantum network topology. We will
also explore how quantum games can be leveraged to address other challenges like routing, optimization of quantum operations and
topology design.
Index Terms—Quantum Networks, Quantum Games, Entanglement Distribution, Network Topology, Fidelity, Latency
I NTRODUCTION
efficiency, outage probability. On the other hand, in quan- games can achieve equilibria outperforming their classical
tum networks, constraints are characteristics resulting from counterparts and allow the players to explore correlated
the interaction between quantum states and the environ- outcomes (with no-counterpart in the classical world) even
ment, in a noise process known as decoherence with no- in the absence of communication [11].
counterpart in the classical world. Figures-of-merit include
fidelity, or communication rate in terms of ebits per channel
Contribution
use [8].
In this article, we aim at exploiting the promise of game
theory for quantum networks. As a first-ever application,
Motivation we propose a novel game-theoretic framework for entan-
Classical game theory has proved to be instrumental in opti- glement distribution, capable of establishing stable links
mized decision-making for resource distribution, allocation between any two nodes separated by a distance within
and sharing within resource-constrained classical networks, fixed network topologies. Consequently, we investigate how
like Internet-of-Things (IoT), network of unmanned aerial classical and quantum strategies can be formulated for the
vehicles (UAVs) [9]. Game theory-based framework has game framework such that fidelity is maximized, while
been a preferred choice for online decision-making with maintaining entanglement rate, and link latency is mini-
limited and incomplete information, over i) traditional nu- mized subjected to coherence time constraint.
merical optimization techniques, which become too com- We formulate two different kinds of games; i) multi-
plex to solve with the increase in the network size and player coalition game where multiple nodes within a quan-
number of parameters involved, and ii) learning techniques, tum network cooperate to establish entanglement (link)
which are only as good as the a-priori data (information) between source and final destination, ii) 2-way consensus
available, and need complete information about the net- game, where each node decides on the next 1-hop des-
work to achieve reliable performance. Besides, learning tination among multiple nodes available to communicate
and common optimization techniques operate offline with with. We devise both classical and quantum strategies for
average response time increasing exponentially with the each game; where quantum strategies offer advantage in
increase in the number of nodes and shortage in the resource performance in both cases.
(like, computing power, memory) availability. Game theory Introduction of quantum strategies blurs the boundary
champions optimization scenarios with limited information between cooperative and competitive scenario, as the initial
as it enables entities to model uncertainties resulting from entangled quantum state allows players to utilize the corre-
other entities’ behaviors and to alter their actions based on lations present in the state. In this paper, we deviate a bit
the models, and learns from the network topology to enable from this condition in our 2-way consensus game, where
stable coordination in a decentralized setting. Furthermore, the players’ action does not depend only on the player’s
game-theoretic techniques are distributed decision-making observation of the quantum state received from the referee.
tools, which makes them scalable with the network size in The player decides on the next node for communicating,
terms of computational complexity and memory require- based on fidelity payoff and latency cost estimates over the
ments. forwards links available.
Quantum Games promise increase in efficiency and
payoffs, emergence of new equilibria and novel game
BACKGROUND ON QUANTUM AND C LASSICAL
strategies which are simply not possible in the classical
domain. Owing to these advantages, quantum games have G AMES
been applied to recast different quantum algorithms and Game theory provides a set of mathematical tools and
information processing techniques as games characterized frameworks that leverage interactions of rational hetero-
by strategies and rules for gathering a deeper understanding geneous self-interested entities with different information
of those algorithms and techniques. Examples include ex- availability, to achieve a global objective and predict system-
perimental demonstration of quantum Prisoner’s Dilemma level emerging behaviors. From a network perspective,
using nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computers, one- game models can capture the influence of the network topol-
way model of quantum computation, or alternatively, repre- ogy on distributed decision-making processes of entities,
sentation of quantum non-locality, cluster-state generation, with the freedom to plan their moves independently based
or different counter-intuitive paradoxes using non-zero-sum on their own goals and incomplete local information. A
games or graphic games [10]. However, neither classical nor basic game model involves five components : a) Players -
quantum games have ever been exploited for solving chal- Participants or decision-makers; b) Action - Preferred move
lenges like, distribution and sharing of fragile resources like of each player through implementation of player’s control;
entanglement, optimized topology extraction, and fidelity- c) Information - Local or global knowledge that dictates
guaranteed information routing through fixed or dynamic each player’s decision; d) Strategy - Mapping player’s
quantum networking topologies in both competitive and moves with the information available to it at any point in
cooperative scenarios. As the Quantum Internet gradually time; e) Utility or Payoff - Each player’s preference ordering
becomes a reality, it will be possible for quantum net- of possible game outcomes.
works to leverage the benefits offered by quantum games A very important concept in game theory is Equilib-
over classical games in the aforementioned challenges. rium. The most commonly known form of equilibrium
Indeed, by incorporating quantumness in form of pre- is the Nash Equilibrium (NE). NE constitutes an optimal
shared entanglement among network nodes, quantum set of strategies, for all players within a game under a
3
Measurement
offs can be attributed to the fact that entanglement interferes
De-Operation
Input States
Operation
Quantum with the dilemma present in classical games. In classical
Quantum
Player 2
games, dilemma refers to the condition where one player
can only win by lowering another player’s expected payoff.
Player N
In the quantum version, by incorporating entanglement at
the initial state of the game, more than one player can win
with acceptable payoffs within the range of possible payoffs
Quantum Strategies for strategies available in the game. Including entanglement
at the initial state determines generation of a range of
(a) Cooperative Scenario strategies that are not available with a classical game and
Quantum Strategies
classical players. Classical games and classical players resort
to deterministic strategies, which allow only one player
L? Retreat
to win under a certain scenario with maximum possible
Player 1 Action 1 payoff. Quantum strategies can be formulated using convex
linear combinations of unitary actions, and more than one
W ? Engage player can maximize its expected payoff accordingly to
Input States
L? Retreat
a selected strategy. Since quantum actions form a convex
Player 2 Action 2 compact subset of a finite dimensional vector space, game
equilibria will exist following Glicksberg’s generalization of
W ? Engage NE [14].
Quantum games can be cooperative (all players have
L? Retreat common interests) or competitive (players compete for a
particular target or have conflicting interests). However, the
Player N Action N way they are played, i.e. the strategies and actions taken by
W ? Engage the players, are different; a representation of how coopera-
tive and competitive quantum games are played differently
Quantum Strategies is provided in Fig. 1. For example, in the top part of Fig. 1,
(b) Competitive Scenario two or more players playing as a group cooperatively can
coordinate their strategies using a quantumly entangled
Fig. 1. Diagrammatic Representation of Quantum Games in Cooperative pair of systems. Players within the group can each decide
and Competitive Scenarios. on the respective moves, based on their own individual
situation and observation of other players’ strategies. The
certain scenario, with which no player can increase their cur- extra information on another player’s strategy can help a
rent expected payoff further by unilaterally changing their player decide on its move, rather than going for a random
strategies. NE, however, requires any player to know its step, thereby enhancing the player’s winning probability.
opponent’s strategies. When there is incomplete information For the competitive scenario at the bottom of Fig. 1, players
available on the opponent’s strategies, NE is extended to independently decide on their strategies and actions based
Bayesian equilibrium, where the set of optimal strategies is on their own individual situations. Depending on the pay-
obtained using information on all possible sets of strategies offs they receive in return, they can either win, lose but stay
and actions available in the game. In a network scenario, in the game, or retreat.
where multiple players cooperate to create a link, Wardrop
equilibrium [12] is used to refer to a set of optimal strategies,
through which players can ensure that the journey time G AME - BASED O PTIMIZATION F RAMEWORK FOR
for information between them is minimum. Depending on E NTANGLEMENT D ISTRIBUTION
the kind of game played and nature of players, the choice The primary contribution of this section is to employ
of equilibrium is crucial for determining mathematically game-theoretic framework for addressing the fundamental
and logically the players’ actions that can ensure the best challenge in quantum networks. Specifically, we focus on
outcome for each player. distributing entanglement among multiple nodes within
Games can be classical or quantum depending a quantum network, targeting optimization of long-term
on whether they employ classical or quantum re- system properties like, fidelity and coherence, entanglement
sources/strategies respectively. Quantum games offer ad- rate and latency in communication. Current technology
vantages over classical games in terms of winning proba- restricts quantum networks to be limited to fixed topologies
bilities, efficiency, payoffs and equilibria [11]. Quantum where the quantum nodes are usually connected through
strategies also offer strictly higher average payoffs over optical fibre links. Within these topologies, a group of
classical strategies in competitive scenarios where partici- nodes are connected to execute a computing task efficiently,
pating entities have conflicting interests. For example, in where such nodes form a coalition. Entanglement needs
CHSH games [13], if the a priori shared resource between to be distributed among all the nodes in the coalition to
two spatially-separated players is classical, the probability compile the task. Each link connecting the nodes within
4
A E
e1
E node will be part of the coalition to which entanglement will
be distributed.
E R R E
Leader Leader
Scenario 1
E R E We consider a network topology which consists of N super-
R E
E nodes (leader nodes), each capable of generating a given
e3 M -partite cluster state. Each super-node is connected to
R R M end-nodes. There are also L repeater nodes between
Leader : Supernode or e4 each pair of super-nodes. We represent such an example
Cluster State Generator Leader topology in Fig. 2 with N = 3, M = 4 and L = 2.
E : End-nodes Let us assume we want to establish a communication path
e2 E
R : Repeaters E between source A and destination B. Consequently, we
E E want to establish the best possible link between A and B
B to distribute entanglement in a way that i) minimizes the
number of quantum operations and latency in entanglement
Fig. 2. Optimized information and resource flow over a quantum network
topology with three leader nodes (Leader), multiple repeaters (R) and distribution, ii) maximizes fidelity within the coherence time
end-nodes (E) between A and B; both classical and quantum coalition of the link and iii) maintains the target overall network
games are employed and e1 → e3 → e4 → e2 are selected links for entanglement rate.
information flow.
We start by considering a coalition formation game for
the above scenario, where the coalition-driven link formu-
the coalition, can be characterized by a different coherence lation is dictated by the coherence time of the link between
time. Under this circumstance, entanglement distribution the source and the destination. Specifically, lower coherence
is affected by the decoherence time, and, in turn, latency time means we need to distribute entanglement between the
on the source-to-final-destination link will affect the fidelity source and the destination in a unit time over a minimum
and the overall network entanglement rate. Consequently, number of hops. Considering the entanglement rate as
entanglement distribution is also related with the optimiza- the payoff function and the number of hops between the
tion of the number of hops between the source and the source and the destination as the cost function, we find the
destination, such that communication takes place within the optimum set of nodes that can participate in the coalition
coherence time. It is to be noted here that irrespective of or link set-up. This optimization can be conducted through
the ultimate applications of the network which can be het- alternate iteration of coalition formation and entanglement
erogeneous, entanglement distribution is inherently married distribution, until the coalition converges to a final stable
with optimized link set-up while maintaining fidelity and formation. The coalition formation process is dynamic, dur-
entanglement rate. ing which the source node will try to join different coalitions
and compare the corresponding utilities. When a stable state
We design a game-based optimization framework for
is reached, the link coalition is fixed and maintained for
entanglement distribution within a fixed quantum network
a certain period of time to complete different application
topology. In this game, the quantum nodes are players, and
tasks.
the utility function is defined as the difference between the
payoff and the cost function, where fidelity and entangle-
ment rate are considered as the payoff and link latency is Scenario 2
represented as the cost function, subject to constraints on Here, let us consider a tree-like network topology which
coherence time. The nodes sample their local fidelity and consists of multiple trees. Each tree consists of one source
entanglement rate and update their individual strategies node and several leaf nodes. However, each source (leader)
with the aim of minimizing latency within the coherence can exchange information with only one destination leaf
time of the forward link, satisfying an equilibrium flow of node at any point of time. We represent such an example
distributed entanglement. Our players are always quantum topology in Fig. 3 with 2 trees, where one tree has 5 leaf
as we are working on a quantum network topology. We, nodes and other one consists of 4 leaf nodes. In this case,
however, explore and compare classical and quantum strate- we want to establish the best possible path for entangle-
gies and resort to Nash equilibrium for the classical version ment distribution between two leaf nodes A and B, where
and to Wardrop equilibrium for the quantized version. A and B belong to two different trees, in a way that, i)
Another important aspect for practical implementation latency in communication is minimized, ii) the link fidelity
is to search for a stable solution. Wardrop equilibrium is is maximized and iii) the entanglement distribution can be
analogous to NE, however, we consider it for the quantum completed within the coherence time of the link.
strategies, in which case, the nodes aim at equalizing latency In order to optimize the overall network performance,
over their individual forward (outgoing) links. It is worth- each quantum node needs to decide on the next 1-hop des-
noting, we consider the outgoing links from each node in tination to communicate towards, depending on its current
order to account for the constraint on the link coherence state-related information (location, direction). All such 1-
time. Quantum strategies start with each node (player) be- hop links between the source and the final destination will
ing allocated a single entangled qubit. The arbitrary unitary form the link topology. We consider a two-way choice for
rotation that nodes apply to their qubit is their strategy each node; an example is provided in Fig. 3. Let node 2
choice. The strategy choice determines whether a particular decides to switch its link from node 1 to node 3. The link
5
{2,3} {7,8} 1
1 6
100 100 100 100 0.9
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
{1,5} {6,9} 0.8
{1,4} 2 3 {6,9} 7 8
60 60
80 0.8 100 0.7
0.6 80 0.8 90
0.3
0.6 0.4 0.6
4 5 {3,4} 9
{2,5}
120
0.2 A {7,8} 0.5
1 6
100 100 100 100
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Fig. 4. Nash equilibrium point between the links for information flow
{1,5} {6,9}
{1,4} 2 3 {6,9} 7 8 from A to B with the objective of minimizing the number of quantum
60 60 operations and latency, such that the information is exchanged within
80 0.8 100 the end-to-end coherence time of the link. The cost function for node
0.6 80 0.8 90
0.3 A and node B is computed using the total latency experienced over all
0.6 0.4 the links that information of the nodes propagates on. These results are
B {2,5}
4
120
5 {3,4}
A{7,8}
9 based on topology outlined in Fig. 2.
0.2
Fig. 3. Optimized information and resource flow through the control of the referee for measurement and the corresponding payoff
the next one-hop link within a tree-like quantum network topology; nodes assignment. If the initial quantum states are unentangled,
1 and 6 are the leader nodes that are connected through a fixed link – the quantum coalition game breaks down into its classical
Links are selected for information exchange from A to B using a 2-way form.
consensus game. Numbers in red {60, 80, 90, . . . } are latency-based
cost and numbers in green {0.3, 0.4, 0.5, . . . } are fidelity-based payoffs. For scenario 2, we apply both classical and quantum
versions of the multiplayer 2-way consensus game for
between nodes 1 and 2 is removed followed by a consensus optimizing 1-hop link control between nodes within the
between nodes 2 and 3 to establish the link. Through this network topology outlined in Fig. 3. In the classical form
link deviation, the latency cost is reduced from 100 to 60 of the game, each player has two choices to select from,
and the fidelity payoff increases from 0.3 to 0.8. So the and the player will select the next 1-hop in a way that cost
edge between two nodes in this case dictates the two-way is minimized and payoff is maximized over the next set
consensus game process. of links. The other nodes in the network employ actions
that can only influence the overall utility of the network,
but have no impact or restriction on the selection of the
Classical V/s Quantum Strategies individual node’s next 1-hop link. For the quantum version,
Here we describe the differences between classical and we consider the quantum coin flipping game with the re-
quantum strategies for each of the two scenarios. For sce- quirements that, there is no cheating, each player is aware of
nario 1, we apply both the classical and quantum forms the others’ decisions to participate in the link formation, and
of the multiplayer coalitional game, towards solving the each player can agree on the respective individual decision
optimized link formation between two quantum end-nodes on the game outcome. Therefore, each player can confirm its
in the network topology outlined in Fig. 2. In the classical own progress in the game and the game converges, even if
form of the game, based on the classical strategy adopted there are multiple players working together and taking their
by each player, one guarantees that each player forming the own decisions on their individual moves.
coalition is rewarded by a certain amount called the ‘value
of coalition’. Other players in the game who are unable
to join the coalition can prevent the players forming the
R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
coalition from getting any more payoffs than the ‘value of To implement the proposed game-based optimized link set-
coalition’. In our particular network topology set-up, the up for information flow and resource access within quantum
‘value of coalition’ is attributed to a target network through- networks, we conduct numerical evaluations. For each set
put. For the quantum version of the game, the leader node of parameter settings, simulations are run through 1000
to which the source node A is connected, is selected as the trials and the results are averaged out. Since the average
referee or arbiter of the game. The referee prepares an initial lifetime of a qubit with current superconducting technol-
quantum cluster state and forwards it to the players. Each ogy is around 500µs, we employ a synchronization time
player is in possession of a single entangled qubit, on which step of 300µs. The probability that a link will exist be-
it employs an arbitrary unitary rotation depending on its tween any two quantum nodes, irrespective of their type,
preferred action. The resultant state is forwarded back to repeater, end-node or leader, is expressed as p(m, n) =
6
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Cartlidge, “Europe’s e1-billion quantum flagship announces
grants.” Science, vol. 362, no. 6414, p. 512, 2018.
[2] E. Gibney, “The quantum gold rush.” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7776, pp.
22–24, 2019.
[3] W. Kozlowski, S. Wehner, R. Van Meter, B. Rijsman, A. S. Caccia-
puoti, M. Caleffi and S. Nagayama, “Architectural Principles for a
Quantum Internet”, RFC 9340, RFC Editor, DOI: 10.17487/RFC9340,
Mar. 2023.
[4] M. Caleffi, et. al., “Distributed Quantum Computing: a Survey”,
arXiv:2212.10609, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.10609.
[5] C. Wang, A. Rahman, R. Li, M. Aelmans and K. Chakraborty,
“Application Scenarios for the Quantum Internet”, IETF, Dec, 2022,
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-13.html.
[6] A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. Van Meter and L. Hanzo, ”When
Entanglement Meets Classical Communications: Quantum Telepor-
tation for the Quantum Internet,” in IEEE Transactions on Communi-
cations, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3808-3833, June 2020.
[7] S. DiAdamo, B. Qi, G. Miller, R. Kompella, and A. Shabani, “Packet
Switching in Quantum Networks: A Path to Quantum Internet”, in
Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 4, no. 4, Oct. 2022, pages - 043064.
[8] K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang,
Hoi-Kwong Lo, and I. Tzitrin, “Quantum repeaters: From quan-
tum networks to the quantum internet”, in Arxiv Preprint,
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.10820.
[9] Z. Han, Y. Yang, W. Wang, L. Zhou, T. N. Nguyen and C. Su,
“Age Efficient Optimization in UAV-Aided VEC Network: A Game
Theory Viewpoint,” in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 25287-25296, Dec. 2022.
[10] A. R. Legón, and E. Medina, “Dilemma breaking in quantum
games by joint probabilities approach.” Nature Scientific Reports, vol.
12, pages - 13470, 2022.
[11] David A. Meyer, “Quantum Strategies”, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 82,
pages - 1052, Feb. 1999.
[12] J. G. Wardrop, “Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research.”
in Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers Part II, vol. 1, pp.
325–378, 1952.
[13] X. Coiteux-Roy and S. Wolf, “On the Advantage of Irreversible
Processes in Single-System Games,” 2020 IEEE International Sympo-
sium on Information Theory (ISIT), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020, pp.
1921-1926.
[14] I. L. Glicksberg, “A further generalization of the Kakutani fixed
point theorem, with application to Nash equilibrium points,” Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 170–174, 1952.
[15] A.J. McKenzie, “Evolutionary Game Theory”, The Stanford En-
cyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-
evolutionary, 2021.