1

Quantum Game Theory meets Quantum

Networks
Indrakshi Dey, Senior Member, IEEE, Nicola Marchetti, Senior Member, IEEE, Marcello Caleffi, Senior
Member, IEEE, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti, Senior Member, IEEE

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

E VERYONE wants to enter the quantum race, from tech

giants to states and governments with massive public
funds for infrastructure development, like European Com-
mission’s Quantum Technologies Flagship program [1], and
USA’s National Quantum Initiative worth 1.2 billion US$
[2]. Such a huge investment is motivated by the promise
of quantum computer’s capability of executing tasks that
choke classical computers within realistic time-scale [3].
Unleashing the full potential of quantum computing re-
quires implementation of operations among a large number
of qubits, which is impossible for a single quantum proces-
sor to execute with the current level of technology. In order
to circumvent the challenges associated with large mono-
lithic quantum processors, the most promising approach is
to network multiple realizable smaller quantum processors
(or nodes) together [4]. Each such processor can execute
few operations individually, but when interconnected in a
quantum network i.e. the Quantum Internet, one is able to
compile large and complex computing tasks exceeding the
computing power of a single quantum processor. As quan-
tum networks will be rolled out, providing true quantum
connectivity between quantum computers over short and
long distances, it will be possible to realize a wide range
of distributed quantum computing, secure communications,
and quantum-enhanced applications [5].
• ©2023 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from
IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future
media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising
or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or
redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of
this work in other works.
Quantum networks have to exploit the unique phe-
nomenon of entanglement [6] to fully unleash the com-
munication and computing potentialities allowed by quan-
tum mechanics. Entanglement is the most powerful form
of correlation with no-counterpart in the classical world,
a property that can be exploited for information process-
ing between two quantum communicating nodes, sepa-
rated by considerable distance. Therefore, entanglement has
emerged and elevated as the most important ‘resource’ for
the communication over quantum networks; its importance
is analogous to the fundamental role played by frequency
bands or sub-bands within classical networks. Irrespective
of the kind of entanglement, bipartite or multipartite, it is
a very fragile resource, difficult to generate and retain in a
sustainable way. However, in order to leverage the prop-
erties of entanglement for communication within quantum
networks, entanglement needs to be distributed among the
communicating nodes. Formulating algorithms for manag-
ing entanglement within a quantum network and distribut-
ing entangled states between multiple nodes (processors)
is a fundamentally crucial and complex challenge [7]. A
promising solution for entanglement distribution within
quantum networks can be the development of centralized
or distributed decision-making targeting the optimization
of long-term system properties.
Decision-making procedures exploit the interplay be-
tween instantaneous distribution of resources and long-term
performance results in distinctive formulations, and aim
at optimizing figures-of-merits subjected to associated con-
straints. In classical networks, constraints are environmental
characteristics, like, fading, pathloss and interference, while
figures-of-merit are error probability performance, spectral

efficiency, outage probability. On the other hand, in quan-
tum networks, constraints are characteristics resulting from
the interaction between quantum states and the environ-
ment, in a noise process known as decoherence with no-
counterpart in the classical world. Figures-of-merit include
fidelity, or communication rate in terms of ebits per channel
use [8].
Motivation
Classical game theory has proved to be instrumental in opti-
mized decision-making for resource distribution, allocation
and sharing within resource-constrained classical networks,
like Internet-of-Things (IoT), network of unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) [9]. Game theory-based framework has
been a preferred choice for online decision-making with
limited and incomplete information, over i) traditional nu-
merical optimization techniques, which become too com-
plex to solve with the increase in the network size and
number of parameters involved, and ii) learning techniques,
which are only as good as the a-priori data (information)
available, and need complete information about the net-
work to achieve reliable performance. Besides, learning
and common optimization techniques operate offline with
average response time increasing exponentially with the
increase in the number of nodes and shortage in the resource
(like, computing power, memory) availability. Game theory
champions optimization scenarios with limited information
as it enables entities to model uncertainties resulting from
other entities’ behaviors and to alter their actions based on
the models, and learns from the network topology to enable
stable coordination in a decentralized setting. Furthermore,
game-theoretic techniques are distributed decision-making
tools, which makes them scalable with the network size in
terms of computational complexity and memory require-
ments.
Quantum Games promise increase in efficiency and
payoffs, emergence of new equilibria and novel game
strategies which are simply not possible in the classical
domain. Owing to these advantages, quantum games have
been applied to recast different quantum algorithms and
information processing techniques as games characterized
by strategies and rules for gathering a deeper understanding
of those algorithms and techniques. Examples include ex-
perimental demonstration of quantum Prisoner’s Dilemma
using nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computers, one-
way model of quantum computation, or alternatively, repre-
sentation of quantum non-locality, cluster-state generation,
or different counter-intuitive paradoxes using non-zero-sum
games or graphic games [10]. However, neither classical nor
quantum games have ever been exploited for solving chal-
lenges like, distribution and sharing of fragile resources like
entanglement, optimized topology extraction, and fidelity-
guaranteed information routing through fixed or dynamic
quantum networking topologies in both competitive and
cooperative scenarios. As the Quantum Internet gradually
becomes a reality, it will be possible for quantum net-
works to leverage the benefits offered by quantum games
over classical games in the aforementioned challenges.
Indeed, by incorporating quantumness in form of pre-
shared entanglement among network nodes, quantum
2
games can achieve equilibria outperforming their classical
counterparts and allow the players to explore correlated
outcomes (with no-counterpart in the classical world) even
in the absence of communication [11].
Contribution
In this article, we aim at exploiting the promise of game
theory for quantum networks. As a first-ever application,
we propose a novel game-theoretic framework for entan-
glement distribution, capable of establishing stable links
between any two nodes separated by a distance within
fixed network topologies. Consequently, we investigate how
classical and quantum strategies can be formulated for the
game framework such that fidelity is maximized, while
maintaining entanglement rate, and link latency is mini-
mized subjected to coherence time constraint.
We formulate two different kinds of games; i) multi-
player coalition game where multiple nodes within a quan-
tum network cooperate to establish entanglement (link)
between source and final destination, ii) 2-way consensus
game, where each node decides on the next 1-hop des-
tination among multiple nodes available to communicate
with. We devise both classical and quantum strategies for
each game; where quantum strategies offer advantage in
performance in both cases.
Introduction of quantum strategies blurs the boundary
between cooperative and competitive scenario, as the initial
entangled quantum state allows players to utilize the corre-
lations present in the state. In this paper, we deviate a bit
from this condition in our 2-way consensus game, where
the players’ action does not depend only on the player’s
observation of the quantum state received from the referee.
The player decides on the next node for communicating,
based on fidelity payoff and latency cost estimates over the
forwards links available.
BACKGROUND ON QUANTUM AND C LASSICAL
G AMES
Game theory provides a set of mathematical tools and
frameworks that leverage interactions of rational hetero-
geneous self-interested entities with different information
availability, to achieve a global objective and predict system-
level emerging behaviors. From a network perspective,
game models can capture the influence of the network topol-
ogy on distributed decision-making processes of entities,
with the freedom to plan their moves independently based
on their own goals and incomplete local information. A
basic game model involves five components : a) Players -
Participants or decision-makers; b) Action - Preferred move
of each player through implementation of player’s control;
c) Information - Local or global knowledge that dictates
each player’s decision; d) Strategy - Mapping player’s
moves with the information available to it at any point in
time; e) Utility or Payoff - Each player’s preference ordering
of possible game outcomes.
A very important concept in game theory is Equilib-
rium. The most commonly known form of equilibrium
is the Nash Equilibrium (NE). NE constitutes an optimal
set of strategies, for all players within a game under a
 3

Quantum Strategies of winning is 0.75, while if the resource is quantum (like a

pair of maximally-entangles qubits), the probability of joint
winning exceeds 0.75 i.e., cos2 π/8 > 0.75. This gain in pay-
Player 1

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
Player 2 Action 2
W ? Engage
L? Retreat
Player N Action N
W ? Engage
Quantum Strategies
(b) Competitive Scenario
Fig. 1. Diagrammatic Representation of Quantum Games in Cooperative
and Competitive Scenarios.
certain scenario, with which no player can increase their cur-
rent expected payoff further by unilaterally changing their
strategies. NE, however, requires any player to know its
opponent’s strategies. When there is incomplete information
available on the opponent’s strategies, NE is extended to
Bayesian equilibrium, where the set of optimal strategies is
obtained using information on all possible sets of strategies
and actions available in the game. In a network scenario,
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
for information between them is minimum. Depending on
the kind of game played and nature of players, the choice
of equilibrium is crucial for determining mathematically
and logically the players’ actions that can ensure the best
outcome for each player.
Games can be classical or quantum depending
on whether they employ classical or quantum re-
sources/strategies respectively. Quantum games offer ad-
vantages over classical games in terms of winning proba-
bilities, efficiency, payoffs and equilibria [11]. Quantum
strategies also offer strictly higher average payoffs over
classical strategies in competitive scenarios where partici-
pating entities have conflicting interests. For example, in
CHSH games [13], if the a priori shared resource between
two spatially-separated players is classical, the probability
a selected strategy. Since quantum actions form a convex
compact subset of a finite dimensional vector space, game
equilibria will exist following Glicksberg’s generalization of
NE [14].
Quantum games can be cooperative (all players have
common interests) or competitive (players compete for a
particular target or have conflicting interests). However, the
way they are played, i.e. the strategies and actions taken by
the players, are different; a representation of how coopera-
tive and competitive quantum games are played differently
is provided in Fig. 1. For example, in the top part of Fig. 1,
two or more players playing as a group cooperatively can
coordinate their strategies using a quantumly entangled
pair of systems. Players within the group can each decide
on the respective moves, based on their own individual
situation and observation of other players’ strategies. The
extra information on another player’s strategy can help a
player decide on its move, rather than going for a random
step, thereby enhancing the player’s winning probability.
For the competitive scenario at the bottom of Fig. 1, players
independently decide on their strategies and actions based
on their own individual situations. Depending on the pay-
offs they receive in return, they can either win, lose but stay
in the game, or retreat.
G AME - BASED O PTIMIZATION F RAMEWORK FOR
E NTANGLEMENT D ISTRIBUTION
The primary contribution of this section is to employ
game-theoretic framework for addressing the fundamental
challenge in quantum networks. Specifically, we focus on
distributing entanglement among multiple nodes within
a quantum network, targeting optimization of long-term
system properties like, fidelity and coherence, entanglement
rate and latency in communication. Current technology
restricts quantum networks to be limited to fixed topologies
where the quantum nodes are usually connected through
optical fibre links. Within these topologies, a group of
nodes are connected to execute a computing task efficiently,
where such nodes form a coalition. Entanglement needs
to be distributed among all the nodes in the coalition to
compile the task. Each link connecting the nodes within

A E
e1
E node will be part of the coalition to which entanglement will
E R R E
Leader Leader
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
R R
Leader : Supernode or e4
Cluster State Generator Leader
E : End-nodes
e2 E
R : Repeaters E between source A and destination B. Consequently, we
E E
B to distribute entanglement in a way that i) minimizes the
Fig. 2. Optimized information and resource flow over a quantum network
topology with three leader nodes (Leader), multiple repeaters (R) and
end-nodes (E) between A and B; both classical and quantum coalition
games are employed and e1 → e3 → e4 → e2 are selected links for
information flow.
the coalition, can be characterized by a different coherence
time. Under this circumstance, entanglement distribution
is affected by the decoherence time, and, in turn, latency
on the source-to-final-destination link will affect the fidelity
and the overall network entanglement rate. Consequently,
entanglement distribution is also related with the optimiza-
tion of the number of hops between the source and the
destination, such that communication takes place within the
coherence time. It is to be noted here that irrespective of
the ultimate applications of the network which can be het-
erogeneous, entanglement distribution is inherently married
with optimized link set-up while maintaining fidelity and
entanglement rate.
We design a game-based optimization framework for
entanglement distribution within a fixed quantum network
topology. In this game, the quantum nodes are players, and
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
represented as the cost function, subject to constraints on
coherence time. The nodes sample their local fidelity and
entanglement rate and update their individual strategies
with the aim of minimizing latency within the coherence
time of the forward link, satisfying an equilibrium flow of
distributed entanglement. Our players are always quantum
as we are working on a quantum network topology. We,
however, explore and compare classical and quantum strate-
gies and resort to Nash equilibrium for the classical version
and to Wardrop equilibrium for the quantized version.
Another important aspect for practical implementation
is to search for a stable solution. Wardrop equilibrium is
analogous to NE, however, we consider it for the quantum
strategies, in which case, the nodes aim at equalizing latency
over their individual forward (outgoing) links. It is worth-
noting, we consider the outgoing links from each node in
order to account for the constraint on the link coherence
time. Quantum strategies start with each node (player) be-
ing allocated a single entangled qubit. The arbitrary unitary
rotation that nodes apply to their qubit is their strategy
choice. The strategy choice determines whether a particular
4
be distributed.
Scenario 1
M -partite cluster state. Each super-node is connected to
M end-nodes. There are also L repeater nodes between
each pair of super-nodes. We represent such an example
topology in Fig. 2 with N = 3, M = 4 and L = 2.
Let us assume we want to establish a communication path
want to establish the best possible link between A and B
number of quantum operations and latency in entanglement
distribution, ii) maximizes fidelity within the coherence time
of the link and iii) maintains the target overall network
entanglement rate.
We start by considering a coalition formation game for
the above scenario, where the coalition-driven link formu-
lation is dictated by the coherence time of the link between
the source and the destination. Specifically, lower coherence
time means we need to distribute entanglement between the
source and the destination in a unit time over a minimum
number of hops. Considering the entanglement rate as
the payoff function and the number of hops between the
source and the destination as the cost function, we find the
optimum set of nodes that can participate in the coalition
or link set-up. This optimization can be conducted through
alternate iteration of coalition formation and entanglement
distribution, until the coalition converges to a final stable
formation. The coalition formation process is dynamic, dur-
ing which the source node will try to join different coalitions
and compare the corresponding utilities. When a stable state
is reached, the link coalition is fixed and maintained for
a certain period of time to complete different application
tasks.
Scenario 2
Here, let us consider a tree-like network topology which
consists of multiple trees. Each tree consists of one source
node and several leaf nodes. However, each source (leader)
can exchange information with only one destination leaf
node at any point of time. We represent such an example
topology in Fig. 3 with 2 trees, where one tree has 5 leaf
nodes and other one consists of 4 leaf nodes. In this case,
we want to establish the best possible path for entangle-
ment distribution between two leaf nodes A and B, where
A and B belong to two different trees, in a way that, i)
latency in communication is minimized, ii) the link fidelity
is maximized and iii) the entanglement distribution can be
completed within the coherence time of the link.
In order to optimize the overall network performance,
each quantum node needs to decide on the next 1-hop des-
tination to communicate towards, depending on its current
state-related information (location, direction). All such 1-
hop links between the source and the final destination will
form the link topology. We consider a two-way choice for
each node; an example is provided in Fig. 3. Let node 2
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

B Link establishment 0.4

using 2-way 0.3

consensus game
0.2
{2,3} {7,8} 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

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 next one-hop link within a tree-like quantum network topology; nodes
1 and 6 are the leader nodes that are connected through a fixed link –
Links are selected for information exchange from A to B using a 2-way
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.
between nodes 1 and 2 is removed followed by a consensus
between nodes 2 and 3 to establish the link. Through this
link deviation, the latency cost is reduced from 100 to 60
and the fidelity payoff increases from 0.3 to 0.8. So the
edge between two nodes in this case dictates the two-way
consensus game process.
Classical V/s Quantum Strategies
Here we describe the differences between classical and
quantum strategies for each of the two scenarios. For sce-
nario 1, we apply both the classical and quantum forms
of the multiplayer coalitional game, towards solving the
optimized link formation between two quantum end-nodes
in the network topology outlined in Fig. 2. In the classical
form of the game, based on the classical strategy adopted
by each player, one guarantees that each player forming the
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
coalition from getting any more payoffs than the ‘value of
coalition’. In our particular network topology set-up, the
‘value of coalition’ is attributed to a target network through-
put. For the quantum version of the game, the leader node
to which the source node A is connected, is selected as the
referee or arbiter of the game. The referee prepares an initial
quantum cluster state and forwards it to the players. Each
player is in possession of a single entangled qubit, on which
it employs an arbitrary unitary rotation depending on its
preferred action. The resultant state is forwarded back to
the referee for measurement and the corresponding payoff
assignment. If the initial quantum states are unentangled,
the quantum coalition game breaks down into its classical
form.
For scenario 2, we apply both classical and quantum
versions of the multiplayer 2-way consensus game for
optimizing 1-hop link control between nodes within the
network topology outlined in Fig. 3. In the classical form
of the game, each player has two choices to select from,
and the player will select the next 1-hop in a way that cost
is minimized and payoff is maximized over the next set
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
individual node’s next 1-hop link. For the quantum version,
we consider the quantum coin flipping game with the re-
quirements that, there is no cheating, each player is aware of
the others’ decisions to participate in the link formation, and
each player can agree on the respective individual decision
on the game outcome. Therefore, each player can confirm its
own progress in the game and the game converges, even if
there are multiple players working together and taking their
own decisions on their individual moves.
R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
To implement the proposed game-based optimized link set-
up for information flow and resource access within quantum
networks, we conduct numerical evaluations. For each set
of parameter settings, simulations are run through 1000
trials and the results are averaged out. Since the average
lifetime of a qubit with current superconducting technol-
ogy is around 500µs, we employ a synchronization time
step of 300µs. The probability that a link will exist be-
tween any two quantum nodes, irrespective of their type,
repeater, end-node or leader, is expressed as p(m, n) =

Fig. 5. Variation in the normalized delay experienced by information flow
arriving at any end-node within the topology obtained in Fig. 2, as a func-
tion of the increasing number of nodes simultaneously communicating
over the network. CN stands for Classical Networks and QN stands for
Quantum Networks.
Fig. 6. End-to-end fidelity improvement with variation in the link decoher-
ence rate through the application of classical 2-way consensus game
and its quantized version. These results are based on the topology
outlined in Fig. 3.
µ exp[−d(m, n)/δλ], where d(m, n) is the Euclidean dis-
tance between nodes m and n, δ is the maximum distance
between m and n, µ and λ are the control parameters of the
distribution; µ, λ ∈ (0, 1]; µ controls the number of edges
(links) present in the network topology and λ controls the
length of different links.
In Fig. 4, we analyze the Nash equilibrium for the
latency and operations minimization problems with X and
Y axes representing the cost incurred at nodes A and B
respectively. The curves are the best response functions
or the information exchange rate over the edges. We are
particularly interested in the equilibrium point over the
edges between the leader-repeater-leader nodes. We reached
a unique Nash equilibrium point at (0.695,0.74).
Next we investigate the efficiency of the classical and
quantum versions of the coalition game approach for topol-
ogy extraction in quantum networks in Fig. 5. We represent
the normalized latency in one communications cycle as a
6
function of the number of nodes present in the network. The
average latency is calculated by summing the delay experi-
enced over all the links and then dividing the summation by
the number of hops. Performance of four different scenarios
is compared, where no game is used for classical networks,
classical game for classical networks, classical game for
quantum networks, and quantum game for quantum net-
works. The quantum strategies emerge as the winner and
the reason can be explained through an intuitive example.
Let us consider a coin toss scenario. For the classical strategy,
each player can choose head or tail with equal probability.
The quantum version will use entangled photons as qubits
instead of coins and the players can use a polarizer and
single-photon detector. So there is a possibility of rotating
the polarizer at most by 90o and players can maximize
their winning probabilities by choosing the angle of rotation.
So on average the probability of winning for each player
can increase manifold with quantum strategies. Looking at
Fig. 5 and depending on the discussion above, it seems
counter-intuitive that initially when the number of nodes
is below 2, classical games perform better than the quantum
version. Its worth-noting here that quantum games need at
least two nodes in the network to begin with to distribute
an entangled pair of initial quantum states. Therefore, the
quantum advantage is visible once the number of nodes in
the network increases to more than 2.
In Fig. 6, we analyze the game-theoretic performance in
terms of the end-to-end fidelity over the network topology
in Fig. 3 as a function of average link decoherence rate.
Decoherence in quantum links is represented in terms of
damping (amplitude or phase) or depolarizing. The results
generated in Fig. 6 consider depolarizing rate over the
quantum links. Quantum strategies perform better owing
to the increase in the average equilibrium payoff offered by
quantum correlation and unitary strategies.
C ONCLUDING R EMARKS AND F UTURE D IRECTIONS
In this paper, we explored the promise of quantum game-
theoretic framework for distributing entanglement within
quantum networks, with the aim of striking a flexible bal-
ance between link fidelity and latency while maintaining
entanglement rate over link coherence. In future, we will
generalize the quantum game framework to address dif-
ferent challenges in designing, developing and deploying
quantum networks. An interesting direction will be to ad-
dress the impact of (complex) network topologies on the
evolution of the strategy and utility function of a game, or
vice-versa studying how different game strategies impact
the network topology.
Another promising research thread would be focused on
evolutionary game theory [6] which embodies a suitable
framework for analyzing co-evolution, i.e., the process in
which the properties of interacting systems evolve in depen-
dence of each other at the backdrop of the dynamic fitness
landscape. The concepts of spatial structure and evolution-
ary game theory can be used to understand cooperation and
competition among the nodes of a quantum network, re-
garding the use of quantum resources such as entanglement
and the study of the co-evolution of the quantum nodes in
response to their environment.
 7

Quantum decoherence is a crucial quantum phe-

nomenon that we need to consider when designing optimal
resource sharing and allocation algorithms for probabilis-
tic quantum networks. Important open questions in this
context relate to how to decide when and where to send
information over the network while having only a local
k -hop knowledge of the network topology (or a limited
network state knowledge in general), for example how we
should make use of quantum repeaters or how to do error
correction while in storage to keep logical qubits alive. Fac-
toring in such aspects related to decoherence in a quantum
game theory framework is another interesting line of attack
for future work.

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.