Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Learning Best Paths in Quantum Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two algorithms learn the best quantum-network path with high probability, spending resources tied to link gaps rather than path count.

desk verdict The link-level half is a real result; the path-level half is not executable as written because LinkEst is called on singular design matrices and the final loop can run forever. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12462 v1 pith:5FWYS7IV submitted 2025-06-14 cs.NI cs.LGquant-ph

Xuchuang Wang , Maoli Liu , Xutong Liu , Zhuohua Li , Mohammad Hajiesmaili , John C.S. Lui , Don Towsley This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIcs.LGquant-ph
keywords quantumnetworksbestpathidentificationonlinelearningnetworkbenchmarkingfidelityestimationsecretkeyfractionresourcecomplexitymulti-armedbandits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum networks carry fragile quantum states, and applications like quantum key distribution need the route that preserves them best. This paper asks how to learn that best route online—benchmarking links or whole paths—while using as few quantum resources as possible. It proposes two algorithms: BeQuP-Link for networks that can inspect individual links, and BeQuP-Path for networks that can only inspect end-to-end paths. The central claim is that both find the best path with probability at least $1-\delta$, with resource cost governed by the number of links and by how much the best path beats its rivals, rather than by the total number of candidate paths. If true, routing in large noisy quantum networks becomes learnable even when the path count is exponential in the network size.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is $F(k)=x(k)^\top\log p$, obtained by taking logarithms of the product rule $p^{(\mathrm{path})}(k)=\prod_{\ell\in L(k)}p_\ell$; this turns the multiplicative path fidelity into a linear reward function over links, bringing the problem into the scope of linear best-arm identification. At link level, confidence radii on each link estimate define pessimistic and optimistic estimates that reveal whether the empirical best path could be beaten, and benchmarking the link with the largest radius in the symmetric difference terminates when no challenger remains. At path level, LinkEst builds the matrix $A=N\sum_{k\in S}\lambda^{(S)}(k)x(k)x(k)^\top$ and vector $b=\sum_{n=1}^N\log(Y_n)x(k_n)$ from path-level samples drawn by G-optimal design, then outputs $\log\hat{p}=A^{-1}b$; BeQuP-Path uses these link estimates in a halving candidate-set pruning loop. The quality of the estimates is controlled by the concentration of the network benchmarking subroutine, which gives a sub-Gaussian noise model for $\log p$.

What would settle it

In a network where two links always appear together in every candidate path, the path-link matrix has dependent columns; running BeQuP-Path there should make the LinkEst inversion fail or produce estimates that cannot distinguish the two links, so the algorithm cannot certify a unique best path. This gives a direct experimental check of the full-rank premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that best-path identification in a quantum network can be reduced to linear best-arm identification over links. The path depolarizing parameter satisfies $p^{(\mathrm{path})}(k)=\prod_{\ell\in L(k)} p_\ell$, so taking logarithms gives a transformed fidelity $F(k)=x(k)^\top\log p$ that is linear in the link parameters and order-equivalent to the path fidelity. BeQuP-Link exploits this by maintaining confidence intervals on each link's $\log p_\ell$, benchmarking only links in the symmetric difference between the empirical best path and an optimistic challenger, and stopping when no challenger remains. BeQuP-Path handles the harder case where only end-to-end path benchmarks are available: a subroutine called LinkEst samples paths by a G-optimal design, solves a linear system to estimate $\log p$ from path-level observations, and feeds these estimates into a candidate-set pruning loop that halves the path set in each outer round. The paper's theorems state that BeQuP-Link uses $O\left(L_{\max}^2 \sum_{\ell\in L} \Delta_\ell^{-2}\log\left(\frac{L}{\delta}\sum_{\ell\in L}\Delta_\ell^{-2}\right)\right)$ resources and BeQuP-Path uses $O\left(L_{\max}\sum_{\ell=2}^{L}(\Delta^{\mathrm{path}}_{[\ell]})^{-2}\log\frac{K}{\delta}\right)$ resources, both identifying the best path with probability at least $1-\delta$; the path-level bound depends on the top $L$ path gaps rather than on all $K$ paths.

Load-bearing premise

The path-level algorithm assumes that every link's contribution can be separated from the others using path-level measurements; if two links always appear together in every path, the estimate step cannot tell them apart, and the paper does not construct the projection it says would fix this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under link-level benchmarking, the resource cost depends on $\sum_{\ell}1/\Delta_\ell^2$—a sum over links—rather than on the total number of paths $K$, so networks with exponentially many paths remain tractable.
  • Under path-level benchmarking, BeQuP-Path's cost is governed by the largest $L$ path gaps instead of all $K$ path gaps, improving on treating each path as an independent arm.
  • Both algorithms succeed with probability at least $1-\delta$, so the confidence can be made arbitrarily high at a logarithmic price.
  • The same recipe works for quantum key distribution: maximizing secret key fraction $u(k)$ reduces to maximizing $\sum_\ell \log((2p_\ell+1)/3)$, and the same big-O resource bounds hold after adjusting the pruning threshold to $2\epsilon$.
  • Simulations with several noise models show both algorithms output the correct best path and consume fewer quantum resources than uniform benchmarking or baselines that ignore path overlap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper leaves open is making the full-rank assumption constructive: for a rank-deficient incidence matrix, one would need to identify a subset of basis paths whose benchmarks determine all identifiable link combinations, and to prove the projection preserves the best path; the paper only asserts such a projection exists.
  • Since the link-level algorithm already avoids the $L_{\max}^2$ factor by adaptive benchmarking, a path-level variant that replaces the fixed G-optimal batch with adaptive sampling could plausibly remove the linear $L_{\max}$ factor from Theorem 4, improving the bound for long paths.
  • The log-linearization at the heart of the argument applies to any path metric that factors over links, such as entanglement generation rate or negativity, so the algorithmic template may transfer beyond fidelity and secret key fraction.
  • The dynamic counterpart, where network parameters drift over time, is not analyzed here, but the confidence-radius structure used by BeQuP-Link is the same structure used in non-stationary bandit algorithms, so a slowly-varying extension is a testable direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the problem of identifying the highest-fidelity path between two end nodes in a quantum network under an online learning formulation. Two feedback models are considered: link-level benchmarking, in which individual links can be probed, and path-level benchmarking, in which only end-to-end path measurements are available. The paper proposes BeQuP-Link, a link-level algorithm that adaptively benchmarks links in the symmetric difference between the empirical best path and an optimistic alternative, and BeQuP-Path, a path-level algorithm that first estimates link parameters from path-level samples via a linear-regression subroutine (LinkEst) and then prunes candidate paths. The authors claim resource complexity bounds in Theorems 2 and 4, extend the framework to the secret-key-fraction objective, and report NetSquid simulations for both objectives. The central difficulty of the paper is that the path-level algorithm, as written, is not executable and its main theorem is therefore not supported.

Significance. If the claimed results held, the paper would make a useful contribution: it formulates a clean online best-path identification problem for quantum networks, explicitly exploits path overlap to avoid complexity that is exponential in the path length, and provides simulation evidence for both fidelity and secret-key-fraction objectives. The link-level algorithm and its analysis are plausible and the problem setup is well motivated. However, the path-level algorithm contains a load-bearing correctness failure: LinkEst requires inverting a matrix that is singular whenever the candidate path set has fewer paths than links, and Algorithm 4 is designed to shrink the candidate set to a singleton. This is an internal inconsistency in the algorithm definition, not merely a gap in the proof. As a result, the main path-level claim (Theorem 4) cannot be accepted in the present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Algorithms 3 and 4] LinkEst is not defined on candidate sets of size less than L. In Algorithm 3, Line 6 computes A^{-1}, where A = N sum_{k in S} lambda(k) x(k) x(k)^T. Since A is a sum of |S| rank-one matrices, its rank is at most |S|, so for |S| < L the matrix A is singular and A^{-1} does not exist. Algorithm 4 is guaranteed to reach such a candidate set: for the final outer iteration h = ceil(log2 L), the inner while condition is |S_h^{(s)}| > floor(L/2^h) = 0, so any nonempty set triggers a LinkEst call; when the set is a singleton, pruning leaves that singleton unchanged and the inner loop does not terminate. Therefore Algorithm 4 is not executable as stated for L > 1, and Theorem 4 cannot hold for it. The rank-assumption discussion in Section III.A concerns the global matrix X only and does not apply to pruned subsets S_h^{(s)}.
  2. [Section III.A] The assertion "without loss of generality, assume the matrix X has rank exactly L" is not backed by an argument or construction. The proposed projection to a lower-dimensional space is not specified, and it is not shown that the projection preserves the identity of the best path or the link-level parameters used by LinkEst. This assumption is load-bearing: Lemma 3 and LinkEst require invertibility of the sampled design matrix. Moreover, even if the global matrix X has rank L, a pruned subset S_h^{(s)} can be rank-deficient, so the global rank assumption alone cannot repair Algorithm 4.
  3. [Lemma 3 and Appendix B] The accuracy guarantee for LinkEst is not self-contained. The proof in Appendix B assumes log p^{(path)}(k) is bounded ("Assuming p^{(path)}(k) in (epsilon,1) for some parameter epsilon > 0") and sub-Gaussian, but this condition is not stated in Lemma 3. The proof also delegates the key concentration argument to [18, Corollary 16] without verifying that the quantum benchmarking noise model satisfies the linear-bandit assumptions used there. In addition, the constant C_0 in the sample-complexity bound of Lemma 3 is left unspecified and is not related to the constant C in Lemma 1. These gaps make the claimed resource complexity in Theorem 4 impossible to verify from the manuscript.
  4. [Section V.B and Appendix] Theorem 4, the central complexity result for BeQuP-Path, is stated without proof. The appendix says that detailed proofs will be provided in an extended version due to space limits; it contains only sketches for Lemmas 3 and 5. For a journal submission, the main theorem of the paper needs a proof in the manuscript. This is particularly important here because the algorithm itself appears to be undefined on the final iterations, so the proof cannot be a routine extension of known results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 1] The constant C in the concentration bound is said to depend on the bouncing number set M, the rounds T_0, and network parameters, but it is never quantified. Since C appears in the resource bounds of Theorems 2 and 4, the bounds remain asymptotic in an unspecified parameter; please state explicitly what C depends on or give a bound.
  2. [Section IV.B] The sentence "which is avoidable according to the best arm identification literature [17]" appears to say the opposite of what is intended. The text suggests that the sum over links is unavoidable, in which case "unavoidable" or "cannot be removed" would be the correct wording.
  3. [Algorithm 4, Line 6] LinkEst is called with S_h^{(1)} as the sampling set, while the empirical best path and pruning steps use S_h^{(s)}. Please clarify whether sampling from the initial outer-loop set is intentional and explain why that choice is sufficient for the pruning argument.
  4. [Section VII] The simulations report that all algorithms successfully identify the best path but do not report the empirical success probability, the confidence parameter delta used for the theoretical guarantees, or the number of trials over which success is measured. Without this information, the claim that the algorithms identify the best path is not fully quantified.
  5. [Algorithm 3, Line 1] Computing lambda^{(S)} requires solving a G-optimal design optimization problem over the path set S, but no algorithm or computational-cost bound is provided. This makes the simulation results harder to reproduce and the practical complexity of LinkEst incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the claimed derivations follow from stated physical models, external concentration results, and standard linear-regression estimation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The core model equation p(path)(k) = prod_{l in L(k)} p_l is a physical property cited to standard references, and the log transformation makes the path objective linear in log p, which is then estimated by G-optimal-design linear regression. BeQuP-Link uses a standard confidence-bound elimination argument with a concentration lemma (Lemma 1) adapted from the authors' prior work [15]. Although this is a self-citation and the lemma is load-bearing, it is an independent concentration inequality for network benchmarking averages, not an assertion of the paper's target result; the algorithm's correctness proof then proceeds by confidence-bound reasoning that does not assume its own conclusion. BeQuP-Path directly invokes an external theorem from Tao et al. [18, Corollary 16] to obtain Lemma 3, and the subsequent pruning argument is a standard elimination analysis. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The potential issues flagged by the skeptic (rank-deficiency of the design matrix when LinkEst is called on small candidate sets) and the WLOG rank-L assumption are correctness risks or gaps, not circularity, because they do not make the theorem's conclusion equivalent to its assumptions by construction. The simulations are compared against external baselines and do not invert the theoretical claims. Overall, the central contribution is self-contained given standard concentration results, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on six assumptions, none of which is unique to this paper; they are standard in quantum network benchmarking and bandit theory. The most fragile is the full-rank assumption on X, which is asserted without proof. No free parameters are fitted to data; the confidence radius uses an inherited constant C.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Depolarizing parameter of a path equals the product of link depolarizing parameters: p_path(k) = product_{l in L(k)} p_l (Equation 1).
    This multiplicative composition of depolarizing channels is cited to [14,8]. The entire transformation to sum of log p_l, used by both algorithms, rests on it; if link noise is not depolarizing or channels do not compose multiplicatively, the framework breaks.
  • domain assumption Network benchmarking yields depolarizing parameter estimates with concentration P(|p_hat - p| <= sqrt(C log(1/delta)/N)) >= 1-delta (Lemma 1).
    Adapted from the authors' prior work [15, Lemma 1] and used to set confidence radii in both algorithms. The constant C depends on M, T0, and network parameters, and is not quantified. All resource complexity bounds depend on this concentration rate.
  • domain assumption The path-link incidence matrix X has rank exactly L (Section III.A).
    Asserted as 'without loss of generality' by projecting to a lower-dimensional space that preserves the best arm. This is needed for LinkEst to invert the design matrix A in Algorithm 3. No construction is provided; if rank < L, link parameters are unidentifiable from path-level feedback.
  • domain assumption The best path is unique.
    Stated in Section III.B as a WLOG assumption. If multiple paths tie for the maximum fidelity, the identification target k* is not uniquely defined and the gaps Delta_l and Delta_path are not well-defined.
  • domain assumption Depolarizing parameters are bounded away from zero: p_l in (epsilon,1) for some epsilon > 0.
    Used in Appendix B to ensure log p_path is bounded and sub-Gaussian, allowing application of Tao et al. [18, Corollary 16]. If some links are extremely noisy, the sub-Gaussian condition may fail.
  • domain assumption A path-level benchmark on path k costs L(k) units of quantum resource.
    Defines the resource cost model in Section III.D. The complexity bounds Q_link and Q_path are measured in these units; different cost models would change the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Best Paths in Quantum Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FWYS7IV

@misc{pith2026250612462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Best Paths in Quantum Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FWYS7IV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12462}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum networks (QNs) transmit delicate quantum information across noisy quantum channels. Crucial applications, like quantum key distribution (QKD) and distributed quantum computation (DQC), rely on efficient quantum information transmission. Learning the best path between a pair of end nodes in a QN is key to enhancing such applications. This paper addresses learning the best path in a QN in the online learning setting. We explore two types of feedback: "link-level" and "path-level". Link-level feedback pertains to QNs with advanced quantum switches that enable link-level benchmarking. Path-level feedback, on the other hand, is associated with basic quantum switches that permit only path-level benchmarking. We introduce two online learning algorithms, BeQuP-Link and BeQuP-Path, to identify the best path using link-level and path-level feedback, respectively. To learn the best path, BeQuP-Link benchmarks the critical links dynamically, while BeQuP-Path relies on a subroutine, transferring path-level observations to estimate link-level parameters in a batch manner. We analyze the quantum resource complexity of these algorithms and demonstrate that both can efficiently and, with high probability, determine the best path. Finally, we perform NetSquid-based simulations and validate that both algorithms accurately and efficiently identify the best path.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A quantum network with multiple links and paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of network topologies used in our exper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of quantum resource complexity under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of quantum resource complexity under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead,

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, “Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead,”Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Quantum sensing,

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,”Reviews of modern physics, vol. 89, no. 3, p. 035002, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, 1984, pp. 175–179

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2001, vol. 2

    2001

  5. [5]

    Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication,

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D ¨ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quan- tum communication,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, no. 26, p. 5932, 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Entanglement swapping in quantum switches: Protocol design and stability analysis,

    W. Dai, A. Rinaldi, and D. Towsley, “Entanglement swapping in quantum switches: Protocol design and stability analysis,”preprint arXiv:2110.04116, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,”Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, pp. 802– 803, 1982

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    A benchmarking procedure for quantum networks,

    J. Helsen and S. Wehner, “A benchmarking procedure for quantum networks,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 17, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Netsquid, a net- work simulator for quantum information using discrete events,

    T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Ni- jsten, J. de Oliveira Filho, M. Papendrecht, J. Rabbie, F. Rozpkedek, M. Skrzypczyket al., “Netsquid, a net- work simulator for quantum information using discrete events,”Communications Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 164, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Optimal architectures for long dis- tance quantum communication,

    S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. L ¨utkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, “Optimal architectures for long dis- tance quantum communication,”Scientific reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 20463, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Quantum communication without the necessity of quantum memories,

    W. J. Munro, A. M. Stephens, S. J. Devitt, K. A. Harri- son, and K. Nemoto, “Quantum communication without the necessity of quantum memories,”Nature Photonics, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 777–781, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Charac- terizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking,

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, “Charac- terizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking,” Physical Review A, vol. 85, no. 4, p. 042311, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers,

    D. Gottesman, “The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers,”arXiv quant-ph/9807006, 1998

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantum network utility maximization,

    G. Vardoyan and S. Wehner, “Quantum network utility maximization,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1238–1248

    2023

  7. [15]

    LinkSelFiE: Link Selection and Fidelity Estimation in Quantum Networks,

    M. Liu, Z. Li, X. Wang, and J. C. Lui, “LinkSelFiE: Link Selection and Fidelity Estimation in Quantum Networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,

    E. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,”Numerische Mathematik, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 269– 271, 1959

    1959

  9. [17]

    Combinatorial pure exploration of multi-armed ban- dits,

    S. Chen, T. Lin, I. King, M. R. Lyu, and W. Chen, “Combinatorial pure exploration of multi-armed ban- dits,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Best arm identification in linear bandits with linear dimension dependency,

    C. Tao, S. Blanco, and Y . Zhou, “Best arm identification in linear bandits with linear dimension dependency,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 4877–4886

    2018

  11. [19]

    Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,

    A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,”Physical review letters, vol. 67, no. 6, p. 661, 1991

    1991

  12. [20]

    Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states,

    C. H. Bennett, “Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states,”Physical review letters, vol. 68, no. 21, p. 3121, 1992

    1992

  13. [21]

    Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol,

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, “Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol,”Physical review letters, vol. 85, no. 2, p. 441, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning prob- lems,

    E. Even-Dar, S. Mannor, Y . Mansour, and S. Mahade- van, “Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning prob- lems,”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 7, no. 6, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates,

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland, “Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 77, no. 1, p. 012307, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Path selection for quantum repeater networks,

    R. Van Meter, T. Satoh, T. D. Ladd, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, “Path selection for quantum repeater networks,”Networking Science, vol. 3, pp. 82–95, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Quantum BGP with Online Path Selection via Network Benchmarking,

    M. Liu, Z. Li, K. Cai, J. Allcock, S. Zhang, and J. C. Lui, “Quantum BGP with Online Path Selection via Network Benchmarking,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    E2E fidelity aware routing and purification for throughput maximization in quantum networks,

    Y . Zhao, G. Zhao, and C. Qiao, “E2E fidelity aware routing and purification for throughput maximization in quantum networks,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2022, pp. 480–489

    2022

  19. [27]

    Multi- entanglement routing design over quantum networks,

    Y . Zeng, J. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Liu, and Y . Yang, “Multi- entanglement routing design over quantum networks,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2022, pp. 510–519

    2022

  20. [28]

    Quantum Networks with Multiple Service Providers: Transport Layer Protocols and Research Opportunities,

    M. Liu, J. Allcock, K. Cai, S. Zhang, and J. C. Lui, “Quantum Networks with Multiple Service Providers: Transport Layer Protocols and Research Opportunities,” IEEE Network, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 56–62, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Combinatorial Pure Ex- ploration with Bottleneck Reward Function,

    Y . Du, Y . Kuroki, and W. Chen, “Combinatorial Pure Ex- ploration with Bottleneck Reward Function,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 23 956–23 967, 2021. APPENDIX A. Proof for Algorithm 2 We first define eventE t asE t :={∀ℓ∈ L:|ˆpℓ,t −p ℓ|⩽rad ℓ...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Therefore, we have P(∩ ∞ t=1Et)⩾1− ∞X t=1 P(¬Et) (a) ⩾1− ∞X t=1 δ 2t2 = 1− π2 12 δ⩾1−δ, where inequality (a) is due to (10)

    High Probability Event:By lettingδ← δ 2Lt3 in Lemma 1, we have that, givenˆp ℓ,t as the average ofNsamples, P  |ˆpℓ,t(N)−p ℓ|⩽ s Clog 2Lt3 δ N   ⩾1− δ 2Lt3 .(9) Asrad ℓ,t = r Clog 2Lt3 δ Nℓ,t , we have P(Et) = 1−P(∃ℓ∈ L:|ˆp ℓ,t −p ℓ|>rad ℓ,t) ⩾1− X ℓ∈L P  |ˆpℓ,t(Nℓ,t)−p ...

  23. [31]

    That is, when the algorithm terminates at time slott, the output arm ˆkt is equal to the best pathk ∗

    Correctness:In this subsubsection, we show that when the event∩ ∞ t=1Et holds, the algorithm identifies the best path. That is, when the algorithm terminates at time slott, the output arm ˆkt is equal to the best pathk ∗. Following the notations of the depolarizing parameterp ...

  24. [32]

    To prove the above statement via contradiction, we assume thatℓ t =ℓ ′ andrad ℓ′,t ⩽ ∆ℓ′ 6Lmax

    Complexity:To show the complexity of Algorithm 2, we prove that for any time slottand linkℓ ′, assuming eventE t holds, ifrad ℓ′,t > ∆ℓ′ 6Lmax , then linkℓ ′ is not selected at this time slot, that is,ℓ t ̸=ℓ ′. To prove the above statement via contradiction, we assume thatℓ t...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.