Scheduling Entanglement Flows in Multi-channel Quantum Networks

Gongyu Ni; Lester Ho

arxiv: 2605.04767 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Scheduling Entanglement Flows in Multi-channel Quantum Networks

Gongyu Ni , Lester Ho This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords entanglement distributionresource allocationmulti-channel quantum networksproximal policy optimizationquantum schedulingreinforcement learningentanglement requestsnetwork capacity utilization

0 comments

The pith

PPO-based allocation achieves the best overall balance of capacity utilization, low delay, and high successful entanglement requests in multi-channel quantum networks.

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

The paper builds a system model for entanglement distribution that combines a multi-channel quantum network with varying link properties and user-driven request handling that includes queues and retries. It tests three classical scheduling algorithms against a reinforcement-learning approach that uses Proximal Policy Optimization and a reward function to assign channels and processors. Simulations reveal that one classical method cuts delay the most, another raises the count of completed requests by spreading work across paths, yet the PPO scheduler improves capacity use while still keeping delay low and successes high. This matters because quantum networks must share scarce entanglement resources efficiently among many users for communication and computation. The work shows how learned allocation can manage the inherent trade-offs better than fixed rules in the tested scenarios.

Core claim

The central claim is that the PPO-based allocation method, guided by a reward function, delivers the strongest combined performance across the evaluated metrics. In the multi-channel model with heterogeneous links and user-centric queuing, it raises network capacity utilization while maintaining low request delay and a large number of successful entanglement generations, outperforming the Dynamic Efficient algorithm (lowest delay), the Static Efficient algorithm, and the Success Enhancement algorithm (highest successes via multipath).

What carries the argument

The Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)-based scheduler that learns channel and quantum-processor assignments from a reward signal, evaluated against classical Dynamic Efficient, Static Efficient, and Success Enhancement algorithms in multi-slot simulations.

If this is right

The Dynamic Efficient algorithm produces the lowest average request delay among the compared methods.
The Success Enhancement algorithm increases the total count of completed entanglement requests by enabling multipath allocation.
The PPO method raises overall network capacity utilization relative to the three classical approaches while preserving competitive delay and success values.
Incorporating user queuing and retry logic allows the simulations to track how repeated requests affect long-term resource use.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar learned schedulers could adapt automatically when link qualities or user demand patterns shift over time in larger networks.
Alternative reward functions might let operators emphasize one metric, such as energy use or fairness, without redesigning the entire system.
Deployment on actual devices would likely surface hardware-specific constraints like decoherence times that the current simulations omit.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-slot simulations with heterogeneous link characteristics and user-centric queuing and retry mechanisms accurately represent real-world quantum network dynamics and request patterns.

What would settle it

Running the same allocation methods on physical quantum hardware or with markedly different request patterns and finding that PPO no longer leads in the combined metrics of capacity utilization, delay, and successful requests would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04767 by Gongyu Ni, Lester Ho.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIGURE 1: Entanglement request queue and example quantum network topology. The requests view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIGURE 2: Comparison of path allocation for accommodating entanglement requests view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIGURE 3: The PPO model structure view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIGURE 4: Network topologies of varying sizes and types. Links are colour-coded by photon loss rate [dB/km]: green ( view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIGURE 5: Average capacity utilization over view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIGURE 6: Average request handling rate over view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIGURE 7: Average capacity utilization over view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIGURE 8: Average request handling rate over view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIGURE 9: Lowest path cost distribution between source and view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This paper addresses resource allocation for entanglement distribution in multi-channel quantum networks. A system model is proposed that integrates a multi-channel quantum network architecture with heterogeneous link characteristics and user-centric entanglement request handling, including queuing and retry mechanisms. Classical allocation methods for assigning channels and quantum processors to generate entanglement between end nodes are implemented, including the Dynamic Efficient algorithm, Static Efficient algorithm, and the Success Enhancement algorithm. In addition, a Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)-based allocation approach driven by a reward function is proposed. These methods are evaluated through multi-slot simulations using metrics such as request delay, total number of successful entanglement requests, network capacity utilization, and the entanglement request handling rate. The results show that Dynamic Efficient achieves the lowest delay, while Success Enhancement improves the number of successful requests through multipath allocation. The PPO-based method provides the best overall balance by improving capacity utilization and achieving both low delay and a high number of successful entanglement requests.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This applies PPO to entanglement scheduling in a multi-channel quantum network model with retries and heterogeneous links, claiming better balance than classical heuristics, but the edge depends on author-selected simulation parameters.

read the letter

The core of the paper is a simulation comparison of channel and processor allocation methods for generating entanglement in networks with multiple channels and varying link qualities. Users generate requests that queue and retry, and the authors test Dynamic Efficient, Static Efficient, Success Enhancement, plus a PPO policy trained on a reward that trades off utilization, delay, and success count. PPO ends up with the strongest combined performance in their runs, while Dynamic Efficient minimizes delay and Success Enhancement boosts raw successes through multipath use. The model that ties these elements together is the main concrete addition here. It pulls in practical details like heterogeneous links and retry logic, then measures the right operational metrics over multiple time slots. That setup lets them show clear trade-offs instead of just claiming one method wins on everything. The evaluation is the clear limitation. All rankings come from simulations whose link probabilities, channel numbers, request arrival patterns, and retry rules are chosen internally. No sensitivity sweeps, no calibration to measured quantum link data, and no checks against burstier or lower-success regimes are described. If those choices do not match real deployments, the reported advantage for PPO could disappear or reverse. The abstract gives no sign of released code or formal verification either. This is useful for researchers who build quantum network simulators or protocol stacks and want to see how reinforcement learning might fit into scheduling. A reader already working on resource allocation in constrained networks could extract the model structure and reward design without much trouble. It is worth sending to peer review because the problem is current and the comparison is straightforward, but any referee should press for robustness checks on the simulation parameters and clearer documentation of how the PPO reward was tuned.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a system model for multi-channel quantum networks with heterogeneous link characteristics and user-centric queuing/retry mechanisms for entanglement requests. It implements and compares classical allocation algorithms (Dynamic Efficient, Static Efficient, Success Enhancement) against a proposed Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) reinforcement learning approach. Performance is assessed via multi-slot simulations using metrics of request delay, number of successful entanglement requests, network capacity utilization, and request handling rate. The central claim is that Dynamic Efficient minimizes delay, Success Enhancement maximizes successful requests via multipath allocation, and PPO achieves the best overall balance across all metrics.

Significance. If the simulation results prove robust under validation and sensitivity testing, the work could provide a useful comparative framework for resource allocation in quantum entanglement distribution, highlighting how RL methods can navigate trade-offs better than static heuristics. The paper delivers simulation-based empirical comparisons rather than parameter-free derivations or machine-checked proofs, so its significance remains preliminary and contingent on the representativeness of the modeled dynamics.

major comments (3)

[Simulation and Evaluation] The central claim that PPO provides the best overall balance of capacity utilization, low delay, and high successful requests rests entirely on multi-slot simulation results, yet the manuscript provides no details on the specific values or distributions chosen for link success probabilities, number of channels, user request patterns, queuing rules, or retry mechanisms. This absence prevents reproduction and independent verification of whether the reported ranking holds.
[Simulation and Evaluation] No sensitivity analysis or calibration against experimental quantum-network data is reported to test robustness of the PPO superiority claim. If real-world entanglement success rates are lower or request arrivals burstier than the authors' chosen parameters, the relative performance of PPO versus Dynamic Efficient and Success Enhancement could reverse, directly undermining the headline conclusion in the abstract.
[PPO-based Allocation Approach] The reward function driving the PPO policy is described only at a high level; without its explicit mathematical definition (including how capacity utilization, delay, and success rate are weighted), it is impossible to assess whether the learned policy is genuinely superior or simply tuned to the particular simulation instance.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the assumed network topology (e.g., number of nodes, connectivity) to orient readers before the algorithm descriptions.
[Results] Figure captions for the simulation results should explicitly state the number of independent runs and any error bars or confidence intervals used to generate the plotted metrics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful comments on our manuscript. We address the major concerns regarding simulation details, robustness, and the PPO reward function below, and will incorporate revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that PPO provides the best overall balance of capacity utilization, low delay, and high successful requests rests entirely on multi-slot simulation results, yet the manuscript provides no details on the specific values or distributions chosen for link success probabilities, number of channels, user request patterns, queuing rules, or retry mechanisms. This absence prevents reproduction and independent verification of whether the reported ranking holds.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript lacks sufficient detail on the simulation parameters, which is essential for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript, we will add a comprehensive description of all parameters used, including the distributions for link success probabilities, the number of channels, user request patterns, queuing rules, and retry mechanisms. This addition will be placed in the Evaluation section to allow readers to reproduce and verify the results. revision: yes
Referee: No sensitivity analysis or calibration against experimental quantum-network data is reported to test robustness of the PPO superiority claim. If real-world entanglement success rates are lower or request arrivals burstier than the authors' chosen parameters, the relative performance of PPO versus Dynamic Efficient and Success Enhancement could reverse, directly undermining the headline conclusion in the abstract.

Authors: We acknowledge this point and the potential for parameter sensitivity to affect the conclusions. The revised manuscript will include a sensitivity analysis varying key parameters such as success probabilities and arrival rates to demonstrate the stability of the PPO performance advantage. For calibration with experimental data, we will note this as a limitation in the discussion section, as such data is not yet widely available, and suggest it as future work. revision: partial
Referee: The reward function driving the PPO policy is described only at a high level; without its explicit mathematical definition (including how capacity utilization, delay, and success rate are weighted), it is impossible to assess whether the learned policy is genuinely superior or simply tuned to the particular simulation instance.

Authors: We agree that an explicit mathematical definition of the reward function is needed. In the revision, we will provide the full formulation of the reward function, specifying the weights assigned to capacity utilization, delay, and success rate terms. This will clarify the objective optimized by the PPO policy and facilitate assessment of its generality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from independent algorithm implementations and simulations

full rationale

The paper defines a system model with heterogeneous links and user-centric queuing, then implements distinct allocation algorithms (Dynamic Efficient, Static Efficient, Success Enhancement, and PPO-based) and evaluates them via separate multi-slot simulation runs using metrics such as delay, successful requests, and capacity utilization. No equations, derivations, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citations. The central claims rest on comparative simulation outputs rather than any load-bearing step that equates to its own assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides insufficient detail to exhaustively list free parameters or invented entities; the model relies on standard quantum network assumptions.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Multi-channel quantum networks can be modeled with heterogeneous link characteristics, queuing, and retry mechanisms for user entanglement requests.
Explicitly stated as part of the proposed system model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5449 in / 1182 out tokens · 35801 ms · 2026-05-08T17:06:38.758757+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,

B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellánet al., “Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,”Nature, vol. 526, no. 7575, pp. 682–686, 2015

2015
[2]

Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,

S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, “Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,”Nature communications, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 15043, 2017

2017
[3]

A quantum router architecture for high-fidelity entanglement flows in quantum net- works,

Y . Lee, E. Bersin, A. Dahlberg, S. Wehner, and D. Englund, “A quantum router architecture for high-fidelity entanglement flows in quantum net- works,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 75, 2022

2022
[4]

Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication,

S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, “Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication,”Scien- tific reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 20463, 2016

2016
[5]

Entanglement swapping in quan- tum switches: Protocol design and stability analysis,

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

work page arXiv 2021
[6]

On the stochastic analysis of a quantum entanglement switch,

G. Vardoyan, S. Guha, P. Nain, and D. Towsley, “On the stochastic analysis of a quantum entanglement switch,”ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 27–29, 2019

2019
[7]

Shortcuts to quantum network routing

E. Schoute, L. Mancinska, T. Islam, I. Kerenidis, and S. Wehner, “Short- cuts to quantum network routing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05238, 2016

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[8]

Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,

M. Pant, H. Krovi, D. Towsley, L. Tassiulas, L. Jiang, P. Basu, D. Englund, and S. Guha, “Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,”npj Quan- tum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 25, 2019

2019
[9]

Distributed Routing in a Quantum Internet

K. Chakraborty, F. Rozpedek, A. Dahlberg, and S. Wehner, “Distributed routing in a quantum internet,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11630, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1907
[10]

Request scheduling in quan- tum networks,

C. Cicconetti, M. Conti, and A. Passarella, “Request scheduling in quan- tum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 2–17, 2021

2021
[11]

Dqra: Deep quantum routing agent for entan- glement routing in quantum networks,

L. Le and T. N. Nguyen, “Dqra: Deep quantum routing agent for entan- glement routing in quantum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 1–12, 2022

2022
[12]

Entanglement request scheduling in quan- tum networks using deep q-network,

G. Ni, L. Ho, and H. Claussen, “Entanglement request scheduling in quan- tum networks using deep q-network,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12461, 2025. VOLUME 4, 2016 13 Authoret al.: Preparation of Papers for IEEE T ransactions on Quantum Engineering

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

On the bipartite entanglement capacity of quantum networks,

G. Vardoyan, E. Van Milligen, S. Guha, S. Wehner, and D. Towsley, “On the bipartite entanglement capacity of quantum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 1–14, 2024

2024
[14]

Entanglement distribution in a quantum network: A multicommodity flow-based ap- proach,

K. Chakraborty, D. Elkouss, B. Rijsman, and S. Wehner, “Entanglement distribution in a quantum network: A multicommodity flow-based ap- proach,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1–21, 2020

2020
[15]

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,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2022, pp. 510–519

2022
[16]

Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum net- works: Model and designs,

S. Shi and C. Qian, “Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum net- works: Model and designs,” inProceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication, 2020, pp. 62–75

2020
[17]

Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks,

C. Li, T. Li, Y .-X. Liu, and P. Cappellaro, “Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 10, 2021

2021
[18]

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
[19]

Van Meter,Quantum networking

R. Van Meter,Quantum networking. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

2014
[20]

Broadband optical fibre with an attenuation lower than 0.1 decibel per kilometre,

M. Petrovich, E. Numkam Fokoua, Y . Chen, H. Sakr, A. I. Adamu, R. Has- san, D. Wu, R. Fatobene Ando, A. Papadimopoulos, S. R. Sandoghchi et al., “Broadband optical fibre with an attenuation lower than 0.1 decibel per kilometre,”Nature Photonics, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1203–1208, 2025

2025
[21]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[22]

Collective dynamics of ‘small- world’networks,

D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ‘small- world’networks,”nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998

1998
[23]

Netsquid, a network simulator for quantum infor- mation using discrete events,

T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Nijsten, J. de Oliveira Filho, M. Papendrecht, J. Rabbie, F. Rozp˛ edek, M. Skrzypczyket al., “Netsquid, a network simulator for quantum infor- mation using discrete events,”Communications Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 164, 2021

2021
[24]

Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,”Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996. 14 VOLUME 4, 2016

1996

[1] [1]

Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,

B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellánet al., “Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres,”Nature, vol. 526, no. 7575, pp. 682–686, 2015

2015

[2] [2]

Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,

S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, “Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,”Nature communications, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 15043, 2017

2017

[3] [3]

A quantum router architecture for high-fidelity entanglement flows in quantum net- works,

Y . Lee, E. Bersin, A. Dahlberg, S. Wehner, and D. Englund, “A quantum router architecture for high-fidelity entanglement flows in quantum net- works,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 75, 2022

2022

[4] [4]

Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication,

S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, “Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication,”Scien- tific reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 20463, 2016

2016

[5] [5]

Entanglement swapping in quan- tum switches: Protocol design and stability analysis,

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

work page arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

On the stochastic analysis of a quantum entanglement switch,

G. Vardoyan, S. Guha, P. Nain, and D. Towsley, “On the stochastic analysis of a quantum entanglement switch,”ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 27–29, 2019

2019

[7] [7]

Shortcuts to quantum network routing

E. Schoute, L. Mancinska, T. Islam, I. Kerenidis, and S. Wehner, “Short- cuts to quantum network routing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05238, 2016

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,

M. Pant, H. Krovi, D. Towsley, L. Tassiulas, L. Jiang, P. Basu, D. Englund, and S. Guha, “Routing entanglement in the quantum internet,”npj Quan- tum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 25, 2019

2019

[9] [9]

Distributed Routing in a Quantum Internet

K. Chakraborty, F. Rozpedek, A. Dahlberg, and S. Wehner, “Distributed routing in a quantum internet,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11630, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1907

[10] [10]

Request scheduling in quan- tum networks,

C. Cicconetti, M. Conti, and A. Passarella, “Request scheduling in quan- tum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 2–17, 2021

2021

[11] [11]

Dqra: Deep quantum routing agent for entan- glement routing in quantum networks,

L. Le and T. N. Nguyen, “Dqra: Deep quantum routing agent for entan- glement routing in quantum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 1–12, 2022

2022

[12] [12]

Entanglement request scheduling in quan- tum networks using deep q-network,

G. Ni, L. Ho, and H. Claussen, “Entanglement request scheduling in quan- tum networks using deep q-network,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12461, 2025. VOLUME 4, 2016 13 Authoret al.: Preparation of Papers for IEEE T ransactions on Quantum Engineering

work page arXiv 2025

[13] [13]

On the bipartite entanglement capacity of quantum networks,

G. Vardoyan, E. Van Milligen, S. Guha, S. Wehner, and D. Towsley, “On the bipartite entanglement capacity of quantum networks,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 1–14, 2024

2024

[14] [14]

Entanglement distribution in a quantum network: A multicommodity flow-based ap- proach,

K. Chakraborty, D. Elkouss, B. Rijsman, and S. Wehner, “Entanglement distribution in a quantum network: A multicommodity flow-based ap- proach,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1–21, 2020

2020

[15] [15]

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,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2022, pp. 510–519

2022

[16] [16]

Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum net- works: Model and designs,

S. Shi and C. Qian, “Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum net- works: Model and designs,” inProceedings of the Annual conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication, 2020, pp. 62–75

2020

[17] [17]

Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks,

C. Li, T. Li, Y .-X. Liu, and P. Cappellaro, “Effective routing design for remote entanglement generation on quantum networks,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 10, 2021

2021

[18] [18]

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

[19] [19]

Van Meter,Quantum networking

R. Van Meter,Quantum networking. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

2014

[20] [20]

Broadband optical fibre with an attenuation lower than 0.1 decibel per kilometre,

M. Petrovich, E. Numkam Fokoua, Y . Chen, H. Sakr, A. I. Adamu, R. Has- san, D. Wu, R. Fatobene Ando, A. Papadimopoulos, S. R. Sandoghchi et al., “Broadband optical fibre with an attenuation lower than 0.1 decibel per kilometre,”Nature Photonics, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1203–1208, 2025

2025

[21] [21]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

[22] [22]

Collective dynamics of ‘small- world’networks,

D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ‘small- world’networks,”nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998

1998

[23] [23]

Netsquid, a network simulator for quantum infor- mation using discrete events,

T. Coopmans, R. Knegjens, A. Dahlberg, D. Maier, L. Nijsten, J. de Oliveira Filho, M. Papendrecht, J. Rabbie, F. Rozp˛ edek, M. Skrzypczyket al., “Netsquid, a network simulator for quantum infor- mation using discrete events,”Communications Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 164, 2021

2021

[24] [24]

Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels,”Physical review letters, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 722, 1996. 14 VOLUME 4, 2016

1996