pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16165 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Single-Satellite Quantum Repeater Performance Analysis

Cameron Paterson , Jasminder S. Sidhu , Thomas Brougham , Sarah E. McCarthy , Daniel K. L. Oi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum repeaterssatellite entanglement distributiondirect downlinkquantum memoriesMonte Carlo simulationentanglement fidelityorbital geometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single satellite distributes entanglement more effectively via direct dual downlink than a quantum repeater for many overpass geometries.

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

This paper compares two ways a single satellite can link two ground stations with entanglement: sending entangled pairs directly downward from the satellite to both stations, or using the satellite as a quantum repeater that performs entanglement swapping. Direct downlink avoids the waiting time for classical signals that tell the repeater when to swap, so its rate can be increased simply by running the source faster even when losses are high. The analysis covers arbitrary satellite flight paths over the stations, long-term average rates for different pairs of ground locations, and how altitude changes the results. Monte Carlo runs then track how often high-fidelity pairs arrive once memory lifetime and storage capacity are taken into account.

Core claim

Direct dual downlink entangled pair distribution does not suffer the classical communication latency of the entanglement swapping process required in a repeater, hence can brute force the problem of high dual channel loss through increased source rate, while a space-based quantum repeater remains constrained by that latency; the two approaches are compared for general overpass geometries, long-term performance is evaluated for different ground station pairs with altitudinal dependence, and fidelity statistics are obtained from Monte Carlo modelling of waiting times and rate statistics under varying memory capacity, decoherence rates, and operational policies.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo modelling of waiting times and rate statistics that tracks fidelity distribution as a function of quantum memory capacity, decoherence rates, and operational policies for the repeater case.

If this is right

  • Direct downlink rates can be raised arbitrarily by brighter sources without being limited by classical round-trip times.
  • Repeater performance improves only when memory decoherence is slow enough relative to the waiting time for classical signals.
  • Long-term average rates depend on the specific latitude and separation of the two ground stations and on the satellite's altitude.
  • Different policies for when to discard or keep stored qubits change the delivered fidelity distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Early satellite quantum networks may therefore start with simple direct-downlink payloads before adding the complexity of onboard quantum memories.
  • The same geometric comparison framework could be reused to study constellations of several satellites or hybrid links that combine space and fiber segments.
  • Atmospheric turbulence and pointing jitter, treated here as average losses, would need to be modeled dynamically to predict performance on individual passes.

Load-bearing premise

The models use fixed input values for loss rates, source brightness, and memory decoherence times rather than deriving those quantities from first principles.

What would settle it

A measurement campaign that records actual entanglement rates and fidelities during a real satellite overpass and then compares the observed numbers against the model's predictions for both the direct-downlink and repeater modes under the same geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16165 by Cameron Paterson, Daniel K. L. Oi, Jasminder S. Sidhu, Sarah E. McCarthy, Thomas Brougham.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Single Satellite – Two OGS Overpass Geometry. A single satellite simultaneously com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Single Satellite Quantum Repeater. 1) Each downlink independently establishes an en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Expected Annual PDV. A polar orbit satellite, in the absence of Earth synchronism, will [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Memory management strategy. The satellite memory is split into separate registers for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative overpass geometries. The dashed circles centred on Alice and Bob show their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Individual channel losses for the representative overpasses: (a) Zenith-zenith, (b) Sym [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RDDDL,SSQR for (a) Zenith-zenith, (b) Symmetric, (c) Zenith A 90◦ and (d) Zenith a 45◦ overpasses. Nsat = 200 and RDDDL EPS = 5.9 × 106 s −1 . The discontinuities in the gradient of RSSQR correspond to times where the rates to each OGS crossover. 3.1 Per-Overpass PDV To evaluate the effect of overpass geometry on the PDV, we begin by examining four representative overpass geometries ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Per-overpass PDV for varying Nsat. The horizontal dashed-dotted lines show the DDDL PDV corresponding to the Micius source rate and vertical dashed lines indicated NC values for each overpass.. The value Nsat for which the repeater PDV is equal to DDDL defines Nc. The DDDL and repeater satellite performed best for the zenith-zenith and symmetric overpasses, respectively. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-overpass PDV against η sys loss for the (a) Zenith-zenith, (b) Symmetric, (c) Zenith A 90◦ and (d) Zenith A 45◦ overpasses. Dashed red line show the baseline η sys loss = 25.9 dB. RDDDL EPS = 5.9 × 106 pairs s−1 and the repeater satellite has Nsat = 200. There is a value of η sys loss below which DDDL outperforms the repeater satellite in each case, indicating that the benefit of memories to the PDV ma… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalised crossover capacity νc dependence on η loss sys . We plot the rate-normalised crossover capacity for the representative overpass geometries as a function of increasing system loss. Decreasing Nc with improved η sys loss shows that memories lose their advantage when it comes to the PDV when the η loss sys improves. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: General Overpass Geometry Performance. Baseline system parameters as per Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Links considered in the annual PDV analysis: (a) Paris-Nice, (b) London-Berlin, (c) Seoul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Altitudinal PDV dependence. (a) Paris-Nice, (b) London-Berlin, (c) Seoul-Tokyo and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: makes this notion concrete for the OGS pairs considered here. For the Paris-Nice and Madrid-Brussels OGS pairs with low ϕ∆=0 of 33.3 ◦ and 152.0 ◦ respectively, the dual-visibility overpasses are approximately aligned with the OGS baseline, leading to a minimal benefit when the memory allocation is statically optimised. For London-Berlin (ϕ∆=0 = 97.0 ◦ ) and Seoul-Tokyo (ϕ∆=0 = 79.6 ◦ ), the greater perpe… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Median waiting times and interquartile ranges with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Median waiting times and interquartile ranges with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Median fidelities and interquartile ranges as a function of overpass times for (a) Zenith [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Fidelity histograms for the (a) Zenith-zenith, (b) Symmetric, (c) Zenith A 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Cumulative total number pairs vs infidelity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Median fidelity of all distributed for each of the representative overpasses as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Space-based entanglement distribution has the potential to extend the range of quantum communication beyond that achievable through optical fibres that are constrained by exponential losses. Quantum repeaters have been proposed to mitigate the effects of channel losses for both fibre and satellite networks. Although quantum repeaters can improve entanglement distribution efficiency, the rate is constrained by classical communication latency in the entanglement swapping process. Direct dual downlink entangled pair distribution does not suffer such a latency restriction, hence can ``brute force'' the problem of high dual channel loss through increased source rate. Hence, the comparative requirements of direct pair distribution versus quantum repeater satellites are important for the design and deployment of space-based entanglement distribution systems. Here, we consider the simplest case of a single satellite establishing entanglement between two ground stations, comparing the performance of direct dual downlink to that of a space-based quantum repeater for general overpass geometries. We also study the long-term entanglement distribution performance for different ground station pairs and determine altitudinal dependence. Finally, we study the fidelity distribution of a satellite repeater system through Monte Carlo modelling of waiting times and rate statistics, exploring the effect of quantum memory capacity, decoherence rates, and operational policies. These results will inform mission design for future space-borne quantum repeater nodes, as well as requirements on space-based memory platforms.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents Monte Carlo simulations comparing direct dual-downlink entanglement distribution to a single-satellite quantum repeater for linking two ground stations. It examines performance across general overpass geometries, long-term statistics for different station pairs, altitudinal dependence, and the effects of memory capacity, decoherence rates, and operational policies on rates, waiting times, and fidelity distributions.

Significance. If the numerical comparisons hold under the stated assumptions, the work supplies concrete guidance for space-based quantum communication mission design by clarifying when latency-limited repeater nodes outperform or underperform brute-force direct distribution. The Monte Carlo treatment of waiting-time and fidelity statistics is a methodological strength that enables statistical characterization beyond mean-field approximations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results sections: the central claim that direct downlink can 'brute force' high dual-channel loss via increased source rate while the repeater is constrained by classical latency is load-bearing, yet the reported comparisons use fixed numerical values for loss rates and source brightness with no sweeps or sensitivity analysis (in contrast to the sweeps performed for memory capacity and decoherence). This leaves the ranking between architectures sensitive to the chosen inputs.
  2. [Monte Carlo modelling] Monte Carlo modelling description: no error bars, no statement of the number of runs performed, and no explicit validation of the simulated rates or fidelities against analytic limits are provided, which weakens confidence in the quantitative performance metrics that underpin the geometry and policy comparisons.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify in the text the exact numerical values adopted for channel loss, source brightness, and memory parameters so that the Monte Carlo results are fully reproducible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and detailed assessment of our work on single-satellite quantum repeater performance. We address each major comment below and outline revisions that will strengthen the manuscript without altering its core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results sections: the central claim that direct downlink can 'brute force' high dual-channel loss via increased source rate while the repeater is constrained by classical latency is load-bearing, yet the reported comparisons use fixed numerical values for loss rates and source brightness with no sweeps or sensitivity analysis (in contrast to the sweeps performed for memory capacity and decoherence). This leaves the ranking between architectures sensitive to the chosen inputs.

    Authors: We agree that the central claim depends on the latency distinction allowing direct distribution to compensate loss via higher source rates. The chosen loss and brightness values are representative of current experimental capabilities for LEO links, and the qualitative advantage holds across the simulated geometries. However, to demonstrate robustness, the revised manuscript will add a sensitivity analysis subsection with sweeps over source brightness and dual-channel loss rates, showing how the rate ranking between architectures varies with these parameters while preserving the latency-limited behavior of the repeater. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Monte Carlo modelling] Monte Carlo modelling description: no error bars, no statement of the number of runs performed, and no explicit validation of the simulated rates or fidelities against analytic limits are provided, which weakens confidence in the quantitative performance metrics that underpin the geometry and policy comparisons.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the Monte Carlo section lacks these statistical details. The simulations were run to convergence for each configuration, but reporting was incomplete. In the revised manuscript we will state the number of trials performed per geometry and policy (sufficient for sub-percent statistical uncertainty), add error bars to all rate, waiting-time, and fidelity results, and include a validation subsection comparing simulated rates and fidelities to analytic limits (e.g., direct-distribution rate formula with no memory and zero-decoherence fidelity of 1). These additions will directly support the quantitative claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Monte Carlo performance comparison uses external parameters as inputs

full rationale

The paper conducts Monte Carlo simulations to compare direct dual-downlink entanglement distribution against a space-based quantum repeater for satellite overpass geometries. It takes channel loss rates, source brightness, memory decoherence times, and related quantities as fixed external inputs for the runs and explores their effects on rates, waiting times, and fidelities. No derivation chain, equation, or claim reduces any output metric to these inputs by construction, nor does any self-citation or ansatz bear the central comparative result. The analysis is self-contained computational evaluation under stated assumptions rather than a tautological prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard quantum-channel loss models and memory decoherence rates taken from prior work; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • source rate
    Brightness of the entangled-pair source is treated as a tunable input parameter.
  • memory decoherence rate
    Exponential decay constant for stored photons is chosen as an input for the Monte Carlo runs.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Exponential loss in atmospheric and free-space channels
    Standard model for optical quantum links invoked without re-derivation.
  • standard math Poisson arrival statistics for photon pairs
    Used to model waiting times in the repeater protocol.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1262 out tokens · 51794 ms · 2026-05-10T07:58:17.064964+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bennett and Gilles Brassard

    Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing.Theoretical Computer Science, 560:7–11, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Shor and John Preskill

    Peter W. Shor and John Preskill. Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol.Physical Review Letters, 85(2):441–444, July 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Cerf, Miloslav Duˇ sek, Norbert L¨ utkenhaus, and Momtchil Peev

    Valerio Scarani, Helle Bechmann-Pasquinucci, Nicolas J. Cerf, Miloslav Duˇ sek, Norbert L¨ utkenhaus, and Momtchil Peev. The security of practical quantum key distribution.Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(3):1301–1350, September 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Quantum metrology.Physical review letters, 96(1):010401, 2006

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum metrology.Physical review letters, 96(1):010401, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Quantum sensing.Reviews of modern physics, 89(3):035002, 2017

    Christian L Degen, Friedemann Reinhard, and Paola Cappellaro. Quantum sensing.Reviews of modern physics, 89(3):035002, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    A clock synchronization method based on quantum entanglement

    Jianxin Shi and Shanshan Shen. A clock synchronization method based on quantum entanglement. Scientific Reports, 12:10185, 06 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer.SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484–1509, October 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden. Advances in quantum cryptography.Advances in Optics and Photonics, 12(4):1012, December 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:5932–5935, Dec 1998

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    Micius quantum experiments in space

    Chao-Yang Lu, Yuan Cao, Cheng-Zhi Peng, and Jian-Wei Pan. Micius quantum experiments in space. Rev. Mod. Phys., 94:035001, Jul 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Sidhu, Siddarth K

    Jasminder S. Sidhu, Siddarth K. Joshi, Mustafa G¨ undo˘ gan, Thomas Brougham, David Lowndes, Luca Mazzarella, Markus Krutzik, Sonali Mohapatra, Daniele Dequal, Giuseppe Vallone, Paolo Villoresi, Alexander Ling, Thomas Jennewein, Makan Mohageg, John G. Rarity, Ivette Fuentes, Stefano Pirandola, and Daniel K. L. Oi. Advances in space quantum communications....

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Quantum physics in space

    Alessio Belenchia, Matteo Carlesso, ¨Omer Bayraktar, Daniele Dequal, Ivan Derkach, Giulio Gasbarri, Waldemar Herr, Ying Lia Li, Markus Rademacher, Jasminder Sidhu, et al. Quantum physics in space. Physics Reports, 951:1–70, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Space-based quantum internet: Entanglement distribution in time-varying leo constellations.arXiv:2409.17032, 2024

    Seid Koudia, Junaid ur Rehman, and Symeon Chatzinotas. Space-based quantum internet: Entanglement distribution in time-varying leo constellations.arXiv:2409.17032, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Sidhu, Victoria Henderson, Luca Mazzarella, Janik Wolters, Daniel K

    Mustafa G¨ undogan, Jasminder S. Sidhu, Victoria Henderson, Luca Mazzarella, Janik Wolters, Daniel K. L. Oi, and Marcus Krutzik. Proposal for space-borne quantum memories for global quantum networking.npj Quantum Information, 7, August 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Entanglement swapping in orbit: a satellite quantum link case study

    Paolo Fittipaldi, Kentaro Teramoto, Naphan Benchasattabuse, Michal Hajduˇ sek, Rodney Van Meter, and Fr´ ed´ eric Grosshans. Entanglement swapping in orbit: a satellite quantum link case study. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), page 1924–1930. IEEE, September 2024

    work page 1924

  16. [16]

    Quantum repeaters in space.New Journal of Physics, 23(5):053021, May 2021

    Carlo Liorni, Hermann Kampermann, and Dagmar Bruß. Quantum repeaters in space.New Journal of Physics, 23(5):053021, May 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Time-delayed single satellite quantum repeater node for global quantum communications.Optica Quantum, 2(3):140–147, 2024

    Mustafa G¨ undoˇ gan, Jasminder S Sidhu, Markus Krutzik, and Daniel KL Oi. Time-delayed single satellite quantum repeater node for global quantum communications.Optica Quantum, 2(3):140–147, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Operational limits to entanglement-based satellite quantum key distribution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11833, 2026

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Sarah E McCarthy, Cameron Paterson, and Daniel KL Oi. Operational limits to entanglement-based satellite quantum key distribution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11833, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Finite key effects in satellite quantum key distribution.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):18, 2022

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Thomas Brougham, Duncan McArthur, Roberto G Pousa, and Daniel KL Oi. Finite key effects in satellite quantum key distribution.npj Quantum Information, 8(1):18, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Sidhu, Brendon L

    Tanvirul Islam, Jasminder S. Sidhu, Brendon L. Higgins, Thomas Brougham, Tom Vergoossen, Daniel K.L. Oi, Thomas Jennewein, and Alexander Ling. Finite-resource performance of small-satellite-based quantum-key-distribution missions.PRX Quantum, 5:030101, Jul 2024. 21 Paterson, C.et al

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Design and analysis of communication protocols for quantum repeater networks.New Journal of Physics, 18(8):083015, August 2016

    Cody Jones, Danny Kim, Matthew T Rakher, Paul G Kwiat, and Thaddeus D Ladd. Design and analysis of communication protocols for quantum repeater networks.New Journal of Physics, 18(8):083015, August 2016

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    All-photonic quantum repeaters.Nature communications, 6(1):6787, 2015

    Koji Azuma, Kiyoshi Tamaki, and Hoi-Kwong Lo. All-photonic quantum repeaters.Nature communications, 6(1):6787, 2015

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Quantum dots as solid-state sources of entangled photon pairs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05245, 2026

    Xingling Pan, Zhiming Chen, Yingtao Ding, Weibo Gao, Fei Ding, and Zhaogang Dong. Quantum dots as solid-state sources of entangled photon pairs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05245, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Entanglement demonstration on board a nano-satellite.Optica, 7(7):734–737, 2020

    Aitor Villar, Alexander Lohrmann, Xueliang Bai, Tom Vergoossen, Robert Bedington, Chithrabhanu Perumangatt, Huai Ying Lim, Tanvirul Islam, Ayesha Reezwana, Zhongkan Tang, et al. Entanglement demonstration on board a nano-satellite.Optica, 7(7):734–737, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Compact and stable source of polarization-entangled photon-pairs based on a folded linear displacement interferometer.Optics Express, 33(18):38657–38668, 2025

    Sarah E McCarthy, Ali Anwar, Daniel KL Oi, and Loyd J McKnight. Compact and stable source of polarization-entangled photon-pairs based on a folded linear displacement interferometer.Optics Express, 33(18):38657–38668, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Scalability bottlenecks in entanglement-based satellite quantum key distribution: downlink asymmetry, orbit dependence and finite-key effects.preprint https: // doi

    Xingyu Wang, Jiahao Li, Bolong Wang, Yuexiang Cao, Yonghui Li, Haoran Hu, Qian Li, Nan Xiao, Chen Dong, Kai Guo, and Lei Shi. Scalability bottlenecks in entanglement-based satellite quantum key distribution: downlink asymmetry, orbit dependence and finite-key effects.preprint https: // doi. org/ 10. 21203/ rs. 3. rs-8708341/ v1, 2026

    work page 2026

  27. [27]

    Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics.Nature, 414(6862):413–418, 2001

    L-M Duan, Mikhail D Lukin, J Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics.Nature, 414(6862):413–418, 2001

    work page 2001

  28. [28]

    Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(4):045006, 2023

    Koji Azuma, Sophia E Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin. Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(4):045006, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Munro, Koji Azuma, Kiyoshi Tamaki, and Kae Nemoto

    William J. Munro, Koji Azuma, Kiyoshi Tamaki, and Kae Nemoto. Inside quantum repeaters.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 21(3):78–90, 2015

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Entanglement over global distances via quantum repeaters with satellite links.Physical Review A, 91(5):052325, 2015

    K Boone, J-P Bourgoin, E Meyer-Scott, K Heshami, T Jennewein, and C Simon. Entanglement over global distances via quantum repeaters with satellite links.Physical Review A, 91(5):052325, 2015

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Feasibility of satellite-augmented global quantum repeater networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11127, 2026

    Manik Dawar, Clement Paillet, Nilesh Vyas, Andrew Thain, Rodrigo Henriques Guilherme, and Ralf Riedinger. Feasibility of satellite-augmented global quantum repeater networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11127, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Bayerbach, Simone E

    Matthias J. Bayerbach, Simone E. D’Aurelio, Peter van Loock, and Stefanie Barz. Bell-state measurement exceeding 50% success probability with linear optics.Science Advances, 9(32):eadf4080, 2023

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Quarc: Quantum research cubesat—a constellation for quantum communication.Cryptography, 4(1):7, 2020

    Luca Mazzarella, Christopher Lowe, David Lowndes, Siddarth Koduru Joshi, Steve Greenland, Doug McNeil, Cassandra Mercury, Malcolm Macdonald, John Rarity, and Daniel Kuan Li Oi. Quarc: Quantum research cubesat—a constellation for quantum communication.Cryptography, 4(1):7, 2020

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Plenio and Shashank Virmani

    Martin B. Plenio and Shashank Virmani. An introduction to entanglement measures.Quantum Info. Comput., 7(1):1–51, January 2007

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Quantum entanglement.Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2):865–942, June 2009

    Ryszard Horodecki, Pawe l Horodecki, Micha l Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2):865–942, June 2009

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation.Phys

    Micha l Horodecki, Pawe l Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. General teleportation channel, singlet fraction, and quasidistillation.Phys. Rev. A, 60:1888–1898, Sep 1999

    work page 1999

  37. [37]

    Satellite-based quantum information networks: use cases, architecture, and roadmap.Communications Physics, 6(1):12, 2023

    Laurent de Forges de Parny, Olivier Alibart, Julien Debaud, Sacha Gressani, Alek Lagarrigue, Anthony Martin, Alexandre Metrat, Matteo Schiavon, Tess Troisi, Eleni Diamanti, et al. Satellite-based quantum information networks: use cases, architecture, and roadmap.Communications Physics, 6(1):12, 2023

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Simulating quantum repeater strategies for multiple satellites

    Julius Walln¨ ofer, Frederik Hahn, Mustafa G¨ undo˘ gan, Jasminder S Sidhu, Fabian Wiesner, Nathan Walk, Jens Eisert, and Janik Wolters. Simulating quantum repeater strategies for multiple satellites. Communications Physics, 5(1):169, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Ledingham, Kutlu Kutluer, Margherita Mazzera, and Hugues de Riedmatten

    Mustafa G¨ undo˘ gan, Patrick M. Ledingham, Kutlu Kutluer, Margherita Mazzera, and Hugues de Riedmatten. Solid state spin-wave quantum memory for time-bin qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 114:230501, Jun 2015. 22 Paterson, C.et al

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    A millisecond quantum memory for scalable quantum networks.Nature Physics, 5(2):95–99, 2009

    Bo Zhao, Yu-Ao Chen, Xiao-Hui Bao, Thorsten Strassel, Chih-Sung Chuu, Xian-Min Jin, J¨ org Schmiedmayer, Zhen-Sheng Yuan, Shuai Chen, and Jian-Wei Pan. A millisecond quantum memory for scalable quantum networks.Nature Physics, 5(2):95–99, 2009

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    Optically addressable nuclear spins in a solid with a six-hour coherence time.Nature, 517(7533):177–180, 2015

    Manjin Zhong, Morgan P Hedges, Rose L Ahlefeldt, John G Bartholomew, Sarah E Beavan, Sven M Wittig, Jevon J Longdell, and Matthew J Sellars. Optically addressable nuclear spins in a solid with a six-hour coherence time.Nature, 517(7533):177–180, 2015

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Towards highly multimode optical quantum memory for quantum repeaters.Phys

    Pierre Jobez, Nuala Timoney, Cyril Laplane, Jean Etesse, Alban Ferrier, Philippe Goldner, Nicolas Gisin, and Mikael Afzelius. Towards highly multimode optical quantum memory for quantum repeaters.Phys. Rev. A, 93:032327, Mar 2016

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Erbium-doped fibre quantum memory for chip-integrated quantum-dot single photons at 980 nm

    Nasser Gohari Kamel, Arsalan Mansourzadeh, Ujjwal Gautam, Vinaya Kumar Kavatamane, Ashutosh Singh, Edith Yeung, David B Northeast, Paul Barclay, Philip J Poole, Dan Dalacu, et al. Erbium-doped fibre quantum memory for chip-integrated quantum-dot single photons at 980 nm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01416, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Quantum storage of 1650 modes of single photons at telecom wavelength.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):19, 2024

    Shi-Hai Wei, Bo Jing, Xue-Ying Zhang, Jin-Yu Liao, Hao Li, Li-Xing You, Zhen Wang, You Wang, Guang-Wei Deng, Hai-Zhi Song, et al. Quantum storage of 1650 modes of single photons at telecom wavelength.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):19, 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Faithfully simulating near-term quantum repeaters.PRX Quantum, 5(1), March 2024

    Julius Walln¨ ofer, Frederik Hahn, Fabian Wiesner, Nathan Walk, and Jens Eisert. Faithfully simulating near-term quantum repeaters.PRX Quantum, 5(1), March 2024

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    All-photonic one-way quantum repeaters with measurement-based error correction.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):106, 2023

    Daoheng Niu, Yuxuan Zhang, Alireza Shabani, and Hassan Shapourian. All-photonic one-way quantum repeaters with measurement-based error correction.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):106, 2023

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Optimal entanglement distribution policies in homogeneous repeater chains with cutoffs.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):46, 2023

    ´Alvaro G I˜ nesta, Gayane Vardoyan, Lara Scavuzzo, and Stephanie Wehner. Optimal entanglement distribution policies in homogeneous repeater chains with cutoffs.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):46, 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Parameter regimes for a single sequential quantum repeater.Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):034002, apr 2018

    F Rozp¸ edek, K Goodenough, J Ribeiro, N Kalb, V Caprara Vivoli, A Reiserer, R Hanson, S Wehner, and D Elkouss. Parameter regimes for a single sequential quantum repeater.Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):034002, apr 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres

    J Yin, Y-H Li, S-K Liao, M Yang, Y Cao, L Zhang, J-G Ren, W-Q Cai, W-Y Liu, S-L Li, R Shu, Y-M Huang, L Deng, L Li, Q Zhang, N-L Liu, Y-A Chen, C-Y Lu, X-B Wang, F Xu, X-B Wang, C-Z Peng, AK Ekert, and J-W Pan. Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres. Nature, 582:501–505, 2020

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Design and test of optical payload for polarization encoded qkd for nanosatellites

    Jaya Sagar, Elliott Hastings, Peide Zhang, Milan Stefko, David Lowndes, Daniel Oi, John Rarity, and Siddarth K Joshi. Design and test of optical payload for polarization encoded qkd for nanosatellites. InQuantum Technology: Driving Commercialisation of an Enabling Science III, volume 12335, pages 64–70. SPIE, 2023

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Cubesat quantum communications mission.EPJ Quantum Technology, 4(1), April 2017

    Daniel KL Oi, Alex Ling, Giuseppe Vallone, Paolo Villoresi, Steve Greenland, Emma Kerr, Malcolm Macdonald, Harald Weinfurter, Hans Kuiper, Edoardo Charbon, and Rupert Ursin. Cubesat quantum communications mission.EPJ Quantum Technology, 4(1), April 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Satellites promise global-scale quantum networks.Optica Quantum, 3(6):590–605, 2025

    Sumit Goswami, Sayandip Dhara, Neil Sinclair, Makan Mohageg, Jasminder S Sidhu, Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay, Markus Krutzik, John R Lowell, Daniel KL Oi, Mustafa G¨ undo˘ gan, et al. Satellites promise global-scale quantum networks.Optica Quantum, 3(6):590–605, 2025

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Entangled photon-pair sources based on three-wave mixing in bulk crystals.Review of Scientific Instruments, 92(4), 2021

    Ali Anwar, Chithrabhanu Perumangatt, Fabian Steinlechner, Thomas Jennewein, and Alexander Ling. Entangled photon-pair sources based on three-wave mixing in bulk crystals.Review of Scientific Instruments, 92(4), 2021

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Boosting end-to-end entanglement fidelity in quantum repeater networks via hybridized strategies

    Poramet Pathumsoot, Theerapat Tansuwannont, Naphan Benchasattabuse, Ryosuke Satoh, Michal Hajduˇ sek, Poompong Chaiwongkhot, Sujin Suwanna, and Rodney Van Meter. Boosting end-to-end entanglement fidelity in quantum repeater networks via hybridized strategies. In2024 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC), page...

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    A comprehensive design and performance analysis of low earth orbit satellite quantum communication.New Journal of Physics, 15(2):023006, 2013

    Jean-Philippe Bourgoin, Evan Meyer-Scott, Brendon L Higgins, B Helou, Chris Erven, Hannes Huebel, B Kumar, D Hudson, Ian D’Souza, Ralph Girard, et al. A comprehensive design and performance analysis of low earth orbit satellite quantum communication.New Journal of Physics, 15(2):023006, 2013

    work page 2013

  56. [56]

    A. Berk, P. Conforti, R. Kennett, T. Perkins, F. Hawes, and J. van den Bosch. Modtran®6: A major upgrade of the modtran®radiative transfer code. In2014 6th Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS), pages 1–4, 2014. 23 Paterson, C.et al Appendices A Single OGS Links The simplest kind of space quantum lin...

    work page 2014