Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Quantum-Aware Network Planning and Integration

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum-aware wavelength assignment allows CV-QKD to coexist with classical WDM traffic on deployed fiber with minimal impact on either capacity, provided a few-percent QKD capacity margin is reserved.

desk verdict Honest invited overview of prior CV-QKD planning simulations; the value is the planning insight, not new results, and the authors openly flag the SpRS model dependence that limits the main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05351 v2 pith:UGF2MUT6 submitted 2025-05-08 quant-ph

Cédric Ware , Mounia Lourdiane This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionCV-QKDquantum-classicalcoexistencewavelengthassignmentspontaneousRamanscatteringnetworkplanningclassicalcapacityblockingprobability
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

This paper argues that adding continuous-variable quantum key distribution (CV-QKD) to already-deployed optical fiber does not have to cost classical network capacity, as long as planning is quantum-aware. In simulations on a small seven-node network, allocating QKD traffic first and then adding classical lightpaths can clog links once QKD capacity is exhausted, because any extra classical power raises spontaneous Raman scattering above the QKD noise limit. The proposed fix has two parts: a quantum-aware wavelength assignment heuristic that places classical channels to minimize Raman noise at the QKD channel, and a small few-percent margin of unallocated QKD capacity that leaves each link some noise tolerance. With both, the simulated classical blocking probability returns essentially to the level of a network carrying no QKD at all. The authors frame this as evidence that coexistence is a network-planning problem, not only a device problem.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SpRS noise floor: spontaneous Raman scattering spreads photons from each classical channel over a broad spectrum of roughly 15 THz in silica fiber, so it cannot be removed by filtering and becomes the dominant crosstalk term at high power. The QAWA heuristic treats this spectrum as a cost landscape, choosing a QKD wavelength where the summed SpRS from neighboring classical channels is minimal, then packing classical channels around it. The second mechanism is the QKD capacity margin: by leaving a few percent of each link's QKD capacity unallocated, the noise budget is not fully consumed, so a link can accept classical power without pushing QKD beyond its noise limit. Together these convert a hard coexistence limit into a soft planning tradeoff.

What would settle it

Rerun the same seven-node simulation replacing the Raman-spectrum model used here with the competing published model that favors the high-frequency side of the C band. If the quantum-aware wavelength assignment no longer brings classical blocking back to the no-QKD baseline, the claimed benefit is an artifact of the chosen spectrum rather than a general property of the heuristic. A direct measurement of the Raman gain spectrum on deployed standard single-mode fiber across the C band would settle which placement is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that spontaneous Raman scattering (SpRS) is the dominant obstacle to quantum-classical coexistence in the C band, and that this obstacle can be planned around. Using a model of secure key rate versus attenuation and SpRS, the authors simulate a scaled seven-node mesh network in which CV-QKD traffic is allocated first and classical lightpaths afterward. They find that a naive QKD-first allocation can saturate a link's noise budget and thereby block all classical traffic on that link, isolating parts of a low-connectivity network. A quantum-aware wavelength assignment (QAWA), which places classical channels around the QKD channel to minimize SpRS, combined with reserving a few percent of QKD capacity as margin, makes the classical blocking probability nearly identical to the no-QKD baseline. The paper is explicit that this result depends on the SpRS spectral model; a competing published model would place the QKD channel on the opposite side of the C band.

Load-bearing premise

The whole benefit of the heuristic depends on the exact shape of the Raman noise spectrum across the C band; the paper itself notes that a different published model would place the optimal quantum channel at the opposite end of the band.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Network operators can host CV-QKD on deployed fiber without dedicating dark fibers, as long as planning tools include the quantum channel in the wavelength assignment problem.
  • QKD-first allocation without margins is risky in low-connectivity topologies: exhausting one link's noise budget can isolate nodes and cut classical capacity disproportionately.
  • Reserving a few percent of QKD capacity as margin is a nearly free insurance policy: it costs little QKD throughput and removes most of the classical blocking penalty.
  • The accuracy of the SpRS model becomes a first-order planning input; the same heuristic can give opposite channel placements depending on which model is trusted.
  • The joint-optimization approach is expected to extend to entanglement distribution networks, though the authors note that more complex topologies and variable connectivity need further study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable engineering rule follows that the authors do not state explicitly: operators should provision QKD demand forecasts with deliberate headroom of a few percent, treating the margin as a noise-budget buffer rather than unused capacity.
  • Because SpRS is broadband, the size of the QAWA benefit will depend on how finely classical channels can be spaced around the QKD channel; repeating the simulation on a coarse fixed ITU grid would quantify how much of the gain survives in practice.
  • The same methodology could be turned into a field-deployment test: measure the Raman spectrum of a specific fiber span, run the heuristic with that measured spectrum, and compare classical blocking against the mid-band rule, decoupling the heuristic's value from the disputed model.
  • The clogging result suggests a broader principle: when a fragile service has a hard noise budget in a shared medium, reserving headroom on the fragile service is cheaper than reserving capacity on the robust one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript, an invited ICTON paper, argues that integrating CV-QKD into deployed optical networks requires network-level planning tools that jointly manage quantum and classical traffic. After reviewing physical limits (attenuation, decoherence, linear and nonlinear crosstalk) and management issues, it describes simulation studies on a 7-node Spanish-based topology in which CV-QKD and classical WDM channels share the C-band. QKD traffic is allocated first, with a capacity margin; classical lightpaths are then allocated around the chosen CV-QKD channel. The findings are: (i) in the authors' SpRS model, the middle of the C-band appears to be the best CV-QKD channel placement, while the alternative model in [18] favors the high-frequency side; (ii) prioritizing QKD without a margin can 'clog' links to classical traffic; and (iii) combining QKD margin reservation with a quantum-aware wavelength assignment (QAWA) heuristic gives classical blocking nearly identical to a classical-only baseline. The conclusion calls for further work on more complex topologies and more accurate SpRS models.

Significance. If the reported results hold, they offer a practical planning rule: network operators can host CV-QKD on existing C-band WDM fiber and reserve a small amount of QKD capacity to protect classical traffic almost entirely. The paper is commendably explicit about its limitations: it acknowledges the SpRS-model dependence (Section IV-B1), the low-connectivity topology, and the need for further studies. The qualitative clogging mechanism is physically plausible, and the QAWA heuristic is a concrete contribution beyond point-to-point coexistence demonstrations. However, the paper's significance is currently conditional: the key quantitative claim is supported by simulations whose details are not in this manuscript, and the leading physical input model (SpRS from [30]) is explicitly contradicted by another model cited by the authors themselves.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B1, Fig. 1(b)] The placement recommendation is load-bearing: the QAWA heuristic places the CV-QKD channel where the SpRS model from [30] predicts minimal noise, and the near-zero classical blocking in Fig. 1(c) depends on that placement being optimal or near-optimal. Yet the same paragraph states that the SpRS model in [18] suggests the opposite placement (high-frequency side of the C band). This is not a small parameter shift: the two models disagree to the extent that the heuristic could select the best location under one model and the worst under the other. The manuscript should quantify the spectral difference between [18] and [30], rerun the network simulation with both models, and state the regime in which QAWA helps versus hurts. As written, the central 'minimal impact' claim is robust only if [30] is accurate, and the paper itself supplies a reason to doubt that.
  2. [IV-A, Fig. 1(c)] The simulation details needed to reproduce or evaluate the key figure are missing. The text gives the topology, the distance scaling factor Lambda between 10^-2 and 10^-1, 280 Mbit/s network-wide CV-QKD traffic with 12% margins, and per-channel classical launch powers of 0 or -10 dBm, but it does not specify the exact SKR model from [22], the SpRS gain model from [30], the WDM channel grid, the classical demand arrival model, the lightpath routing and wavelength assignment algorithm, the noise acceptance criterion, or how blocking probability is computed. Fig. 1(c) is attributed to [19], so the present paper alone does not allow the reader to verify the result. The authors should add a full parameter table, clarify whether the plotted curve is a single instance or an average, and provide error bars or a range across demand patterns.
  3. [IV-B2] The 'clogging' model is an all-or-nothing threshold: once a CV-QKD link's capacity is fully allocated, the text states that adding any optical power for classical channels would push SpRS noise above acceptable limits, so the link becomes unavailable to classical traffic. This is a strong modeling assumption; in reality, CV-QKD secure key rate degrades continuously as SpRS noise grows, and a small classical power increment may cause only a small key-rate reduction. The margin strategy's benefit appears to rely on this binary clogging behavior, so the simulation may overstate both the danger and the cure. The authors should either justify the threshold (e.g., a minimal SKR below which no keys can be extracted) or implement a continuous noise-to-key-rate relationship and re-evaluate the margin and QAWA results under that model.
  4. [Abstract, Section V] The statement that 'a quantum-aware wavelength assignment heuristic allows coexistence with minimal impact on both capacities' is broader than what the simulations demonstrate. The reported result is for one 7-node low-connectivity topology, a particular CV-QKD load (280 Mbit/s with 12% margins), and a particular SpRS model. The paper itself says the effect occurred 'in certain situations,' and Section V acknowledges the need for studies on more complex topologies. I recommend that the abstract and conclusion explicitly state the conditions under which minimal impact was observed, and avoid implying a general guarantee.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'contraints' should be 'constraints'; also check that the LaTeX escape 'na\"ive' renders correctly as 'naïve' in the published version.
  2. [IV-B1] The heuristic is written as 'QAW A' in the text of Section IV-B1; use 'QAWA' consistently throughout.
  3. [Fig. 1(b)] The y-axis of Fig. 1(b) is not described in the caption or text; please add a clear label with units (e.g., SpRS noise power in dBm) and state whether higher or lower is better.
  4. [Reference [19]] Because Fig. 1(c) is explicitly 'Previously published in [19],' the paper should clarify which results, if any, are new to this manuscript and which are reproduced from the earlier ECOC paper.
  5. [II-B] The subsection on decoherence and latency is only loosely connected to the network planning results; either integrate it with the simulation discussion or shorten it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation uses external physical models and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a simulation study: CV-QKD SKR is modeled from Laudenbach et al. [22] and SpRS from Bromage [30], both external references; the network topology comes from Net2Plan [33]; and no constant or parameter is fitted to the headline blocking result. The QAWA heuristic is an optimization rule defined to choose channel placement and classical-channel allocation that minimizes SpRS under that model, so evaluating it with the same propagation model is an algorithm-in-the-loop test, not a circular prediction; the network-level blocking outcome still depends on topology and routing, so it is not a tautology. The key figure is previously published in the authors' own [19], but the current paper reports the result as its own ongoing study rather than deriving it from a self-citation, and the underlying physical models are independent. The paper explicitly flags the main robustness caveat: another SpRS model [18] suggests the opposite optimal placement, which is a model-uncertainty and correctness concern, not circularity. No equation-level reduction or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation rests on standard but unverified physical models (SKR and SpRS), a simplifying trusted-relay networking model, and an abrupt clogging threshold. Three scenario parameters are hand-chosen: 280 Mbit/s of CV-QKD demand, a 12% capacity margin, and a distance scale Lambda. No new physical entities are postulated; the QAWA is an algorithmic heuristic, not an entity. The main load-bearing assumption is model accuracy, acknowledged by the authors in Section IV-B1 and the Conclusion.

free parameters (3)
  • QKD link capacity margin = 12%
    The coexistence benefit is demonstrated by reserving a 12% margin on CV-QKD traffic allocation; this value is a hand-selected scenario choice, not derived from a principle.
  • Distance scaling factor Lambda = 10^-2 to 10^-1 (exact values omitted)
    The Madrid topology distances are uniformly scaled to make CV-QKD feasible; the specific scaling is chosen by hand and determines which links are congested.
  • Network-wide CV-QKD traffic = 280 Mbit/s
    Traffic demand level is an input scenario, not an output; the qualitative congestion findings depend on it.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SKR depends on attenuation and SpRS exactly as in the models of [22] and [30].
    Section IV-A states 'We modeled SKR as a function of attenuation... and SpRS... according to [22] for SKR and [30] for SpRS'; the central simulation outputs inherit any error in these physical models.
  • ad hoc to paper A link whose CV-QKD capacity is fully allocated is completely clogged to any added classical power.
    Section IV-B2: 'after the full capacity of a CV-QKD link is allocated, adding any optical power for classical channels would push the SpRS noise above acceptable limits'; this abrupt threshold is an unverified modeling choice.
  • domain assumption All network nodes are trusted relays for QKD and transparent for classical traffic.
    Section IV-A: 'All nodes were treated as trusted relays aggregating QKD traffic, and transparent for classical traffic'; this is a simplifying networking assumption affecting routing and capacity results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Aware Network Planning and Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGF2MUT6

@misc{pith2026250505351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Aware Network Planning and Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGF2MUT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05351}
}
read the original abstract

In order to broaden the adoption of highly-demanded quantum functionalities such as QKD, there is a need for having quantum signals coexist with classical traffic over the same physical medium, typically optical fibers in already-deployed networks. Beyond the experimental point-to-point demonstrations of the past few years, efforts are now underway to integrate QKD at the network level: developing interfaces with the software-defined-network ecosystem; but also network planning tools that satisfy physical-layer contraints jointly on the classical and quantum signals. We have found that in certain situations, na\"ive network planning prioritizing quantum traffic drastically degrades classical capacity, whereas a quantum-aware wavelength assignment heuristic allows coexistence with minimal impact on both capacities. More such techniques will be required to enable widespread deployment of QKD and other future quantum functionalities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Network topology with 7 nodes and 8 bidirectional links, adapted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Potential impact of CV-QKD integration on classical WDM network capacity,

    C. Ware, R. Aymeric, C. Zidi, and M. Lourdiane, “Potential impact of CV-QKD integration on classical WDM network capacity,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 34 no. 18, (2022) 957–960

    work page 2022

  2. [19]

    Minimal impact network-wide heuristics for the coexistence of classical and CV-QKD signals in the C-band,

    V . V . Garbhapu, C. Ware, and M. Lourdiane, “Minimal impact network-wide heuristics for the coexistence of classical and CV-QKD signals in the C-band,” in ECOC 2024; 50th European Conference on Optical Communication, no. W4A.1, pp. 1412–1415, VDE. Sept., 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [30]

    Raman amplification for fiber communications systems,

    J. Bromage, “Raman amplification for fiber communications systems,” J. Lightw. Technol. 22 no. 1, (Jan., 2004) 79. https://opg.optica.org/jlt/abstract.cfm?URI=jlt-22-1-79

    work page 2004

  4. [18]

    SDN-enabled CV-QKD and classical channels coexistence: key insights for dense wavelength division multiplexing,

    M. Iqbal, M. S. Moreolo, R. Mu ˜noz, L. Nadal, A. Villegas, J. M. Rivas-Moscoso, S. Sarmiento, A. Melgar, P. Adillon, J. Tabares, and S. Etcheverry, “SDN-enabled CV-QKD and classical channels coexistence: key insights for dense wavelength division multiplexing,” IEEE J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 17 no. 6, (June, 2025) B28–B37. https://opg.optica.org/jocn/abstrac...

    work page 2025

  5. [22]

    Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution with Gaussian Modulation -- The Theory of Practical Implementations

    F. Laudenbach, C. Pacher, C.-H. F. Fung, A. Poppe, M. Peev, B. Schrenk, M. Hentschel, P. Walther, and H. H ¨ubel, “Continuous-variable quantum key distribution with gaussian modulation—the theory of practical implementations,” Advanced Quantum Technologies (2018) 1800011, arXiv:1703.09278 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [1]

    Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution,

    J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, “Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution,” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 361 no. 1809, (2003) 1655–1674. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3559215

    work page arXiv 2003

  7. [2]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,” Science 362 no. 6412, (2018) eaam9288. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aam9288

    doi:10.1126/science.aam9288 2018

  8. [3]

    The SECOQC quantum key distribution network in vienna,

    M. Peev, C. Pacher, R. All ´eaume, C. Barreiro, J. Bouda, W. Boxleitner, T. Debuisschert, E. Diamanti, M. Dianati, J. F. Dynes, et al., “The SECOQC quantum key distribution network in vienna,” New Journal of Physics 11 no. 7, (July, 2009) 075001. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/075001. This article has been accepted for publication in the Intern...

    arXiv 2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [4]

    Field test of quantum key distribution in the tokyo QKD network,

    M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwara, H. Ishizuka, W. Klaus, K. Wakui, M. Takeoka, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, A. Tanaka, et al., “Field test of quantum key distribution in the tokyo QKD network,” Opt. Express 19 no. 11, (May, 2011) 10387–10409. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?UR...

    2011

  2. [5]

    Implementation of a 46-node quantum metropolitan area network,

    T.-Y . Chen, X. Jiang, S.-B. Tang, L. Zhou, X. Yuan, H. Zhou, J. Wang, Y . Liu, L.-K. Chen, W.-Y . Liu,et al., “Implementation of a 46-node quantum metropolitan area network,” npj Quantum Information 7 no. 1, (Sept., 2021) 134

    2021

  3. [6]

    MadQCI: a heterogeneous and scalable SDN-QKD network deployed in production facilities,

    V . Martin, J. P. Brito, L. Ort ´ız, R. Mendez, J. Buruaga, R. Vicente, A. Sebastian-Lombrana, D. Rincon, F. Perez, C. Sanchez, et al., “MadQCI: a heterogeneous and scalable SDN-QKD network deployed in production facilities,” npj Quantum Information 10 no. 1, (2024) 80

    2024

  4. [7]

    Development of a boston-area 50-km fiber quantum network testbed,

    E. Bersin, M. Grein, M. Sutula, R. Murphy, Y . Q. Huan, M. Stevens, A. Suleymanzade, C. Lee, R. Riedinger, D. J. Starling, et al., “Development of a boston-area 50-km fiber quantum network testbed,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 21 (Jan., 2024) 014024. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Phys...

    2024 doi

  5. [8]

    Integrating quantum key distribution with classical communications in backbone fiber network,

    Y . Mao, B.-X. Wang, C. Zhao, G. Wang, R. Wang, H. Wang, F. Zhou, J. Nie, Q. Chen, Y . Zhao, et al., “Integrating quantum key distribution with classical communications in backbone fiber network,” Opt. Express 26 no. 5, (Mar., 2018) 6010–6020. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstrac...

    2018

  6. [9]

    Review on quantum communication and quantum computation,

    J. Chen, “Review on quantum communication and quantum computation,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1865 no. 2, (Apr.,

  7. [10]

    Longer-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters,

    D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, “Longer-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (Aug., 2012) 070503. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.070503

    2012 doi

  8. [11]

    Quantum sensing,

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 (July, 2017) 035002. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035002

    2017 doi

  9. [12]

    Coexistence of continuous variable QKD with intense DWDM classical channels,

    R. Kumar, H. Qin, and R. All ´eaume, “Coexistence of continuous variable QKD with intense DWDM classical channels,” New Journal of Physics 17 no. 4, (2015) 043027, arXiv:1412.1403 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [13]

    Quantum teleportation coexisting with classical communications in optical fiber,

    J. M. Thomas, F. I. Yeh, J. H. Chen, J. J. Mambretti, S. J. Kohlert, G. S. Kanter, and P. Kumar, “Quantum teleportation coexisting with classical communications in optical fiber,” Optica 11 no. 12, (Dec.,

  11. [14]

    Symbiotic joint operation of quantum and classical coherent communications,

    R. Aymeric, Y . Jaou ¨en, C. Ware, and R. All ´eaume, “Symbiotic joint operation of quantum and classical coherent communications,” in Optical Fiber Communication Conference , no. W2A.37. Mar., 2022. arXiv:2202.06942 [quant-ph] . Poster

    2022 arXiv

  12. [16]

    Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, “Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (Dec., 2023) 045006. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045006

    2023 doi

  13. [17]

    A blueprint for large-scale quantum-network deployments,

    A. Sebasti ´an-Lombra˜na, H. H. Brunner, J. P. Brito, R. B. M ´endez, R. J. Vicente, J. S. Buruaga, L. Ortiz, C.-H. F. Fung, M. Peev, J. M. Rivas-Moscoso, et al., “A blueprint for large-scale quantum-network deployments,” arXiv:2409.01069 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [20]

    Quantum network planning for utility maximization,

    S. Pouryousef, H. Shapourian, A. Shabani, and D. Towsley, “Quantum network planning for utility maximization,” in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Quantum Networks and Distributed Quantum Computing , QuNet ’23, p. 13–18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , US...

    2023

  15. [21]

    Towards real-world quantum networks: a review,

    S.-H. Wei, B. Jing, X.-Y . Zhang, J.-Y . Liao, C.-Z. Yuan, B.-Y . Fan, C. Lyu, D.-L. Zhou, Y . Wang, G.-W. Deng, et al., “Towards real-world quantum networks: a review,” Laser & Photonics Reviews 16 no. 3, (2022) 2100219

    2022

  16. [23]

    1002 km twin-field quantum key distribution with finite-key analysis,

    Y . Liu, W.-J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J.-P. Chen, D. Ma, C. Zhang, W.-X. Pan, H. Dong, J.-M. Xiong, C.-J. Zhang, et al., “1002 km twin-field quantum key distribution with finite-key analysis,” Quantum Frontiers 2 no. 1, (2023) 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44214-023-00039-9

    2023 doi

  17. [24]

    Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution over 100-km fiber with local local oscillator,

    A. A. E. Hajomer, I. Derkach, N. Jain, H.-M. Chin, U. L. Andersen, and T. Gehring, “Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution over 100-km fiber with local local oscillator,” Science Advances 10 no. 1, (2024) eadi9474. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sc...

    2024 doi

  18. [25]

    0.174 dB/km hollow core double nested antiresonant nodeless fiber (DNANF),

    G. T. Jasion, H. Sakr, J. R. Hayes, S. R. Sandoghchi, L. Hooper, E. N. Fokoua, A. Saljoghei, H. C. Mulvad, M. Alonso, A. Taranta, et al., “0.174 dB/km hollow core double nested antiresonant nodeless fiber (DNANF),” in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2022 , no. Th4...

    2022

  19. [26]

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

    M. Petrovich, E. N. Fokoua, Y . Chen, H. Sakr, A. I. Adamu, R. Hassan, D. Wu, R. F. Ando, A. Papadimopoulos, S. R. Sandoghchi, G. Jasion, and F. Poletti, “First broadband optical fibre with an attenuation lower than 0.1 decibel per kilometre,” arXiv:2503.21467 [physics.optics]

    arXiv

  20. [27]

    Telecommunication compatibility evaluation for co-existing quantum key distribution in homogenous multicore fiber,

    R. Lin, A. Udalcovs, O. Ozolins, X. Pang, L. Gan, M. Tang, S. Fu, S. Popov, T. F. D. Silva, G. B. Xavier, and J. Chen, “Telecommunication compatibility evaluation for co-existing quantum key distribution in homogenous multicore fiber,” IEEE Access 8 (2020) 78836–78846

    2020

  21. [28]

    Coexistence of discrete-variable QKD with WDM classical signals in the C-band for fiber access environments,

    D. Zavitsanos, G. Giannoulis, A. Raptakis, C. Papapanos, F. Setaki, E. Theodoropoulou, G. Lyberopoulos, C. Kouloumentas, and H. Avramopoulos, “Coexistence of discrete-variable QKD with WDM classical signals in the C-band for fiber access environments,” in 2019 21st Internation...

    2019

  22. [29]

    Multiple-vibrational-mode model for fiber-optic raman gain spectrum and response function,

    D. Hollenbeck and C. D. Cantrell, “Multiple-vibrational-mode model for fiber-optic raman gain spectrum and response function,” Journal of the Optical Society of America B 19 no. 12, (2002) 2886–2892

    2002

  23. [31]

    First demonstration of 25 λ × 10 gb/s C+L band classical / DV-QKD co-existence over single bidirectional fiber link,

    F. Honz, F. Prawits, O. Alia, H. Sakr, T. Bradley, C. Zhang, R. Slav ´ık, F. Poletti, G. Kanellos, R. Nejabati, P. Walther, D. Simeonidou, H. H ¨ubel, and B. Schrenk, “First demonstration of 25 λ × 10 gb/s C+L band classical / DV-QKD co-existence over single bidirectional fibe...

    2023

  24. [32]

    QSNP - quantum secure networks partnership

    “QSNP - quantum secure networks partnership.” https://qsnp.eu/. European Quantum Flagship Project

  25. [33]

    Net2plan: an open source network planning tool for bridging the gap between academia and industry,

    P. Pavon-Marino and J.-L. Izquierdo-Zaragoza, “Net2plan: an open source network planning tool for bridging the gap between academia and industry,” IEEE Netw. 29 no. 5, (2015) 90–96

    2015

  26. [34]

    Entanglement routing design over quantum networks,

    Y . Zeng, J. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Liu, and Y . Yang, “Entanglement routing design over quantum networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 32 no. 1, (2024) 352–367

    2024

  27. [35]

    End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network,

    S. Pirandola, “End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network,” Communications Physics 2 no. 1, (2019) 51

    2019

  28. [36]

    Quantum network utility maximization,

    G. Vardoyan and S. Wehner, “Quantum network utility maximization,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01, pp. 1238–1248. 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00140

    2023

  29. [2021]

    https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1865/2/022008

    022008. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1865/2/022008

    doi

  30. [2024]

    https://opg.optica.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica-11-12-1700

    1700–1707. https://opg.optica.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica-11-12-1700

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.