Joint Encryption and Error Correction for Secure Quantum Communication

Abhishek Parakh; Mahadevan Subramaniam; Nitin Jha

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Joint Encryption and Error Correction for Secure Quantum Communication

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper integrates CSS error correction into the three-stage quantum communication protocol, making encryption and error correction a single process that transmits arbitrary qubit states.

desk verdict The paper combines CSS codes with Kak's three-stage protocol, but the final Z-basis measurement kills the arbitrary-qubit claim, and the error analysis never addresses three-stage noise accumulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18133 v2 pith:I6XEQUSY submitted 2025-05-23 quant-ph cs.NI

Nitin Jha , Abhishek Parakh , Mahadevan Subramaniam This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.NI MSC 81P6881P7081P94 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Pp03.67.Dd

keywords quantumsecuredirectcommunicationthree-stageprotocolCSScodeserrorcorrectionjointencryptionarbitraryqubitsSteanecodeprivacyamplification

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

The paper argues that quantum encryption and quantum error correction need not be separate stages: it fuses the three-stage secure quantum communication protocol with Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) codes into one integrated process. In the combined protocol, Alice encodes each logical qubit with a CSS code, both parties apply their secret rotation operators during three transmissions, and Bob runs CSS syndrome correction only after the final unrotation, so the encrypted and encoded state is corrected in one shot. The authors claim this is the first such joint scheme, that it works for arbitrary qubit states rather than just classical bit strings, and that it needs no quantum memory or entanglement. A reader should care because a single integrated process would reduce overhead for future quantum networks that must both protect and correct qubit transmissions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-stage protocol's commuting secret rotation operators, $U_A(\theta)$ and $U_B(\phi)$, applied to every qubit of a CSS-encoded block. The CSS code, built from two classical linear codes $C_1,C_2$ with $C_2^\perp \subseteq C_1$, defines the logical states $|0_L\rangle$ and $|1_L\rangle$ as uniform superpositions over cosets, so bit-flip and phase-flip errors can be diagnosed by stabilizer measurements. The protocol's core step is to run the full three-stage rotation sequence first and then apply CSS syndrome correction at the very end, which is what makes encryption and error correction a single integrated process.

What would settle it

Simulate the full protocol with the Steane code, applying independent depolarizing noise with per-qubit error probability $p$ on each of the three legs, performing the secret rotations exactly as specified, and measuring how often the decoded logical qubit differs from the input; if the logical error rate is significantly worse than the rate predicted for a single channel use with the same total noise, the assumption that the three legs' errors merge into one correctable error fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that CSS error correction can be layered onto the three-stage protocol without disturbing the commuting-rotation encryption. With the Steane [[7,1,3]] code, each logical qubit is a superposition over a classical code; Alice applies a secret rotation to every encoded qubit, Bob applies his own, Alice removes hers, and finally Bob removes his and uses the CSS stabilizers to detect and correct any single bit-flip or phase-flip error on the recovered state. Because all operations are unitary and commute, the encoding and Alice's encryption rotation can be combined into one step, and no measurement occurs until Bob's final decoding. The paper also adapts the existing collision-entropy privacy amplification argument to bound Eve's information about the resulting key.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the noise picked up during the three separate transmissions (Alice to Bob, Bob to Alice, Alice to Bob again) combines into a single error on the final state that the CSS syndrome measurement can detect and correct, after the secret rotations have been applied and removed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the protocol works as described, Alice can send output qubits from a quantum algorithm directly to Bob as arbitrary states, with encryption and error correction in one integrated step and no measurement until the final decoding.
The scheme requires no quantum memory and no entanglement, only single qubits traveling back and forth, so it could be implemented with current photonic technology.
Because there is no basis mismatch, the protocol retains about $4n$ qubits instead of the $2n$ typical of BB84-style prepare-and-measure protocols, making it more efficient under the paper's assumptions.
The adapted privacy amplification argument implies the final key can be made almost uniformly random relative to Eve by choosing the hash length $m$ so that $2^{m-d}$ is negligible.
The combined protocol corrects at least one bit-flip and one phase-flip error, matching the capability of the CSS code used.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural stress test the paper does not perform: simulate three independent noisy legs and check whether the final CSS decoding still meets the single-use error-correction threshold; the answer determines whether the integrated scheme is actually valid under realistic noise.
The commuting-rotation structure is generic, so the same integration might be attempted with other stabilizer codes, e.g., LDPC or topological codes, if their stabilizers commute with the secret rotations.
The protocol's security analysis borrows BB84-style privacy amplification, but Eve observes the state three times in flight, so a full proof would need to bound the leaked information across all three exposures, not just a single channel use.
The claimed $4n$ qubit retention ignores attenuation loss; since the state traverses the channel three times, the effective loss per qubit is multiplied, and the padding factor $\delta$ would need to grow correspondingly in a real fiber deployment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Thanks for sending this over. I agree with the reader: reject, but the interesting part is that the combination itself is new. The authors take Kak's three-stage QSDC scheme and bolt on CSS codes, which nobody seems to have done in exactly this form. The motivation is sensible: if you're sending a qubit through the channel three times, you need to handle noise from each leg, and integrating code and encryption is a worthwhile goal. They also give a worked Steane-code example, which helps the reader see the mechanics.

That said, the central claim in the abstract and intro — that this transmits arbitrary qubits — is false on the face of it. Step 5 instructs Bob to measure all qubits in the Z-basis after error correction, and steps 6–9 are classical sifting and post-processing. If Alice had sent α|0⟩+β|1⟩, that measurement collapses it. The protocol is prepare-and-measure key distribution, not QSDC of arbitrary states. The stress-test note is right, and it lands in the ideal noiseless case, so no amount of error correction can fix it.

The other soft spots are equally load-bearing. Section 2 never analyzes how errors from the three transmissions combine before Bob's final syndrome measurement. The secret rotations are unitary and commute, but channel noise is not unitary and does not commute with the rotations; the noise operators get conjugated between stages, and the paper doesn't touch that. Also, Eq. (2) gives the CSS dimension as k=k1+k2, while Eq. (21) uses k=k1−k2. The standard construction is k=k1−k2, so the earlier formula is simply wrong. Small thing: the example in Section 2 uses x⊕v where the text says x−v; that's notation friction, not fatal.

The security analysis is borrowed from Wei et al.'s BB84 protocol without verifying that the conditions carry over. That's a common shortcut, but here it matters because the three-stage protocol has a different information structure. And the paper's own statement that this is the 'first' joint scheme is overstated: earlier work by Parakh already coupled error correction with three-stage, as cited.

So: the combination is new and worth a paragraph in a future paper, but the protocol as written does not do what it claims. It needs a real fix — show how to transmit a superposition and measure in a way that preserves it, or re-scope the claim to key distribution. As it stands, I would not send this to peer review; a referee would quickly find the same contradictions. If the authors revise, the interesting kernel is there, but this version is not refereeing-ready.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes combining the Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) quantum error-correction code with Kak's three-stage secure quantum communication protocol, claiming a 'single integrated process' for joint encryption and error correction that also allows arbitrary qubits to be transmitted. The protocol encodes classical bits into CSS logical states, applies Alice's and Bob's secret rotations over three channel traversals, and then lets Bob perform a CSS syndrome measurement. Steps 6–9 add sifting, information reconciliation, and privacy amplification, and Section 3 derives a code-rate bound and invokes Wei et al.'s privacy-amplification theorem. A worked example using Steane's [[7,1,3]] code is presented.

Significance. Making the three-stage protocol robust to channel noise is a worthwhile goal, and the protocol retains some attractive features of the three-stage approach, notably the absence of quantum memory and the use of commuting secret rotations. If the central claim were established, the scheme would be a useful step toward noise-tolerant quantum secure direct communication. The manuscript also correctly identifies a real gap in prior work: most QSDC protocols rely on memory or entanglement, and most QECC integrations are limited to QKD. However, the present version does not deliver the claimed result. The final measurement step destroys arbitrary quantum states, the CSS code parameters are internally inconsistent, and the error-accumulation analysis is missing. These are load-bearing correctness issues, not presentation problems.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Steps 1 and 5; abstract and Section 1] The protocol's own final step contradicts the claim that arbitrary qubits are transmitted. Step 1 encodes only the classical states |0⟩ and |1⟩, as shown in Eq. (5), and Step 5 instructs Bob, after error correction, to 'measure the qubits in the globally declared basis of choice, i.e., Z-basis.' Any input superposition α|0⟩+β|1⟩ would be projected onto |0⟩ or |1⟩ by this measurement, so the receiver obtains a classical bit, not the transmitted quantum state. This failure occurs even in the ideal noiseless case, so no error-correction analysis can repair it. The later assertion in Section 2 that 'in general, however, Alice may transmit a qubit that is produced as the output of an algorithm' is not supported by any protocol step. At best, the paper describes CSS-encoded three-stage key distribution, not QSDC of arbitrary qubit states.
[Eq. (2) and Eq. (21)] The CSS code dimension is stated inconsistently. Eq. (2) gives Q:[[n,k=k1+k2,min{d1,d2}]], while Section 3, Eq. (21), gives k=k1−k2. For the Steane [[7,1,3]] example, which uses C1=C2 as the [7,4,3] Hamming code, these formulas give k=8 and k=0, respectively, neither of which matches the claimed k=1. The manuscript never specifies which classical codes C1 and C2 are used in the example, nor does it state the standard CSS dimension condition. Because the code parameters are essential to the claimed CSS construction, this inconsistency invalidates the code-rate derivation in Eqs. (21)–(27) and undermines the worked example.
[Section 2, Steps 2–5] The protocol analyzes error correction as if all noise can be lumped into a single final error ε before Bob's syndrome measurement, but the state traverses the channel three times. If the channel errors are E1, E2, and E3, the effective operation seen by Bob's final CSS decoder is approximately UB† E3 UA† E2 UB E1 UA (up to ordering), where UA and UB are the secret rotations. No argument is given that this effective error lies in the correctable set of the CSS code. In particular, because UA and UB are not stabilizer operations, a Pauli error occurring in an early traversal need not be conjugated into a correctable Pauli error at the final syndrome measurement. The paper needs an explicit error model and a proof that all error configurations satisfying the sifting threshold are correctable; without this, the integrated error-correction claim is unproven.
[Section 3, Eqs. (28)–(30)] The privacy-amplification security analysis simply states that Wei et al.'s Theorem [3] 'can be used' for the proposed protocol, without verifying the theorem's hypotheses. In particular, the manuscript does not show that Alice and Bob share identical corrected strings W with negligible failure probability, that W has the required collision entropy conditioned on Eve's information, that the public announcement of x−vk in Step 9 does not reduce that entropy below the needed level, or that the generalized hash function class used satisfies the theorem's conditions. Eq. (29) is asserted with a generic 'd' that is never derived for this protocol. Consequently, the statement in the Conclusions that the protocol is 'equally (if not more) secure than the BB84 protocol' is unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (3)] The quotient notation C2/C1 is not well defined unless C1 is a subspace of C2; the standard CSS construction uses cosets of C2⊥ in C1, and the basis states in Eq. (3) should be defined with C1⊥, not C1, in the coset sum.
[References] The in-text citation 'Wei et al., 2019' corresponds to reference [15], whose listed authors are 'Jia, W., Feng, B., Yu, H. & Bian, Y.'; the attribution should be corrected for consistency.
[Eq. (16) and surrounding text] The stabilizer table in Eq. (16) is garbled and difficult to read; the text also describes checking 'X-gate operations on qubits 1, 3, and 7' for the first stabilizer, but the table row lists X1X3X5X7, so the description and the table should be reconciled.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and notational issues, including 'desgining' in Section 1, the unnumbered use of collision entropy in Section 3, and the inconsistent use of qk in Eqs. (4)–(5) before its meaning is fully defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the CSS/three-stage integration rests on external theorems and no fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed contribution is an integration of CSS error correction with Kak's three-stage protocol. The load-bearing mathematical ingredients are external: the CSS construction and its error-correction guarantees (Calderbank & Shor 1995, used in Eqs. (2)-(3)), the commuting-rotation scheme of Kak's protocol (cited for the commutation of U_A and U_B), and Wei et al.'s privacy-amplification theorem (used in Eqs. (28)-(29)). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; the only adjustable quantity, delta, is a user-set slack for attenuation loss, not inferred from the protocol's own output. The self-citations (refs. 9, 10, 19, 20) support background claims about the robustness of the underlying three-stage protocol and do not supply the correctness or uniqueness of the proposed CSS integration. There is therefore no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. A remaining concern, noted in skeptical reading, is that the protocol's final Z-basis measurement in Section 2, Step 5 conflicts with the abstract's claim of transmitting arbitrary qubits; however, that is a correctness and soundness issue rather than a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol stacks two established ingredients (CSS codes and the three-stage protocol) and then attaches a privacy amplification argument by citation. The unexamined assumptions are that errors from all three transmissions can be corrected in one step and that Wei et al.'s security bound applies unchanged. These are the main structural risks.

assumptions (4)

standard math CSS construction theorem: a quantum CSS code exists for classical codes C1 and C2 with C2_perp subset of C1.
Invoked in Section 1 around Eq (2); the stated dimension formula k=k1+k2 is, however, incorrect (standard formula is k=k1+k2-n for this inclusion).
domain assumption Commutativity and security of Kak's three-stage protocol.
Used throughout Section 2 without proof; the paper takes the base protocol's properties as given from ref 8.
ad hoc to paper Wei et al.'s privacy amplification theorem transfers directly to the three-stage protocol.
Stated in Section 3 ('Security analysis conducted by Wei et al. can be used...'); no argument shows the theorem's conditions hold for rotations in the three-stage scheme.
ad hoc to paper A single CSS syndrome measurement at the end corrects all errors, including errors from three separate channel transmissions.
Section 2, steps 2 to 5; no analysis of error accumulation or conjugation by secret rotations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Encryption and Error Correction for Secure Quantum Communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6XEQUSY

@misc{pith2026250518133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Encryption and Error Correction for Secure Quantum Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6XEQUSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18133}
}

read the original abstract

Secure quantum networks are a bedrock requirement for developing a future quantum internet. However, quantum channels are susceptible to channel noise that introduce errors in the transmitted data. The traditional approach to providing error correction typically encapsulates the message in an error correction code after encryption. Such separate processes incur overhead that must be avoided when possible. We, consequently, provide a single integrated process that allows for encryption as well as error correction. This is a first attempt to do so for secure quantum communication and combines the Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) code with the three-stage secure quantum communication protocol. Lastly, it allows for arbitrary qubits to be transmitted from sender to receiver making the proposed protocol general purpose.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[3]

Grover, L. K. Fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, DOI: 10.1145/237814.237866 (1996)

arXiv 1996
[1]

Bennett, C. H. & Brassard, G. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing.Theor. Comput. Sci.560, 7–11 (2014)

work page 2014
[2]

& Adleman, L

Rivest, R., Shamir, A. & Adleman, L. M. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems.Commun. ACM21, 120–126 (1978)

work page 1978
[4]

& Blume-Kohout, R

Proctor, T., Rudinger, K., Young, K., Nielsen, E. & Blume-Kohout, R. Measuring the capabilities of quantum computers. Nat. Phys.18, 75–79 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

Alagic, G.et al.Status report on the first round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process. Tech. Rep., National Institute of Standards and Technology (2019). NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) - 8240

work page 2019
[6]

Pan, D.et al.The evolution of quantum secure direct communication: On the road to the qinternet.IEEE Commun. Surv. & Tutorials1–1, DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2024.3367535 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

& Radhakrishna, S

Shenoy-Hejamadi, A., Pathak, A. & Radhakrishna, S. Quantum cryptography: Key distribution and beyond.Quanta6, 1–47, DOI: 10.12743/quanta.v6i1.57 (2017). 8.Kak, S. A three-stage quantum cryptography protocol.Foundations Phys. Lett.19, 293–296 (2006)

work page doi:10.12743/quanta.v6i1.57 2017
[9]

& Subramaniam, M

Burr, J., Parakh, A. & Subramaniam, M. Evaluating different topologies for multi-photon quantum key distribution. In Donkor, E., Hayduk, M., Frey, M. R., Jr., S. J. L. & Myers, J. M. (eds.)Quantum Information Science, Sensing, and Computation XIV, vol. 12093, 1209309. International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, Orlando, Florida, United States, 2022)

work page 2022

Show all 24 references

[10]

& Subramaniam, M

Jha, N., Parakh, A. & Subramaniam, M. Effect of noise and topologies on multi-photon quantum protocols. In Hemmer, P. R. & Migdall, A. L. (eds.)Quantum Computing, Communication, and Simulation IV, vol. 12911, 129110G, DOI: 10.1117/12.3000586. International Society for Optics a...

1998 doi
[14]

Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction.Proc

Steane, A. Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction.Proc. Royal Soc. London. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Sci. 452, 2551–2577 (1996)

1996
[16]

& Pan, J.-W

Xu, F., Ma, X., Zhang, Q., Lo, H.-K. & Pan, J.-W. Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices.Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.025002 (2020)

2020 doi
[17]

& Ravishankar, V

Bala, R., Asthana, S. & Ravishankar, V . Combating errors in quantum communication: an integrated approach.Sci. Reports13, 2979, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30178-x (2023)

2023 doi
[18]

In Proceedings of the ACM Turing Celebration Conference-China, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3321408.3326681 (2019)

Hu, Q.et al.A quantum key distribution scheme based on quantum error-avoiding code in decoherence-free subspace. In Proceedings of the ACM Turing Celebration Conference-China, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3321408.3326681 (2019)

2019
[19]

& van Brandwijk, J

Parakh, A. & van Brandwijk, J. Correcting rotational errors in three stage qkd. In2016 23rd International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT), 1–5, DOI: 10.1109/ICT.2016.7500409 (IEEE, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2016)

2016
[20]

Using fewer qubits to correct errors in the three-stage qkd protocol

Parakh, A. Using fewer qubits to correct errors in the three-stage qkd protocol. InQuantum Information Science and Technology IV, vol. 10803 (SPIE, 2018)

2018
[21]

Photonics Res.8, 1522–1531 (2020)

Pan, D., Lin, Z., Wu, J.et al.Experimental free-space quantum secure direct communication and its security analysis. Photonics Res.8, 1522–1531 (2020)

2020
[22]

23.Sheng, Y

Sun, Z., Song, L., Huang, Q.et al.Toward practical quantum secure direct communication: A quantum-memory-free protocol and code design.IEEE Transactions on Commun.68, 5778–5792 (2020). 23.Sheng, Y . B., Zhou, L. & Long, G. L. One-step quantum secure direct communication.Sci. B...

2020
[24]

Paparelle, I., Mousavi, F., Scazza, F.et al.Practical quantum secure direct communication with squeezed states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14322(2023). 8/9

2023 arXiv
[25]

S., Sheng, Y

Zhang, W., Ding, D. S., Sheng, Y . B.et al.Quantum secure direct communication with quantum memory.Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017)

2017
[26]

Chen, Y ., Verma, P. K. & Kak, S. Embedded security framework for integrated classical and quantum cryptography services in optical burst switching networks.Secur. Commun. Networks2, 546–554, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sec.98 (2009). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/1...

2009 doi
[27]

Braunstein, S. L. Quantum error correction for communication with linear optics.Nature394, 47–49, DOI: 10.1038/27803 (1998)

1998 doi
[28]

Vu, V . & Wu, L. Improving the gilbert-varshamov bound for q-ary codes.IEEE Transactions on Inf. Theory51, 3200–3208 (2005)

2005
[29]

& Matsuura, K

Ohata, M. & Matsuura, K. Constructing CSS codes with LDPC codes for the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol (2007). quant-ph/0702184v3

2007 arXiv
[30]

W., El Fifai, M., Verma, P., Kak, S

Chan, K. W., El Fifai, M., Verma, P., Kak, S. & Chen, Y . Security analysis of the multi-photon three-stage quantum key distribution.Int. J. on Cryptogr. Inf. Secur.5, 01–13, DOI: 10.5121/ijcis.2015.5401 (2015). Authors Contributions N.J. is the primary author of the manuscrip...

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [3]

Grover, L. K. Fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, DOI: 10.1145/237814.237866 (1996)

arXiv 1996

[2] [1]

Bennett, C. H. & Brassard, G. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing.Theor. Comput. Sci.560, 7–11 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [2]

& Adleman, L

Rivest, R., Shamir, A. & Adleman, L. M. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems.Commun. ACM21, 120–126 (1978)

work page 1978

[4] [4]

& Blume-Kohout, R

Proctor, T., Rudinger, K., Young, K., Nielsen, E. & Blume-Kohout, R. Measuring the capabilities of quantum computers. Nat. Phys.18, 75–79 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Alagic, G.et al.Status report on the first round of the nist post-quantum cryptography standardization process. Tech. Rep., National Institute of Standards and Technology (2019). NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) - 8240

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Pan, D.et al.The evolution of quantum secure direct communication: On the road to the qinternet.IEEE Commun. Surv. & Tutorials1–1, DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2024.3367535 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

& Radhakrishna, S

Shenoy-Hejamadi, A., Pathak, A. & Radhakrishna, S. Quantum cryptography: Key distribution and beyond.Quanta6, 1–47, DOI: 10.12743/quanta.v6i1.57 (2017). 8.Kak, S. A three-stage quantum cryptography protocol.Foundations Phys. Lett.19, 293–296 (2006)

work page doi:10.12743/quanta.v6i1.57 2017

[8] [9]

& Subramaniam, M

Burr, J., Parakh, A. & Subramaniam, M. Evaluating different topologies for multi-photon quantum key distribution. In Donkor, E., Hayduk, M., Frey, M. R., Jr., S. J. L. & Myers, J. M. (eds.)Quantum Information Science, Sensing, and Computation XIV, vol. 12093, 1209309. International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, Orlando, Florida, United States, 2022)

work page 2022