Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Clock Synchronization for Drone-Based Entanglement Quantum Key Distribution

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GNSS pulses plus entanglement correlations hold drone QKD clocks to 24 ± 12 ps RMS.

desk verdict A competent tabletop demo of a plausible two-stage sync protocol, but the 24 ps headline measures the loop's residual, not synchronization accuracy against an independent clock. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07831 v1 pith:XAOM4XVD submitted 2025-06-09 quant-ph

Jinquan Huang , Bangying Tang , Hui Han , JianJi Yi , Bo Xu , Chunqing Wu , Xiangwei Zhu , Wanrong Yu
show 4 more authors
Huicun Yu Jiahao Li Shihai Sun Bo Liu
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords clocksynchronizationentanglement-basedQKDdronequantumnetworksGNSSPPStimingtemporal-slicedentanglementcorrectioncoincidencemeasurementjitterSWaPconstraints
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 claims that two low-precision, drone-compatible timing ingredients—a GNSS pulse-per-second signal and the arrival-time correlations of entangled photon pairs—can replace a dedicated precision clock in mobile entanglement-based quantum key distribution. It proposes a two-stage protocol: first align timestamps coarsely to the GNSS pulse, then split the coincidence data into short temporal blocks and use each block's coincidence-peak offset to correct residual drift. In a tabletop free-space channel with the optical delay swept at 300 ps/s to mimic motion, the protocol holds clock drift at $24\pm12$ ps RMS over one hour, at coincidence rates as low as 219 counts per second per channel pair and channel losses up to 7.5 dB. If true, drone platforms can keep the picosecond-level timing that entanglement measurements need without rubidium clocks or dedicated synchronization pulses, which matters because timing jitter inflates accidental coincidences and cuts secure key rates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temporal offset of the entangled-photon coincidence peak: because the two photons of a pair are detected at different nodes at times whose difference equals the propagation delay plus the clock offset, the position of the intensity-correlation peak continuously encodes the relative clock error. The machinery has two stages: PPS-TA uses the GNSS pulse sequence to align timestamps coarsely at nanosecond accuracy, and TSEC slices the coincidence histogram into temporal sub-blocks, computes the mean offset $\bar\mu_s$ for each slice, and linearly interpolates a correction to every timestamp, driving residual jitter down to the level set by photon statistics and timestamp-transfer error. The argument is carried by the error-propagation equations, the linearization criterion $S_{\min}$ set by drift acceleration, and the minimum-pair bound $N_s$ from Cramér–Rao analysis.

What would settle it

Run the protocol at both ends of a moving link while each node also logs time against an independent trusted clock, such as a rubidium reference, and make the link distance accelerate and jerk instead of moving at constant speed; if the external clock disagrees with the protocol's corrected timestamps by much more than 24 ps, the claimed precision is an artifact of self-referencing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that residual timing error left over after a coarse GNSS alignment can be pushed to tens of picoseconds by using the entangled photons themselves as a continuously updated clock reference, even while the channel length changes. The protocol, coarse pulse-per-second alignment (PPS-TA) followed by temporal-sliced entanglement correction (TSEC), treats a one-second block of coincidence data as a sequence of sub-blocks in which the clock drift is approximately linear; the mean offset $\bar\mu_s$ of each sub-block is estimated from the intensity-correlation peak, and a linear interpolation assigns a corrected time to every detected photon. The central experimental result is a measured $24\pm12$ ps RMS clock drift over one hour against a programmed 300 ps/s relative delay, with no observable increase in timing jitter as loss rose to 7.5 dB and a sustained 259 bps secure key rate at a 5.63% quantum bit error rate. The paper also derives resource bounds—a minimum sub-block count set by drift acceleration and a minimum entangled-pair count per block from a Cramér–Rao analysis—and reports a dual-pointer correlation algorithm that processes both timestamp streams in $7.49\pm0.74$ ms on a low-power mini-PC, making the correction loop fast enough for real-time use.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the corrected photon-pair coincidence peak is a faithful readout of true clock disagreement, and that the laboratory's steady 300 ps/s delay ramp represents real drone motion; if either fails, the 24 ps figure may not transfer to flight.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Drone-to-drone entanglement QKD can operate with a 20 cm by 20 cm, 0.3 kg timing board built around a nanosecond GNSS receiver and a $\pm1.0$ ppm/year oscillator, with no precision reference clock.
  • At 7.5 dB channel loss and 219 cps coincidence rate per channel pair, the protocol still yielded a 259 bps secure key rate at 5.63% quantum bit error rate, so timing is not the limiting factor at practical loss levels.
  • Real-time correction is compatible with constrained onboard computing: the dual-pointer algorithm processed $144\times10^3$ and $133\times10^3$ detection events in $7.49\pm0.74$ ms on a low-power mini-PC.
  • The reported $24\pm12$ ps precision lands in the same range as systems built on rubidium clocks or dedicated synchronization pulses, but without those hardware requirements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 24 ps figure is read from the same coincidence-peak offset the protocol corrects, so it measures residual noise of the feedback loop rather than agreement with an independent clock; anchoring both nodes to an external trusted time reference would separate absolute clock error from photon-statistics noise.
  • The experiment emulates motion as a constant 0.1 m/s delay ramp, so a field trial with acceleration, attitude jitter, and GNSS multipath would directly stress the linear-drift assumption that sub-blocking relies on.
  • Because the coincidence peak is available in any entanglement-distribution link, the same two-stage idea should transfer to other distributed quantum tasks needing remote time alignment, such as Bell-state measurements for quantum repeaters or entanglement swapping between mobile nodes.
  • The $S_{\min}$ bound suggests an adaptive variant that shortens temporal sub-blocks during fast maneuvers and lengthens them in stable cruise, balancing linearization error against photon statistics per block.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-stage clock-synchronization protocol for entanglement-based QKD on drones: coarse alignment using GNSS PPS time tags, followed by temporal-sliced entanglement correction (TSEC) that re-estimates the coincidence-peak offset in short sub-blocks and linearly interpolates the clock correction between them. The authors derive error bounds for PPS-TA and TSEC, present simulations of sub-block partitioning, and report a tabletop experiment in which an optical delay line emulates a 300 ps/s relative delay ramp and a variable attenuator emulates channel loss. Over a 1-hour run they report a residual clock drift of 24 ± 12 ps RMS at coincidence rates down to 219 cps per channel pair, together with a dual-pointer correlation algorithm that runs in milliseconds.

Significance. The practical goal—picosecond-class synchronization on SWaP-constrained drone platforms using only GNSS PPS and a low-stability crystal oscillator—is well motivated, and the tabletop apparatus is a reasonable physical emulation of the loss and delay dynamics. The paper contains a genuine experimental implementation with a polarization-entangled source, optical delay line, variable attenuator, SNSPDs, and a 1-hour stability run; the O(n) dual-pointer correlation algorithm with measured 7.49 ± 0.74 ms processing time is a useful engineering contribution. If the synchronization precision were validated against an independent time base, the protocol would be a meaningful step toward mobile entanglement-based QKD. However, the headline 24 ± 12 ps figure is currently not anchored: it is measured on the same corrected coincidence peaks that the protocol itself adjusts, and the supporting error analysis contains inconsistencies that need to be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 6(c)] The reported 24 ± 12 ps RMS 'clock drift' is derived from the temporal offset of the corrected coincidence peak, which is the same observable that the TSEC stage (Eqs. 8–11) uses to re-estimate and correct the timestamps. The residual therefore characterizes the closed-loop error of an estimator applied to its own training observable, not agreement with an independent time base. Given that the TTM has 45 ps RMS jitter and the GNSS PPS has 10–20 ns jitter, no measurement in the paper rules out the possibility that the 24 ps figure reflects a smoothed, low-bandwidth residual rather than genuine picosecond clock agreement. Please add an independent validation, for example a loop-back measurement against a common calibrated reference clock or a comparison of Alice's and Bob's time tags against a disciplined external timebase, and report the raw (unfiltered) residual distribution as well as the MAD-filtered one.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)–(A4)] The error-propagation derivation for PPS-TA is not dimensionally consistent. In Eq. (A3), the first term is dimensionless while the second term has units of time squared if t_Sync is treated as a normalized fraction; in Eq. (A4) the second term contains an explicit factor n that contradicts the statement that 'all errors scale as 1/n'. The text also states that tSync_i ∈ [0,1] immediately after defining tSync in Eq. (3) as a quantity that ranges over the alignment window. Please rederive this propagation with consistent definitions and verify the 1/n scaling against a Monte Carlo simulation of the PPS resampling.
  3. [Section III.B.2, Eq. (13); Appendix D, Eq. (D6)] The minimum photon-pair requirements are inconsistent. Equation (13) gives Ns ≥ 0.5 under the stated assumptions, whereas Appendix D, Eq. (D6), with the paper's own typical parameters σ_TSEC = 100 ps and γ = 50 ps, gives N ≥ 15.36. The 1-hour experiment operates at 219 cps per channel pair; with S = 20 and a 1 s block, this is about 11 pairs per sub-block, which lies between these two conflicting bounds. The paper should state which bound is the operative one for the claimed 24 ps precision and should reconcile the two derivations, since the statistical significance of the sub-block mean is load-bearing for the TSEC claim.
  4. [Section IV and Eq. (12)] The dynamic test uses an optical delay line that produces a constant 300 ps/s relative delay ramp, i.e., a constant velocity with zero acceleration. TSEC's per-sub-block linear interpolation can track a constant ramp exactly, so the experiment does not exercise the acceleration term that Eq. (12) is designed to bound, and the claim of robustness under 'distance dynamics' should be limited to constant-velocity motion unless an accelerated scenario is also tested. The conversion in Table I of γ = 0.3 ps/ms² as 'equivalent to 0.1 m/s channel distance variation' also mixes acceleration and velocity units and should be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) writes pA_m = pG_m + σ²_p and qB_m = qG_m + σ²_q; this should be pA_m = pG_m + ε_p with ε_p ~ N(0, σ²_PPS), since a variance is not added to a time.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The expression for σ²_TS is dimensionally inconsistent: |∂(ΔtB_j)/∂tB_j| σ_tB has units of time, while (σ_tB_i/Δτ_s)² is dimensionless. Please correct the units and the definition.
  3. [Section IV] The phrase 'The correction coincidence count rate' should read 'the corrected coincidence count rate', and 'Fig. 6(b) characteristic the clock drift' should read 'characterizes the clock drift'.
  4. [Section III.B.2] The sentence 'it simultaneously decreases the number of entangled of entangled photon pairs per sub-block' contains a duplicated phrase and should be edited.
  5. [Fig. 6(c) caption] The caption should explicitly define how the clock drift is estimated from the coincidence-peak offset and state whether the plotted values are raw or MAD-filtered residuals, since 2.83% of samples were removed before reporting the 24 ± 12 ps value.
  6. [Abstract and Section V] The phrase 'without requiring precision reference clock' should be clarified to mean that no precision clock is required at the drone nodes; the laboratory validation of the claimed precision would still benefit from an independent reference, as noted in the major comments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 24±12 ps RMS 'clock drift' is computed from the same coincidence-peak offsets that TSEC itself estimates and corrects, so it measures closed-loop residual jitter, not synchronization against an independent clock.

  1. self definitional [Section III.A.2 (TSEC, Eqs. 8-11) and Section IV / Fig. 6(b)-(c); claimed again in Section V.]
    "The mean offset of the sub-block can be expressed as M = [¯µ1, ¯µ2, ...,¯µs], where ¯µs = 1 Ns P k∈∆τs ∆tAB k ... ∆tB j = tSync,B j + ∆tprop + σ2 TSEC = α(µs − µs−1) + µn + σ2 TSEC (8) ... Fig. 6(b) characteristic the clock drift around 3600 s. ... The clock drift demonstrates stability 24 ±12 ps. ... (c) Clock drift (derived from coincidence peak offset) over time."

    TSEC's control input is the coincidence-peak offset ∆tAB: the sub-block mean µ_s = (1/N_s) Σ ∆tAB_k is inserted into Eq. (8) to re-time Bob's timestamps. The paper's only long-term stability metric is Fig. 6(c), explicitly 'clock drift (derived from coincidence peak offset)'. Thus the 24±12 ps value is the residual of the correction loop evaluated on the same observable it was built to null, not an independent measurement of Alice-Bob clock agreement. Because the abstract claims operation 'without requiring precision reference clock', no rubidium/maser/high-stability oscillator provides an external anchor. The headline precision is therefore self-referential: the fitted/corrected quantity and the reported result are the same by construction.

full rationale

The central validation loop is self-referential: PPS-TA plus TSEC (Eqs. 3-11) uses the temporal offset of coincidence peaks (µ_s) to correct Bob's timestamps, and the reported 24±12 ps RMS 'clock drift' is read from the same corrected coincidence-peak offset (Fig. 6(c)). With no independent rubidium/maser reference, the number cannot distinguish genuine picosecond clock agreement from a smoothed residual of the estimator acting on its own control variable; the claim 'without requiring precision reference clock' removes the only external check. This is a partial circularity of the headline precision metric, not a collapse of the whole protocol: QBER/SKR versus loss, the simulation curves, and the O(n) correlation algorithm are externally meaningful and would remain valid even if the 24 ps figure were re-interpreted as loop residual. The internal minimum-pair bounds are inconsistent (Eq. 13 gives N_s ≥ 0.5 while Appendix D, Eq. D6, gives N ≥ 15.36 for the stated parameters; the 219 cps-per-channel-pair rate with S=20 implies ~11 pairs per sub-block), and the emulated 300 ps/s delay is a constant ramp that a per-sub-block linear interpolation can track exactly, leaving the acceleration term in Eq. 12 unexercised. These are correctness/scope risks rather than additional circular steps. Self-citations [25,26] appear only in background remarks and are not load-bearing. Overall score 6: the central 'prediction' (synchronization precision) reduces by construction to the corrected observable, but the surrounding engineering and QKD results are independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. Its central claim rests on standard statistical modeling and on several performance-related assumptions: the Gaussian jitter model, the linear drift model per sub-block, the specific device jitter numbers, and the post-hoc outlier filter. The free parameters are mostly simulation inputs and one experimental choice (S=20). The largest concern is not the ledger's extent but the internal consistency of the derived bounds in the main text versus the appendices.

free parameters (4)
  • Sub-block count S (experiment) = S = 20
    The experiment fixes S=20 for all loss conditions, but the text says the optimal S depends on loss and brightness; no tuning procedure or stability analysis of the choice is given.
  • MAD outlier-rejection threshold and fraction = 10×MAD; 102 of 3600 samples removed (2.83%)
    The 1-hour drift statistics (24 ± 12 ps) are reported after removing 2.83% of samples as outliers; the paper gives no criterion for why this threshold is valid or how the RMS changes without rejection.
  • Simulated delay-drift rate for the dynamic channel = 300 ps/s (0.1 m/s)
    A fixed linear rate is used to emulate drone motion; it does not include acceleration, vibration, or GNSS outage, and the paper does not characterize performance under realistic non-linear dynamics.
  • Simulation constants (gamma, sigma_p, count rates) = gamma=0.3 ps/ms², sigma_p=1000 ps, various in Table I
    These are illustrative simulation inputs chosen by the authors, consistent with Table I, but the experimental precision claim does not depend on them; they affect the boundary formula examples in Appendices C and D.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gaussian error propagation for the normalized timestamp ratio in Appendix A (Eq. A1-A4).
    The paper relies on first-order variance propagation, which is standard. The specific application in A4, including the second term scaling with the PPS jitter over the PPS interval, is what produces the questionable large residual jitter; the authors do not explain why their experimental 24 ps is consistent with it.
  • domain assumption Gaussian statistics for coincidence counts and mean-offset estimators.
    Appendices C and D assume i.i.d. Gaussian timing offsets for the Cramer-Rao bound and Neyman-Pearson test, and implicitly assume sufficient counts for Gaussian fits of coincidence peaks, which is typical for this field but not proven for the low 219 cps regime.
  • domain assumption Linearity of clock drift within each temporal sub-block.
    The TSEC stage subdivides data into slices and linearly interpolates the correction; the validity is governed by Eq. C2-C4, which itself assumes a Taylor expansion with bounded acceleration. The assumption is standard but is the mathematical heart of the correction method.
  • domain assumption Detector and TTM jitter values (45 ps RMS), GNSS PPS jitter (10-20 ns), SNSPD efficiency (80%), PDM efficiency (90%) as stated in the text.
    Performance numbers are taken from vendor specifications and the authors' own system (Section IV); they are not independently verified in this paper, and the GNSS jitter value of 10-20 ns is quoted as a range.
  • standard math The satellite/free-space channel models and key-rate equations (Eqs. E1-E8) taken from prior literature.
    The simulation and key-rate formulas use standard free-space Gaussian beam models and the Shor-Preskill key-rate formula, cited to refs [36,37]. This is accepted background in the subfield.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clock Synchronization for Drone-Based Entanglement Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAOM4XVD

@misc{pith2026250607831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clock Synchronization for Drone-Based Entanglement Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAOM4XVD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07831}
}
read the original abstract

Drone-based entanglement distribution provides full spatiotemporal coverage for quantum networks, enabling quantum key distribution (QKD) in dynamic environments. The security of QKD fundamentally depends on high-fidelity quantum state measurements, for which high-precision clock synchronization is indispensable, as timing jitter is inversely correlated with quantum state fidelity. However, drone-based clock synchronization is constrained by SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) limitations and dynamic mobility effects. Here, we propose a synchronization protocol for drone-based entanglement distribution, leveraging nanosecond-accurate Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) timing and entanglement-based timing correction to overcome SWaP constraints. Experimental results demonstrate 24 ps RMS synchronization in simulated free-space quantum channels with distance dynamics, without requiring precision reference clock. Our protocol enables drone-based entanglement distribution, paving the way for seamless wide-area and local-area quantum internet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Drone-based entanglement-based QKD scheme.The polarization entangled photon source (EPS) is mounted on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig.2. The first stage performs PPS-TA by coarse identification of coincidence events with PPS synchronization. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Two-stage clock synchronization protocol for entanglement-based QKD. (a) First-stage coarse synchronization via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Simulation of clock synchronization performance. (a) Trade-offs between sub-block count, channel loss, and timing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The tabletop experimental setup for drone-based entanglement-based QKD. The free-space quantum channel is ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Secure key rate versus channel loss. Comparison of experimental results (independent markers) and numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. One-hour continuous measurement of system stability. (a) Alice’s and Bob’s photon count rate as functions of time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The PPS signal sequence for Alice and Bob are record as {pA k } and {qB m} by TTM

    PPS-based Temporal Alignment In the GNSS-based clock synchronization system, GNSS time serves as the common reference. The PPS signal sequence for Alice and Bob are record as {pA k } and {qB m} by TTM. Accounting for jitter both the GNSS and TTM, the PPS signal can be expressed as: pA m = pG m + σ2 p and qB m = qG m + σ2 q . (2) where pG m and qG m repres...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The intensity correlation data blocks are subdivided into sub-blocks T = [∆τ1, ∆τ2, ...,∆τs] for processing

    Temporal-Sliced Entanglement Correction TSEC statistically analyzes entangled photon-pairs correlation within τw to compensate time jitter in coincidence peak. The intensity correlation data blocks are subdivided into sub-blocks T = [∆τ1, ∆τ2, ...,∆τs] for processing. ∆ t 5 can be approximated as linear within a relative small sub-intervals. Therefore, th...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Smin can be determined based on σTSEC within each integration period Ts

    Minimum temporal segmentation The duration of sub-block governs the validity of linear approximation for clock drift within each. Smin can be determined based on σTSEC within each integration period Ts. The segmentation criterion requires that the maximum second-order error induced by clock drift acceleration must not exceed the permitted linearization to...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Under the assumption of statistically equivalent adjacent sub-blocks with equal photon-pair counts(Ns−1 = Ns) and identical offset variances ( σ2 us−1 = σ2 us )

    Minimum photon-pairs per temporal segment The statistical significance of mean offset within each sub-block constitutes the critical determinant for the precision of linear compensation. Under the assumption of statistically equivalent adjacent sub-blocks with equal photon-pair counts(Ns−1 = Ns) and identical offset variances ( σ2 us−1 = σ2 us ). When the...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The additional term σ2 T accounts for residual errors in time synchronization

    System time uncertainty The total time uncertainty experienced by the drone quantum entanglement distribution of entangled photon pairs is ∆T = q σ2 J + σ2 T (E1) Here, σ2 J = p σ2 C + σDet + σTTM denotes the total system jitter, comprising contributions from the photon coherence time σ2 C, detector timing jitter σDet, and TTM jitter σTTM. The additional ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    1 + 0.83 · sec(θ) DT r0 5/3#3/5 (E4) The efficiency of link is given as: η0 = SR · exp[−τ · sec(θE)] · ( 1 − exp

    F ree-space channel loss The spatial intensity distribution of the optical beam between drone nodes follows a Gaussian profile: I(r, l) = I0 × e −2r2 ω2 0 (E2) where I0 = 2P πω 2 0 is the peak intensity derived from total power P = R ∞ 0 I (r) · 2πr dx= I0 πω 2 0 2 , with ω0 representing the effective beam waist at the receiver: ω0 = q ω2 L + (σT · l)2 (E...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The QBER induced by clock uncertainty is γT/2

    Security key rate The total measurement error of entanglement distribution can be expressed as [36, 37] E = ητ BηAηBe0 + γT/2 ητ BηAηB + γT (E7) where ητ BηAηBe0 represents the errors arising from the non-ideal characteristics of the devices. The QBER induced by clock uncertainty is γT/2. γ = (BηA + 2DCA) (BηB + 2DCB) ∆T (E8) where B represents the bright...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Wengerowsky, S

    S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, J. R. Zichi, S. M. Dobrovolskiy, R. Van Der Molen, J. W. N. Los, V. Zwiller, M. A. M. Versteegh, A. Mura, D. Calonico, M. Inguscio, H. H¨ ubel, L. Bo, T. Scheidl, A. Zeilinger, A. Xuereb, and R. Ursin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 6684 (2019). 15

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Wengerowsky, S

    S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, J. R. Zichi, B. Liu, T. Scheidl, S. M. Dobrovolskiy, R. van der Molen, J. W. N. Los, V. Zwiller, M. A. M. Versteegh, A. Mura, D. Calonico, M. Inguscio, A. Zeilinger, A. Xuereb, and R. Ursin, npj Quantum Information 6, 5 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    S. P. Neumann, A. Buchner, L. Bulla, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Nature Communications 13, 6134 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. Liu, Z. Lin, D. Liu, X. Feng, F. Liu, K. Cui, Y. Huang, and W. Zhang, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 015003 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ursin, F

    R. Ursin, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, T. Scheidl, M. Lindenthal, B. Blauensteiner, T. Jen- newein, J. Perdigues, P. Trojek, B. ¨Omer, M. F¨ urst, M. Meyenburg, J. Rarity, Z. Sodnik, C. Barbieri, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Physics 3, 481 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Ecker, B

    S. Ecker, B. Liu, J. Handsteiner, M. Fink, D. Rauch, F. Steinlechner, T. Scheidl, A. Zeilinger, and R. Ursin, npj Quantum Information 7, 5 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    F. B. Basset, M. Valeri, E. Roccia, V. Muredda, D. Poderini, J. Neuwirth, N. Spagnolo, M. B. Rota, G. Carvacho, F. Scia- rrino, and R. Trotta, Science Advances 7, eabe6379 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abe6379

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Basso Basset, M

    F. Basso Basset, M. Valeri, J. Neuwirth, E. Polino, M. B. Rota, D. Poderini, C. Pardo, G. Rodari, E. Roccia, S. F. Covre da Silva, G. Ronco, N. Spagnolo, A. Rastelli, G. Carvacho, F. Sciarrino, and R. Trotta, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Krˇ ziˇ c, S

    A. Krˇ ziˇ c, S. Sharma, C. Spiess, U. Chandrashekara, S. T¨ opfer, G. Sauer, L. J. Gonz´ alez-Mart ´ ın del Campo, T. Kopf, S. Petscharnig, T. Grafenauer, R. Lieger, B. ¨Omer, C. Pacher, R. Berlich, T. Peschel, C. Damm, S. Risse, M. Goy, D. Riel¨ ander, A. T¨ unnermann, and F...

    2023

  9. [17]

    J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, G.-B. Li, Q.-M. Lu, Y.-H. Gong, Y. Xu, S.-L. Li, F.-Z. Li, Y.-Y. Yin, Z.-Q. Jiang, M. Li, J.-J. Jia, G. Ren, D. He, Y.-L. Zhou, X.-X. Zhang, N. Wang, X. Chang, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu,...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Yin, Y.-H

    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, J.-Y. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, A. K. Ekert, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 582, 501 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Liu, X.-H

    H.-Y. Liu, X.-H. Tian, C. Gu, P. Fan, X. Ni, R. Yang, J.-N. Zhang, M. Hu, J. Guo, X. Cao, X. Hu, G. Zhao, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-X. Gong, Z. Xie, and S.-N. Zhu, National Science Review 7, 921 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/7/5/921/39623417/nwz227.pdf

    2020

  12. [20]

    Liu, X.-H

    H.-Y. Liu, X.-H. Tian, C. Gu, P. Fan, X. Ni, R. Yang, J.-N. Zhang, M. Hu, J. Guo, X. Cao, X. Hu, G. Zhao, Y.-Q. Lu, Y.-X. Gong, Z. Xie, and S.-N. Zhu, Physical Review Letters 126, 020503 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    H. Hong, R. Quan, X. Xiang, W. Xue, H. Quan, W. Zhao, Y. Liu, M. Cao, T. Liu, S. Zhang, and R. Dong, Journal of Lightwave Technology 40, 3723 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Pelet, G

    Y. Pelet, G. Sauder, S. Tanzilli, O. Alibart, and A. Martin, Entanglement-based clock syntonization for quantum key distribution networks. Demonstration over a 50 km-long link (2025), arXiv:2501.16796 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, J.-G. Ren, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, M. Li, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 119, 200501 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Rahmouni, P

    A. Rahmouni, P. S. Kuo, Y. S. Li-Baboud, I. A. Burenkov, Y. Shi, M. V. Jabir, N. Lal, D. Reddy, M. Merzouki, L. Ma, A. Battou, S. V. Polyakov, O. Slattery, and T. Gerrits, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking16, 781 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Rahmouni, P

    A. Rahmouni, P. S. Kuo, Y. Shi, M. V. Jabir, N. Lal, I. A. Burenkov, Y. Li-Baboud, M. Merzouki, A. Battou, S. V. Polyakov, O. Slattery, and T. Gerrits, in 2024 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO)(2024) pp. 01–02

    2024

  18. [26]

    E. F. Dierikx, A. E. Wallin, T. Fordell, J. Myyry, P. Koponen, M. Merimaa, T. J. Pinkert, J. C. J. Koelemeij, H. Z. Peek, and R. Smets, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 63, 945 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Gerrits, I

    T. Gerrits, I. A. Burenkov, Y. Li-Baboud, A. Rahmouni, D. M. Anand, Hala, O. Slattery, A. Battou, and S. V. Polyakov, in Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics, Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (Optica Publishing Group, 2022) p. FM1C.2

    2022

  20. [28]

    D. C. Burnham and D. L. Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 25, 84 (1970)

    1970

  21. [29]

    Valencia, G

    A. Valencia, G. Scarcelli, and Y. Shih, Applied Physics Letters 85, 2655 (2004), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/85/13/2655/19329044/2655\ 1\ online.pdf

    2004

  22. [30]

    C. Ho, A. Lamas-Linares, and C. Kurtsiefer, New Journal of Physics 11, 045011 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    B. Shi, H. Hong, X. Xiang, R. Quan, Y. Liu, T. Liu, S. Zhang, and R. Dong, Optics Express 32, 43805 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    B.-Y. Tang, M. Tian, H. Chen, H. Han, H. Zhou, S.-C. Li, B. Xu, R.-F. Dong, B. Liu, and W.-R. Yu, EPJ Quantum Technology 10, 50 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    J. Li, H. Han, X. Huang, B. Tang, K. Guo, J. Huang, S. Xiong, W. Yu, Z. Zhang, J. Yang, B. Liu, H. Chen, and Z. Lu, AAPPS Bulletin 34, 32 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Bulla, M

    L. Bulla, M. Pivoluska, K. Hjorth, O. Kohout, J. Lang, S. Ecker, S. P. Neumann, J. Bittermann, R. Kindler, M. Huber, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Physical Review X 13, 021001 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Spiess, S

    C. Spiess, S. T¨ opfer, S. Sharma, A. Krˇ z ˇ ziˇ c ˇ c, M. Cabrejo-Ponce, U. Chandrashekara, N. L. D¨ oll, D. Riel¨ ander, and F. Steinlechner, Physical Review Applied 19, 054082 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    X.-H. Tian, R. Yang, H.-Y. Liu, P. Fan, J.-N. Zhang, C. Gu, M. Chen, M. Hu, F.-Y. Lu, C. Zhu, Z.-Q. Yin, Z.-J. Yin, M. Yuan, S. Wang, W. Chen, Y.-X. Gong, S.-N. Zhu, and Z. Xie, Physical Review Letters 133, 200801 (2024). 16

    2024

  29. [37]

    Fs740-gps/gnss time and frequency system, https://www.thinksrs.com/downloads/pdfs/catalog/FS740c.pdf (2025), accessed on May 15, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    DJI, https://www.dji.com/cn/flycart-30/specs (2025), accessed on May 15, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    R. Ma, Z. Guo, D. Chen, X. Dai, Y. Xiao, C. Zhang, J. Xiong, J. Huang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, L. Rong, H. Li, X. Zhang, and L. You, Advanced Photonics Nexus 4, 026003 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Bouleau, Some historical aspects of error calculus by Dirichlet forms, in Interdisciplinary Mathematical Sciences, Vol

    N. Bouleau, Some historical aspects of error calculus by Dirichlet forms, in Interdisciplinary Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 17 (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2015) pp. 85–105

    2015

  33. [41]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946)

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical Methods of Statistics(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1946)

    1946

  34. [42]

    Neyman, E

    J. Neyman, E. S. Pearson, and K. Pearson, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 231, 289 (1933), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.1933.0009

    1933

  35. [43]

    S. P. Neumann, T. Scheidl, M. Selimovic, M. Pivoluska, B. Liu, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Physical Review A 104, 022406 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    S. P. Neumann, D. Ribezzo, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 025017 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Alshowkan, B

    M. Alshowkan, B. P. Williams, P. G. Evans, N. S. Rao, E. M. Simmerman, H.-H. Lu, N. B. Lingaraju, A. M. Weiner, C. E. Marvinney, Y.-Y. Pai, B. J. Lawrie, N. A. Peters, and J. M. Lukens, PRX Quantum 2, 040304 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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