Enhancing Satellite Quantum Key Distribution with Dual Band Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces

Jinho Choi; Ke Wang; Muhammad Khalil

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Enhancing Satellite Quantum Key Distribution with Dual Band Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single ground-based surface with independent phase control in the optical and radio bands could improve both satellite quantum key distribution and classical communication at the same time.

desk verdict A genuinely novel dual-band RIS architecture for satellite QKD plus RF, but the paper's headline numbers don't match its own figures and the key physical assumption—independent phase control at 850 nm and S-band on one aperture—is asserted without evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03246 v1 pith:QMA5DYIO submitted 2025-07-04 eess.SP

Muhammad Khalil , Ke Wang , Jinho Choi This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords quantumkeydistribution(QKD)reconfigurableintelligentsurface(RIS)dual-bandmetasurfacesatellitecommunicationssecurerate(SKR)quadraticunconstrainedbinaryoptimization(QUBO)biterror(QBER)free-spaceopticallink

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 a ground-based reconfigurable intelligent surface can improve both halves of a hybrid satellite link at the same time: the 850 nm quantum channel that distributes encryption keys and the S-band radio channel that carries ordinary data. The authors model each surface element as applying an independent phase shift in each band, and they turn the joint task of minimizing quantum bit error rate (QBER) and maximizing classical signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) into a binary optimization problem that can be solved quickly as channel conditions change. Compared with an unassisted link benchmarked against a real satellite QKD experiment, the modeled 512-element surface lowers QBER from about 1.2% to 0.75% at 20° elevation, roughly doubles the secure key rate (for example from 3,500 to 7,084 bits/s at 80°), and adds about 1.1 dB of SNR; the abstract states larger headline gains. The practical stake is that one shared ground aperture could simultaneously strengthen quantum security and classical reliability in future satellite networks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual-band RIS: a metasurface whose unit cells each carry two independent phase-control parameters, one for the optical band and one for the RF band, quantized here to 2 bits per band. The argument's engine is the composite channel model $H^{\mathrm{tot}}_Q = H_Q + \sum_n H_{Q,S\to R,n}\, e^{j\theta^Q_n}\, H_{Q,R\to G,n}$ (and its RF analogue), which expresses how coherent reflection adds to the direct satellite path. The optimization collapses the two performance metrics into a weighted cost $F = \epsilon_Q - \beta \log_2(1+\Gamma_C)$, then encodes the discrete phases as binary variables and expands cosine cross-terms to second order, yielding a QUBO of the form $\min_x x^T Q x + c^T x$ whose solution supplies all element phase settings.

What would settle it

Measure the reflection phase of one fabricated dual-band unit cell at both 850 nm and 2.3 GHz while sweeping the control setting that sets the optical phase; if the radio-band reflection phase moves by more than a small fraction of the 90° quantum step, the independent phase-control premise fails and the modeled joint improvements cannot be realized. A numerical re-plot of the paper's equations should also reproduce QBER about 0.75% at 20° and SKR 7,084 bits/s at 80° for $N=512$; a result matching the abstract's larger numbers would indicate different parameters were used.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a frequency-selective dual-band RIS placed near a ground station can serve as a shared aperture for quantum and classical satellite links, with each element holding two independent quantized phase shifts—one at 850 nm and one near 2.3 GHz. By aligning the reflected fields in both bands, the surface reduces the QBER of the quantum channel while raising the SNR of the classical channel. The plotted results show QBER falling from 1.20% to about 0.75% at 20° elevation with 512 elements, secure key rate roughly doubling (3,500 to 7,084 bits/s at 80°), and classical SNR gains near 1.1 dB; the abstract states larger headline figures (0.7%, over 30,000 bits/s, and about 3 dB). The joint phase selection is formulated as a QUBO and solved numerically under turbulence, pointing error, ionospheric loss, and rain attenuation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single physical surface can set the phase of 850 nm light and 2.3 GHz radio waves independently, with negligible electromagnetic cross-coupling between the two controls; the paper assumes this rather than deriving it from an element design or measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Satellite QKD would become usable at lower elevation angles, where the unassisted link's QBER is closest to the security threshold, because the RIS widens the margin below the standard QKD security limit near 11%.
A single ground aperture could carry both quantum key distribution and classical control traffic, reducing the duplication of telescopes, antennas, and payload hardware in hybrid satellite systems.
Real-time QUBO solving means the same surface could adapt its phase profile to atmospheric turbulence, rain, and pointing jitter without mechanical steering or separate optimization loops.
RIS size helps only up to a point: the model shows gains saturating beyond a few hundred elements due to 2-bit phase quantization, mutual coupling, and finite aperture, so improving phase resolution may matter more than adding elements.
Operators would not have to trade security against reliability: the joint cost function rewards lower QBER and higher classical SNR simultaneously, so a well-configured surface improves both links in the same pass.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the paper's two-band independence is assumed rather than measured, the framework is best read as an upper-bound model; a real device would likely introduce coupling between the optical and RF phase controls, and the optimization would need a coupled phase model plus a calibration step.
The same QUBO machinery transfers to other wavelength pairs, such as 1550 nm quantum channels with C-band RF, and to entanglement-distribution protocols that need simultaneous steering of two optical beams.
A cheap internal validation of the modeling chain would be exhaustive search for small arrays ($N \le 16$): if the second-order cosine approximation deviates from the exact QUBO solution by more than the claimed few percent, the phase quantization step should be coarsened or the cost function re-derived.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This one is a mixed bag. The core idea—a frequency-selective dual-band RIS that simultaneously optimizes an 850 nm QKD downlink and an S-band RF link, with joint QBER/SNR control posed as a QUBO—is new in the cited literature and is a legitimate thing to think about. The authors also do some things well: the system model includes a reasonable set of atmospheric impairments (Gamma-Gamma turbulence, pointing jitter, ionospheric and rain losses for RF), and they benchmark the baseline QBER against Micius, which is the right thing to do. They are also upfront that the simulations assume an ideal lossless RIS and represent theoretical upper-bound scenarios.

The problems are load-bearing, though. First, the abstract and conclusion state that the RIS reduces QBER to about 0.7%, increases SKR to over 30,000 bits/s, and boosts RF SNR by about 3 dB. The paper's own Figure 3 shows SNR gains up to about 1.1 dB, Figure 4 shows QBER reaching about 0.75% at best, and Table IV lists a maximum SKR of 7,084 bits/s at 80 degrees for the 512-element RIS. The 30,000 bits/s claim appears nowhere in the results. That is a serious internal inconsistency.

Second, the central physical assumption—that a single metasurface can independently control phase at 353 THz and 2.3 GHz with negligible cross-coupling—is asserted in Section II-B but never supported. No unit-cell geometry, material choice, or simulation is provided. The aperture-scale problem is not a detail: 512 half-wavelength elements at 850 nm span a sub-millimeter aperture, which would collect essentially none of a Micius-type downlink beam, while a useful S-band RIS at 15 cm wavelength would need a tens-of-meters aperture. The paper does not reconcile these scales, and Equations (10)-(11) assume every element coherently contributes to both links. If the optical aperture is that small, the QBER and SKR gains in Figures 4-5 cannot arise from the stated physical configuration.

Third, the QUBO is formulated but never actually solved. The paper describes the optimization framework, but the results in Figures 3-6 appear to come from an unstated procedure described only as a theoretical upper bound. That leaves the reader unable to tell whether the phase assignments in Figure 2 are the output of the proposed optimization or just a hand-constructed illustration.

None of this makes the paper worthless. The architecture is plausible if a genuinely independent dual-band metasurface could be built, and the modeling structure is reusable. But as it stands, the quantitative claims are inflated and the key enabling assumption is unvalidated. This deserves a serious referee, but it needs major revision: correct the numbers, provide a concrete unit-cell design or at least a consistency check on aperture size, and show the optimization actually producing the plotted results.

I'd bring it to a reading group as a case study in how an attractive idea can outrun its physical grounding, but I wouldn't cite it yet.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a ground-based dual-band reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) to enhance a hybrid satellite link consisting of an 850 nm quantum key distribution (QKD) channel and an S-band classical RF channel. The authors model satellite-to-ground propagation with atmospheric attenuation, turbulence, pointing errors, and path loss, and formulate the joint minimization of QBER and maximization of classical SNR as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem under discrete phase quantization. They benchmark the baseline against Micius satellite data and claim that a 512-element RIS reduces QBER to about 0.7%, increases the secure key rate above 30,000 bits/s, and improves RF SNR by about 3 dB. Section IV reports simulations for N = 128, 265/256, and 512 elements, and Section V repeats the headline numbers in the conclusion.

Significance. If the results were valid, the contribution would be significant: a single passive ground-based metasurface improving both quantum and classical satellite links, with a QUBO formulation that can be approached on near-term quantum or classical hardware. The paper is careful to tabulate simulation parameters and to benchmark the baseline against Micius data, which aids reproducibility. However, the main quantitative claims are contradicted by the paper's own figures and tables, and the central physical assumption of a dual-band metasurface with independent optical and S-band phase control is asserted without a design or scale analysis. Consequently, the demonstrated significance is considerably lower than advertised.

major comments (5)

[Abstract; §V] The headline claims in the Abstract and Section V—QBER reduced to approximately 0.7%, SKR exceeding 30,000 bits/s, and RF SNR enhanced by approximately 3 dB—are not supported by the paper's own results. Figure 3 shows a maximum SNR gain of about 1.1 dB for N = 512 at high elevation; Figure 4 and Table III show QBER = 0.75% at 20 degrees and 0.71% at 80 degrees for N = 512; Table IV lists SKR = 7,084 bits/s at 80 degrees and 2,226 bits/s at 20 degrees for N = 512. The text near Figure 5 repeats the 30,000 bits/s claim, but neither Figure 5 nor Table IV contains such a value. These discrepancies are load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion advertise these exact numbers as the main contribution.
[§II-B] The load-bearing modeling assumption in Section II-B is that a single metasurface can independently control the phase of 850 nm and 2.3 GHz signals with negligible cross-coupling, yet no unit-cell geometry, material model, or electromagnetic simulation is provided. The aperture scaling is not addressed: a half-wavelength-spaced 850 nm element is roughly 0.4 micrometers, so 512 optical elements span about 0.2 millimeters, whereas 512 S-band half-wavelength elements span tens of meters. Equations (10)-(11) assume that N elements coherently contribute in each band; without a physical design that reconciles these scales, the simulated QBER and SKR gains cannot be attributed to the stated configuration.
[§III-B] The QUBO derivation in Section III-B approximates each cosine cross-term by the second-order Taylor expansion cos(Δθ) ≈ 1 − Δθ²/2. This approximation is accurate only when |Δθ| is small, but Δθ = θ_m − θ_n ranges over [0, 2π). The text further states that 2-bit phase control corresponds to 11.25° steps; 2 bits yield four levels with 90° steps, so the claimed approximation error of a few percent is not credible. As a result, the QUBO objective in Eq. (23) does not faithfully represent the original joint optimization problem, and the optimized phase assignments in Figure 2 are computed from an unvalidated surrogate.
[§IV] The abstract's claim of reducing QBER 'from approximately 2.5%' is inconsistent with the simulation baseline in Figure 4 and Table III, where the Micius-benchmarked baseline is 1.20% at 20 degrees and 0.90% at 80 degrees. The RIS-assisted values are 0.75% and 0.71%, respectively, not the 0.7% stated in the abstract and conclusion. If the 2.5% figure corresponds to a different elevation angle, such as 10 degrees, that point should be identified and plotted; as written, the reported improvement factor is not the one demonstrated by the paper's data.
[§IV, Fig. 6] The cost function F in Figure 6 is described as penalizing QBER and rewarding classical SNR, but the plotted values are 0.984–0.994, whereas Eq. (19) would yield values on the order of 10^-3 to 10^-2 for the reported QBER and SNR ranges. This suggests a normalization or definition mismatch; without clarification, the 'joint optimization' validation in Figure 6 is not meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[§IV, Fig. 3] The text states the simulated array sizes as N ∈ {0, 128, 256, 512}, but the figure caption uses N = 265; this numbering should be made consistent.
[§III-A, Eq. (20)] The 'swing-weight' beta in Eq. (20) depends on Γ_C, which makes the weighting non-constant and the cost function nonlinear in Γ_C; please clarify whether this is an iterative normalization or a typographical error.
[Table II] Table II lists the 'Target QBER' as 0.05, while the optimization constraint in Section III-A uses the BB84 threshold of 0.11; these values should be reconciled.
[§III-B] The sentence claiming that 2-bit phase control corresponds to 11.25° steps is numerically incorrect; 2-bit quantization gives four discrete levels with 90° steps, so the stated approximation error bound needs to be re-evaluated.
[§II-B] References [29] and [30] are cited as supporting the possibility of a dual-band metasurface, but no specific geometry, material, or measurement from those works is used to justify the independence assumption stated in Section II-B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RIS-assisted gains are computed from an explicit analytical model, and the Micius comparison is a calibration-style benchmark rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that matters for circularity. The QBER, SKR, and SNR formulas (Eqs. 10-16) take physical channel gains as inputs and compute the RIS-assisted values by coherent field addition; the RIS improvement is not defined in terms of the claimed output. The independent phase control at 850 nm and S-band is explicitly stated as a modeling assumption in Section II-B, not smuggled in via citation or derived from the target results. The agreement of the N=0 baseline with Micius data is used as a benchmark, but the parameters in Table II are fixed model inputs; nothing in the text shows that the RIS-assisted QBER/SKR/SNR values are fitted to those benchmarks. The paper itself labels the results as 'theoretical upper-bound scenarios' (Section IV), which further indicates the gains are model predictions rather than retrofitted outputs. The self-citations [11] and [13] support background statements about RIS and are not load-bearing for the QUBO or link-budget derivation. Physical realizability concerns (sub-micron optical elements vs. meter-scale RF aperture) are substantive correctness risks, and the abstract's 2.5%/30,000 bps/3 dB numbers are not all supported by the figures, but these are not circularity. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Free parameters and axioms are numerous; several are hand-chosen to match Micius benchmark data, and the central assumption of independent phase control is ad hoc. The paper does not report sensitivity to these choices.

free parameters (8)

Beta weight in cost function = 1.65e-3
Eq. (19) sets beta = epsilon*/log2(1+Gamma*) with epsilon*=0.011 and Gamma*=100 to balance QBER and SNR terms. This is a user-chosen normalization that affects the composite cost function.
Refractive index structure C_n^2 = 5e-14 m^-2/3
Table II. Chosen to make the simulated baseline QBER match the Micius experimental values in Fig. 4.
Pointing error jitter = 2 micro-radians
Table II. Chosen for the pointing fading model; not derived from measurement.
Quantum optical attenuation coefficient = 0.046 /km (linear)
Table II. Converts from dB to linear units; value selected from a range rather than measured.
Classical RF attenuation coefficient = 0.0046 /km (linear)
Table II. Value selected from a range.
Raw key rate scaling for SKR = not given; consistent with baseline SKR of 1,100 bits/s at 20 deg and 3,500 bits/s at 80 deg
Eq. (16) requires an absolute raw rate R_raw in bits/s, which is only stated as proportional to |H_Q|^2. The absolute values in Table IV appear to be scaled to match Micius baseline SKR, making the SKR numbers depend on this fitted scaling.
Phase variance sigma_phi^2 = 1.03
Eq. (15). Fixed value attributed to Rytov variance; not shown to match the specific wavelength and link geometry.
Visibility V0 = 0.9 to 0.98 (range)
Eq. (15). An input range; no specific value or measurement is given for the simulation curves.

assumptions (7)

ad hoc to paper The dual-band RIS can independently control the phase of the 850 nm optical signal and the 2.3 GHz RF signal with negligible cross-coupling.
Section II-B: 'The central modeling assumption in this work is that the phase shifts at each band can be controlled independently... any electromagnetic cross-coupling between the quantum and classical phase control channels is considered negligible.' This is essential to the joint optimization and is not physically justified.
ad hoc to paper The RIS is lossless with unity amplitude response in each band.
Section II-B: 'The amplitude response A(f) is assumed to be unity (lossless RIS assumption) in each band for theoretical tractability.'
standard math Friis transmission equation applies to the optical link with gain terms G_t,Q and G_r,Q.
Eq. (3). Standard free-space path loss model.
domain assumption Gamma-Gamma statistics describe atmospheric turbulence fading for the optical channel.
Section II-A: 'Turbulence fading chi follows Gamma-Gamma statistics.' This is a common but not universally valid model; it is not fitted or verified here.
domain assumption Atmospheric attenuation coefficients are constant along the effective path.
Eqs. (3)-(5). The model uses a single effective path length and constant attenuation coefficient, ignoring spatial variation along the slant path.
domain assumption BB84 QBER security threshold is 11 percent, but the cost function uses epsilon*=0.011.
Section III-A states the BB84 threshold as 11 percent, then Eq. (19) uses epsilon*=0.011 (1.1 percent). The paper does not reconcile this factor-of-ten discrepancy.
domain assumption Multipath is negligible for the RF link because antennas are highly directive.
Section II-D: 'multipath propagation is negligible due to the highly directive RF antennas employed.'

invented entities (1)

Dual-band RIS with independent optical/RF phase control
purpose: To simultaneously reflect and phase-align the 850 nm QKD signal and S-band RF signal at a ground station, improving QBER and SNR.
The paper postulates an ideal metasurface with independent phase control at 353 THz and 2.3 GHz, with unity amplitude and no cross-coupling, but provides no fabricated prototype, measured response, or validated electromagnetic model. The graviton problem applies: the entity is introduced to make the proposed system work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Satellite Quantum Key Distribution with Dual Band Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMA5DYIO

@misc{pith2026250703246,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Satellite Quantum Key Distribution with Dual Band Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMA5DYIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03246}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel system architecture for hybrid satellite communications, integrating quantum key distribution (QKD) and classical radio frequency (RF) data transmission using a dual-band reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS). The motivation is to address the growing need for global, secure, and reliable communications by leveraging the security of quantum optical links and the robustness of classical RF channels within a unified framework. By employing a frequency-selective RIS, the system independently optimizes both quantum (850 nm) and classical (S-band) channels in real time, dynamically adapting to environmental fluctuations such as atmospheric turbulence and rain attenuation. The joint optimization of the quantum bit error rate (QBER) and the classical signal-to noise ratio (SNR) is formulated as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem, enabling efficient adaptive phase control utilizing both quantum and classical computational methods. Comprehensive theoretical modeling and simulations, benchmarked against experimental data from the Micius satellite, demonstrate substantial performance gains. Notably, the RIS assisted system reduces QBER from approximately 2.5% to 0.7%, increases the secure key rate (SKR) to over 30,000 bits per second, and enhances classical RF SNR by about 3 dB at high elevation angles. These results illustrate the practical potential of hybrid RIS-assisted satellite links to deliver robust, efficient, and secure global communications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03246 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** System model: LEO satellite-to-ground link with dual-band RIS enhancement: schematic showing a 500 km-altitude LEO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** 3D joint histograms of dual-band RIS phase assignments for varying attenuation (Att) levels. Each bar shows the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Classical S-band SNR versus satellite elevation angle for baseline ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Impact of elevation angle on QBER in RIS-enhanced satellite QKD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: SKR performance across elevation for baseline and RIS configured links [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: combined QBER and SNR cost metric as a function of elevation angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

6g and beyond: The future of wireless communications systems,

I. F. Akyildiz, A. Kak, and S. Nie, “6g and beyond: The future of wireless communications systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 133 995–134 030, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Satellite-based continuous-variable quantum communications: State-of-the-art and a predictive outlook,

N. Hosseinidehaj, Z. Babar, R. Malaney, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Satellite-based continuous-variable quantum communications: State-of-the-art and a predictive outlook,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 881–919, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Satellite-terrestrial quantum networks and the global quantum internet,

A. Conti, R. Malaney, and M. Z. Win, “Satellite-terrestrial quantum networks and the global quantum internet,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 34–39, 2024

2024
[4]

The evolution of quantum key distribution networks: On the road to the qinternet,

Y. Cao, Y. Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Zhang, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “The evolution of quantum key distribution networks: On the road to the qinternet,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 839–894, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Routing and wavelength assignment in hybrid networks with classical and quantum signals,

L. Ruiz and J. Carlos Garc ´ıa-Escart´ın, “Routing and wavelength assignment in hybrid networks with classical and quantum signals,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 412–421, 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,

H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–96, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Hello quantum! how quantum computing will change the world,

J. Kietzmann, D. S. Demetis, T. Eriksson, and A. Dabirian, “Hello quantum! how quantum computing will change the world,” IT Professional, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 106–111, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Toward practical entanglement-based satellite fso/qkd systems using dual-threshold/ direct detection,

M. Q. Vu, H. D. Le, T. V. Pham, and A. T. Pham, “Toward practical entanglement-based satellite fso/qkd systems using dual-threshold/ direct detection,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 113 260–113 274, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 48 references

[9]

Quantum advantage of binary discrete modulations for space channels,

A. V ´azquez-Castro and B. Samandarov, “Quantum advantage of binary discrete modulations for space channels,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 903–906, 2023

2023
[10]

Extending quantum key distribution through proxy re-encryption,

N. Lemons, B. Gelfand, N. Lawrence, A. Thresher, J. L. Tripp, W. P. Gammel, A. Nadiga, K. Meier, and R. Newell, “Extending quantum key distribution through proxy re-encryption,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 457–465, 2023

2023
[11]

Enhancing active reconfigurable intelligent surface,

M. I. Khalil, “Enhancing active reconfigurable intelligent surface,” Intelligent and Converged Networks, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 351–363, 2022

2022
[12]

A survey on ris advances in terahertz communications: Emerging paradigms and research frontiers,

M. Ahmed, A. Wahid, W. U. Khan, F. Khan, A. Ihsan, Z. Ali, K. M. Rabie, T. Shongwe, and Z. Han, “A survey on ris advances in terahertz communications: Emerging paradigms and research frontiers,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 173 867–173 901, 2024

2024
[13]

Mitigating phase errors to improve signal quality in ris-assisted satellite communications,

M. Khalil, K. Wang, J. Lin, and J. Choi, “Mitigating phase errors to improve signal quality in ris-assisted satellite communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, pp. 1–15, 2025

2025
[14]

Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces empowered thz communication in leo satellite networks,

K. Tekbiyik, G. K. Kurt, A. R. Ekti, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Reconfigurable intelligent surfaces empowered thz communication in leo satellite networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 121 957–121 969, 2022

2022
[15]

On the design of ris–uav relay-assisted hybrid fso/rf satellite–aerial–ground integrated network,

T. V. Nguyen, H. D. Le, and A. T. Pham, “On the design of ris–uav relay-assisted hybrid fso/rf satellite–aerial–ground integrated network,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 757–771, 2023

2023
[16]

Reconfigurable intelligent surface (ris)-assisted entanglement distribution in fso quantum networks,

M. Chehimi, M. Elhattab, W. Saad, G. Vardoyan, N. K. Panigrahy, C. Assi, and D. Towsley, “Reconfigurable intelligent surface (ris)-assisted entanglement distribution in fso quantum networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, pp. 1–1, 2025

2025
[17]

Trusted reconfigurable intelligent surface for multi-user quantum key distribution,

S. Kisseleff and S. Chatzinotas, “Trusted reconfigurable intelligent surface for multi-user quantum key distribution,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2237–2241, 2023

2023
[18]

The ideal wavelength for daylight free-space quantum key distribution,

M. Abasifard, C. Cholsuk, R. G. Pousa, A. Kumar, A. Zand, T. Riel, D. K. L. Oi, and T. Vogl, “The ideal wavelength for daylight free-space quantum key distribution,” APL Quantum , 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:257353701

2023
[19]

Comparison of s-band radar attenuation prediction with beacon measurements,

J. X. Yeo, Y.-H. Lee, L. S. Kumar, and J. T. Ong, “Comparison of s-band radar attenuation prediction with beacon measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 4892–4900, 2012

2012
[20]

Generalized friis transmission equation for orbital angular momentum radios,

Y. H. Cho and W. J. Byun, “Generalized friis transmission equation for orbital angular momentum radios,”IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 2423–2429, 2019

2019
[21]

Parameter estimation of gamma-gamma fading with generalized pointing errors in fso systems,

M. Miao, W. Cai, and X. Li, “Parameter estimation of gamma-gamma fading with generalized pointing errors in fso systems,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing , vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 1301878, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1155/202...

2021 doi
[22]

Free-space optical communication with nonzero boresight pointing errors,

F. Yang, J. Cheng, and T. A. Tsiftsis, “Free-space optical communication with nonzero boresight pointing errors,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 713–725, 2014

2014
[23]

Pratt and J

T. Pratt and J. E. Allnutt, Satellite Communications . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xKOptAEACAAJ

2019
[24]

Propagation effects handbook for satellite systems design, fifth edition, section 1: Background,

L. J. Ippolito, “Propagation effects handbook for satellite systems design, fifth edition, section 1: Background,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA, Tech. Rep., February 1999. [Online]. Available: https://vancouver.chapters.comsoc.org/files/2016/05/ NASAHandbook-Sec1.pdf

1999
[25]

L. J. I. Jr., Satellite Communications Systems Engineering: Atmospheric Effects, Satel- lite Link Design and System Performance , 2nd ed. Wiley, February 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Satellite+Communications+Systems+Engineering%3A+Atmospheric+Effects%...

2017
[26]

J. S. Seybold, Introduction to RF Propagation, illustrated ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005

2005
[27]

Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,

S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, F.-Z. Li, X.-W. Chen, L.-H. Sun, J.-J. Jia, J.-C. Wu, X.-J. Jiang, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, Q. Wang, Y.-L. Zhou, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, Q. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, X.-B...

2017 doi
[28]

Radiator enablers for wireless communication evolution,

A.-C. Tsafaras, P. Mpatargias, A. Karakilidis, G. Giouros, I. Gavriilidis, V. Katsinelis, G. Sarinakis, and T. Kaifas, “Radiator enablers for wireless communication evolution,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 6, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/14/6/1081

2025
[29]

Frequency selective surface toward 6g communication systems: A contemporary survey,

X. Chen, J. Tan, L. Kang, F. Tang, M. Zhao, and N. Kato, “Frequency selective surface toward 6g communication systems: A contemporary survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1635–1675, 2024

2024
[30]

Synthesis of multiband frequency selective surfaces using machine learning with the decision tree algorithm,

L. C. M. M. Fontoura, H. W. De Castro Lins, A. S. Bertuleza, A. G. D’assunc ¸ ˜ao, and A. G. Neto, “Synthesis of multiband frequency selective surfaces using machine learning with the decision tree algorithm,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 85 785–85 794, 2021

2021
[31]

Dvb-s2: The second generation standard for satellite broad-band services,

A. Morello and V. Mignone, “Dvb-s2: The second generation standard for satellite broad-band services,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 210–227, 2006

2006
[32]

Broadband leo satellite communications: Architectures and key technologies,

Y. Su, Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, J. Yuan, H. Cao, and J. Shi, “Broadband leo satellite communications: Architectures and key technologies,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 55–61, 2019

2019
[33]

Adaptive compensation method using the prediction algorithm for the doppler frequency shift in the leo mobile satellite communication system,

M.-H. You, S.-P. Lee, and Y. Han, “Adaptive compensation method using the prediction algorithm for the doppler frequency shift in the leo mobile satellite communication system,” ETRI Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 32–39, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[34]

L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips, Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media, Second Edition . SPIE Press, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/ebooks/PM/ Laser-Beam-Propagation-through-Random-Media-Second-Edition/eISBN-9780819478320/10.1117/3.626196

2005 doi
[35]

V. I. Tatarski, Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/tatarski-wave-propagation-in-a-turbulent-medium-1961/page/n7/mode/2up

1961
[36]

Asymptotically optimal prepare-measure quantum key distribution protocol,

H. Shu, “Asymptotically optimal prepare-measure quantum key distribution protocol,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 62, no. 8, p. 191, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-023-05447-0

2023 doi
[37]

Link budget and background noise for satellite quantum key distribution,

A. Tomaello, C. Bonato, V. Da Deppo, G. Naletto, and P. Villoresi, “Link budget and background noise for satellite quantum key distribution,” Advances in Space Research, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 802–810, 2011, scientific applications of Galileo and other Global Navigation Satellite...

2011
[38]

Finite key effects in satellite quantum key distribution,

J. S. Sidhu, T. Brougham, D. McArthur, R. G. Pousa, and D. K. L. Oi, “Finite key effects in satellite quantum key distribution,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 18, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-022-00525-3

2022 doi
[39]

Bit-error rate investigation of satellite-to-ground downlink optical communication employing spatial diversity and modulation techniques,

K. Li, B. Lin, and J. Ma, “Bit-error rate investigation of satellite-to-ground downlink optical communication employing spatial diversity and modulation techniques,” Optics Communications , vol. 442, pp. 123–131, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...

2019
[40]

Weighted sum model with partial preference information: Application to multi-objective optimization,

S. Kaddani, D. Vanderpooten, J.-M. Vanpeperstraete, and H. Aissi, “Weighted sum model with partial preference information: Application to multi-objective optimization,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 260, no. 2, pp. 665–679, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ww...

2017
[41]

Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol,

P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, “Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 85, pp. 441–444, Jul 2000. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.441

doi
[42]

A weight vector generation method based on normal distribution for preference-based multi-objective optimization,

J. Zheng, Z. Du, J. Zou, and S. Yang, “A weight vector generation method based on normal distribution for preference-based multi-objective optimization,” Swarm and Evolutionary Computation , vol. 77, p. 101250, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a...

2023
[43]

2.3.1 using the swing weight matrix to weight multiple objectives,

G. S. Parnell and T. E. Trainor, “2.3.1 using the swing weight matrix to weight multiple objectives,” INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 283–298, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j. 2334-5837.2009.tb00949.x

2009
[44]

A tutorial on formulating QUBO models,

F. W. Glover and G. A. Kochenberger, “A tutorial on formulating QUBO models,” CoRR, vol. abs/1811.11538, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11538

2018 arXiv
[45]

Quantum approximate optimization with parallelizable gates,

W. Lechner, “Quantum approximate optimization with parallelizable gates,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , vol. 1, pp. 1–6, 2020

2020
[46]

𝑜(𝑛3) measurement cost for variational quantum eigensolver on molecular hamiltonians,

P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, “𝑜(𝑛3) measurement cost for variational quantum eigensolver on molecular hamiltonians,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1–24, 2020

2020
[47]

Direct and full-scale experimental verifications towards ground–satellite quantum key distribution,

J.-Y. Wang, B. Yang, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, Q. Shen, X.-F. Hu, J.-C. Wu, S.-J. Yang, H. Jiang, Y.-L. Tang, B. Zhong, H. Liang, W.-Y. Liu, Y.-H. Hu, Y.-M. Huang, B. Qi, J.-G. Ren, G.-S. Pan, J. Yin, J.-J. Jia, Y.-A. Chen, K. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, “Direct and full-scal...

2013 doi
[48]

Smart radio environments empowered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,

M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, M. Debbah, M.-S. Alouini, C. Yuen, J. de Rosny, and S. Tretyakov, “Smart radio environments empowered by reconfigurable intelligent surfaces: How it works, state of research, and the road ahead,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 3...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

6g and beyond: The future of wireless communications systems,

I. F. Akyildiz, A. Kak, and S. Nie, “6g and beyond: The future of wireless communications systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 133 995–134 030, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Satellite-based continuous-variable quantum communications: State-of-the-art and a predictive outlook,

N. Hosseinidehaj, Z. Babar, R. Malaney, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “Satellite-based continuous-variable quantum communications: State-of-the-art and a predictive outlook,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 881–919, 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Satellite-terrestrial quantum networks and the global quantum internet,

A. Conti, R. Malaney, and M. Z. Win, “Satellite-terrestrial quantum networks and the global quantum internet,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 34–39, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

The evolution of quantum key distribution networks: On the road to the qinternet,

Y. Cao, Y. Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Zhang, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, “The evolution of quantum key distribution networks: On the road to the qinternet,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 839–894, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Routing and wavelength assignment in hybrid networks with classical and quantum signals,

L. Ruiz and J. Carlos Garc ´ıa-Escart´ın, “Routing and wavelength assignment in hybrid networks with classical and quantum signals,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 412–421, 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,

H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–96, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Hello quantum! how quantum computing will change the world,

J. Kietzmann, D. S. Demetis, T. Eriksson, and A. Dabirian, “Hello quantum! how quantum computing will change the world,” IT Professional, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 106–111, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Toward practical entanglement-based satellite fso/qkd systems using dual-threshold/ direct detection,

M. Q. Vu, H. D. Le, T. V. Pham, and A. T. Pham, “Toward practical entanglement-based satellite fso/qkd systems using dual-threshold/ direct detection,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 113 260–113 274, 2022

work page 2022