Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 67 references

Modeling Optical Key Distribution over a Satellite-to-Ground Link Under Weak Atmospheric Turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The secret key capacity of a satellite-to-ground optical downlink can be computed under weak turbulence, and the best reconciliation direction depends on noise and wind.

desk verdict A solid, incremental engineering model of IM/DD OKD over a LEO-to-ground downlink; worth refereeing, with the main check being whether the 'strong wind' cases stay inside the weak-turbulence regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05807 v1 pith:GGX3Y6KM submitted 2025-08-07 physics.optics physics.app-phphysics.space-ph

Artur Czerwinski , Miko{l}aj Lasota , Marcin Jarzyna , Mateusz Kucharczyk , Micha{l} Jachura , Konrad Banaszek This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-phphysics.space-ph
keywords satellitequantumkeydistributionfree-spaceopticallinkatmosphericturbulencesecretcapacityintensitymodulation/directdetectiondirectandreversereconciliationdownlinkweak
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 analyzes intensity-modulation/direct-detection optical key distribution from a low-Earth-orbit satellite to an optical ground station. It tries to establish that the secret key capacity of such a downlink can be computed from a channel model that accounts for absorption and scattering, geometric losses, pointing errors, and turbulence-induced intensity fluctuations. The authors find that capacity depends on the direction of reconciliation (direct or reverse), the noise scenario, the efficiency of the reconciliation code, and wind-dependent turbulence strength. This matters because it turns satellite QKD performance from a single link-loss estimate into a set of quantitative predictions that can guide protocol choice under real atmospheric conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the instantaneous channel transmittance $\eta$ of the downlink, treated as a random variable whose fluctuations follow weak-turbulence statistics. Around this, the paper builds a capacity expression for IM/DD OKD with hard decoding, and evaluates it under direct versus reverse reconciliation. The $\eta$-distribution carries all atmospheric effects; the other losses enter as deterministic factors.

What would settle it

Compare predicted secret-key capacity against data from a real LEO-to-ground IM/DD link under weak scintillation: record instantaneous received power and error statistics, estimate the transmittance distribution, and test whether the assumed weak-turbulence model reproduces the observed capacity and the direct/reverse reconciliation ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the secret key capacity of IM/DD OKD for a weak-turbulence LEO-to-ground downlink is fully determined by a transmittance model that folds together deterministic losses and random intensity fluctuations. Under this model, the optimal protocol is not fixed: direct and reverse reconciliation give different secret-key capacities, and the gap depends on the noise scenario and on wind speed through the strength of turbulence. The paper also characterizes the error distributions that emerge from optimizing the protocol, giving a more complete picture of what limits the achievable rate than a single average-loss estimate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fluctuating channel transmittance follows the assumed weak-turbulence statistical model; if a real satellite-to-ground link experiences stronger scintillation, beam wander, or non-log-normal fluctuations, the computed key capacities and the ranking of direct versus reverse reconciliation would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a given link geometry and atmospheric state, the model yields a definite secret-key capacity, so operators can compare direct and reverse reconciliation and pick the direction with the higher rate.
  • Stronger wind increases turbulence and changes the predicted capacity, so the same satellite pass can have different achievable key rates depending on ground-station weather.
  • Reconciliation code efficiency enters the capacity directly, so better error-correction codes translate into larger key rates under the same atmospheric conditions.
  • The error-distribution analysis identifies which noise sources dominate, pointing to where hardware improvements such as lower detector noise or better pointing would help most.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension left implicit: whether reverse reconciliation keeps its advantage under stronger-than-weak turbulence, where the log-normal model breaks down; running the same capacity calculation with other transmittance distributions would settle it.
  • The capacity numbers assume ideal infinite-block coding; a practical protocol will face finite-key corrections, which may shrink the advantage of one reconciliation direction.
  • The same transmittance-based capacity approach could be applied to uplinks or inter-satellite links if the corresponding turbulence statistics are supplied, making the model a testable template rather than a one-off calculation.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model for the secret key capacity of intensity-modulation/direct-detection (IM/DD) optical key distribution over a low-Earth-orbit satellite-to-ground downlink. The model is said to include atmospheric absorption and scattering, geometric losses, pointing errors, and intensity fluctuations, with the capacity evaluated under different noise scenarios, reconciliation code efficiencies, and a hard decoding scheme. The abstract also claims a comparison of direct and reverse reconciliation and an analysis of weak versus strong wind effects. Unfortunately, the supplied full text is a corrupted encoding (mojibake) and is almost entirely unreadable; none of the equations, figures, tables, or derivations can be inspected. The abstract is the only intelligible portion of the manuscript.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the work would provide quantitative performance predictions for a practical satellite QKD downlink under IM/DD, and the direct-versus-reverse reconciliation comparison across noise and turbulence scenarios would be of direct interest to system designers. The inclusion of pointing errors and geometric losses alongside atmospheric transmittance fluctuations is a useful modeling combination. However, because the body of the manuscript is unreadable, the correctness of the derivations and the numerical results cannot be assessed. The significance is therefore conditional on a properly encoded resubmission that permits verification of the model equations and parameter choices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text (encoding corruption)] The body of the manuscript is supplied as corrupted, unreadable text (e.g., the recurring '�� ����������' patterns). Consequently, none of the equations, derivations, figures, or tables can be checked. The central claim—quantitative secret-key capacity results and the direct/reverse reconciliation comparison—cannot be verified in any way. A correctly encoded PDF must be provided before the paper can be reviewed on the merits.
  2. [Title/Abstract (validity domain)] The title restricts the study to 'weak atmospheric turbulence,' but the abstract explicitly reports results for 'weak and strong wind.' Strong wind generally increases C_n^2 and can push the Rytov variance above the weak-fluctuation threshold, where the log-normal transmittance model is no longer accurate. Since every capacity result is an expectation over the transmittance distribution, the strong-wind results may fall outside the stated validity domain. The manuscript should report the scintillation index or Rytov variance for all scenarios and demonstrate that the weak-turbulence assumption is satisfied, or replace the transmittance model for the strong-wind cases.
  3. [Abstract (verifiability of quantitative claims)] The abstract states that secret key capacity is quantified and that results differ by reconciliation direction, noise scenario, and wind strength, but it provides no numerical values, parameter settings, comparison to prior models, or error estimates. While an abstract need not contain all details, the complete absence of any quantitative anchor, combined with the unreadable full text, makes it impossible to assess whether the claimed results are internally consistent or physically plausible. The resubmission should include the defining equations and a parameter table.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Corrupted text, first page] The string 'arXiv:2508.05822v2 [math.OC] 20 Aug 2025' appears within the corrupted text; this appears to be a misinserted arXiv identifier from a different paper (math.OC, not physics.optics). This should be removed or corrected.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'error distributions that arise from protocol optimization' but does not define what quantity is optimized, what errors are included, or how the optimization is performed. Clarify the optimization problem.
  3. [Notation] The readable portions of the text contain many undefined symbols and broken equation fragments. A clean resubmission should include a notation table with units for parameters such as C_n^2, wind speed, aperture diameter, detector noise, and code efficiency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward channel model and capacity evaluation are self-contained; no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward modeling exercise: it assembles a channel transmittance from absorption/scattering, geometric loss, pointing error, and atmospheric-turbulence factors; adopts a weak-turbulence statistical model for intensity fluctuations; inserts these into a secret-key-capacity formula for IM/DD OKD under hard decoding and direct/reverse reconciliation; and then varies wind speed to obtain capacity curves. The capacity numbers are expectations over the assumed channel distribution; no parameter is fitted to the final key rates, and the reconciliation comparison follows from the mutual-information/error-probability expressions rather than from a definitional identity. The weak-turbulence assumption is an input validity condition, not a conclusion derived from the predictions; any concern about its applicability to the reported 'strong wind' cases is a correctness/validity question, not circularity. The supplied full text is corrupted and cannot be fully checked, but the available abstract and equation fragments exhibit no reduction of a predicted quantity to its own input, no self-citation chain that forces the result, and no renamed known result presented as a first-principles outcome. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

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

All quantified inputs for the capacity model appear to be chosen scenario values rather than fitted to measured data. Because the full text was unreadable in the provided input, the model equations and parameter choices could not be audited. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • wind speed (weak/strong scenario) = not stated in abstract
    The abstract contrasts weak and strong winds; wind speed sets the turbulence strength and hence the transmittance distribution in the model.
  • refractive index structure constant C_n^2 = not stated in abstract
    Controls intensity fluctuation variance; likely chosen per wind scenario rather than measured in this paper.
  • reconciliation code efficiency = not stated in abstract
    Entered as a multiplier when converting mutual information to secret key capacity; the abstract says different code efficiencies are quantified.
  • noise level(s) (detector/background) = not stated in abstract
    The abstract says capacity is quantified under different noise scenarios; these noise values are chosen inputs.
  • pointing error statistics = not stated in abstract
    Pointing errors are included as a loss source; their variance is a model input.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Weak turbulence corresponds to a specific transmittance statistics, such as log-normal.
    The title and abstract restrict the study to weak atmospheric turbulence; if the actual link experiences stronger scintillation, the capacity predictions are outside the claimed regime.
  • domain assumption The atmospheric channel can be modeled as a fading channel with known instantaneous transmittance.
    The abstract mentions random variations in the transmittance; the capacity calculation requires a probabilistic model for those variations.
  • domain assumption Hard decoding is a valid operational model for the reconciliation stage.
    The abstract explicitly says 'assuming a hard decoding scheme'; the computed key rates are conditional on this choice.
  • standard math Direct and reverse reconciliation capacities for IM/DD channels are given by standard formulas.
    The abstract compares reconciliation regimes; this comparison rests on prior capacity results for optical fading or wiretap channels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Optical Key Distribution over a Satellite-to-Ground Link Under Weak Atmospheric Turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGX3Y6KM

@misc{pith2026250805807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Optical Key Distribution over a Satellite-to-Ground Link Under Weak Atmospheric Turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGX3Y6KM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05807}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we analyze the secret key capacity of intensity modulation/direct detection optical key distribution (IM/DD OKD) for a free-space optical (FSO) link between a low-Earth orbit satellite and an optical ground station. Focusing on downlink communication, we account for atmospheric turbulence, which causes random variations in the transmittance of the FSO channel. We implement an atmospheric channel model that accounts for absorption and scattering, geometric losses, pointing errors, and intensity fluctuations. The secret key capacity is quantified under different noise scenarios and reconciliation code efficiencies, assuming a hard decoding scheme. The performance of the IM/DD OKD protocol is compared under direct and reverse reconciliation regimes. Additionally, we examine the impact of weak and strong wind on the strength of atmospheric turbulence, leading to different results of the secret key capacity. Furthermore, we analyze the characteristics of error distributions that arise from protocol optimization. Our results provide insights into optimizing IM/DD OKD protocols for varying atmospheric conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    !1A Qa

    11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcompsocconfonly \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthor...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Ikuta and K

    T. Ikuta and K. Inoue, ``Intensity modulation and direct detection quantum key distribution based on quantum noise,'' New J. Phys., vol. 18, no. 1, p. 013018, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Banaszek, M

    K. Banaszek, M. Jachura, P. Kolenderski, and M. Lasota, ``Optimization of intensity-modulation/direct-detection optical key distribution under passive eavesdropping,'' Opt. Express, vol. 29, no. 26, pp. 43\,091--43\,103, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Jarzyna, M

    M. Jarzyna, M. Jachura, and K. Banaszek, ``Quantum pulse gate attack on im/dd optical key distribution exploiting symbol shape distortion,'' IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1699--1703, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Lo and H

    H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, ``Unconditional security of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances,'' Science, vol. 283, no. 5410, pp. 2050--2056, 1999

    work page

  6. [6]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Du s ek, N. L \"u tkenhaus, and M. Peev, ``The security of practical quantum key distribution,'' Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 1301--1350, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani et al., ``Advances in quantum cryptography,'' Adv. Opt. Photonics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1012--1236, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, ``Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices,'' Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 92, no. 2, p. 025002, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    I. B. Djordjevic, Physical- L ayer S ecurity and Q uantum K ey D istribution . 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Shakiba-Herfeh, A

    M. Shakiba-Herfeh, A. Chorti, and H. Vincent Poor, ``Physical layer security: Authentication, integrity, and confidentiality,'' Physical Layer Security, pp. 129--150, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Abdelsalam, S

    N. Abdelsalam, S. Al-Kuwari, and A. Erbad, ``Physical layer security in satellite communication: State-of-the-art and open problems,'' IET Commun., vol. 19, no. 1, p. e12830, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    T. A. Eriksson, P. V. Trinh, H. Endo, M. Takeoka, and M. Sasaki, ``Secret key rates for intensity-modulated dual-threshold detection key distribution under individual beam splitting attacks,'' Opt. Express, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 20\,409--20\,419, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    P. V. Trinh, T. V. Pham, N. T. Dang, H. V. Nguyen, S. X. Ng, and A. T. Pham, ``Design and security analysis of quantum key distribution protocol over free-space optics using dual-threshold direct-detection receiver,'' IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 4159--4175, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Yamamori and K

    N. Yamamori and K. Inoue, ``Experimental demonstration of intensity-modulation/direct-detection secret key distribution,'' Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., vol. 59, no. 2, p. 022003, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    P. V. Trinh, A. Carrasco-Casado, A. T. Pham, and M. Toyoshima, ``Secrecy analysis of fso systems considering misalignments and eavesdropper’s location,'' IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 7810--7823, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Liao, W.-Q

    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 et al., ``Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,'' Nature, vol. 549, no. 7670, pp. 43--47, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    P. V. Trinh, A. Carrasco-Casado, A. T. Pham, and M. Toyoshima, ``Effects of atmospheric turbulence and misalignment-induced fading on the secrecy performance of IM/DD free-space CV - QKD systems using a G aussian beam,'' in International Conference on Space Optics—ICSO 2018, v...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Sayat, B

    M. Sayat, B. Shajilal, S. P. Kish, S. M. Assad, T. Symul, P. K. Lam, N. Rattenbury, and J. Cater, ``Satellite-to-ground continuous variable quantum key distribution: The gaussian and discrete modulated protocols in low earth orbit,'' IEEE Trans. Commun., 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    G. Xu, M. Xu, Q. Zhang, and Z. Song, ``Cooperative fso/rf space-air-ground integrated network system with adaptive combining: a performance analysis,'' IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    G. Xu, L. Yin, Y. Zhu, H. Wang, and H. Song, ``Satellite-to-ground optical communication systems under orbital deviations and atmospheric turbulence: channel modeling and performance analysis,'' Opt. Express, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 18\,912--18\,927, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Jachura, M

    M. Jachura, M. Lasota, P. Kolenderski, and K. Banaszek, ``Modelling concurrent im/dd key distribution and data transmission over an optical leo-to-ground link,'' in International Conference on Space Optics—ICSO 2022, vol. 12777. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em SPIE, 2023, pp. 568--574

    2022

  14. [22]

    L. C. Andrews, R. L. Phillips, C. Y. Hopen, and M. Al-Habash, ``Theory of optical scintillation,'' J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1417--1429, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips, Laser Beam Propagation Through Random Media: Second Edition. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Pirandola, ``Limits and security of free-space quantum communications,'' Phys

    S. Pirandola, ``Limits and security of free-space quantum communications,'' Phys. Rev. Research, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 013279, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Dirkx, I

    D. Dirkx, I. Prochazka, S. Bauer, P. Visser, R. Noomen, L. I. Gurvits, and B. Vermeersen, ``Laser and radio tracking for planetary science missions—a comparison,'' J. Geod., vol. 93, no. 11, pp. 2405--2420, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    C. F. Bohren and D. R. Huffman, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    Vasylyev, W

    D. Vasylyev, W. Vogel, and F. Moll, ``Satellite-mediated quantum atmospheric links,'' Phys. Rev. A, vol. 99, no. 5, p. 053830, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Pirandola, ``Satellite quantum communications: Fundamental bounds and practical security,'' Phys

    S. Pirandola, ``Satellite quantum communications: Fundamental bounds and practical security,'' Phys. Rev. Research, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 023130, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Dequal, L

    D. Dequal, L. T. Vidarte, V. R. Rodriguez, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, A. Leverrier, and E. Diamanti, ``Feasibility of satellite-to-ground continuous-variable quantum key distribution,'' NPJ Quantum Inf., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 3, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    J. A. Dowling and P. M. Livingston, ``Behavior of focused beams in atmospheric turbulence: measurements and comments on the theory,'' J. Opt. Soc. Am., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 846--858, 1973

    1973

  23. [31]

    D. Y. Vasylyev, A. A. Semenov, and W. Vogel, ``Toward global quantum communication: beam wandering preserves nonclassicality,'' Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, no. 22, p. 220501, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Osborn, R

    J. Osborn, R. Wilson, M. Sarazin, T. Butterley, A. Chac \'o n, F. Derie, O. Farley, X. Haubois, D. Laidlaw, M. LeLouarn et al., ``Optical turbulence profiling with stereo-scidar for vlt and elt,'' Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., vol. 478, no. 1, pp. 825--834, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Hufnagel and N

    R. Hufnagel and N. Stanley, ``Modulation transfer function associated with image transmission through turbulent media,'' J. Opt. Soc. Am., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 52--61, 1964

    1964

  26. [34]

    G. C. Valley, ``Isoplanatic degradation of tilt correction and short-term imaging systems,'' Appl. Opt., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 574--577, 1980

    1980

  27. [35]

    Anarthe, M

    A. Anarthe, M. Lasota, J. Goczkowski, and P. Kolenderski, ``Design of the setup for testing optical telemetry ranging including turbulence simulator for the earth-to-satellite communication link,'' in International Conference on Space Optics—ICSO 2022, vol. 12777. 1em plus 0.5...

    2022

  28. [36]

    J. L. Bufton, ``Comparison of vertical profile turbulence structure with stellar observations,'' Appl. Opt., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1785--1793, 1973

    1973

  29. [37]

    D. P. Greenwood, ``Bandwidth specification for adaptive optics systems,'' J. Opt. Soc. Am., vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 390--393, 1977

    1977

  30. [38]

    L. C. Roberts and L. W. Bradford, ``Improved models of upper-level wind for several astronomical observatories,'' Opt. Express, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 820--837, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    L. C. Andrews, R. L. Phillips, and C. Y. Young, ``Scintillation model for a satellite communication link at large zenith angles,'' Opt. Eng., vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 3272--3280, 2000

    2000

  32. [40]

    Giggenbach and H

    D. Giggenbach and H. Henniger, ``Fading-loss assessment in atmospheric free-space optical communication links with on-off keying,'' Opt. Eng., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 046\,001--046\,001, 2008

    2008

  33. [41]

    Kaushal and G

    H. Kaushal and G. K.addoum, ``Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,'' IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57--96, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    P. V. Trinh, A. Carrasco-Casado, H. Takenaka, M. Fujiwara, M. Kitamura, M. Sasaki, and M. Toyoshima, ``Statistical verifications and deep-learning predictions for satellite-to-ground quantum atmospheric channels,'' Commun. Phys., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 225, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    AlQuwaiee, H.-C

    H. AlQuwaiee, H.-C. Yang, and M.-S. Alouini, ``On the asymptotic capacity of dual-aperture fso systems with generalized pointing error model,'' IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 6502--6512, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Ntanos, N

    A. Ntanos, N. K. Lyras, D. Zavitsanos, G. Giannoulis, A. D. Panagopoulos, and H. Avramopoulos, ``Leo satellites constellation-to-ground QKD links: G reek quantum communication infrastructure paradigm,'' Photonics, vol. 8, no. 12, p. 544, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Vasylyev, A

    D. Vasylyev, A. Semenov, and W. Vogel, ``Atmospheric quantum channels with weak and strong turbulence,'' Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 117, no. 9, p. 090501, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Vasylyev, W

    D. Vasylyev, W. Vogel, and A. Semenov, ``Theory of atmospheric quantum channels based on the law of total probability,'' Phys. Rev. A, vol. 97, no. 6, p. 063852, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    M. T. Dabiri, S. Khankalantary, M. J. Piran, I. S. Ansari, M. Uysal, W. Saad, and C. S. Hong, ``Uav-assisted free space optical communication system with amplify-and-forward relaying,'' IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 8926--8936, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Maharjan, N

    N. Maharjan, N. Devkota, and B. W. Kim, ``Atmospheric effects on satellite--ground free space uplink and downlink optical transmissions,'' Appl. Sci., vol. 12, no. 21, p. 10944, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    G. Xu, N. Zhang, M. Xu, Z. Xu, Q. Zhang, and Z. Song, ``Outage probability and average BER of UAV -assisted dual-hop FSO communication with amplify-and-forward relaying,'' IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 8287--8302, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    P. V. Trinh, D. R. Kolev, K. Shiratama, A. Carrasco-Casado, Y. Munemasa, H. Yamazoe, H. Komatsu, T. Kamata, T. Nakao, S. Ohta et al., ``Experimental verification of fiber coupling characteristics for FSO downlinks from the international space station,'' Opt. Express, vol. 31, ...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Farley, ``Reference optical turbulence and wind profiles for single conjugate and extreme adaptive optics,'' Mon

    O. Farley, ``Reference optical turbulence and wind profiles for single conjugate and extreme adaptive optics,'' Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc., vol. 517, no. 2, pp. 2966--2971, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Ishimaru, Wave propagation and scattering in random media

    A. Ishimaru, Wave propagation and scattering in random media. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Academic Press New York, 1978

    1978

  45. [53]

    N. K. Lyras, C. I. Kourogiorgas, and A. D. Panagopoulos, ``Scintillation due to atmospheric turbulence on optical geo and meo satellite links: Time series synthesizer for system level simulations,'' Int. J. Satell. Commun. Netw., 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Y. S. Mishura, Stochastic calculus for fractional Brownian motion and related processes. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer Science & Business Media, 2008, vol. 1929

    2008

  47. [55]

    Frisch, Turbulence: The Legacy of A

    U. Frisch, Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Cambridge University Press, 1995

    1995

  48. [56]

    Benassi, P

    A. Benassi, P. Bertrand, S. Cohen, and J. Istas, ``Identification of the hurst index of a step fractional brownian motion,'' Stat. Inference Stoch. Process., vol. 3, pp. 101--111, 2000

    2000

  49. [57]

    Grosshans, G

    F. Grosshans, G. Van Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, and P. Grangier, ``Quantum key distribution using gaussian-modulated coherent states,'' Nature, vol. 421, no. 6920, pp. 238--241, 2003

    2003

  50. [58]

    Laudenbach, C

    F. Laudenbach, C. Pacher, C.-H. F. Fung, A. Poppe, M. Peev, B. Schrenk, M. Hentschel, P. Walther, and H. H \"u bel, ``Continuous-variable quantum key distribution with gaussian modulation—the theory of practical implementations,'' Adv. Quantum Technol., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 1800011, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Pan and I

    Z. Pan and I. B. Djordjevic, ``Secret key distillation over satellite-to-satellite free-space optics channel with a limited-sized aperture eavesdropper in the same plane of the legitimate receiver,'' Opt. Express, vol. 28, no. 25, pp. 37\,129--37\,148, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    L. Kunz, M. Jarzyna, W. Zwoli \'n ski, and K. Banaszek, ``Low-cost limit of classical communication with restricted quantum measurements,'' New J. Phys., vol. 22, no. 4, p. 043010, 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    Liorni, H

    C. Liorni, H. Kampermann, and D. Bru , ``Satellite-based links for quantum key distribution: beam effects and weather dependence,'' New J. Phys., vol. 21, no. 9, p. 093055, 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    Roger, R

    T. Roger, R. Singh, C. Perumangatt, D. G. Marangon, M. Sanzaro, P. R. Smith, R. I. Woodward, and A. J. Shields, ``Real-time gigahertz free-space quantum key distribution within an emulated satellite overpass,'' Sci. Adv., vol. 9, no. 48, p. eadj5873, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Galetsky and M

    V. Galetsky and M. Niehus, `` LEO small satellite QKD downlink performance: Quantsat-pt case study,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10293, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    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 et al., ``Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers,'' Science, vol. 356, no. 6343, pp. 1140--1144, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Khmelev, A

    A. Khmelev, A. Duplinsky, R. Bakhshaliev, E. Ivchenko, L. Pismeniuk, V. Mayboroda, I. Nesterov, A. Chernov, A. Trushechkin, E. Kiktenko et al., ``Eurasian-scale experimental satellite-based quantum key distribution with detector efficiency mismatch analysis,'' Opt. Express, vo...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Carrillo-Flores, D

    A. Carrillo-Flores, D. Giggenbach, and M. T. Knopp, ``Statistics of R eceived P ower T ime S eries for O ptical LEO S atellite U plinks,'' Int. J. Satell. Commun. Netw., 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    J. H. Churnside and R. J. Lataitis, ``Wander of an optical beam in the turbulent atmosphere,'' Appl. Opt., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 926--930, 1990

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.