Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Characterisation of a satellite-to-ground channel for continuous variable quantum key distribution protocol

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Satellite-to-ground CV-QKD can produce a positive secret key under restricted-Eve assumptions once dynamic channel losses are fully characterised.

desk verdict Solid mission-specific loss budget for SPOQC CV-QKD; positive key rates exist only inside a hand-chosen restricted-Eve window that the paper itself flags as the minimum needed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05109 v2 pith:5VBGG5FI submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph

Emma Tien Hwai Medlock , Vinod N. Rao , Timothy P. Spiller , Rupesh Kumar , Rupesh Kumar (1 , 2) ((1) School of Physics , Engineering & Technology , York Centre for Quantum Technologies
show 5 more authors
University of York YO10 5FT York U.K. (2) Integrated Quantum Networks Hub U.K.)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd42.50.Ex42.68.Ay
keywords continuous-variableQKDsatellite-to-groundchannellosscharacterisationrestrictedEvetransmittedlocaloscillatorSPOQCatmosphericturbulencesecret-keyrate
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

Space-based continuous-variable quantum key distribution faces a moving target: the free-space loss between a low-Earth-orbit satellite and a ground station changes continuously with zenith angle because of diffraction, turbulence, scintillation, pointing error and atmospheric attenuation. The paper maps every major contribution to that loss for the SPOQC mission parameters, under clear-sky and adverse-weather conditions, different turbulence strengths and several wavelengths. Diffraction dominates, producing roughly 24–34 dB total loss between zenith and ±30° for realistic telescope apertures. When those losses are inserted into an asymptotic key-rate formula that forces the eavesdropper into a lossy channel at least ~210 km from the satellite, a positive secret-key rate appears for clear-sky day and night operation. The result matters because it shows that a first-generation transmitted-local-oscillator CV-QKD payload can still generate usable key material once the channel is properly modelled and modest restrictions are placed on Eve.

What carries the argument

The restricted-Eve (bypass-channel) Holevo bound of Ghalaii et al., in which Eve’s accessible transmissivity η_AE is capped at 0.05 while Alice–Bob mutual information uses the full channel transmittance; this bound, together with the zenith-angle-dependent total loss T(θ), yields the secret-key rate K = β I_AB – χ_BE.

What would settle it

A full end-to-end satellite-to-ground CV-QKD experiment that measures positive finite-size key under the same clear-sky loss and modulation variance while an eavesdropper is allowed closer than 210 km (or is given access to a pure-loss bypass) would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the SPOQC channel parameters (clear sky, 24–34 dB loss depending on aperture and zenith angle), a positive asymptotic secret-key rate is obtained under restricted-Eve assumptions with η_AE = 0.05 (Eve at least ~210 km from Alice) and optimised modulation variance.

Load-bearing premise

The eavesdropper is forced to sit at least 210 km from the satellite and cannot intercept the entire beam without suffering the same diffraction loss that Alice and Bob already measure.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript characterises the dynamic satellite-to-ground free-space channel for continuous-variable QKD, specialised to the SPOQC LEO mission (550 km, 1550 nm, 8 cm transmitter, zenith angles ±30°). It assembles standard models for diffraction, atmospheric attenuation, scintillation (strong-turbulence regime), beam wander/broadening, pointing/tracking, and weather (fog/cloud), and reports total clear-sky losses of roughly 24–34 dB depending on receiver aperture and zenith angle (Sec. II, Fig. 4, Tables II–III). Using asymptotic reverse-reconciliation rates under the restricted-Eve / bypass-channel model of Ghalaii et al., with hand-chosen parameters η_AE = 0.05 (and η_S = 0), optimised modulation variance up to 300 SNU, and low excess noise, the authors obtain positive key rates per pass for clear-sky conditions, including daytime operation (Sec. III, Figs. 7–8). The abstract and conclusion state that a positive secret key is possible only under these restricted-Eve assumptions.

Significance. A careful, mission-specific downlink loss budget for CV-QKD is of practical value: the wavelength dependence, aperture trade-offs, scintillation aperture-averaging, TLO vs LLO excess-noise discussion, and weather tables (clear sky vs fog/cloud) are useful for SPOQC and similar LEO designs. The appendices on displacement transmittance, background photon flux, and the restricted-Eve covariance matrix add transparency. The positive-key claim is narrower: it is an asymptotic illustration inside a restricted-Eve parameter region chosen so that the rate is positive, not a demonstration of security under standard or weaker adversarial models. If the loss characterisation is the primary contribution and the key-rate section is clearly framed as conditional, the work is a solid engineering contribution to space CV-QKD.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, after Eq. (19); Figs. 7–8; Appendix C] Sec. III (paragraph after Eq. (19) and the discussion of η_AE = 0.05): The abstract and conclusion claim that a positive secret key is possible for the characterised SPOQC losses. That claim rests on setting η_AE = 0.05 (and η_S = 0) as “the minimum amount of restriction needed … to generate a positive secret key,” with V_opt up to 300 SNU. No scan of the (η_AE, V_opt, η_S, ξ_tot) region is given, nor is it shown that the rate remains positive under any weaker, physically motivated restriction. If η_AE rises modestly above 0.05 or a pure-loss bypass η_S > 0 is admitted, the Holevo bound exceeds I_AB for the same 24–34 dB losses. Either provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g. contours of K vs η_AE and V) or reframe the key-rate section as strictly illustrative under this fixed security model, and soften the abstract claim accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III (Eve distance paragraph); Eq. (13)] Sec. III: The ~210 km Alice–Eve distance is obtained by equating only the diffraction term of Eq. (13) to η_AE, ignoring turbulence, pointing, and aperture effects used elsewhere for Bob. The text then equates this to a VLEO/HAP adversary that must remain between Alice and Bob for the full ~120 s pass. That geometric idealisation is load-bearing for the security premise but is not justified against relative-motion, beam-centre, or multi-pass constraints. Either strengthen the physical argument for why a realistic HAP/VLEO Eve is forced to η_AE ≤ 0.05 for the whole pass, or present the distance only as a numerical translation of η_AE and not as an operational security guarantee.
  3. [Sec. III; Introduction (parameter estimation / shot-noise fluctuation)] Sec. III and Introduction: The paper correctly flags that dynamic loss and loss variance impair parameter estimation and that finite-size effects matter for short LEO passes (2 MHz × ~120 s, further reduced by weather). The reported rates are purely asymptotic (Eq. (18)), with finite-size and PE-error contributions left unquantified. For the claim that a positive secret key is achievable under the stated channel parameters, at least an order-of-magnitude finite-size estimate (or an explicit statement that the rates are only asymptotic upper bounds and not mission-ready) is needed; otherwise the central “positive key” statement overreaches the calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I; Sec. III (bits per pass)] Table I lists satellite pass time ≈120 s, while the bits-per-pass formula in Sec. III uses t_sat = 1.2 s. Clarify which duration is intended for the ±30° QKD window and correct consistently.
  2. [Fig. 2; Sec. IID; Sec. III] Fig. 2 caption and body: “Hight above sea level” → “Height”; several other typos (e.g. “regrades”, “Helovo”, “boarding & wandering”, “form” for “from”) should be cleaned in a revision pass.
  3. [Sec. IIA; Fig. 1] Eq. (1) and the geometry in Fig. 1 assume a zenith-aligned pass; state briefly how off-track passes would change z(θ) and the loss curves, or note that the results are an upper-bound geometry.
  4. [Sec. IIG; Fig. 5] Fig. 5 and wavelength discussion: atmospheric absorption lines are omitted; a short note on whether 1550 nm sits near any relevant absorption feature for the path lengths considered would help readers.
  5. [Sec. III; Appendix B] Appendix B: N_mod and Φ day/night values are useful; ensure the FOV/solid-angle and filter bandwidth assumptions are stated once in the main text when ξ_background is introduced, so the daytime excess-noise claim is self-contained.
  6. [Fig. 4; Eq. (13); Tables II–III] Clarify whether the 30% central obstruction is included in all aperture-loss curves of Fig. 4 and Tables II–III, and how it enters Eq. (13).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No tautological reduction of equations; only mild load-bearing self-citation of the restricted-Eve model (overlapping authors) plus transparent hand-choice of η_AE = 0.05 as the minimum that yields positive key.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III (paragraph after Eq. (19)) and Appendix C]
    "A more realistic secret key rate estimation for space-based QKD was proposed in [60], line of sight key exchange in the presence of a bypass channel (which Eve has no access to). … A positive key rate can only be established if the loss between Alice and Eve channel is restricted to η_AE = 0.05. This is the minimum amount of restriction needed of Eve in order to generate a positive secret key for the channel loss of a satellite-to-ground channel."

    The central claim of a positive asymptotic key for the computed 24–34 dB SPOQC losses rests on the restricted-Eve / bypass-channel model of Ghalaii et al. (PRX Quantum 2023), whose author list overlaps with the present paper (Kumar, Spiller). Under the conventional unrestricted-Eve Holevo bound the same losses yield zero key; the positive result therefore appears only after the self-cited model and the hand-chosen numerical value η_AE = 0.05 are inserted. The reduction is not definitional, but the security premise is not independently established inside the manuscript.

full rationale

The channel-loss characterisation (diffraction, scintillation, beam wander, atmospheric attenuation, tracking) is assembled from independent classical free-space literature (Hufnagel-Andrews-Phillips, Fante, Yura, Moll et al., etc.) and does not reduce to any of the paper’s own later claims. The secret-key calculation uses the standard reverse-reconciliation formula together with the bypass-channel covariance matrix taken from Ghalaii et al. (2023). That reference shares two authors with the present work, so the restricted-Eve premise is a self-citation; it is load-bearing for the positive-key statement once losses exceed ~26 dB. However, the paper states the restriction explicitly (“the minimum amount of restriction needed … η_AE = 0.05”) and never presents the resulting positive rate as a first-principles prediction independent of that choice. No equation is definitionally equivalent to its input, no parameter is fitted to data and then re-predicted, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The circularity is therefore limited to ordinary self-citation of a modelling framework; score 2.

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

The central positive-key claim rests on standard free-space optical loss models, the asymptotic CV-QKD rate formula, and the restricted-Eve bypass-channel model of Ghalaii et al. Free parameters are the numerical security and detector settings chosen to obtain a positive rate; no new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • η_AE (Alice–Eve transmissivity) = 0.05 (baseline)
    Set by hand to 0.05 (or 0.01/0.005/0.03 in figures) so that a positive key appears; corresponds to Eve being forced ~210 km from the satellite.
  • V_opt (modulation variance) = 12–300 SNU depending on figure
    Optimised after loss is known (up to 300 SNU) to maximise the restricted-Eve rate; not measured.
  • η_T (telescope coupling transmissivity) = 0.1–0.4
    Chosen as 0.1 or 0.4; free parameter of the restricted-Eve model.
  • ξ_tot (total excess noise) = 0.001–0.005
    Set to 0.001–0.005; not derived from the channel model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hufnagel–Andrews–Phillips C_N^{2} profile and weighted downlink integral correctly describe the turbulence for a 550 km LEO pass.
    Invoked in Sec. II.B, Eqs. (2)–(3); standard but not re-validated for the specific site.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic reverse-reconciliation CV-QKD rate K = β I_AB – χ_BE remains a valid upper bound under dynamic loss.
    Used throughout Sec. III; finite-size and parameter-estimation errors under time-varying transmittance are neglected.
  • domain assumption Restricted-Eve bypass-channel model of Ghalaii et al. (η_AE, η_S, η_T) correctly captures realistic eavesdropping geometry.
    Adopted wholesale in Sec. III and Appendix C; the numerical bound η_AE ≤ 0.05 is chosen ad hoc.
  • domain assumption Weather attenuation values from Moll et al. apply to the SPOQC wavelengths and cloud types.
    Tables II–III; used to conclude that only moderate fog permits a key.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterisation of a satellite-to-ground channel for continuous variable quantum key distribution protocol." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5VBGG5FI

@misc{pith2026260705109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterisation of a satellite-to-ground channel for continuous variable quantum key distribution protocol},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5VBGG5FI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05109}
}
read the original abstract

In space based quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols, the quantum channel will be dynamic in nature and the channel loss will change with respect to the zenith angle. In the context of continuous variable (CV)-QKD, this will cause issues with parameter estimation and for a transmitted local oscillator in particular it will also fluctuate the shot noise. Therefore, it is vital to characterise this channel loss and the sources of this loss. In this paper the varying channel loss is characterised under practical assumptions. This is shown for various different scenarios, turbulence strengths, as well as wavelengths. This work shows, for the channel parameters considered, it is possible to generate a positive secret key if restricted Eve security assumptions are made.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Satellite pass over the OGS. Here, the CV-QKD exchange occurs between zenith angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. C 2 N profiles as a function of altitudes (shown on the top) and the weighted C 2 N profile for 550 km downlink as a function of zenith angles (shown on the bottom). Here the power law parameter for day time pday = 1.33 was used, random background turbulence parameter M = 1, root-mean-square high altitude wind speed vw = 21 m/s, and with the initial turbulence strengths as seen in the parameter table. average [37], … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Point ahead angle for a given satellite altitude. The PAA changes with increasing altitudes of the satellite, ranging from 250 km to 2000 km. This is a typical range for LEO satellites. where c is the speed of light and vt is the tangential velocity of the satellite. Here the PAA at a given zenith angle is shown in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total upper bound channel loss with differing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excess noise in CV-QKD (ξbackground) as a function of photon flux per homodyne mode is plotted here. The free space homodyne detector of aperture 3 mm is considered, along with laser linewidth of 1µm and detection efficiency of 0.8. The full calculation of photon flux …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The achievable secret key rates per pass for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The geometry used to derive the integrals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    An update on quantum cryptography,

    Charles H Bennett and Gilles Brassard, “An update on quantum cryptography,” inWorkshop on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques(Springer, 1984) pp. 475–480

    1984

  2. [2]

    Quantumpublic key distribution reinvented,

    CharlesHBennettandGillesBrassard,“Quantumpublic key distribution reinvented,” ACM SIGACT News18, 51–53 (1987)

    1987

  3. [3]

    Advances in quantum cryptography,

    Stefano Pirandola, Ulrik L Andersen, Leonardo Banchi, Mario Berta, Darius Bunandar, Roger Colbeck, Dirk En- glund, Tobias Gehring, Cosmo Lupo, Carlo Ottaviani, et al., “Advances in quantum cryptography,” Advances in optics and photonics12, 1012–1236 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    An efficient quan- tum computing technique for cracking rsa using shor’s algorithm,

    Vaishali Bhatia and KR Ramkumar, “An efficient quan- tum computing technique for cracking rsa using shor’s algorithm,” in2020 IEEE 5th international conference on computing communication and automation (ICCCA) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 89–94

    2020

  5. [5]

    Distributing se- cret keys with quantum continuous variables: principle, security and implementations,

    Eleni Diamanti and Anthony Leverrier, “Distributing se- cret keys with quantum continuous variables: principle, security and implementations,” Entropy17, 6072–6092 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Ground to satellite secure key exchange using quantum cryptography,

    John G Rarity, PR Tapster, PM Gorman, and Peter Knight, “Ground to satellite secure key exchange using quantum cryptography,” New Journal of Physics4, 82 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Recent progress in quantum key distribu- tion network deployments and standards,

    Manoj Stanley, Y Gui, D Unnikrishnan, SRG Hall, and I Fatadin, “Recent progress in quantum key distribu- tion network deployments and standards,” inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 2416 (IOP Publishing,

  8. [8]

    Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum re- peaters,

    Marco Lucamarini, Zhiliang L Yuan, James F Dynes, and Andrew J Shields, “Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum re- peaters,” Nature557, 400–403 (2018)

    2018

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Micius quantum experiments in space,

    Chao-Yang Lu, Yuan Cao, Cheng-Zhi Peng, and Jian- Wei Pan, “Micius quantum experiments in space,” Re- views of Modern Physics94, 035001 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    The Hub’s SPOQC mission - Quantum Commu- nications Hub — quantumcommshub.net,

    “The Hub’s SPOQC mission - Quantum Commu- nications Hub — quantumcommshub.net,”https: //www.quantumcommshub.net/research-community/ about-the-hub/phase-2/work-package-5/ the-hubs-spoqc-mission/, [Accessed 29-04-2025]

    2025

  3. [11]

    The qeyssat mission: on-orbit demonstration of secure optical communications network technologies,

    A Scott, Thomas Jennewein, J Cain, Ian D’Souza, B Hig- gins, Danya Hudson, Hugh Podmore, and W Soh, “The qeyssat mission: on-orbit demonstration of secure optical communications network technologies,” inEnvironmen- tal effects on light propagation and adaptive systems III, Vol...

    2020

  4. [12]

    The european satellite-based qkd system eagle-1,

    Thomas Hiemstra, David Hasler, Domenico Paone, Fabian Reichert, Frank Heine, and Julian Struck, “The european satellite-based qkd system eagle-1,” in Free-Space Laser Communications XXXVII, Vol. 13355 (SPIE, 2025) pp. 216–222. 15

    2025

  5. [13]

    Qube–towards quantum key distribution with small satellites,

    Lukas Knips, Michael Auer, Adomas Baliuka, Ömer Bayraktar, Peter Freiwang, Matthias Grünefeld, Roland Haber, Norbert Lemke, Christoph Marquardt, Florian Moll,et al., “Qube–towards quantum key distribution with small satellites,” inQuantum 2.0(Optica Publish- ing Group, 2022) p...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Spooqy-1: The first nano-satellite todemonstratequantumentanglementinspace,

    Tom Vergoossen, Aitor Villar, Alexander Lohrmann, Huai Ying Lim, Divya Shankar, Robert Bedington, Christoph F Wildfeuer, Douglas Griffin, Daniel KL Oi, Xueliang Bai,et al., “Spooqy-1: The first nano-satellite todemonstratequantumentanglementinspace,” (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    From high throughput optical network to quantum information network: overview of european space agency networks,

    K Balakier, G Acar, D Dequal, T Scarinzi, R Mata Calvo, C Vasko, J Perdigues, and H Hauschildt, “From high throughput optical network to quantum information network: overview of european space agency networks,” Free-Space Laser Communications XXXVII13355, 80– 90 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    The nanoqey mission: ground to space quantum key and entanglement distribution using a nanosatellite,

    Thomas Jennewein, C Grant, E Choi, C Pugh, C Hol- loway, JP Bourgoin, H Hakima, B Higgins, and R Zee, “The nanoqey mission: ground to space quantum key and entanglement distribution using a nanosatellite,” inEmerging technologies in security and defence II; and quantum-physics...

    2014

  9. [17]

    Cubesat quantum communications mission,

    Daniel KL Oi, Alex Ling, Giuseppe Vallone, Paolo Vil- loresi, Steve Greenland, Emma Kerr, Malcolm Macdon- ald, Harald Weinfurter, Hans Kuiper, Edoardo Charbon, et al., “Cubesat quantum communications mission,” EPJ Quantum Technology4, 1–20 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Quantum communications at esa: Towards a space experiment on the iss,

    Josep Maria Perdigues Armengol, Bernhard Furch, Clo- vis Jacinto de Matos, Olivier Minster, Luigi Cacciapuoti, Martin Pfennigbauer, Markus Aspelmeyer, Thomas Jen- newein, Rupert Ursin, Tobias Schmitt-Manderbach, et al., “Quantum communications at esa: Towards a space experimen...

    2008

  11. [19]

    A cubesat platform for space based quantum key distribution,

    Srihari Sivasankaran, Clarence Liu, Moritz Mihm, and Alexander Ling, “A cubesat platform for space based quantum key distribution,” in2022 IEEE international conference on space optical systems and applications (IC- SOS)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 51–56

    2022

  12. [20]

    Limits and security of free-space quantum communications,

    Stefano Pirandola, “Limits and security of free-space quantum communications,” Physical Review Research3, 013279 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Atmospheric continuous-variable quan- tum communication,

    Bettina Heim, Christian Peuntinger, Nathan Killoran, Imran Khan, Christoffer Wittmann, Ch Marquardt, and Gerd Leuchs, “Atmospheric continuous-variable quan- tum communication,” New Journal of Physics16, 113018 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Connecting quantum cities: Simulation of a satellite-based quantum network,

    Raja Yehia, Matteo Schiavon, Valentina Marulanda Acosta, Tim Coopmans, Iordanis Kerenidis, David Elk- ouss, and Eleni Diamanti, “Connecting quantum cities: Simulation of a satellite-based quantum network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11606 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Satellite- mediated quantum atmospheric links,

    Dmytro Vasylyev, W Vogel, and Florian Moll, “Satellite- mediated quantum atmospheric links,” Physical Review A99, 053830 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Increasing the link-distance of free-space quantum coherent communication with large area detec- tors,

    Rupesh Kumar, Igor Konieczniak, Gerald Bonner, and Tim Spiller, “Increasing the link-distance of free-space quantum coherent communication with large area detec- tors,” IET Quantum Communication2, 1–7 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    91 (John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

    Olivier Bouchet, Hervé Sizun, Christian Boisrobert, and Frederique De Fornel,Free-space optics: propagation and communication, Vol. 91 (John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    60 (Springer, 2017)

    Hemani Kaushal, VK Jain, and Subrat Kar,Free space optical communication, Vol. 60 (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Free-space optical communications,

    Vincent WS Chan, “Free-space optical communications,” Journal of Lightwave technology24, 4750–4762 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Understanding the performance of free- space optics,

    Scott Bloom, Eric Korevaar, John Schuster, and Heinz Willebrand, “Understanding the performance of free- space optics,” Journal of optical networking2, 178–200 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Survey on free space optical communication: A communication the- ory perspective,

    Mohammad Ali Khalighi and Murat Uysal, “Survey on free space optical communication: A communication the- ory perspective,” IEEE communications surveys & tuto- rials16, 2231–2258 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Coherent free-space optical communications: Opportu- nities and challenges,

    FernandoPGuiomar, MarcoAFernandes, JoséLeonardo Nascimento, Vera Rodrigues, and Paulo P Monteiro, “Coherent free-space optical communications: Opportu- nities and challenges,” Journal of Lightwave Technology 40, 3173–3186 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Satellite-based entanglement distribution and quantum teleportation with continuous variables,

    Tasio Gonzalez-Raya, Stefano Pirandola, and Mikel Sanz, “Satellite-based entanglement distribution and quantum teleportation with continuous variables,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17224 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Louis Elterman,UV, visible, and IR attenuation for alti- tudes to 50 km, 1968, 285 (Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Office of Aerospace Research ..., 1968)

    1968

  25. [33]

    The range and horizon plane sim- ulation for ground stations of low earth orbiting (leo) satellites

    Shkelzen Cakaj, Bexhet Kamo, Vladi Koliçi, and Olimpjon Shurdi, “The range and horizon plane sim- ulation for ground stations of low earth orbiting (leo) satellites.” Int. J. Commun. Netw. Syst. Sci.4, 585–589 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Lucien François Otoniel Canuet,Atmospheric turbu- lence profile modeling for satellite-ground laser com- munication, Master’s thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Robert K Tyson and Benjamin West Frazier,Principles of adaptive optics(CRC press, 2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Near- ground vertical profile of refractive-index fluctuations,

    Larry C Andrews, Ronald L Phillips, D Wayne, T Leclerc, P Sauer, R Crabbs, and J Kiriazes, “Near- ground vertical profile of refractive-index fluctuations,” inAtmospheric Propagation VI, Vol. 7324 (SPIE, 2009) pp. 11–22

    2009

  29. [37]

    Electromagnetic beam propagation in turbulent media: an update,

    Ronald L Fante, “Electromagnetic beam propagation in turbulent media: an update,” Proceedings of the IEEE 68, 1424–1443 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    Electromagnetic beam propagation in turbulent media,

    Ronald L Fante, “Electromagnetic beam propagation in turbulent media,” Proceedings of the IEEE63, 1669– 1692 (1975)

    1975

  31. [39]

    Aperture averaging of optical scin- tillations in the turbulent atmosphere,

    James H Churnside, “Aperture averaging of optical scin- tillations in the turbulent atmosphere,” Applied Optics 30, 1982–1994 (1991)

    1982

  32. [40]

    Fundamentals of photon- ics,

    SALEH BEA and MC Teich, “Fundamentals of photon- ics,” Wiley , 313 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Laser and gaussian beam propagation and transformation,

    Javier Alda, “Laser and gaussian beam propagation and transformation,” Encyclopedia of optical engineer- ing999, 1013 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Short-term average optical-beam spread in a turbulent medium,

    Harold T Yura, “Short-term average optical-beam spread in a turbulent medium,” JOSA63, 567–572 (1973)

    1973

  35. [43]

    Ephemeris closed-loop tracking of leo satellites with pseudorange and doppler measurements,

    Nadim Khairallah and Zaher M Kassas, “Ephemeris closed-loop tracking of leo satellites with pseudorange and doppler measurements,” inProceedings of the 34th international technical meeting of the satellite division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2021)(2021) pp. 2544...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Evaluation of satellite’s point-ahead angle derived from tle for laser communication,

    Riccardo Lazzaro and Carlo Bettanini, “Evaluation of satellite’s point-ahead angle derived from tle for laser communication,” Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio101, 7– 15 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Point-ahead demonstration of a transmitting antenna for satellite quantum communication,

    Xuan Han, Hai-Lin Yong, Ping Xu, Wei-Yang Wang, Kui-Xing Yang, Hua-Jian Xue, Wen-Qi Cai, Ji-Gang Ren, Cheng-Zhi Peng, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Point-ahead demonstration of a transmitting antenna for satellite quantum communication,” Optics express26, 17044– 17055 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Satellite quantum communications: Fundamental bounds and practical security,

    Stefano Pirandola, “Satellite quantum communications: Fundamental bounds and practical security,” Physical Review Research3, 023130 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    A comprehensive design and performance analysis of low earth orbit satellite quantum communication,

    Jean-Philippe Bourgoin, Evan Meyer-Scott, Brendon L Higgins, B Helou, Chris Erven, Hannes Huebel, B Ku- mar, D Hudson, Ian D’Souza, Ralph Girard,et al., “A comprehensive design and performance analysis of low earth orbit satellite quantum communication,” New Journal of Physics...

    2013

  40. [48]

    Atmospheric intensity scintillation of stars, i. statistical distributions and temporal prop- erties,

    Dainis Dravins, Lennart Lindegren, Eva Mezey, and Andrew T Young, “Atmospheric intensity scintillation of stars, i. statistical distributions and temporal prop- erties,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific109, 173 (1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    Atmospheric scintillation in astronomical photometry,

    J Osborn, D Föhring, VS Dhillon, and RW Wilson, “Atmospheric scintillation in astronomical photometry,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society452, 1707–1716 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Unconditional se- curity of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances,

    Hoi-Kwong Lo and Hoi Fung Chau, “Unconditional se- curity of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances,” science283, 2050–2056 (1999)

  43. [51]

    Simpleproofofsecurity of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol,

    PeterWShorandJohnPreskill,“Simpleproofofsecurity of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol,” Physical review letters85, 441 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Simple security proof of quantum key distribution based on complementarity,

    Masato Koashi, “Simple security proof of quantum key distribution based on complementarity,” New Journal of Physics11, 045018 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Generating the local oscilla- tor “locally

    Bing Qi, Pavel Lougovski, Raphael Pooser, Warren Grice, and Miljko Bobrek, “Generating the local oscilla- tor “locally” in continuous-variable quantum key distri- bution based on coherent detection,” Physical Review X 5, 041009 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Ex- perimental demonstration of long-distance continuous- variable quantum key distribution,

    Paul Jouguet, Sébastien Kunz-Jacques, Anthony Lev- errier, Philippe Grangier, and Eleni Diamanti, “Ex- perimental demonstration of long-distance continuous- variable quantum key distribution,” Nature photonics7, 378–381 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Self-referenced continuous-variable quantum key distribution protocol,

    BS Daniel, C Brif, PJ Coles, N Lütkenhaus, RM Ca- macho, J Urayama, and M Sarovar, “Self-referenced continuous-variable quantum key distribution protocol,” Phys. Rev. X5, 041010 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Cloud attenuation statis- tics prediction from ka-band to optical frequencies: In- tegrated liquid water content field synthesizer,

    Nikolaos K Lyras, Charilaos I Kourogiorgas, and Athanasios D Panagopoulos, “Cloud attenuation statis- tics prediction from ka-band to optical frequencies: In- tegrated liquid water content field synthesizer,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation65, 319–328 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Wavelength selection criteria and link availability due to cloud coverage statis- tics and attenuation affecting satellite, aerial, and down- linkscenarios,

    Florian Moll and Markus Knapek, “Wavelength selection criteria and link availability due to cloud coverage statis- tics and attenuation affecting satellite, aerial, and down- linkscenarios,”inFree-Space Laser Communications VII, Vol. 6709 (SPIE, 2007) pp. 347–358

    2007

  50. [58]

    Optical ground station diversity for satellite quantum key distribution in ireland,

    Naga Lakshmi Anipeddi, Jerry Horgan, Daniel KL Oi, and Deirdre Kilbane, “Optical ground station diversity for satellite quantum key distribution in ireland,” EPJ Quantum Technology12, 91 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Continuous-variable quantum key distribution with gaussian modulation—the theory of practical im- plementations,

    Fabian Laudenbach, Christoph Pacher, Chi-Hang Fred Fung, Andreas Poppe, Momtchil Peev, Bernhard Schrenk, Michael Hentschel, Philip Walther, and Hannes Hübel, “Continuous-variable quantum key distribution with gaussian modulation—the theory of practical im- plementations,” Adva...

    2018

  52. [60]

    Satellite-based quantum key distribution in the presence of bypass channels,

    Masoud Ghalaii, Sima Bahrani, Carlo Liorni, Federico Grasselli, Hermann Kampermann, Lewis Wooltorton, Rupesh Kumar, Stefano Pirandola, Timothy P Spiller, Alexander Ling,et al., “Satellite-based quantum key distribution in the presence of bypass channels,” PRX Quantum4, 040320 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Pulse shape optimization against doppler shifts and delays in optical quantum communication,

    Emanuel Schlake, Roy Barzel, Dennis Rätzel, and Claus Lämmerzahl, “Pulse shape optimization against doppler shifts and delays in optical quantum communication,” EPJ Quantum Technology12, 1–30 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Self-referenced continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution protocol,

    Daniel BS Soh, Constantin Brif, Patrick J Coles, Norbert Lütkenhaus, Ryan M Camacho, Junji Urayama, and Mo- han Sarovar, “Self-referenced continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution protocol,” Physical Review X5, 041010 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Feasibilityofquantumkeydistributionfromhigh altitude platforms,

    Yi Chu, Ross Donaldson, Rupesh Kumar, and David Grace,“Feasibilityofquantumkeydistributionfromhigh altitude platforms,” Quantum Science and Technology6, 035009 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Free-space and fiber-integrated measurement-device-independent quan- tum key distribution under high background noise,

    Yu-Huai Li, Shuang-Lin Li, Xiao-Long Hu, Cong Jiang, Zong-Wen Yu, Wei Li, Wei-Yue Liu, Sheng-Kai Liao, Ji-Gang Ren, Hao Li,et al., “Free-space and fiber-integrated measurement-device-independent quan- tum key distribution under high background noise,” Physical Review Letters13...

    2023

  57. [65]

    Free-space quantum key distribution duringdaylightandatnight,

    Wen-Qi Cai, Yang Li, Bo Li, Ji-Gang Ren, Sheng-Kai Liao, Yuan Cao, Liang Zhang, Meng Yang, Jin-Cai Wu, Yu-Huai Li,et al., “Free-space quantum key distribution duringdaylightandatnight,”Optica11,647–652(2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Long-distance free-space quan- tum key distribution with continuous variables,

    Tianxiang Zhan, Huasheng Li, Peng Huang, Haoze Chen, Jiaqi Han, Zijing Wu, Hao Fang, Hanwen Yin, Zehao Zhou, Huiting Fu,et al., “Long-distance free-space quan- tum key distribution with continuous variables,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21546 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A survey of free space optics (fso) commu- nication systems, links, and networks,

    Samir Ahmed Al-Gailani, Mohd Fadzli Mohd Salleh, Ali Ahmed Salem, Redhwan Qasem Shaddad, Usman Ul- lah Sheikh, Nasir Ahmed Algeelani, and Tarik A Al- mohamad, “A survey of free space optics (fso) commu- nication systems, links, and networks,” IEEE Access9, 7353–7373 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Lumi- nescent detector for free-space optical communication,

    TPeyronel, KJQuirk, SCWang, andTGTiecke,“Lumi- nescent detector for free-space optical communication,” Optica3, 787–792 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    Reference pulse attack on continuous variable quantum key distribution with local local oscillator under trusted phase noise,

    Shengjun Ren, Rupesh Kumar, Adrian Wonfor, Xinke Tang, Richard Penty, and Ian White, “Reference pulse attack on continuous variable quantum key distribution with local local oscillator under trusted phase noise,” Journal of the Optical Society of America B36, B7–B15 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Alejandro A Aragón-Zavala, José Luis Cuevas-Ruíz, and José Antonio Delgado-Penín,High-altitude platforms for wireless communications(John Wiley & Sons, 2008). 17

    2008

  63. [71]

    Hap- aided relaying satellite fso/qkd systems for secure vehic- ular networks,

    Minh Q Vu, Ngoc T Dang, and Anh T Pham, “Hap- aided relaying satellite fso/qkd systems for secure vehic- ular networks,” in2019 IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Spring)(IEEE, 2019) pp. 1–6

    2019

  64. [72]

    Design and performance of relay-assisted satellite free-space optical quantum key distribution sys- tems,

    Minh Quang Vu, Thanh V Pham, Ngoc T Dang, and Anh T Pham, “Design and performance of relay-assisted satellite free-space optical quantum key distribution sys- tems,” IEEE Access8, 122498–122510 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    All-optical two-way relaying free-space optical communications for hap-based broadband back- haul networks,

    Minh Q Vu, Nga TT Nguyen, Hien TT Pham, and Ngoc T Dang, “All-optical two-way relaying free-space optical communications for hap-based broadband back- haul networks,” Optics Communications410, 277–286 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Haps-based relaying for integrated space–air–ground networks with hybrid fso/rf communication: A performance analysis,

    R Swaminathan, Shubha Sharma, Narendra Vish- wakarma, and AS Madhukumar, “Haps-based relaying for integrated space–air–ground networks with hybrid fso/rf communication: A performance analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems57, 1581–1599 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    Broadband communications via high-altitude platforms: A survey,

    Stylianos Karapantazis and F Pavlidou, “Broadband communications via high-altitude platforms: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials7, 2–31 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    A vision and framework for the high al- titude platform station (haps) networks of the future,

    Gunes Karabulut Kurt, Mohammad G Khoshkholgh, Safwan Alfattani, Ahmed Ibrahim, Tasneem SJ Darwish, Md Sahabul Alam, Halim Yanikomeroglu, and Abbas Yongacoglu, “A vision and framework for the high al- titude platform station (haps) networks of the future,” IEEE Communications S...

    2021

  69. [77]

    Long-distance continuous- variable quantum key distribution over 202.81 km of fiber,

    Yichen Zhang, Ziyang Chen, Stefano Pirandola, Xiangyu Wang, Chao Zhou, Binjie Chu, Yijia Zhao, Bingjie Xu, Song Yu, and Hong Guo, “Long-distance continuous- variable quantum key distribution over 202.81 km of fiber,” Physical review letters125, 010502 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Atmospheric modulation transfer function for desert and mountain locations: the atmospheric effects on r 0,

    DL Walters and KE Kunkel, “Atmospheric modulation transfer function for desert and mountain locations: the atmospheric effects on r 0,” journal of the optical Society of America71, 397–405 (1981)

    1981

  71. [79]

    Feasibility of space-based measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution,

    Xingyu Wang, Chen Dong, Shanghong Zhao, Yong Liu, Xiaowen Liu, and Haonan Zhu, “Feasibility of space-based measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution,” New Journal of Physics23, 045001 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Feasi- bility of quantum key distribution through a dense wave- length division multiplexing network,

    Bing Qi, Wen Zhu, Li Qian, and Hoi-Kwong Lo, “Feasi- bility of quantum key distribution through a dense wave- length division multiplexing network,” New Journal of Physics12, 103042 (2010)

    2010

  73. [81]

    Background noise of satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,

    Miao Er-Long, Han Zheng-fu, Gong Shun-sheng, Zhang Tao, Diao Da-Sheng, and Guo Guang-Can, “Background noise of satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,” New Journal of Physics7, 215 (2005)

    2005

  74. [82]

    Feasibility of satellite quantum key distribution,

    Cristian Bonato, Andrea Tomaello, Vania Da Deppo, Giampiero Naletto, and Paolo Villoresi, “Feasibility of satellite quantum key distribution,” New Journal of Physics11, 045017 (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Gaussian quantum informa- tion,

    Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raúl García- Patrón, Nicolas J Cerf, Timothy C Ralph, Jeffrey H Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd, “Gaussian quantum informa- tion,” Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621–669 (2012). Appendix A: Displacement loss derivation We derive the loss for recei...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.