Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Finite and Asymptotic Key Analysis for CubeSat-Based BB84 QKD with Elliptical Beam Approximation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For CubeSat QKD downlinks, the efficient BB84 protocol consistently yields higher secret key rates than standard BB84 across all six modeled weather conditions, in both finite and asymptotic regimes.

desk verdict The qualitative takeaway is sound but the quantitative results rest on a suspect transmittance formula and underspecified simulation parameters; worth a referee only if that equation gets fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15148 v2 pith:AJMSVAV2 submitted 2025-01-25 quant-ph

Muskan , Arindam Dutta , Subhashish Banerjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P94 PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords quantumkeydistributionBB84protocoldecoystatesfinite-keyanalysisasymptoticrateCubeSatellipticalbeammodelatmosphericturbulence
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 tries to establish that, for a CubeSat-based quantum key distribution downlink, the efficient BB84 protocol is practically preferable to standard BB84. Using an elliptical beam model of atmospheric transmittance, the authors compute finite-block and asymptotic secret key rates per pulse for both protocols under clear, foggy, and windy day and night conditions. They find that efficient BB84 consistently outperforms standard BB84, roughly doubling the key rate at zenith, and that the advantage persists at larger zenith angles. A sympathetic reader would care because CubeSats are a leading low-cost platform for global QKD, and choosing the right protocol and accurately modeling the channel are key to whether such systems can generate usable keys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the elliptical beam transmittance model, Eq. (15), which gives the transmittance $\eta(x_0,y_0,W_1,W_2,\alpha)$ through a circular receiving aperture as a function of beam centroid, semi-axes, and orientation. This transmittance is averaged over the probability distribution of transmittance (PDT) via Eq. (16), using Monte Carlo samples of the beam parameters. The key rate formulas, Eqs. (1), (3), (13), and (14), then convert transmittance samples into finite and asymptotic secret key rates for efficient and standard BB84, with finite statistics handled by multiplicative Chernoff bounds.

What would settle it

Recompute the average key rates using explicit, published normal-distribution parameters for the beam centroid and widths, and compare the predicted zenith dependence (for example, $8 \times 10^{-5}$ bits per pulse for efficient BB84 at zenith in clear daytime) against measured secret key lengths from an actual CubeSat downlink at 400 km altitude, 785 nm wavelength, and a 50 cm ground aperture; if the measured rates fall below the predicted curves or standard BB84 outperforms efficient BB84, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the modeled CubeSat downlink, efficient BB84 with two decoy states yields higher finite and asymptotic average secret key rates than standard BB84 under every weather condition considered, with the gap widening as turbulence and fog increase. The mechanism is the biased basis choice of efficient BB84, which increases the sifting ratio and reduces the statistical uncertainty from two-basis parameter estimation. Quantitatively, at zenith in clear daytime, the finite key rate is about $8 \times 10^{-5}$ bits per pulse for efficient BB84 versus about $4 \times 10^{-5}$ for standard BB84, and asymptotic rates are roughly 1.2 to 1.5 times higher than finite rates. The paper also analyzes the probability distribution of key rates across zenith angles, showing broader distributions at low zenith angles and a consistent qualitative advantage for efficient BB84.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results assume a specific but incompletely specified probability distribution for the random beam parameters: the angle difference $\alpha - \theta_0$ is uniform on $[0, \pi/2]$, while $x_0$, $y_0$, $\Theta_1$, and $\Theta_2$ are said to be normal, yet their means and variances are never stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, efficient BB84 should be the protocol of choice for CubeSat-based QKD downlinks, especially when turbulence and fog limit transmittance.
  • The modeled advantage implies that a CubeSat QKD mission using efficient BB84 could generate roughly twice the secret key length of standard BB84 in a single overpass at zenith.
  • The finite-key analysis shows that key generation stops at a lower zenith angle (about $62^\circ$) than the asymptotic limit (about $75.2^\circ$), so mission design must account for finite statistics when planning pass geometry.
  • The consistent weather ordering (Day 1, Night 1, Day 2, Night 2, Day 3, Night 3) suggests that clear daytime conditions are optimal for CubeSat downlink QKD, while foggy and windy conditions degrade rates more severely for standard BB84.
  • The elliptical beam model, by including beam wandering and elliptical deformation, provides a more realistic transmittance distribution for designing ground-station aperture sizes and link budgets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the quantitative key rates in the paper depend on the unspecified means and variances of the normal distributions used to sample $x_0$, $y_0$, $\Theta_1$, and $\Theta_2$; specifying these would make the results reproducible and testable.
  • Editorial inference: a natural testable extension is to replace the normal and uniform beam-parameter distributions with log-normal, Gamma-Gamma, or Double Weibull transmittance models and check whether the efficient-BB84 advantage persists, as the paper itself suggests as future work.
  • Editorial inference: because the efficient protocol's advantage stems from its higher sifting ratio, real hardware with imperfect basis selection or additional background noise may reduce, but likely not eliminate, the gap shown here.
  • Editorial inference: if real CubeSat missions collect secret key length data, comparing measured rates to the predicted zenith-dependent curves (e.g., $8 \times 10^{-5}$ bits/pulse at zenith in clear daytime) would provide a direct validation of the elliptical beam model.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a simulation study of finite and asymptotic secret key rates for the efficient BB84 and standard decoy-state BB84 protocols in a CubeSat-to-ground QKD downlink. A free-space channel is modeled with an elliptical Gaussian beam approximation, including turbulence-induced beam wandering and weather-dependent attenuation. The authors use Monte Carlo sampling of beam parameters to compute the probability distribution of transmittance (PDT) and then average the key-rate expressions from Refs. [17,21] over this distribution. They report that efficient BB84 consistently outperforms standard BB84 across six weather conditions and provide probability distributions of key rates (PDR) at selected zenith angles.

Significance. If the quantitative results are correct, the paper would provide a practical, comparative engineering assessment of two BB84 variants for CubeSat QKD, with explicit weather dependence. A clear strength is that all key-rate formulas and channel parameters are taken from published work; no constants are fit to the paper's own results, so there is no circularity. The qualitative ranking of the two protocols (efficient BB84 > standard BB84) is robust and follows directly from the biased-basis structure of efficient BB84. However, the quantitative key rates are presently not reproducible because the central transmittance formula (Eq. (15)) is not the transmittance of a two-dimensionally wandering elliptical beam, and the Monte Carlo sampling distributions in Appendix A are incompletely specified. These issues affect every number in Figs. 2 and 3.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) as printed cannot represent an elliptical Gaussian beam displaced by (x0,y0). The beam centroid enters only through the scalar ρ0 in (ρcosθ - ρ0) and (ρcosθ - ρ0)ρsinθ, and the expression has no dependence on y0 when θ0=0. For a beam centered at (ρ0cosθ0, ρ0sinθ0), the exponent must contain (ρcosθ - x0)^2, (ρsinθ - y0)^2, and the cross term (ρcosθ - x0)(ρsinθ - y0). The printed formula is therefore either a misprint or an incorrect model. Because the text (page 13) states that all points in Figs. 2 and 3 are computed from Eq. (15), the simulated transmittances and all resulting key rates are not reproducible from the manuscript as written.
  2. [Appendix A (after Eq. (18))] The Monte Carlo sampling distributions are under-specified. The manuscript states that (α - θ0) is uniform on [0,π/2] and that x0, y0, Θ1, Θ2 follow normal distributions, but it does not give the means or variances of those normals. Since Wi is derived from Θi via Θi = ln(Wi^2/W0^2), the lognormal parameters of the semi-axes are also unspecified. Every average key rate in Figs. 2 and 3 is an expectation over these draws (Eqs. (15)-(16)), so the quantitative results cannot be reproduced or cross-checked without these parameter values. The authors should also clarify whether the same distribution parameters are used for all six weather conditions or are scaled with Cn^2 and n0.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3 (p.10)] The text states the zenith angle is restricted to [0°,66°], but Fig. 2c,d plot to 80° and the text reports finite-key cutoff at 62° and asymptotic cutoff at 75.2°; please reconcile the range.
  2. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) contains an unbalanced parenthesis and a garbled term '− (12 log2 21 εsec − 2 log2 2 εcorr'; rewrite it in the same style as Eq. (1).
  3. [Table 2] Table 2 lists 'Error correction efficiency' as a parameter but does not give a value, and λec is said to 'depend on block size'; since Eq. (2) determines λec from nX and Q, please state explicitly whether an additional reconciliation-efficiency factor is used and what value it takes.
  4. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2a,b show zenith angles from 10° upward, while the text reports key rates 'at the zenith position' (0°); please include the 0° point or adjust the text.
  5. [Figs. 2 and 3] Since the plotted key rates are Monte Carlo estimates (1,000 samples for Fig. 2, 30,000 for Fig. 3), the absence of error bars or confidence intervals makes it difficult to judge whether the small differences between protocols are significant.
  6. [References [10] and [18]] References [10] and [18] are the same article (Ecker et al., npj Quantum Information 7:5, 2021); please merge them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the key-rate expressions, channel model, and simulation parameters are all taken from external references, and no fitted quantity is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is externally sourced rather than circular. The finite-key formulas (Eqs. 1-14) are explicitly presented as the analyses of [17] and [21], and the elliptical-beam transmittance (Eq. 15) and its statistical treatment (Appendix A) are attributed to [27], [28], and [52]. The plotted key rates are Monte-Carlo averages computed by inserting sampled beam parameters into Eq. (15) and then evaluating the cited rate expressions, as described for Eq. (16); no parameter appearing in the final rates is fitted to those same rates. The efficient-versus-standard BB84 ordering is a consequence of the externally cited rate formulas and the protocol definitions, not of any internally fitted constant. The self-citations in the paper are not load-bearing: [2] and [3] are background references, and [47] is used only as a redundant support for the downlink choice that is also attributed to [27]. The manuscript's possible reproducibility issues, such as the unspecified means and variances of the normal distributions in Appendix A and the apparent omission of the y0-dependent term in Eq. (15), are correctness or completeness concerns rather than circularity: they do not make an output equal to an input by construction. Therefore the paper does not exhibit self-definitional reasoning, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chains.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no constants to its own results. The main unverified inputs are the beam-parameter distribution assumptions, including unstated means and variances for the normal distributions, and the simplified Heaviside atmospheric profile.

free parameters (3)
  • Mean and variance of normal distributions for x0, y0, Theta1, Theta2 = Not specified
    Appendix A states these follow normal distributions [52] but never gives the means or standard deviations; these determine the sampled beam parameters and hence all transmittance and key-rate values.
  • Uniform distribution range for (alpha - theta_0) = [0, pi/2]
    Chosen in Appendix A without justification; orientation sampling affects the transmittance distribution and the resulting key rates.
  • Link and detector parameters (W0, ra, lambda, beta, pe, h', L', n0, Cn2, QBER, pap, pec, fs) = From Table 2, literature values
    Taken from [17,27]; they set the link budget and noise model. Not fitted to the paper's own results, but the quantitative key rates depend on them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase-randomized weak coherent pulses with decoy intensities satisfying mu1 > mu2 + mu3 and mu2 > mu3 >= 0
    Standard decoy-state BB84 assumptions from [21,35], used in Eqs. (6) to (10).
  • domain assumption Homogeneous atmosphere up to h' = 20 km and vacuum above, with Cn2 and n0 following Heaviside profiles
    Section 2.3 and Appendix A Eq. (19) simplify the link profile and ignore altitude-dependent atmospheric structure.
  • domain assumption Isotropic atmospheric turbulence and Gaussian beam statistics
    Appendix A assumes isotropic turbulence and a Gaussian approximation for the beam, which underpins the elliptical beam PDT model.
  • ad hoc to paper Beam parameter sampling: (alpha - theta_0) uniform on [0, pi/2], and x0, y0, Theta1, Theta2 normal
    Appendix A makes this sampling choice without specifying normal-distribution parameters, making it an ad hoc choice that drives all quantitative results.
  • standard math Chernoff bound, binomial inverse CDF, and composable security framework
    Used in Eqs. (2) to (10) from [21,43,44] to bound statistical fluctuations and finite-key corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite and Asymptotic Key Analysis for CubeSat-Based BB84 QKD with Elliptical Beam Approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJMSVAV2

@misc{pith2026250115148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite and Asymptotic Key Analysis for CubeSat-Based BB84 QKD with Elliptical Beam Approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJMSVAV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15148}
}
read the original abstract

Satellite and CubeSat-based quantum key distribution (QKD) presents a promising solution for secure long-distance communication by transmitting quantum keys through free space, with CubeSats offering a compact, cost-effective, and scalable platform for deployment. This study investigates the performance of statistical techniques used to compute the finite-block and single-pass secret key lengths (SKL) for weak coherent pulse (WCP)-based efficient BB84 and standard decoy-state BB84 protocols in CubeSat-based systems. An asymptotic key rate analysis is also conducted for both protocols, providing deeper insights into their theoretical performance within the CubeSat context. The channel transmittance is modeled using an elliptical beam approximation, and the key rate performance is evaluated under varying weather conditions for the downlink scenario. The results demonstrate that the efficient BB84 protocol consistently outperforms the standard version across different atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, the probability distribution of key rates (PDR) for both implementations is analyzed, offering a comprehensive evaluation of their practical effectiveness in CubeSat-based QKD applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diagram illustrates the free-space optical link, which is non-uniform, between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The plot illustrates how the average key rate (per pulse) varies with the zenith angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot depicting the variation in key rate distribution across different zenith angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A diagram depicting the receiving aperture and the corresponding received beam. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum authentication of classical messages

    Marcos Curty and David J Santos. Quantum authentication of classical messages. Physical Review A, 64(6):062309, 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    A short review on quantum identity authentication pro- tocols: how would Bob know that he is talking with Alice? Quantum Information Processing, 21(11):369, 2022

    Arindam Dutta and Anirban Pathak. A short review on quantum identity authentication pro- tocols: how would Bob know that he is talking with Alice? Quantum Information Processing, 21(11):369, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Controlled secure direct quantum communication inspired scheme for quantum identity authentication

    Arindam Dutta and Anirban Pathak. Controlled secure direct quantum communication inspired scheme for quantum identity authentication. Quantum Information Processing , 22(1):13, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeater- less secret key capacity

    Mariella Minder, Mirko Pittaluga, George Lloyd Roberts, Marco Lucamarini, James F Dynes, ZL Yuan, and Andrew J Shields. Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeater- less secret key capacity. Nature Photonics, 13(5):334–338, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    All-photonic quantum repeaters

    Koji Azuma, Kiyoshi Tamaki, and Hoi-Kwong Lo. All-photonic quantum repeaters. Nature Communications, 6(1):1–7, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Long- range big quantum-data transmission

    Michael Zwerger, Alexander Pirker, Vedran Dunjko, Hans J Briegel, and Wolfgang D¨ ur. Long- range big quantum-data transmission. Physical Review Letters, 120(3):030503, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Efficient quantum repeater with respect to both entanglement-concentration rate and complexity of local operations and classical communica- tion

    Zhaofeng Su, Ji Guan, and Lvzhou Li. Efficient quantum repeater with respect to both entanglement-concentration rate and complexity of local operations and classical communica- tion. Physical Review A , 97(1):012325, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Satellite quantum communications: Fundamental bounds and practical security

    Stefano Pirandola. Satellite quantum communications: Fundamental bounds and practical security. Physical Review Research, 3(2):023130, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Analysis of quantum key distribution based satellite communication

    Vishal Sharma and Subhashish Banerjee. Analysis of quantum key distribution based satellite communication. In 2018 9th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Strategies for achieving high key rates in satellite-based QKD

    Sebastian Ecker, Bo Liu, Johannes Handsteiner, Matthias Fink, Dominik Rauch, Fabian Stein- lechner, Thomas Scheidl, Anton Zeilinger, and Rupert Ursin. Strategies for achieving high key rates in satellite-based QKD. npj Quantum Information , 7(1):5, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Satellite-based phase-matching quantum key distribution

    Wei Cui, Ziang Song, Guoqi Huang, and Rongzhen Jiao. Satellite-based phase-matching quantum key distribution. Quantum Information Processing, 21(9):313, 2022. 21

    2022

  4. [12]

    Optimizing the decoy-state BB84 QKD protocol parameters

    Thomas Attema, Joost W Bosman, and Niels MP Neumann. Optimizing the decoy-state BB84 QKD protocol parameters. Quantum Information Processing, 20(4):154, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    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 Quantum, 4(4):040320, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Statistical fluctuation analysis for decoy-state quan- tum secure direct communication

    Jooyoun Park, Bumil Kim, and Jun Heo. Statistical fluctuation analysis for decoy-state quan- tum secure direct communication. Quantum Information Processing, 22(2):112, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Numerical finite-key anal- ysis of quantum key distribution

    Darius Bunandar, Luke CG Govia, Hari Krovi, and Dirk Englund. Numerical finite-key anal- ysis of quantum key distribution. npj Quantum Information , 6(1):104, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Numerical calculations of the finite key rate for general quantum key distribution protocols

    Ian George, Jie Lin, and Norbert L¨ utkenhaus. Numerical calculations of the finite key rate for general quantum key distribution protocols. Physical Review Research, 3(1):013274, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Finite key effects in satellite quantum key distribution

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Thomas Brougham, Duncan McArthur, Roberto G Pousa, and Daniel KL Oi. Finite key effects in satellite quantum key distribution. npj Quantum Information, 8(1):18, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Strategies for achieving high key rates in satellite-based qkd

    Sebastian Ecker, Bo Liu, Johannes Handsteiner, Matthias Fink, Dominik Rauch, Fabian Stein- lechner, Thomas Scheidl, Anton Zeilinger, and Rupert Ursin. Strategies for achieving high key rates in satellite-based qkd. npj Quantum Information , 7(1):5, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Feasibility of satellite-to-ground continuous- variable quantum key distribution

    Daniele Dequal, Luis Trigo Vidarte, Victor Roman Rodriguez, Giuseppe Vallone, Paolo Vil- loresi, Anthony Leverrier, and Eleni Diamanti. Feasibility of satellite-to-ground continuous- variable quantum key distribution. npj Quantum Information , 7(1):3, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Finite key performance of satellite quantum key distribution under practical constraints

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Thomas Brougham, Duncan McArthur, Roberto G Pousa, and Daniel KL Oi. Finite key performance of satellite quantum key distribution under practical constraints. Communications Physics, 6(1):210, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Con- cise security bounds for practical decoy-state quantum key distribution

    Charles Ci Wen Lim, Marcos Curty, Nino Walenta, Feihu Xu, and Hugo Zbinden. Con- cise security bounds for practical decoy-state quantum key distribution. Physical Review A , 89(2):022307, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution

    Yang Li, Wen-Qi Cai, Ji-Gang Ren, Chao-Ze Wang, Meng Yang, Liang Zhang, Hui-Ying Wu, Liang Chang, Jin-Cai Wu, Biao Jin, et al. Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10994 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    End-to-end demonstration for cubesatellite quantum key distribution

    Peide Zhang, Jaya Sagar, Elliott Hastings, Milan Stefko, Siddarth Joshi, and John Rarity. End-to-end demonstration for cubesatellite quantum key distribution. IET Quantum Com- munication, 5:291–302, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A study on quan- tum key distribution satellite communications

    Filip Lauterbach, Michal Van¨ ek, Miralem Mehic, and Miroslav Voznak. A study on quan- tum key distribution satellite communications. In 2023 15th International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT) , pages 128–133. IEEE, 2023. 22

    2023

  17. [25]

    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. In 2022 IEEE international conference on space optical systems and applications (ICSOS) , pages 51–56. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Optical payload design for downlink quantum key distribution and keyless communication using cubesats

    Pedro Neto Mendes, Gon¸ calo Lobato Teixeira, David Pinho, Rui Rocha, Paulo Andr´ e, Manfred Niehus, Ricardo Faleiro, Davide Rusca, and Emmanuel Zambrini Cruzeiro. Optical payload design for downlink quantum key distribution and keyless communication using cubesats. EPJ Quantu...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Satellite-based links for quantum key distribution: beam effects and weather dependence

    Carlo Liorni, Hermann Kampermann, and Dagmar Bruß. Satellite-based links for quantum key distribution: beam effects and weather dependence. New Journal of Physics , 21(9):093055, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Atmospheric quantum channels with weak and strong turbulence

    D Vasylyev, AA Semenov, and W Vogel. Atmospheric quantum channels with weak and strong turbulence. Physical Review Letters, 117(9):090501, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Leo small satellite QKD downlink performance: Quantsat-pt case study

    Vladlen Galetsky and Manfred Niehus. Leo small satellite QKD downlink performance: Quantsat-pt case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10293 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol

    Peter W Shor and John Preskill. Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol. Physical review letters , 85(2):441, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Assessment of practical satellite quantum key distribution architectures for current and near-future missions

    Davide Orsucci, Philipp Kleinpaß, Jaspar Meister, Innocenzo De Marco, Stefanie H¨ ausler, Thomas Strang, Nino Walenta, and Florian Moll. Assessment of practical satellite quantum key distribution architectures for current and near-future missions. International Journal of Sate...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Eavesdropping detection in BB84 quan- tum key distribution protocols

    Chankyun Lee, Ilkwon Sohn, and Wonhyuk Lee. Eavesdropping detection in BB84 quan- tum key distribution protocols. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , 19(3):2689–2701, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing

    Charles H Bennett and Gilles Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Theoretical Computer Science, 560:7–11, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Efficient quantum key distribution scheme and a proof of its unconditional security

    Hoi-Kwong Lo, Hoi Fung Chau, and Mohammed Ardehali. Efficient quantum key distribution scheme and a proof of its unconditional security. Journal of Cryptology , 18:133–165, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Decoy state quantum key distribution

    Hoi-Kwong Lo, Xiongfeng Ma, and Kai Chen. Decoy state quantum key distribution. Physical Review Letters, 94(23):230504, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptog- raphy

    Xiang-Bin Wang. Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptog- raphy. Physical Review Letters, 94(23):230503, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution

    Xiongfeng Ma, Bing Qi, Yi Zhao, and Hoi-Kwong Lo. Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 72(1):012326, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    Security analy- sis of decoy state quantum key distribution incorporating finite statistics

    Jun Hasegawa, Masahito Hayashi, Tohya Hiroshima, and Akihisa Tomita. Security analy- sis of decoy state quantum key distribution incorporating finite statistics. arXiv preprint arXiv:0707.3541, 2007. 23

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Finite-key analysis for practical implementations of quantum key distribution

    Raymond YQ Cai and Valerio Scarani. Finite-key analysis for practical implementations of quantum key distribution. New Journal of Physics , 11(4):045024, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Improved key-rate bounds for practical decoy-state quantum-key-distribution systems

    Zhen Zhang, Qi Zhao, Mohsen Razavi, and Xiongfeng Ma. Improved key-rate bounds for practical decoy-state quantum-key-distribution systems. Physical Review A , 95(1):012333, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Security analysis of the decoy method with the Bennett–Brassard 1984 protocol for finite key lengths

    Masahito Hayashi and Ryota Nakayama. Security analysis of the decoy method with the Bennett–Brassard 1984 protocol for finite key lengths. New Journal of Physics , 16(6):063009, 2014

    1984

  34. [42]

    Finite-key analysis for measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution

    Marcos Curty, Feihu Xu, Wei Cui, Charles Ci Wen Lim, Kiyoshi Tamaki, and Hoi-Kwong Lo. Finite-key analysis for measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution. Nature Communications, 5(1):3732, 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    Tight security bounds for decoy-state quantum key distribution

    Hua-Lei Yin, Min-Gang Zhou, Jie Gu, Yuan-Mei Xie, Yu-Shuo Lu, and Zeng-Bing Chen. Tight security bounds for decoy-state quantum key distribution. Scientific Reports, 10(1):1–10, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Funda- mental finite key limits for one-way information reconciliation in quantum key distribution

    Marco Tomamichel, Jesus Martinez-Mateo, Christoph Pacher, and David Elkouss. Funda- mental finite key limits for one-way information reconciliation in quantum key distribution. Quantum Information Processing, 16:1–23, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Satellite quantum modelling & analysis software version 1.1: documentation

    Jasminder S Sidhu, Thomas Brougham, Duncan McArthur, Roberto G Pousa, and Daniel KL Oi. Satellite quantum modelling & analysis software version 1.1: documentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01686, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Free-space quantum links under diverse weather conditions

    D Vasylyev, AA Semenov, W Vogel, K G¨ unthner, A Thurn,¨O Bayraktar, and Ch Marquardt. Free-space quantum links under diverse weather conditions. Physical Review A, 96(4):043856, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Analysis for satellite- based high-dimensional extended B92 and high-dimensional BB84 quantum key distribution

    Arindam Dutta, Muskan, Subhashish Banerjee, and Anirban Pathak. Analysis for satellite- based high-dimensional extended B92 and high-dimensional BB84 quantum key distribution. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 7(11):2400149, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    A review on practical challenges of aerial quantum communication.Physics Open, page 100210, 2024

    Umang Dubey, Prathamesh Bhole, Arindam Dutta, Dibya Prakash Behera, Vethonulu Losu, Guru Satya Dattatreya Pandeeti, Abhir Raj Metkar, Anindita Banerjee, and Anirban Pathak. A review on practical challenges of aerial quantum communication.Physics Open, page 100210, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Isoplanatic degradation of tilt correction and short-term imaging systems

    George C Valley. Isoplanatic degradation of tilt correction and short-term imaging systems. Applied Optics, 19(4):574–577, 1980

    1980

  42. [50]

    Vertical distribution features of atmospheric water vapour in the po valley area

    Claudio Tomasi and Tiziana Paccagnella. Vertical distribution features of atmospheric water vapour in the po valley area. Pure and Applied Geophysics , 127:93–115, 1988

    1988

  43. [51]

    Vertical distribution features of atmospheric water vapor in the mediter- ranean, red sea, and indian ocean

    Claudio Tomasi. Vertical distribution features of atmospheric water vapor in the mediter- ranean, red sea, and indian ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres , 89(D2):2563–2566, 1984. 24

    1984

  44. [52]

    Gaussian beam

    Shiyu Wang, Peng Huang, Tao Wang, and Guihua Zeng. Atmospheric effects on continuous- variable quantum key distribution. New Journal of Physics , 20(8):083037, 2018. Appendix A Elliptical Beam Approximation Model Fluctuations in temperature and pressure over time and space wit...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.