Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Building a global quantum internet using a satellite constellation with inter-satellite links

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-Earth-orbit satellites with passive mirror relays could distribute entanglement across continents at rates of a few MHz using a 10 GHz entangled-photon source, with no quantum memories or repeaters.

desk verdict A useful and readable feasibility sketch for passive-mirror satellite entanglement routing, but the few-MHz headline is raw-pair-rate optimism without a fidelity or noise model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08075 v1 pith:AGYJ3NLY submitted 2025-05-12 quant-ph

Alireza Shabani This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantuminternetsatelliteconstellationentanglementdistributioninter-satellitelaserlinkspassivemirrorrelaypolarizationSPDCsourcelowEarthorbit
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 proposes a space-based quantum internet backbone built from a constellation of low-Earth-orbit satellites carrying entangled-photon sources and passive mirror relays connected by inter-satellite laser links. It argues that with a multiplexed entangled-pair source generating pairs at 10 GHz, the constellation can distribute polarization entanglement between optical ground stations in the US, Europe, and Asia at rates of a few MHz, without quantum memories or quantum repeaters. The result would matter because quantum repeaters are difficult to build, so a repeater-less route to global entanglement distribution that uses existing satellite and optical technology would make a global quantum internet a nearer-term engineering goal. The paper presents this as a demonstrated possibility based on its rate model, not as a field-tested system.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a constellation of three satellite classes: an entangled-photon-pair satellite (EPS) whose nonlinear-crystal source produces polarization-entangled pairs at 1-10 GHz; relay satellites (RS), each a two- or four-port telescope system joined by six ultra-low-loss dielectric mirrors; and down-link satellites (DLS) that route photons to optical ground stations. The rate model multiplies the source pair rate by the free-space diffraction transmittance $\eta_{\mathrm{fs}}(L) = \left(\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}\, r_a w_0}{L\lambda}\right)^2$ and by the atmospheric transmittance $\eta_{\mathrm{atm}} = \eta_0^{\sec\zeta}$ with $\eta_0 = 0.47$ at 810 nm, then discounts each relay hop by 1% loss and adds 20% pointing error. A 1000 km cutoff on the satellite-to-ground distance avoids the steep atmospheric absorption tail, and a polar-orbit constellation with nearest-neighbor inter-satellite links supplies the paths between ground stations.

What would settle it

In a ground test, measure the throughput and polarization fidelity of a six-mirror, two-telescope relay using an 810 nm polarization-entangled source; if the per-relay insertion loss exceeds about 1% or the polarization visibility drops more than the model allows, the MHz estimates for multi-hop international routes will not hold. A complementary check is to compare single-pass satellite-to-ground coincidence rates against $\eta_{\mathrm{fs}}(L)\eta_{\mathrm{atm}}(L)$ with the paper's apertures and wavelength.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that entanglement can be distributed across intercontinental distances by a chain of LEO satellites in which only one satellite generates entangled pairs and the others are passive four-port mirror relays. With a 10 GHz entangled-photon source, telescope apertures of 25 or 35 cm radius, a modeled 1% loss per relay, and 20% pointing error, the paper's simulations report maximum end-to-end rates of 26 MHz for Los Angeles-New York, 3.6 MHz for London-New York, 1.9 MHz for Los Angeles-Tokyo, and 2.5 MHz for Los Angeles-Delhi. A single satellite at 500 km altitude is enough for regional pairs such as Los Angeles-San Francisco at 30.9 MHz maximum, while intercontinental distances need the relay constellation. The paper explicitly states that these rates demonstrate the possibility of a global quantum internet using existing quantum source and satellite technologies.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes each passive mirror relay satellite loses only about one percent of the light and does not scramble the photons' polarization, so polarization entanglement can survive many satellite-to-satellite hops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A midsize constellation (N x M as small as 5x5 for some routes) can put the maximum intercontinental entanglement rate in the MHz range using no onboard quantum memory.
  • Single-satellite operation already gives regional quantum networks: for example, a 1 GHz source at 500 km altitude yields a maximum 57.3 MHz rate for Los Angeles-Santa Barbara and 30.9 MHz for Los Angeles-San Francisco.
  • The 810 nm wavelength choice is load-bearing: the paper reports that switching to 1550 nm cuts the entanglement distribution rates by 50-90%, so the design trades raw rate against compatibility with telecom fiber and existing lasercom terminals.
  • Because distributed entanglement is an offline resource, night-time distribution with storage in ground-based quantum memories could sidestep daytime background light, while cloud cover can be handled by redundant ground stations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate laboratory check of the relay assumption would measure polarization visibility after two or more six-mirror relay hops; if fidelity decays faster than the 1% loss model implies, the constellation would need active polarization compensation between hops.
  • Because the headline rates are maxima over favorable satellite passes, a fair comparison with terrestrial repeater chains should use time-averaged rates and duty cycles; the paper reports average rates only for the single-satellite cases.
  • If the mirror relays hold at <1% loss, the same constellation geometry could support entanglement swapping at intermediate ground stations or satellites, extending the network beyond the simulated city pairs, though the paper leaves that analysis out.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a global quantum internet architecture based on a LEO satellite constellation comprising entangled-photon source satellites (EPS), passive mirror relay satellites (RS), and downlink satellites (DLS). The authors model free-space diffraction with a Gaussian-beam transmittance, atmospheric absorption via the Beer-Lambert law, and per-relay losses, then compute pair-distribution rates for a single satellite (Table I) and for Walker-type constellations with inter-satellite links (Tables II and III). With a 10 GHz multiplexed entangled-photon source and 25 cm or 35 cm receiver apertures, they report peak rates of roughly 0.1 to 26 MHz between cities in the US, Europe, and Asia, and conclude that few-MHz global entanglement distribution is achievable without quantum memories or repeaters.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, this would be an important systems-level contribution: it identifies a repeater-less architecture that leverages passive optics and existing satellite laser-communication hardware, and it gives concrete, transparent link-budget calculations. The paper's strengths are its explicit parameter choices, clear constellation geometry, and the constructive discussion of practical challenges such as daytime background, turbulence, clouds, and wavelength selection. However, because the reported rates are raw photon-pair rates with no accompanying fidelity or background-noise model, and because the relay-loss and pointing-error assumptions are not validated at the subsystem level, the current manuscript demonstrates a favorable link budget rather than a demonstrated entanglement-distribution capability.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The far-field transmittance formula stated as eta_fs(L) ≈ (sqrt(2π) r_a w0/(Lλ))^2 does not follow from Eq. (1). Expanding Eq. (1) for L >> d_R and r_a << w0 L/d_R gives (sqrt(2) π r_a w0/(Lλ))^2, which is a factor of π larger. Since this formula enters every vacuum link in the constellation simulations, the discrepancy is not cosmetic: if Eq. (1) is the correct model, the rates in Tables II and III are underestimated by roughly a factor of π per free-space segment, and if Eq. (2) was actually used in the code, the model is internally inconsistent. The authors should correct Eq. (2) and re-run all reported rates.
  2. [Section IV, Tables II and III] The reported “entanglement distribution rates” are raw coincidence-rate estimates of the form N_EPS times transmittances, with no detector efficiency, dark counts, background light, polarization contrast, or QBER model. As written, they are photon-pair arrival rates, not rates of usable entanglement, and the abstract's claim that “few MHz entanglement distribution rates are possible” is therefore not supported without at least a fidelity/QBER calculation and a threshold for what counts as a usable entangled bit. The paper's own acknowledgment in Section V that the proof-of-concept study “can be extended to include more error models” confirms this gap; the revision should either add such a model or temper the claim to raw pair rates.
  3. [Section II, Relay Satellite; Section IV] The key assumption that each relay satellite contributes only 1% loss is justified solely by dielectric coating reflectivity, but a two-telescope port is a six-mirror system also involving beam coupling, pointing-acquisition-tracking optics, and wavefront errors; end-to-end throughput must account for figure error, polarization-dependent reflection, stray light, and coupling losses, none of which are quantified. In addition, the “20% pointing error” cited in Section IV and again in the Conclusion is not defined: if it means a 20% per-link power loss, then combined with 1% relay loss the cumulative factor over a six-hop chain is roughly (0.8 × 0.99)^6 ≈ 0.22, which would reduce the 5.5 MHz entry in Table II to about 1.2 MHz and the 0.1 MHz Berlin–New York entry to about 23 kHz. The headline few-MHz claim is therefore sensitive to an unvalidated assumption, and the revision should either provide a subsystem-level loss budget or a sensitivity analysis over per-hop loss and pointing error.
  4. [Tables II and III captions] The tables report “maximum achievable ebit distribution rates” for optimized constellation sizes, but no duty cycle or time-averaged rate is given. If these numbers are instantaneous geometric maxima, the abstract's statement that few-MHz rates “are possible” is misleading about sustained throughput, because LEO satellites move quickly and the maximum geometry may persist only briefly. The authors should report how long a link remains above a given rate and provide time-averaged rates over an orbit or a day, or clearly restrict the claim to peak instantaneous rates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, first paragraph] The sentence “we consider satellites equipped with ... telescope apertures with r_a = 0.25 cm and 0.35 cm” appears to contain a unit error: 0.25 cm and 0.35 cm are millimeter-scale apertures, which is inconsistent with the rates in Tables II and III and with the 75 cm OGS aperture used in Section III. These should be 0.25 m and 0.35 m.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract promises “few MHz entanglement distribution rates” between the US, Europe, and Asia, but several rows of Table II are well below 1 MHz (e.g., 0.1 MHz for Berlin–New York). The wording should be harmonized, for example by saying “up to a few MHz for some city pairs” or by reporting rates separately for each pair.
  3. [Section III, Table I] Table I gives both maximum and average rates for a single satellite, but the averaging procedure over time and orbital parameters is not described. A brief explanation of how the average is computed would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section IV, Figure 7] The routing protocol between the black and white paths is described only verbally. Since the path selection affects the reported maximum rates, a short algorithmic description or pseudocode would clarify the simulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the entanglement rates are a forward link budget from chosen source rates, apertures, and loss parameters, with no target quantity fed back into the model.

full rationale

The paper's central rate claim is computed by a direct link-budget model. Equations (1)-(4) define diffraction and atmospheric transmittance from fixed inputs (beam waist, aperture, altitude, wavelength). Section III defines the received pair rate as the product of source rate and the two path transmittances, and Tables I-III are the resulting products for chosen constellation parameters. No parameter is fit to the headline rate, and no headline rate is used to infer the relay loss, pointing error, or source brightness. The 1% relay loss and 20% pointing error are explicitly stated assumptions, not outputs derived from the desired few-MHz result. The only self-citations ([23], [24]) appear in a background remark about quantum repeaters in the introduction and are not load-bearing for the constellation calculation. Concerns about optimistic loss assumptions are parameterization or correctness issues, not circularity, because the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central rate estimates depend on chosen engineering parameters such as beam waist, wavelength, apertures, source rate, relay loss, and pointing error, and on domain assumptions that are not independently established in the paper. The most fragile is that passive mirror relays add only 1% loss and no depolarization. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Beam waist w0 = 10 cm
    Sets the diffraction loss for all links; chosen by hand and not derived from a specific mission.
  • Operational wavelength lambda = 810 nm
    Design choice to maximize signal-to-noise; the paper also computes 1550 nm and finds 50-90% lower rates.
  • Atmospheric zenith transmittance eta0 = 0.47 at 810 nm
    Taken from reference [37]; central to the 1000 km OGS visibility cutoff used throughout the model.
  • OGS receiver aperture = 75 cm
    Used in the single-satellite calculations; the choice directly scales the received rate.
  • Relay satellite loss per port = <1%
    Assumed from dielectric mirror reflectivity; not demonstrated end-to-end for quantum signals.
  • Pointing error = 20%
    Included in constellation rate simulations, but the model for how pointing error reduces transmittance is not described.
  • Source pair-generation rate = 1 GHz (single satellite), 10 GHz (constellation)
    The 10 GHz rate is asserted from multiplexed integrated sources; all headline rates scale linearly with this number.
  • Satellite telescope aperture radius = 25 cm or 35 cm
    Used in constellation simulations; the text writes 0.25 cm, which appears to be a typo for 25 cm.
  • Satellite altitude = 500, 800, 1000, 2000 km
    Varied in the brute-force optimization; the reported rates are max over these altitudes.
  • Constellation size N=M = Varies by city pair, e.g., 5x5 for Los Angeles-New York
    Chosen to maximize the reported rate in each row of Tables II and III.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gaussian beam diffraction model and aperture coupling formula for free-space photon transmittance.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(2); standard optics, though Eq. (2) has a factor discrepancy.
  • domain assumption Beer-Lambert atmospheric transmittance with a homogeneous absorptive layer and eta0 = 0.47.
    Used in Eqs. (3)-(4); ignores clouds, turbulence, and zenith-angle dependence beyond the secant model.
  • domain assumption Polarization entanglement is preserved after reflection through passive mirror relay chains.
    Nowhere derived; the paper assumes relay loss only, with no depolarization, birefringence, or timing jitter.
  • domain assumption A 10 GHz polarization-entangled SPDC source with efficient free-space output is available for space deployment.
    Cited lab results show high pair rates, but not a space-qualified source with the assumed source-to-telescope coupling.
  • domain assumption A Walker constellation with nearest-neighbor inter-satellite links and the described routing protocol can maintain the assumed geometry.
    Used in Section IV; no orbital dynamics, handover, or acquisition-maintenance analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Building a global quantum internet using a satellite constellation with inter-satellite links." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGYJ3NLY

@misc{pith2026250508075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Building a global quantum internet using a satellite constellation with inter-satellite links},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGYJ3NLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08075}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum internet is a global network to distribute entanglement and communicate quantum information with applications in cybersecurity, quantum computing, and quantum sensing. Here, we propose building a quantum internet using a constellation of low-Earth-orbit satellites equipped with inter-satellite laser links. Our proposal is based on the downlink model of photon transmission, where satellites carry entangled photon sources and/or have a mirror relay system to redirect the photon path in space. We show that few MHz entanglement distribution rates are possible between the US, Europe, and Asia, with a multiplexed entangled-photon source generating pairs at 10 GHz. Our proposal demonstrates the importance of passive optics in realizing a satellite-based quantum internet, which reduces dependency on quantum memory and repeater technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08075 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A conceptual overview of a space-based quantum network comprising a satellite constellation. An entangled-photon pair satellite (EPS) produces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A single satellite at altitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Transmittance as a function of distance between OGS and satellite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: A schematic illustration of a relay satellite comprising a bifocal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: A satellite quantum internet constellation with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Achievable rate of entanglement distribution for a chain of relay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S.-H. Wei, B. Jing, X.-Y . Zhang, J.-Y . Liao, C.-Z. Yuan, B.-Y . Fan, C. Lyu, D.-L. Zhou, Y . Wang, G.-W. Deng,et al., Laser & Photonics Reviews 16, 2100219 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Simon, Nature Photonics 11, 678 (2017)

    C. Simon, Nature Photonics 11, 678 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gher- ardini, and G. Bianchi, IEEE Network 34, 137 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Van Meter, R

    R. Van Meter, R. Satoh, N. Benchasattabuse, K. Teramoto, T. Matsuo, M. Hajdu ˇsek, T. Satoh, S. Nagayama, and S. Suzuki, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 341–352

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nature photonics 1, 165 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Yuan, X.-H

    Z.-S. Yuan, X.-H. Bao, C.-Y . Lu, J. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Physics Reports 497, 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    T. J. Steiner, M. Shen, J. E. Castro, J. E. Bowers, and G. Moody, Optica Quantum 1, 55 (2023). 7

    2023

  2. [10]

    J. F. Fitzsimons, npj Quantum Information 3, 23 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    W. Li, S. Lu, and D.-L. Deng, Science China Physics, Mechan- ics & Astronomy 64, 100312 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Gottesman, T

    D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070503 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Padilla, A

    I. Padilla, A. Sajjad, B. Saif, and S. Guha, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03117 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Moody, V

    G. Moody, V . J. Sorger, D. J. Blumenthal, P. W. Juodawlkis, W. Loh, C. Sorace-Agaskar, A. E. Jones, K. C. Balram, J. C. Matthews, A. Laing, et al. , Journal of Physics: Photonics 4, 012501 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Nature Photonics 14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Boileau, D

    J.-C. Boileau, D. Gottesman, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and R. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 017901 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    J. C. Chapman, C. C. Lim, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. App. 18, 044027 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Wootters and W

    W. Wootters and W. Zurek, Nature 299, 802 (1982)

    1982

  11. [19]

    Azuma, S

    K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.- K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Z.-D. Li, R. Zhang, X.-F. Yin, L.-Z. Liu, Y . Hu, Y .-Q. Fang, Y .-Y . Fei, X. Jiang, J. Zhang, L. Li,et al., Nature photonics 13, 644 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Huang, R

    Y . Huang, R. X. Adhikari, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, L. Jiang, et al., Phys Rev Lett 133, 020801 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    B. Li, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, npj Quantum Informa- tion 8, 11 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    D. Niu, Y . Zhang, A. Shabani, and H. Shapourian, npj Quantum Information 9, 106 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Z. Yang, A. Ghubaish, R. Jain, H. Shapourian, and A. Shabani, A VS Quantum Sci. 6 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    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., Science 356, 1140 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Rivera, O

    G. Rivera, O. Heirich, A. Shrestha, A. Ferenczi, A. Duliu, J. Ep- pinger, B. Castella, C. Fuchs, E. Elisa Garbagnati, D. Laid- law, P. L ¨utzen, I. De Marco, F. Moll, J. Prell, A. Reeves, J. Nonay, C. Roubal, J. Torres, and M. Wagner, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03222 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hutterer and et al., in Proceedings of the 73rd International Astronautical Congress, IAC 2022 (IAF, 2022)

    M. Hutterer and et al., in Proceedings of the 73rd International Astronautical Congress, IAC 2022 (IAF, 2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Jennewein, C

    T. Jennewein, C. Simon, A. Foug `eres, F. Babin, F. Kimi- aee Asadi, K. Kuntz, M. Maisonneuve, B. Moffat, K. Moham- madi, and D. Panneton, Canadian Journal of Physics , 4204 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    H. Lim, T. Vergoossen, R. Bedington, X. Bai, A. Villar, A. Lohrmann, and et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.14442 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Goswami and S

    S. Goswami and S. Dhara, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 024048 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Jin, J.-P

    J. Jin, J.-P. Bourgoin, R. Tannous, S. Agne, C. J. Pugh, K. B. Kuntz, B. L. Higgins, and T. Jennewein, Optics express 27, 37214 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Vallone, D

    G. Vallone, D. Dequal, M. Tomasin, F. Vedovato, M. Schiavon, V . Luceri, G. Bianco, and P. Villoresi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 253601 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Baboux, G

    F. Baboux, G. Moody, and S. Ducci, Optica 10, 917 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    J. Wang, D. Bonneau, M. Villa, J. W. Silverstone, R. Santagati, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, H. Terai,et al., Optica 3, 407 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Schuhmann, L

    J. Schuhmann, L. Lazzari, M. Morassi, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, G. Beaudoin, M. Amanti, F. Boeuf, F. Raineri, F. Baboux,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12718 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Cao, Y .-H

    Y . Cao, Y .-H. Li, W.-J. Zou, Z.-P. Li, Q. Shen, S.-K. Liao, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Y .-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 140405 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Bourgoin, E

    J. Bourgoin, E. Meyer-Scott, B. Higgins, B. Helou, C. Er- ven, h. H ¨ubel, B. Kumar, D. Hudson, I. D’Souza, R. Girard, R. Laflamme, and T. Jennewein, New J. Phys. 15, 023006 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Abasifard, C

    M. Abasifard, C. Cholsuk, R. G. Pousa, A. Kumar, A. Zand, T. Riel, D. K. Oi, and T. V ogl, APL Quantum 1, 016113 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Meister, P

    J. Meister, P. Kleinpaß, and D. Orsucci, EPJ Quantum Technol. 12, 5 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Boone, J

    K. Boone, J. Bourgoin, E. Meyer-Scott, K. Heshami, T. Jen- newein, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052325 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Khatri, A

    S. Khatri, A. J. Brady, R. A. Desporte, M. P. Bart, and J. P. Dowling, npj Quantum Information 7, 4 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    G ¨undo˘gan, J

    M. G ¨undo˘gan, J. S. Sidhu, V . Henderson, L. Mazzarella, J. Wolters, D. K. Oi, and M. Krutzik, npj Quantum Information 7, 128 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Liorni, H

    C. Liorni, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, New J. Phys. 23, 053021 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    D. L. Begley, in Free-Space Laser Communication Technolo- gies VIII, V ol. 2699 (SPIE, 1996) pp. 192–197

    1996

  37. [45]

    C. V . B. J. Spencer, M., in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference And Exhibit (AIAA, 2002) pp. 71–75

    2002

  38. [46]

    R. N. Lanning, M. A. Harris, D. W. Oesch, M. D. Oliker, and M. T. Gruneisen, Phys. Rev. App.16, 044027 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    M. T. Gruneisen, M. L. Eickhoff, S. C. Newey, K. E. Stoltenberg, J. F. Morris, M. Bareian, M. A. Harris, D. W. Oesch, M. D. Oliker, M. B. Flanagan, et al. , Phys. Rev. App. 16, 014067 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Moody, L

    G. Moody, L. Chang, T. J. Steiner, and J. E. Bowers, A VS Quantum Science 2 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Steinlechner, P

    F. Steinlechner, P. Trojek, M. Jofre, H. Weier, D. Perez, T. Jen- newein, R. Ursin, J. Rarity, M. W. Mitchell, J. P. Torres, et al., Optics express 20, 9640 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V . Sergienko, and Y . Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4337 (1995)

    1995

  43. [51]

    Sun, C.-W

    Y . Sun, C.-W. Sun, W. Zhou, R. Yang, J.-C. Duan, Y .-X. Gong, P. Xu, and S.-N. Zhu, Chinese Physics B 32, 080308 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Huang, J

    Y . Huang, J. Feng, Y . Li, Z. Qi, C. Lu, Y . Zheng, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. App. 17, 054002 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Yin, Y .-H

    J. Yin, Y .-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y . Cao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y . Liu, S.-L. Li, et al. , Nature 582, 501 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    T. J. Steiner, J. E. Castro, L. Chang, Q. Dang, W. Xie, J. Nor- man, J. E. Bowers, and G. Moody, PRX Quantum 2, 010337 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Moody, L

    G. Moody, L. Thiel, J. Castro, P. Pintus, T. Steiner, N. Lewis, Y . Pang, L. Duan, L. Nguyen, g. Cole, and J. Bowers, inQuan- tum Computing, Communication, and Simulation V (SPIE,

  48. [56]

    J. G. Walker, in Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Report 70211 (1970)

    1970

  49. [57]

    Handley, in HotNets ’18: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (2018) pp

    M. Handley, in HotNets ’18: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (2018) pp. 85–91

    2018

  50. [58]

    Schimmel, T

    G. Schimmel, T. Produit, D. Mongin, J. Kasparian, and J.-P. Wolf, Optica 5, 1338 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    M. C. Schroeder, I. Larkin, T. Produit, E. W. Rosenthal, H. Milchberg, and J.-P. Wolf, Optics Express28, 11463 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Cakaj, Front

    S. Cakaj, Front. Comms. Net 2, 643095 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Chaudhry and H

    A. Chaudhry and H. Yanikomeroglu, IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 16, 48 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    T. Song, Q. Wang, M. Wu, T. Ohtsuki, and M. Gurusamy, J. Light. Technol 35, 3082 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.