Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Drone- and Vehicle-Based Quantum Key Distribution

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first quantum key distribution in which both communicating endpoints move: drone-to-drone, drone-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-vehicle links, with finite-key secure rates of 1.6–20 kbps.

desk verdict First fully-mobile QKD demonstrations with credible engineering, but the reported secure key rates rest on a device-model fit that needs much closer scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17587 v1 pith:ZF5PTIO3 submitted 2025-05-23 quant-ph

Andrew Conrad , Roderick Cochran , Daniel Sanchez-Rosales , Samantha Isaac , Timur Javid , Tahereh Rezaei , A.J. Schroeder , Grzegorz Golba
show 12 more authors
Akash Gutha Brian Wilens Kyle Herndon Alex Hill Joseph Chapman Ian Call Joseph Szabo Aodhan Corrigan Lars Kamin Norbert Lütkenhaus Daniel J. Gauthier Paul G. Kwiat
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionmobileplatformsdrone-to-dronefree-spaceQKDfinite-keysecuritydecoy-stateprotocolpolarizationencodingpointingandtracking
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 reports a quantum key distribution system in which neither endpoint is a fixed ground station: the transmitter and receiver are modular payloads that can be mounted on drones or vehicles, and the authors demonstrate drone-to-drone, drone-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-vehicle links. The central claim is that these fully mobile links generate securely usable keys in the finite-key regime within a single short session, at secure rates of 1.6 to 20 kbps depending on configuration. The reason this matters is that mobile nodes are the missing piece for reconfigurable quantum networks; prior airborne and vehicle demonstrations always had one stationary party. To back the security claim, the paper builds a device model that accounts for channel loss, imperfect optics, and uneven detector efficiencies, which are more pronounced when both platforms are moving.

What carries the argument

Carrying the argument is the $8\times2$ complex isometry $G$, a 32-real-parameter unitary model that lumps the entire channel and receiving apparatus—free-space loss, imperfect beam splitters, waveplate retardance errors, coupling inefficiencies, and mismatched detector efficiencies—into one transformation applied to the polarization modes. The model is fitted by least squares to the measured signal-state counts, then used to predict the received mean photon numbers for the signal, decoy, and vacuum states; those predictions are inserted into a composable finite-key security proof. The same model also converts the lossy detection setup into an equivalent lossless one, attributing all losses to a potential eavesdropper. This is what lets the paper claim secure keys from sessions lasting only tens to hundreds of seconds with non-ideal hardware.

What would settle it

Record the same QKD session's counts, split the data, and fit $G$ on one half while computing the finite-key rate on the other half; if the predicted received mean photon numbers for decoy and vacuum states deviate from the measured counts by more than the Poisson statistics allow, or if the key rate becomes non-positive for an equally good fit to the signal data, then the model does not capture the device and the claimed secure rates would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is the first quantum key exchange between fully mobile platforms, together with a security analysis strong enough for the short, imperfect sessions those platforms allow. Using a polarization-based decoy-state protocol, with circular-polarization key states $|R\rangle$ and $|L\rangle$ to resist platform rotations and $|H\rangle$ for error checking, the authors report averaged secure key rates of 8.5 kbps for drone-to-drone, 1.6 kbps for drone-to-vehicle, 20.0 kbps for vehicle-to-vehicle at 5 mph, and 2.5 kbps for vehicle-to-vehicle at 70 mph, producing 205 kb to 1.88 Mb of secret key per session. These rates come from a custom finite-key analysis that replaces idealized-device assumptions with a fitted model of the real hardware, so the security statement covers the system actually deployed.

Load-bearing premise

The security claim rests on the assumption that the fitted mathematical model of the equipment is an exact, complete description of how the real drones, vehicles, channel, and detectors behave during the session, and that the uncertainty from fitting that model does not change the security conclusion; if a different model that matches the measurements just as well would give a much lower key rate, the reported secure rates are not rigorously supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single short, on-the-move session is enough to distill a securely usable key; the paper demonstrates this in every configuration tested, with no fixed ground station on either side.
  • Mobile nodes can be reconfigured quickly, since the transmitter and receiver are self-contained payloads that swap between drones and vehicles without sharing power or control with the host platform.
  • The same finite-key modeling approach extends naturally to future mobile links at longer range and higher speed, because it turns device non-idealities into inputs of the security proof rather than assuming them away.
  • Moving from entanglement-based mobile nodes to a full quantum network becomes plausible: the authors state the system can be upgraded to entangled-photon sources, reusing the same modular platforms and pointing-and-tracking hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model-based rates hold up under scrutiny, the practical blueprint for mobile QKD shifts from 'connect a moving node to a fixed station' to 'connect any two moving nodes,' which changes network planning for disaster response and tactical communication.
  • A natural next test, not performed here, is to vary the fit: bootstrap the least-squares estimation of $G$ and feed the resulting distribution of unitaries through the key-rate solver to see how much the quoted 1.6–20 kbps rates spread.
  • The paper's predicted 49.6 dB daytime signal-to-noise improvement from spectral, spatial, and temporal filtering is a concrete, checkable engineering target; if realized, it would remove the night-operation limitation and make these links usable around the clock.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a modular polarization-based BB84 decoy-state QKD system deployed on drones and ground vehicles. The central claim is a first demonstration of QKD links in which both endpoints are mobile: drone-to-drone, drone-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-vehicle at 5 mph and 70 mph. Using a custom finite-key analysis built on the external frameworks of Refs. [30-33], Table 1 reports finite-key secure key rates of 1.6-20 kbps and total secret keys of 205 kb-1.88 Mb from single sessions. The security analysis incorporates a fitted unitary device model (Supplementary Note 11) that describes source and receiver non-idealities, state tomography, decoy-state intensities, and detector losses. The supplementary information documents the platforms, PAT system, detectors, time tagging, synchronization, and safety. The core technical novelty is the mobile deployment and the claim that the resulting finite-key rates account for platform-specific non-idealities; the protocol itself is standard decoy-state BB84.

Significance. If the reported finite-key rates are rigorously established, this is a substantial experimental milestone: it would be the first QKD exchange in which neither endpoint is a fixed station, and it demonstrates finite-key security in short sessions relevant to mobile networks. The paper's strengths are the breadth of the experimental campaign (six link configurations, including a 70 mph highway run), the modular payload design, and the unusually detailed supplementary characterization of the source, PAT system, detectors, synchronization, and laser safety. The authors also correctly recognize that finite-key analysis is necessary for short mobile sessions. However, the security claim is currently supported by a statistical device model whose uncertainty is not quantified, and several model parameters are estimated from the same QKD counts that are later used for key extraction; the paper does not provide deposited code or machine-checked proof certificates for the custom numerical analysis. The experiments are credible, but the reported key-rate numbers are not yet demonstrated lower bounds.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Note 11, Eqs. (10)-(24); Methods §4.3] The device isometry G in Eq. (10) carries 32 real parameters (about 28 after the isometry constraint in Eq. (11)) but is fitted by least squares to only 12 average signal count rates (three input states times four detector outputs), and the four loss modes are never directly observed. The cost function in Eq. (24) is an unweighted residual on mean photon numbers and does not model Poisson counting statistics. Because G is used to construct the effective lossless POVM via Corollary 4 of Ref. [33], a different isometry compatible with the same data within statistical noise can change the computed key-rate bound. No confidence interval, bootstrap, or independent cross-check on G is propagated into the finite-key solver, and G is treated as time-independent even though Fig. 2(b) shows substantial time-dependent count-rate dips. The authors should provide a bootstrap or profile-likelihood analysis of G, or conservatively minimize the key rate over a confidence set of G, and report the resulting lower bounds for Table 1. Without this, the reported 1.6-20 kbps rates are not established as rigorous finite-key lower bounds.
  2. [Supplementary Note 11, Part 2; Supplementary Note 4; Methods §4.3] The decoy and vacuum mean photon numbers are estimated from the same QKD counts that are later fed into the key-rate solver; Methods explicitly says the analysis "search[es] for self-consistent intensities given the observations by performing another least-squares estimation." This self-referential estimation absorbs statistical fluctuations of the session into the model parameters rather than treating the observed counts as fixed statistical constraints with known confidence. Similarly, Supplementary Note 4 optimizes the decoy-state sending fractions using in-flight transmission data; if those data overlap with the sessions used to compute the Table 1 rates, the protocol parameters are not fixed in advance as the security proof requires. To break the circularity, the intensities should be determined from independent calibration data (or one-sided confidence bounds should be used), and the protocol-parameter optimization should be performed on a separate training set from the evaluation data.
  3. [Supplementary Note 10] The post-processing selects only synchronization blocks with at least 95% synchronization confidence and a noise fraction below 0.2, and parts of the data are discarded because of an FPGA write bottleneck. The manuscript does not report the fraction of raw data discarded per run or the sensitivity of the reported QBER and key rates to these filtering thresholds. If the thresholds were chosen after inspecting the data, conditioning on favorable subsets could inflate the finite-key rates. Please report retention statistics for each run and show that the key-rate conclusions are robust over a range of threshold values.
  4. [Methods §4.3; Code availability] The finite-key rates are computed by a custom numerical implementation of the frameworks in Refs. [30-33], but the code is not deposited and the data are only "available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request." Because the security claim depends on numerical optimization (the key-rate solver and the least-squares estimation of G and intensities), the reader cannot verify that the implementation correctly applies Corollary 4 of Ref. [33] and satisfies the finite-size bounds. The authors should deposit the key-rate solver, the device-model fitting code, and the input data for at least one run of each configuration so that the reported lower bounds are reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Results §2] The abstract describes "single-photon quantum states" being transmitted, but Results §2 states that the source uses "attenuated LEDs... not true single-photon states." Please use "weak coherent pulses" throughout to avoid an internal contradiction.
  2. [Supplementary Note 6] In the receiver description, "the R/L (H/L) basis is on the transmitted (reflected) paths" should presumably read "the R/L (H/V) basis"; please correct the typo.
  3. [Methods §4.1; Supplementary Note 1] The main text says the battery provides approximately 5 minutes of flight time while carrying the QKD equipment, whereas Supplementary Note 1 gives a typical flight time of 2.5 minutes. Please reconcile these numbers.
  4. [Supplementary information] The supplementary material is linked to an Overleaf editing URL (https://www.overleaf.com/6163117185jdntcjsptcdk), which is not a stable public publication link; provide a permanent DOI or repository URL.
  5. [Results §2.1; Methods §4.3] Results §2.1 says the security analysis assumes Eve performs a collective attack, while the abstract claims "information-theoretic secure" communication and Methods invokes composable ε-security. Please clarify whether the Table 1 rates are secure against collective attacks only or against general attacks, and adjust the abstract wording accordingly.
  6. [Supplementary Note 3; Supplementary Note 11] The tomographic states have purities between 99.1% and 100%, but the device model restricts the transmitted states to be pure. Please quantify the effect of neglecting the measured impurity on the resulting key-rate bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the secure-key claim is based on an external finite-key proof applied to measured QKD data; the fitted device model is a calibration step, not a self-fulfilling prediction.

full rationale

The central secure-key rates in Table 1 are computed with the finite-key security analyses of Refs. [30] and [33], which are general, parameter-free results whose stated assumptions (collective attacks, finite-size composable security, loss-tolerant squashing for passive linear detection) do not incorporate this paper's drone/vehicle data or the specific fitted matrix G. Citing them is therefore independent support, not a self-citation chain. The device model in Supplementary Note 11 (Eqs. 8-24) is a least-squares characterization: G is estimated from signal counts, the decoy and vacuum intensities are then estimated from the same experimental counts, and the word 'predict' in Eq. 12 refers to the forward model, not to an out-of-sample prediction. The finite-key rate is not equal by construction to the fitted mean photon numbers; it is a lower bound derived from observed counts and QBER through the external proof. Concerns about underdetermination of the 32-parameter isometry and the lack of propagated statistical uncertainty are correctness and validity risks, not circularity. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice of G; Ref. [33] is used as a general method. No circular step meeting the evidence bar was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of external security theorems and on a device model with many parameters fitted to the same data used for key extraction. The paper adds substantial hardware engineering, but the security proof itself is not self-contained and the model uncertainties are not quantified.

free parameters (6)
  • Unitary device model G (32 real parameters) = Not given in paper
    Estimated by least-squares fit to observed signal counts in Supp. Note 11, Eqs. (10)-(24); used directly in the finite-key security solver without uncertainty propagation.
  • Decoy and vacuum mean photon numbers = Not given in paper
    Estimated in Part 2 of the least-squares procedure from the same QKD counts, after G is fixed (Supp. Note 11).
  • Signal mean photon numbers mu_R, mu_L, mu_H = 0.37 to 0.78 depending on session (Table 1)
    Measured once per day from the source and used as fixed inputs to the model; they are calibrated quantities rather than universal constants.
  • Decoy-state sending fractions = Signal 70%, Decoy #1 19.2%, Decoy #2 10.8%
    Optimized using in-flight transmission data to maximize finite-key SKR (Supp. Note 4).
  • Basis selection probabilities = P_R/L = 56.6%, P_H/V = 43.4%
    Taken from the measured 56.6/43.4 beam splitter ratio and used to set sending probabilities (Supp. Note 4).
  • Post-processing selection thresholds = 95% sync confidence; 0.2 noise fraction
    Data blocks are retained only above these thresholds (Supp. Note 10); the choice affects which data enter the key computation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The finite-key security proofs of Refs. [30] and [33] are correct and applicable to this setup.
    Invoked in Methods 4.3; the proof itself is not reproduced and Ref. [30] is an unpublished preprint co-authored by members of this team.
  • domain assumption Eve is restricted to collective attacks.
    Stated in Section 2.1 ('assuming Eve performs a collective attack'); no argument is given for lifting to general attacks.
  • domain assumption The entire channel and detection setup is fully described by a unitary U with vacuum ancillary inputs, i.e. no unmodeled side channels or memory effects.
    Supplementary Note 11, Eqs. (7)-(11); this is the core modeling assumption for the security analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The transmitted states can be treated as pure states for the finite-key model, with the coherent-state amplitude set equal to the single-photon component.
    Supplementary Note 11, paragraph after Eq. (23); tomography is constrained to pure states.
  • domain assumption Decoy-state security assumptions (e.g. phase randomization or equivalent) hold for the attenuated LED sources.
    The paper uses decoy states [18] but does not discuss phase randomization or the exact source model needed by the proof.
  • domain assumption The data selection rules (95% synchronization confidence, 0.2 noise fraction) do not bias the security statistics.
    Supplementary Note 10 applies these filters before sifting and key analysis; no sensitivity analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Drone- and Vehicle-Based Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZF5PTIO3

@misc{pith2026250517587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Drone- and Vehicle-Based Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZF5PTIO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17587}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum key distribution is a point-to-point communication protocol that leverages quantum mechanics to enable secure information exchange. Commonly, the transmitter and receiver stations are at fixed locations, and the single-photon quantum states are transmitted over fiber or free space. Here, we describe a modular, platform-agnostic, quantum key distribution transmitter and receiver with reduced size, weight, and power consumption to realize a mobile quantum communication system. We deploy the system on different moving platforms, demonstrating drone-to-drone, drone-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-vehicle quantum communication, achieving secure key rates in the finite-key regime in the range of 1.6 - 20 kbps. To prove the security of the system, we develop advanced physics models of the devices that account for non-ideal behaviors that are of greater importance in mobile platforms. The modular system can be easily upgraded to include sources of entangled photonic quantum states, which will find application in future quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mobile quantum communication systems. The modular system architecture enables rapid deployment of QKD links between mobile platforms such as drones and vehicles. The top left panel shows the configurations we demonstrate (yellow arrows) and QKD configurations demonstrated by others. The top right panel shows the modular QKD payload. The bottom panel shows our BB84 decoy-state polarization-based protocol, where the t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum communication between drones. Air-to-air drone-based QKD. (a) Air-to-air experimental setup, (b) temporal evolution of the QKD transmission (1-sec integration time) where the ideal proportions are shown in dashed lines, (c) QBER trends for the different input states over the course of one flight. (Photos courtesy Alan Mitchell and Timur Javid). 2.2 Drone-to-Vehicle Configuration We collected air-to-vehicle Q… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantum communication between drones and cars. Air-to-Vehicle QKD. (a). Air￾to-vehicle setup (photo courtesy of Timur Javid), (b) air-to-vehicle route map, and (c) air-to-vehicle QKD transmission (1-sec integration time). 2.3 Vehicle-to-Vehicle Configuration We performed vehicle-to-vehicle QKD in two different test configurations. In the first, the vehicles traveled parallel to each other at a speed of 5 mph (8 km/h… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum communication between cars. Vehicle-to-Vehicle QKD. (a) QKD Transmit￾ter and QKD Receiver setups, (b) 5-mph Vehicle-to-Vehicle QKD (1-sec integration time) at Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT), Mar. 27, 2024. 3 Discussion We envision future heterogeneous…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The drone-based QKD platform in flight. Photo courtesy of Alan Mitchell. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Drone QKD Flight Operations (Photo Courtesy Timur Javid). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Drone-to-Vehicle QKD Flight Operations Time-lapse (Photo Courtesy Timur Javid). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The QKD source consisting of three RC-LECs coupled to single-mode optical fibers (Photo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The QKD source package includes the RC-LEDs, FPGA, and fiber-based optical attenuators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Quantum state tomography of the QKD Source. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependence of the SKR on the decoy-state protocol on the sending fractions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Modular QKD System. (a) QKD transmitter platform, (b) QKD receiver platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: QKD transmitter and receiver optics (Photos courtesy Timur Javid). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Transmitter quantum state characteristics. a) Spectrum and b) temporal evolution of all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Gimbal control loop: (a) transmitter gimbal; (b) receiver gimbal; (c) Near Infrared (NIR) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FSM control loop optical schematic. and FSM control loops, we obtain a typical channel loss of -2.23 dB (60% transmission) through the RX optics into the MMFs while both drones are in flight. Since operating the original PAT sytem described here, we have shifted to us…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FSM control loop consists of laser beacons, Fast Steering Mirrors (FSM), Dichroic Mirrors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Excelitas 4-Channel Single-Photon Counting Module (Photo courtesy Timur Javid.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Time tagging system. (Photos courtesy Timur Javid). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The QKD receiver setup consists of non-ideal optical components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The unitary transformation modeling the entire QKD system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Illustration of the QKD model and the procedure for estimating the model parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Least-squares solver model prediction compared to the experimental measurements for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Least-squares solver model error for the Drone-to-Drone QKD data (Flight #1, Nov 2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum key distribution over a 2 km free-space channel with a high secure key rate

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 2 km free-space QKD link with active beam stabilization achieves a 164.8 kbps secure key rate at 3.3% QBER.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [33]

    & L¨ utkenhaus, N

    Kamin, L. & L¨ utkenhaus, N. Improved decoy-state and flag-state squashing methods. Physical Review Research 6, 043223 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008)

    2008

  3. [2]

    Cacciapuoti, A. S. et al. Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum com- puting. IEEE Network 34, 137–143 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    T., Borregaard, J., De Greve, K

    Khabiboulline, E. T., Borregaard, J., De Greve, K. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum-assisted telescope arrays. Physical Review A 100, 022316 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Liu, J.-L. et al. Creation of memory–memory entanglement in a metropolitan quantum network. Nature 629, 579–585 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Stolk, A. J. et al. Metropolitan-scale heralded entanglement of solid-state qubits. Science advances 10, eadp6442 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Yin, J. et al. Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers. Science 356, 1140– 1144 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Elliott, C. et al. Current status of the DARPA quantum network. In Quantum Information and Computation III , vol. 5815, 138–149 (SPIE, 2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Liu, H.-Y. et al. Drone-based entanglement distribution towards mobile quantum networks. Na- tional Science Review 7, 921–928 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Liu, H.-Y. et al. Optical-relayed entanglement distribution using drones as mobile nodes. Physical Review Letters 126, 020503 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    & Wang, J

    Tu, C., Shen, J., Dai, J., Zhang, L. & Wang, J. A lower size, weight acquisition and tracking system for airborne quantum communication. IEEE Photonics Journal 14, 1–8 (2022). 9

    2022

  4. [11]

    Liao, S.-K. et al. Satellite-relayed intercontinental quantum network. Physical Review Letters 120, 030501 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Li, Y. et al. Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution. Nature 1–8 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Nauerth, S. et al. Air to ground quantum key distribution. In Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging X , vol. 8518, 71–76 (SPIE, 2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Pugh, C. J. et al. Airborne demonstration of a quantum key distribution receiver payload. Quan- tum Science and Technology 2, 024009 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Tian, X.-H. et al. Experimental demonstration of drone-based quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 200801 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133. 200801

    2024 doi

  9. [16]

    Bourgoin, J.-P. et al. Free-space quantum key distribution to a moving receiver. Optics express 23, 33437–33447 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    & Azuma, K

    Tamaki, K., Curty, M., Kato, G., Lo, H.-K. & Azuma, K. Loss-tolerant quantum cryptography with imperfect sources. Physical Review A 90, 052314 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    & Chen, K

    Lo, H.-K., Ma, X. & Chen, K. Decoy state quantum key distribution. Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  12. [19]

    Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (2014)

    Lane Width, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (2014). Availible Online: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/ chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm (accessed Feb 20, 2025)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Tomamichel, M., Lim, C. C. W., Gisin, N. & Renner, R. Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography. Nature communications 3, 634 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    da Costa, B. L. et al. Power-consumption backdoor in quantum key distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11767 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    Availible Online: https://qgroundcontrol.com (accessed Feb 19, 2025)

    QGroundControl Software. Availible Online: https://qgroundcontrol.com (accessed Feb 19, 2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Availible Online: https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot (ac- cessed Feb 20, 2025)

    PX4 Flight Control Firmware. Availible Online: https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot (ac- cessed Feb 20, 2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    14 C.F.R. §107. PART 107—SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. URL https://www. ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107

  18. [25]

    Low-density parity-check codes

    Gallager, R. Low-density parity-check codes. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 8, 21–28 (1962)

    1962

  19. [26]

    MacKay, D. J. Good error-correcting codes based on very sparse matrices. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45, 399–431 (1999)

    1999

  20. [27]

    & Martin, V

    Elkouss, D., Martinez-Mateo, J. & Martin, V. Information reconciliation for quantum key distri- bution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1007.1616 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  21. [28]

    O., Trushechkin, A

    Kiktenko, E. O., Trushechkin, A. S., Lim, C. C. W., Kurochkin, Y. V. & Fedorov, A. K. Symmetric blind information reconciliation for quantum key distribution. Physical Review Applied 8, 044017 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    IEEE Std 802.11n-2009 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11-2007 as amended by IEEE Std 802.11k-2008, IEEE Std 802.11r- 2008, IEEE Std 802.11y-2008, and IEEE Std 802.11w-2009) 1–565 (2009)

    IEEE standard for information technology– local and metropolitan area networks– specific requirements– part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications amendment 5: Enhancements for higher throughput. IEEE Std 802.11n-2009 (Amendment to...

    2009

  23. [30]

    & L¨ utkenhaus, N

    Kamin, L., Tupkary, D. & L¨ utkenhaus, N. Improved finite-size effects in QKD protocols with applications to decoy-state QKD (2025). 2502.05382. 10

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Security of Quantum Key Distribution (2005)

    Renner, R. Security of Quantum Key Distribution (2005). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ quant-ph/0512258. ArXiv: quant-ph/0512258

    2005 arXiv

  25. [32]

    & Coles, P

    Winick, A., L¨ utkenhaus, N. & Coles, P. J. Reliable numerical key rates for quantum key distri- bution. Quantum 2, 77 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Drone Flight Video

    Conrad, A. Drone Flight Video. https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/ 5z-9OlawRZy0jY2HWPlcAA.Ctndiv8JtfGqC1J3rLb_-F (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Todd Dyer

    Col. Todd Dyer. The Art of the Debrief (2019). URL https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/ Article-Display/Article/1917581/the-art-of-the-debrief/

    2019

  28. [36]

    S., Cochran, R

    Rosales, D. S., Cochran, R. D., Isaac, S. D., Kwiat, P. G. & Gauthier, D. J. A quantum key distribution system for mobile platforms with highly indistinguishable states. arXiv:2411.19880 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cochran, R. D. Full-System Design, Implementation, and Analysis for Quantum Key Distribution on Mobile Platforms . Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Rosales, D. E. S. Design and Development of a Quantum Key Distribution System for Highly Mobile Platforms and Its Implementation on Drones and Cars . Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    P., Rontani, D

    Rosin, D. P., Rontani, D. & Gauthier, D. J. Ultra-fast physical generation of random numbers using hybrid boolean networks. Dynamics of Complex Autonomous Boolean Networks 57–79 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    B., Jeffrey, E

    Altepeter, J. B., Jeffrey, E. R. & Kwiat, P. G. Photonic state tomography. Advances in atomic, molecular, and optical physics 52, 105–159 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Lim, C. C. W., Curty, M., Walenta, N., Xu, F. & Zbinden, H. Concise security bounds for practical decoy-state quantum key distribution. Physical Review A 89, 022307 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    & Zbinden, H

    Rusca, D., Boaron, A., Gr¨ unenfelder, F., Martin, A. & Zbinden, H. Finite-key analysis for the 1-decoy state qkd protocol. Applied Physics Letters 112 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    P., Rontani, D

    Rosin, D. P., Rontani, D. & Gauthier, D. J. Ultrafast physical generation of random numbers using hybrid boolean networks. Phys. Rev. E 87, 040902 (2013). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.040902

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Conrad, A. et al. Drone-based quantum key distribution (qkd). InFree-space laser communications XXXIII, vol. 11678, 177–184 (SPIE, 2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Conrad, A. et al. Drone-based quantum communication links. In Quantum Computing, Commu- nication, and Simulation III , vol. 12446, 99–106 (SPIE, 2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Conrad, A. P. Drone and Vehicle-based Quantum Communication and Towards Practical Quantum Position Verification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Cochran, R. D. & Gauthier, D. J. Qubit-based clock synchronization for qkd systems using a bayesian approach. Entropy 23, 988 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Institute, A. N. S. & of America, L. I. ANSI Z136.1 Safe Use of Lasers - 2022 (Laser Institute of America, 2022). URL https://books.google.com/books?id=8ZmUzwEACAAJ. 11 Acknowledgements This work has been funded in part by U.S. Army Grant # W911NF-24-2-0097, by the ONR MURI pr...

    2022

  41. [49]

    vacuum intensity

    QKD Channel and Non-Ideal System Modeling. The quantum state tomographies also allow us to estimate the quantum bit error rate (QBER) contribution from source imperfections QBER Source. This is achieved by projecting the estimated states onto ideal projectors using the relatio...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.