arXiv:2610.38808
Key Evaluation of a Relativistic Quantum Key Distribution Over a Turbulent Free-space Optical Channel
G. Bebrov
Abstract
We investigate the performance of relativistic quantum key distribution (RQKD) over turbulent free-space optical channels for both single-photon and coherent-state implementations. A theoretical model is developed to describe the effect of atmospheric turbulence on interferometric visibility and secret-key generation by incorporating turbulence-induced phase fluctuations into the key-rate analysis. Numerical simulations are performed under realistic channel conditions to evaluate the achievable communication distance and secret-key rate. The results show that atmospheric turbulence degrades the protocol performance by reducing interference visibility, with the severity of the degradation determined by the ratio between the interferometer-arm separation $r$ (or temporal separation of signal and reference states $ΔT$) and Fried's parameter. The single-photon protocol remains operational over all investigated turbulence regimes, whereas the coherent-state implementation exhibits a critical dependence on the interferometer geometry (especially on $ΔT$), leading to a threshold beyond which secure key generation is no longer possible. These findings quantify the impact of atmospheric turbulence on relativistic quantum key distribution and provide practical guidelines for the design and optimization of free-space RQKD systems.
AI Summary
The paper studies how atmospheric turbulence affects secret-key generation in single-photon and weak-coherent-state relativistic QKD over free-space optical links, focusing on interferometric phase noise and arm geometry. The analysis combines atmospheric attenuation, turbulence-induced beam spreading, detector imperfections, and Gaussian phase fluctuations. Averaging the relative phase produces a visibility factor $e^{-\sigma_\phi^2}$, with phase variance related to the arm separation $r$ and Fried parameter $r_0$. For single photons, the proposed rate is $R=Y_1p_{\mathrm{det}}[1-\chi-fH(e)]$, using $\chi\simeq0.601$ from the Holevo information of the two transmitted phase-encoded states. The coherent-state calculation uses source replacement, a detection POVM incorporating imperfections, and the Devetak–Winter formula. Numerical evaluations use an $850\,\mathrm{nm}$ wavelength, $5\,\mathrm{cm}$ transmitter beam radius and receiver aperture radius, detector efficiency $0.5$, and dark-count probability $10^{-10}$. Single-photon rates remain nonzero over finite distance ranges for all three tested geometries, $r/r_0=1/10,1/15,1/20$, with stronger phase noise reducing achievable range. For coherent states, the reported rate vanishes at every nonzero distance when $r/r_0=1/10$; smaller ratios, including $1/30$, restore positive rates and extend the range. The treatment is theoretical and numerical, assumes asymptotically many rounds, and uses collective-attack security analysis for coherent states. Phase fluctuations are modeled as independent Gaussian contributions, and the reported thresholds concern the selected channel, detector, and geometry parameters. No experimental validation or finite-key analysis is presented.
Central claim may not hold: For r/r0=1/10 and 1/15, the paper's printed single-photon equations give negative secret fractions even with ideal error correction, contradicting its claim of positive rates in every investigated scenario. The single-photon calculation uses an unconditional erroneous-click probability instead of the sifted QBER, and its proposed optical projection cannot select the classical phase-choice labels. The noisy coherent-state Holevo calculation reuses a two-pure-state formula although erroneous clicks introduce additional ensemble components and generally mixed conditional states, without establishing a valid replacement security bound. The coherent-state turbulence calculation substitutes mean trigonometric factors inside nonlinear detection exponentials without justifying this as an approximation to phase averaging. The numerical scans vary physical arm separation with distance by fixing r/r0, while the asserted temporal-separation dependence lacks a quantitative conversion or temporal turbulence model.
Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the paper's full text. Automated: it can be wrong.
- Comments
- 30 pages, 7 figues