Figure 1.
Optimized QKD Protocol
| Distance (km) | BB84 QBER (%) | Optimized QKD QBER (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 50 | 1.2 | 0.9 |
| 100 | 2.5 | 1.8 |
| 125 | N/A | 2.3 |
| 150 | N/A | 3.0 |
| 175 | N/A | 3.8 |
QKD Protocol Performance Comparison
| Protocol | Maximum Distance (km) | QBER at 100 km (%) | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard BB84 | 100 | 2.5 | - |
| Optimized QKD | 125 | 1.8 | 25% |
| Optimized QKD with Advanced EC | 150 | 1.5 | 50% |
| Optimized QKD with Multi-Hop Repeaters | 200 | 1.2 | 100% |
Comparison Analysis
| Feature | BB84 [21] | E91 [22] | Decoy State [23] | CV-QKD [24] | MDI-QKD [25] | TF-QKD [26]&[27] | Proposed Solution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security | Proven secure | Entanglem ent-based | Enhanced security | High security | Device-independent | High security | Enhanced security with advanced techniques |
| Key Rate | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | Moderate | High | High, optimized photon utilization |
| Distance | Limited | Limited | Extended | Moderate | Extended | Very extended | Extended, leveraging novel methods |
| Implementation Complexity | Moderate | High | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | Moderate, easy integration |
| Resilience to Attacks | Good | Good | Very good | Good | Excellent | Very good | Excellent, robust error correction |