Randomized trial evaluates QBER behavior in BB84-like circuit primitives on NISQ processors, suggesting implications for quantum communication protocols.
This work investigates a hardware-aware, circuit-level emulation of BB84-like circuit primitives on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) processors. The motivation is to evaluate whether BB84-like basis sifting and intercept–resend-induced QBER behavior remain observable when selected BB84 operations are mapped to parallel single-qubit circuits on gate-based devices. The proposed mapping represents Alice’s preparation, optional Eve intercept–resend emulation, and Bob’s measurement as processor-internal circuit layers; it is therefore an on-chip emulation and not an end-to-end optical QKD implementation. Experiments combine real IBM superconducting processors with Qiskit, Cirq, and Azure/Q# simulator-based or noise-modeled evaluations. Baseline QBER was first calibrated for each backend, and intercept–resend experiments then produced a clear QBER separation from the no-eavesdropper condition. The observed sifted-bit utilization was close to the expected 50% BB84 basis-matching reference, while the constant-depth circuit structure supported scalable raw/sifted-bit generation before any classical post-processing. These observations are treated as implementation-level consistency checks and backend-dependent experimental metrics, rather than as new BB84 protocol-level results. Finite-shot uncertainty, calibration drift, and backend-specific noise are treated as limitations of the proposed QBER-based evaluation rule rather than as deployment-level security guarantees. Because the study does not implement a physical quantum channel, authenticated classical communication, error correction, privacy amplification, finite-key security analysis, or general QKD attack models, the reported metrics should be interpreted as raw/sifted-bit experimental metrics and QBER-based disturbance evaluation for BB84-like NISQ emulation, not as secure key rates, secure throughput, or practical QKD deployment results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: