pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.16822 · v4 · pith:Y2DWCFPZnew · submitted 2024-11-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

Security of Device-independent Quantum Key Distribution under Sequential Attack

Pritam Roy , Souradeep Sasmal , Subhankar Bera , Shashank Gupta , Arup Roy , A. S. Majumdar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 16:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords device-independent quantum key distributionsequential attackunsharp measurementBell violationcollective attackquantum cryptographyeffective noise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sequential unsharp measurements by an adversary without source control can reproduce features of optimal collective attacks in device-independent QKD.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes a DI-QKD scenario in which the adversary does not prepare the shared system but instead performs unsharp measurements on the travelling particle. This interaction introduces effective noise while leaving the observed Bell violation unchanged. Within a limited range of parameters the resulting statistics match some aspects of the strongest collective attacks considered in standard security proofs. The work supplies an explicit physical mechanism that generates the noisy correlations already covered by existing proofs.

Core claim

Within a specific parameter regime, the sequential strategy reproduces some features of an optimal collective attack. The adversary interacts only with the travelling system through unsharp measurements, does not control the source, and leaves the Bell violation intact; the resulting effective statistics therefore constitute a concrete, physically motivated realization of the noise already accounted for in DI-QKD security analyses.

What carries the argument

Sequential unsharp measurement on the travelling system that generates effective noise while preserving the observed Bell violation.

If this is right

  • Existing DI-QKD security proofs already bound the effective noise produced by this sequential interaction.
  • The explicit sequential model supplies a physically motivated example of how the noisy statistics considered in proofs can arise.
  • The attack does not exceed the power of collective attacks inside the identified parameter window.
  • Bell violation remains the sole quantity that determines the achievable key rate under this attack model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Security analyses could focus on bounding effective noise statistics rather than enumerating every possible sequential interaction.
  • If the parameter regime is representative of realistic experimental imperfections, sequential attacks may not require separate treatment beyond collective-attack bounds.
  • The same unsharp-measurement construction might be applied to other device-independent protocols to test whether collective-attack optimality still holds.

Load-bearing premise

The adversary interacts only sequentially with the travelling system via unsharp measurements, without controlling the source, and the observed Bell violation stays exactly the same.

What would settle it

A calculation or experiment outside the stated parameter regime in which the sequential attack produces a different key rate or a different set of effective statistics from those of the optimal collective attack.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16822 by Arup Roy, A. S. Majumdar, Pritam Roy, Shashank Gupta, Souradeep Sasmal, Subhankar Bera.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Key rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Proposed setup for DI-QKD under sequential attack. Entangled photon pairs are generated via SPDC and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The quantum bit error rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Key rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Secret key rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Device-independent quantum key distribution (DI-QKD) leverages nonlocal correlations to establish cryptographic keys between two honest parties while making minimal assumptions about the underlying systems. The security of DI-QKD is grounded in the validity of quantum theory, with Bell violations ensuring the intrinsic unpredictability of observed statistics, independent of the trustworthiness of the devices. While traditional collective QKD attacks assume that the adversary prepares the shared system, we analyse a scenario where the adversary does not control the source and instead interacts sequentially with the travelling system. In this setting, Eve performs an unsharp measurement that produces effective noise while preserving the observed Bell violation. Although such behaviour is already accounted for in existing DI-QKD security proofs, examining it through an explicit sequential interaction offers a concrete and physically motivated example of how these effective statistics can arise in practice. Our analysis further shows that, within a specific parameter regime, this sequential strategy reproduces some features of an optimal collective attack.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a sequential attack scenario in device-independent quantum key distribution (DI-QKD) where the adversary does not control the source but instead interacts with the traveling system via unsharp measurements. This produces effective noise while preserving the observed Bell violation. The work shows that, within a specific parameter regime, this sequential strategy reproduces some features of an optimal collective attack, although the resulting effective statistics are already covered by existing DI-QKD security proofs. The contribution is framed as providing a concrete, physically motivated example of how such statistics can arise in practice.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the paper supplies an explicit physical model for effective noise in DI-QKD arising from sequential unsharp measurements without source control. This may aid interpretation of existing security proofs by illustrating a concrete mechanism, but the core security result relies on prior literature rather than establishing new bounds or protocols.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the sequential strategy 'reproduces some features of an optimal collective attack' in a 'specific parameter regime' but does not name the regime or the reproduced features; adding a brief parenthetical reference to the relevant section or parameter values would improve clarity for readers.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement (e.g., in the introduction or conclusion) confirming that no new security bound is claimed beyond what existing DI-QKD proofs already cover.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and recommendation to accept the manuscript. The report accurately summarizes our contribution as an explicit physical model of sequential unsharp measurements that generate effective noise while preserving Bell violation, with the resulting statistics already covered by existing DI-QKD proofs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The manuscript's central claim is that a sequential unsharp-measurement interaction by an adversary who does not control the source produces effective noise while preserving observed Bell violation, and in one parameter regime reproduces some features of an optimal collective attack. The text explicitly states that such statistics are already covered by existing DI-QKD proofs and offers the sequential model only as a concrete physical example. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce the stated result to its inputs by construction. The derivation rests on standard quantum theory and Bell nonlocality concepts drawn from the external literature, with no load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling. This is the most common honest finding for a modest, self-contained analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond standard quantum theory and Bell nonlocality assumptions from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 995 out tokens · 20622 ms · 2026-05-23T16:36:36.098961+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Consider a scenario where Alice prepares a maximally entangled two-qubit state,ρ=|Φ +⟩ ⟨Φ+|and shares one- half of the entangled qubit with Bob through a quan- tum channel

    is a fundamental metric for the secret key rate, given by r≥1−H(Q)−χ(B 1 :E)(2) Here,His the binary entropy withH(x) =−xlog 2 x− (1−x) log 2(1−x), andH(Q) = 1− I(A 0 :B 1)where I(A0 :B 1)is the mutual information between Alice and Bob.χ(B 1 :E)denotes the Holevo quantity, given byχ(B 1 :E) =S(ρ E)− 1 2 P b1=±1 S(ρE|b1), between Eve and Bob, which is upper...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Note that any desired value of QS can be obtained by choosingA′ 0 to beσ z with prob- ability1−2Q, and a random bit with probability2Q. The lower bound of the key rate is then given by [85] rS =I(A ′ 0 :B 1)−[qI(A ′ 0 :E 1) + (1−q)I(A ′ 0 :E 2)] = 1−H(Q S)−q(1−H(Q))(23) To compare the key rate resulting from this sequential individual attack (Eq. 23) with...

    work page

  3. [3]

    C. E. Shannon, Communication theory of secrecy sys- tems, The Bell System Technical Journal28, 656 (1949)

    work page 1949

  4. [4]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryp- tography, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025008 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A. Acín, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, Efficient quantum key distribution secure against no-signalling eavesdroppers, New Journal of Physics8, 126–126 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    A. Acín, N. Gisin, and L. Masanes, From bell’s theorem to secure quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 120405 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Ekert and R

    A. Ekert and R. Renner, The ultimate physical limits of privacy, Nature507, 443 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419 (2014)

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    work page 1964

  10. [10]

    J. S. BELL, On the problem of hidden variables in quan- tum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.38, 447 (1966)

    work page 1966

  11. [11]

    Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys

    F. Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 200401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Schmid, T

    D. Schmid, T. C. Fraser, R. Kunjwal, A. B. Sainz, E. Wolfe, and R. W. Spekkens, Understanding the in- terplay of entanglement and nonlocality: motivating and developing a new branch of entanglement theory, Quan- tum7, 1194 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    E. G. Cavalcanti and H. M. Wiseman, Bell nonlocality, signal locality and unpredictability (or what bohr could have told einstein at solvay had he known about bell experiments), Foundations of Physics42, 1329 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences461, 207–235 (2005)

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Vazirani and T

    U. Vazirani and T. Vidick, Fully device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140501 (2014)

    work page 2014

  17. [18]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Sham- sul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in quantum cryp- tography, Advances in Optics and Photonics12, 1012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [19]

    Sekatski, J.-D

    P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, X. Valcarce, E. Y.-Z. Tan, R. Renner, and N. Sangouard, Device-independent quan- tumkeydistributionfromgeneralizedCHSHinequalities, Quantum5, 444 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [20]

    Schwonnek, K

    R. Schwonnek, K. T. Goh, I. W. Primaatmaja, E. Y.-Z. Tan, R. Wolf, V. Scarani, and C. C.-W. Lim, Device- independent quantum key distribution with random key basis, Nature communications12, 2880 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [21]

    Zapatero, T

    V. Zapatero, T. van Leent, R. Arnon-Friedman, W.-Z. Liu, Q. Zhang, H. Weinfurter, and M. Curty, Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution, npj quan- tum information9, 10 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [22]

    Wooltorton, P

    L. Wooltorton, P. Brown, and R. Colbeck, Device- independent quantum key distribution with arbitrarily small nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 210802 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [23]

    Farkas, Unbounded device-independent quantum key rates from arbitrarily small nonlocality, Phys

    M. Farkas, Unbounded device-independent quantum key rates from arbitrarily small nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 210803 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [24]

    A. K. Ekert, B. Huttner, G. M. Palma, and A. Peres, Eavesdropping on quantum-cryptographical systems, Physical Review A50, 1047–1056 (1994)

    work page 1994

  24. [25]

    B. A. Slutsky, R. Rao, P.-C. Sun, and Y. Fainman, Secu- rity of quantum cryptography against individual attacks, Physical Review A57, 2383–2398 (1998)

    work page 1998

  25. [26]

    Lütkenhaus, Estimates for practical quantum cryp- tography, Physical Review A59, 3301–3319 (1999)

    N. Lütkenhaus, Estimates for practical quantum cryp- tography, Physical Review A59, 3301–3319 (1999)

    work page 1999

  26. [27]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V. Scarani, Device-independent quantum key distri- bution secure against collective attacks, New Journal of Physics11, 045021 (2009)

    work page 2009

  27. [28]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the bb84quantumkeydistributionprotocol,PhysicalReview Letters85, 441–444 (2000)

    work page 2000

  28. [29]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Physical Review Letters23, 880–884 (1969)

    work page 1969

  29. [30]

    Silva, N

    R. Silva, N. Gisin, Y. Guryanova, and S. Popescu, Mul- tiple observers can share the nonlocality of half of an en- tangled pair by using optimal weak measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 250401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [31]

    S. Mal, A. S. Majumdar, and D. Home, Sharing of non- locality of a single member of an entangled pair of qubits is not possible by more than two unbiased observers on the other wing, Mathematics4, 48 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [32]

    P. J. Brown and R. Colbeck, Arbitrarily many indepen- dent observers can share the nonlocality of a single maxi- mally entangled qubit pair, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 090401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [33]

    Steffinlongo and A

    A. Steffinlongo and A. Tavakoli, Projective measure- ments are sufficient for recycling nonlocality, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 230402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [34]

    Sasmal, S

    S. Sasmal, S. Kanjilal, and A. K. Pan, Unbounded shar- ing of nonlocality using qubit projective measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 170201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [35]

    Z. Cai, C. Ren, T. Feng, X. Zhou, and J. Chen, A review of quantum correlation sharing: The recycling of quan- tum correlations triggered by quantum measurements, Physics Reports1098, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [36]

    Foletto, L

    G. Foletto, L. Calderaro, A. Tavakoli, M. Schiavon, F. Picciariello, A. Cabello, P. Villoresi, and G. Vallone, Experimental certification of sustained entanglement and nonlocality after sequential measurements, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 044008 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [37]

    Pandit, C

    M. Pandit, C. Srivastava, and U. Sen, Recycled entan- glement detection by arbitrarily many sequential and in- dependent pairs of observers, Phys. Rev. A106, 032419 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [38]

    A. K. Das, D. Das, S. Mal, D. Home, and A. S. Majum- dar, Resource-theoretic efficacy of the single copy of a 10 two-qubit entangled state in a sequential network, Quan- tum Information Processing21, 381 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [39]

    Hu and H

    M.-L. Hu and H. Fan, Sequential sharing of two-qudit entanglement based on the entropic uncertainty relation, Phys. Rev. A108, 012423 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [40]

    Sasmal, D

    S. Sasmal, D. Das, S. Mal, and A. S. Majumdar, Steering a single system sequentially by multiple observers, Phys. Rev. A98, 012305 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [41]

    Shenoy H., S

    A. Shenoy H., S. Designolle, F. Hirsch, R. Silva, N. Gisin, and N. Brunner, Unbounded sequence of observers ex- hibiting einstein-podolsky-rosen steering, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022317 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [42]

    X.-H. Han, T. Qian, S.-C. Dong, S. Wang, Y. Xiao, and Y.-J. Gu, Activation of einstein–podolsky–rosen steering sharing with unsharp nonlocal measurements, Scientific Reports14, 11462 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [43]

    Zhu, M.-J

    J. Zhu, M.-J. Hu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and Y.-S. Zhang, Einstein-podolsky-rosen steering in two-sided sequential measurements with one entangled pair, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032211 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [44]

    Y. X. Rong, S. Wang, Z. F. Zhang, Y. J. Gu, and Y. Xiao, Sharing asymmetric einstein–podolsky–rosen steering with projective measurements, New Journal of Physics26, 083014 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [45]

    D. Das, A. Ghosal, S. Sasmal, S. Mal, and A. S. Majum- dar, Facets of bipartite nonlocality sharing by multiple observers via sequential measurements, Phys. Rev. A99, 022305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [46]

    S. S. Mahato and A. K. Pan, Sharing nonlocality in a quantum network by unbounded sequential observers, Phys. Rev. A106, 042218 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [47]

    Wang, Y.-J

    J.-H. Wang, Y.-J. Wang, L.-J. Wang, and Q. Chen, Network nonlocality sharing via weak measurements in the generalized star network configuration, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052412 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [48]

    Mao, Z.-D

    Y.-L. Mao, Z.-D. Li, A. Steffinlongo, B. Guo, B. Liu, S. Xu, N. Gisin, A. Tavakoli, and J. Fan, Recycling non- locality in quantum star networks, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [49]

    H. Sun, F. Guo, H. Dong, and F. Gao, Network nonlo- cality sharing in a two-forked tree-shaped network, Phys. Rev. A110, 012401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [50]

    Datta and A

    S. Datta and A. S. Majumdar, Sharing of nonlocal ad- vantage of quantum coherence by sequential observers, Phys. Rev. A98, 042311 (2018)

    work page 2018

  50. [51]

    Kumari and A

    A. Kumari and A. K. Pan, Sharing nonlocality and non- trivial preparation contextuality using the same family of bell expressions, Phys. Rev. A100, 062130 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [52]

    Kumari and A

    A. Kumari and A. K. Pan, Sharing preparation contex- tuality in a bell experiment by an arbitrary pair of se- quential observers, Phys. Rev. A107, 012615 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [53]

    S. Saha, D. Das, S. Sasmal, D. Sarkar, K. Mukherjee, A.Roy,andS.S.Bhattacharya,Sharingoftripartitenon- locality by multiple observers measuring sequentially at one side, Quantum Information Processing18, 42 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [54]

    A. G. Maity, D. Das, A. Ghosal, A. Roy, and A. S. Ma- jumdar, Detection of genuine tripartite entanglement by multiple sequential observers, Phys. Rev. A101, 042340 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [55]

    Gupta, A

    S. Gupta, A. G. Maity, D. Das, A. Roy, and A. S. Majum- dar, Genuine einstein-podolsky-rosen steering of three- qubit states by multiple sequential observers, Phys. Rev. A103, 022421 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [56]

    Xi, M.-S

    Y. Xi, M.-S. Li, L. Fu, and Z.-J. Zheng, Sharing tripartite nonlocality sequentially by arbitrarily many independent observers, Phys. Rev. A107, 062419 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [57]

    Zhang, H

    T. Zhang, H. Yang, and S.-M. Fei, Sharing bell non- locality of bipartite high-dimensional pure states using only projective measurements, Phys. Rev. A109, 022419 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [58]

    Schiavon, L

    M. Schiavon, L. Calderaro, M. Pittaluga, G. Vallone, and P. Villoresi, Three-observer bell inequality violation on a two-qubit entangled state, Quantum Science and Tech- nology2, 015010 (2017)

    work page 2017

  58. [59]

    Hu, Z.-Y

    M.-J. Hu, Z.-Y. Zhou, X.-M. Hu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and Y.-S. Zhang, Observation of non-locality sharing among three observers with one entangled pair via op- timal weak measurement, npj Quantum Information4, 63 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [60]

    T. Feng, C. Ren, Y. Tian, M. Luo, H. Shi, J. Chen, and X. Zhou, Observation of nonlocality sharing via not-so- weak measurements, Phys. Rev. A102, 032220 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [62]

    Virzì, E

    S. Virzì, E. Rebufello, F. Atzori, A. Avella, F. Pia- centini, R. Lussana, I. Cusini, F. Madonini, F. Villa, M. Gramegna, E. Cohen, I. P. Degiovanni, and M. Gen- ovese, Entanglement-preserving measurement of the bell parameter on a single entangled pair, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045027 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [63]

    F. J. Curchod, M. Johansson, R. Augusiak, M. J. Hoban, P. Wittek, and A. Acín, Unbounded randomness certifi- cation using sequences of measurements, Phys. Rev. A 95, 020102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [64]

    Foletto, M

    G. Foletto, M. Padovan, M. Avesani, H. Tebyanian, P. Villoresi, and G. Vallone, Experimental test of sequen- tial weak measurements for certified quantum random- ness extraction, Phys. Rev. A103, 062206 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [65]

    X. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Han, and X. Wu, Quantifying the intrinsic randomness in sequential measurements, New Journal of Physics26, 013026 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [66]

    Padovan, G

    M. Padovan, G. Foletto, L. Coccia, M. Avesani, P. Vil- loresi, and G. Vallone, Secure and robust randomness with sequential quantum measurements, npj Quantum Information10, 94 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [67]

    Tavakoli and A

    A. Tavakoli and A. Cabello, Quantum predictions for an unmeasured system cannot be simulated with a finite- memory classical system, Phys. Rev. A97, 032131 (2018)

    work page 2018

  66. [68]

    S. Roy, A. Bera, S. Mal, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Re- cycling the resource: Sequential usage of shared state in quantum teleportation with weak measurements, Physics Letters A392, 127143 (2021)

    work page 2021

  67. [69]

    Mohan, A

    K. Mohan, A. Tavakoli, and N. Brunner, Sequential ran- dom access codes and self-testing of quantum measure- ment instruments, New Journal of Physics21, 083034 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [70]

    D. Das, A. Ghosal, A. G. Maity, S. Kanjilal, and A. Roy, Ability of unbounded pairs of observers to achieve quan- tum advantage in random access codes with a single pair of qubits, Phys. Rev. A104, L060602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  69. [71]

    Anwer, N

    H. Anwer, N. Wilson, R. Silva, S. Muhammad, A. Tavakoli, and M. Bourennane, Noise-robust prepa- ration contextuality shared between any number of ob- servers via unsharp measurements, Quantum5, 551 11 (2021)

    work page 2021

  70. [72]

    Mukherjee and A

    S. Mukherjee and A. K. Pan, Semi-device-independent certification of multiple unsharpness parameters through sequential measurements, Phys. Rev. A104, 062214 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [73]

    Roy and A

    P. Roy and A. K. Pan, Device-independent self-testing of unsharp measurements, New Journal of Physics25, 013040 (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [74]

    R. Paul, S. Sasmal, and A. K. Pan, Self-testing of multi- ple unsharpness parameters through sequential violations of a noncontextual inequality, Phys. Rev. A110, 012444 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [75]

    Datta, S

    S. Datta, S. Mal, A. K. Pati, and A. S. Majumdar, Re- mote state preparation by multiple observers using a sin- gle copy of a two-qubit entangled state, Quantum Infor- mation Processing23, 54 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [76]

    Curty and N

    M. Curty and N. Lütkenhaus, Intercept-resend attacks in the bennett-brassard 1984 quantum-key-distribution protocol with weak coherent pulses, Phys. Rev. A71, 062301 (2005)

    work page 1984

  75. [77]

    Bechmann-Pasquinucci, Eavesdropping without quan- tum memory, Phys

    H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, Eavesdropping without quan- tum memory, Phys. Rev. A73, 044305 (2006)

    work page 2006

  76. [78]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  77. [79]

    Konig, R

    R. Konig, R. Renner, and C. Schaffner, The operational meaning of min- and max-entropy, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory55, 4337 (2009)

    work page 2009

  78. [80]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    work page 1991

  79. [81]

    Y. Xiao, Y. X. Rong, S. Wang, X. H. Han, J. S. Xu, and Y. J. Gu, Experimental sharing of bell nonlocality with projective measurements, New Journal of Physics 26, 053019 (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [82]

    P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs, Physical Review Letters75, 4337 (1995)

    work page 1995

Showing first 80 references.