Teleportation-based collective attacks in Gaussian quantum key distribution

Nathan Walk; Nedasadat Hosseinidehaj; Spyros Tserkis; Timothy C. Ralph

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Teleportation-based collective attacks in Gaussian quantum key distribution

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims an eavesdropper can reach the optimal collective attack on Gaussian QKD using teleportation and entanglement, without controlling the channel.

desk verdict A useful and honest CV-QKD attack model that interpolates between individual and collective limits, but the main quantitative curves need a full derivation before the claims are checkable. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07665 v2 pith:NZ3ERAHF submitted 2019-08-21 quant-ph

Spyros Tserkis , Nedasadat Hosseinidehaj , Nathan Walk , Timothy C. Ralph This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd

keywords continuous-variablequantumkeydistributionGaussianattackscollectiveattackall-opticalteleportationentanglingclonerHolevoboundentanglementresourceeavesdropping

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

The paper asks whether an eavesdropper must control the quantum channel to mount the strongest known attack on Gaussian quantum key distribution. It argues no: Eve can instead perform an all-optical teleportation over the channel, using a pre-shared two-mode squeezed state as the only resource. With the minimum required entanglement, this attack matches the optimal individual attack; as the entanglement grows, Eve's information rises monotonically and reaches the Holevo bound in the infinite-entanglement limit. The authors conclude that the unphysical resource requirements of the optimal collective attack are a sign of Gaussian QKD's robustness, and they propose the amount of distributed entanglement as the operationally critical measure of a realistic Eve's power.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the all-optical teleportation protocol of Ref. [16], which is measurement-free: a two-mode squeezer with gain g>1 in a station near Alice amplifies the signal, the amplified signal traverses the channel G, and a beam-splitter with transmissivity t=1/g near Bob attenuates it back, with one arm of Eve's resource state mixed in. Because no Bell-type measurement is made during teleportation, Eve can store all modes and perform a collective measurement at the end, which the standard Braunstein-Kimble teleportation cannot do directly. The resource state, a pure two-mode squeezed vacuum with squeezing parameter γ, is the dial that interpolates between the optimal individual attack at minimum entanglement and the optimal collective attack in the infinite-entanglement limit.

What would settle it

Take a thermal-loss channel with fixed parameters (for example τ=0.25, ε=1.01) and implement an all-optical teleportation attack with a resource state of known finite squeezing; if the measured Eve information falls below the optimal individual attack curve, or if increasing the entanglement does not move the extracted information monotonically toward the Holevo bound, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the standard entangling-cloner assumption—that Eve purifies the entire environment—is unnecessary. A measurement-free all-optical teleportation attack, using a pure two-mode squeezed vacuum state ρ with squeezing γ, simulates the thermal-loss channel G and lets Eve store modes for a collective measurement. For entanglement below the infinite limit, Eve's accessible information S(b:E) exceeds the optimal individual attack bound and approaches the Holevo bound χ(b:E) only as γ→1, where the teleportation operates in the Choi-state regime. The minimum entanglement required to simulate the channel is E(γ_min) with γ_min given by a closed expression in τ and v, and at that point the attack reduces exactly to the optimal individual attack.

Load-bearing premise

Eve can prepare, distribute, and distill a pure two-mode squeezed vacuum state with arbitrarily high squeezing, including the infinite-squeezing limit, and can place her stations arbitrarily close to Alice's and Bob's laboratories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With only the minimum required entanglement E(γ_min), the all-optical attack reproduces the optimal individual attack, so the scheme interpolates between the two standard security regimes.
For any finite amount of entanglement above the minimum, Eve extracts more information than in the optimal individual attack, tightening the bound that a realistic Eve can achieve.
Reaching the Holevo bound requires infinite squeezing, an unphysical resource; the authors read this as evidence of the intrinsic robustness of Gaussian QKD.
The closed-form minimum entanglement in Eq. (8) gives Alice and Bob an operationally meaningful quantity to condition their key rate on when they do not assume Eve controls the environment.
In finite-size analyses, regimes that look insecure against an optimal collective attack can admit positive key rates when Eve is limited to the resource-constrained attack.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step the paper does not take is to convert the entanglement budget into a finite-resource security proof: if Eve's entanglement is bounded, the key-rate formula could be evaluated without invoking a full environment purification, giving conservative but experimentally relevant rates.
The monotone rise of Eve's information with entanglement suggests that a finite-entanglement analogue of the Holevo bound may exist; if one were proven, the all-optical scheme could be shown optimal for every entanglement value, a claim the authors explicitly refrain from making.
The paper's mention of hybrid teleportation points to a possible experimental middle ground: replacing one infinitely squeezed state with many Bell states shifts the resource burden but turns the simulated channel non-Gaussian, so the security analysis would need reworking.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — you should know about this paper. It proposes an eavesdropping model for Gaussian QKD that drops the entangling-cloner assumption that Eve purifies the whole channel. Instead Eve runs an all-optical teleportation over the shared channel, using a two-mode squeezed resource with finite entanglement. With infinite entanglement the attack reaches the Holevo bound; with finite entanglement it does better than the optimal individual attack. That is a genuinely useful intermediate model.

What is new is the specific assembly. All-optical teleportation (Ralph 1999) and the minimal-entanglement formula (Tserkis et al. 2018) are existing results, but putting them together as a collective attack, with the finite-resource analysis, is not in the literature. The paper is honest about limits: it notes that the finite-resource attack is not proven optimal, and that even the minimum required entanglement is beyond current technology. The infinite-entanglement limit is a good consistency check and matches the Choi-state picture.

The soft spot is the calculation behind Fig. 2. The joint covariance matrix after S_g, the channel, B_eta and B_t is not given, nor are the symplectic eigenvalues that enter the entropy. The optimization over {eta, kappa} is described only verbally, so I cannot check that Bob's channel parameters are held fixed at tau=0.25, epsilon=1.01. The claimed saturation of the Holevo bound and the finite-resource improvement rest entirely on those curves. The result is plausible and likely correct, but it is not independently checkable. This is a fixable problem, not a fatal one. The physical-resource objection—Eve needs stations near both labs and arbitrarily strong squeezing—is a real assumption, but it is the same kind of idealization used throughout asymptotic QKD security proofs, so I would not weight it heavily.

The citation pattern looks fine; the earlier self-cited results are published and independent. I don't see circularity.

Bottom line: send it to a serious referee. Ask the authors to include the full covariance matrix, the symplectic spectrum, and the constraint-preserving optimization for Fig. 2, and to soften the 'universal eavesdropping scheme' phrase in the conclusion. After that, it is a solid contribution for the CV-QKD community.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an eavesdropping strategy for Gaussian QKD based on the all-optical teleportation protocol. In the proposed attack, Eve does not purify the environment or control the shared quantum channel; instead she establishes stations close to Alice and Bob, uses a pure two-mode squeezed vacuum resource state, and performs an all-optical teleportation over the channel. The paper claims that under collective measurements this attack approaches the Holevo bound (optimal collective attack) in the limit of infinite entanglement, while for finite entanglement it outperforms the optimal individual attack. It also identifies the minimum entanglement needed for the attack to simulate the channel and interprets the infinite-entanglement requirement as a robustness feature of Gaussian QKD.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims are correct, the paper offers a conceptually new eavesdropping model that interpolates between optimal individual and optimal collective attacks without assuming Eve controls the entire environment. The construction is physically motivated and builds on previously published results for channel simulation (Ref. [52]) and all-optical teleportation (Ref. [16]), so the argument is not circular. The paper also correctly identifies the minimum entanglement threshold for the attack. However, the main quantitative evidence is numerical and the underlying entropy calculation is not shown, so the significance at this stage is conditional on the missing derivation being supplied and verified.

major comments (4)

[Sec. IV and Appendix A; Eqs. (5)-(6); Fig. 2] The central quantitative claim—that S(b:E) approaches the Holevo bound as γ→1 and exceeds the optimal individual attack for E(γ)>E(γmin)—is not verifiable from the manuscript. The authors never give the joint covariance matrix of Alice, Bob, and Eve after the sequence S_g, the channel G, B_η, and B_t, nor the symplectic eigenvalues of μ and μ|b that enter Eq. (5) via Eq. (6). Without these, the curves in Fig. 2 cannot be checked, and the apparent saturation of the Holevo bound could be an artifact of an error in the entropy evaluation. This is the load-bearing gap in the paper.
[Sec. V, Fig. 2 caption; Eqs. (A5)] The optimization over {η,κ} 'that can simulate the channel G' is described only verbally. The constraints that fix Bob's effective channel to the nominal values τ=0.25 and ε=1.01 are not stated, and the connection to the all-optical-teleportation parameters in Eqs. (A5) (with λ=τ) is not made explicit. If the optimized curves inadvertently allow Bob's effective transmissivity and excess noise to drift from the nominal channel, the comparison with the optimal individual attack at the nominal channel is unfair. Please state the constraints explicitly and show the resulting feasible set.
[Sec. V, 'optimality' claim] The statement that the attack 'reaches optimality' in the infinite-entanglement limit is supported only by the numerical approach to the Holevo bound in Fig. 2. Because the entropy calculation is not shown and no analytic proof that the construction attains χ(b:E) is provided, the optimality claim is stronger than what the manuscript demonstrates. If the intended claim is only that the plotted example approaches the Holevo bound, the wording should be revised accordingly; if full optimality is intended, a derivation or a rigorous argument is needed.
[Sec. V, Fig. 2 and abstract] The superiority over the optimal individual attack for finite entanglement is demonstrated for a single set of channel parameters (τ=0.25, ε=1.01, ζ=0.7, β=0.95). The abstract and conclusions, however, state this outperformance without qualification. Either add a parameter scan showing the effect is robust, or qualify the claim by saying it is shown for the considered example.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. V] In the sentence 'the beam-splitter Bη has transmissivity equal to the channel's transitivity', 'transitivity' should be 'transmissivity'.
[Appendix A] In the first paragraph of Appendix A, 'protools' should be 'protocols'.
[Eq. (9)] Equation (9) lacks parentheses: the denominator (γ^2−1) ln 2 should apply to the whole expression, not only to the second term.
[Sec. IV, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) states E(ρ) > E(γmin), but the following text discusses the case E(ρ) = E(γmin); please clarify whether equality is included in the minimum-resource condition.
[References] Reference [56] lists 'C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin & W. K. Wooters'; the correct spelling is 'Wootters'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the attack analysis compares against external Holevo and individual-attack benchmarks and does not fit its target; reliance on prior self-citations is independent support.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The teleportation attack is constructed from a published all-optical teleportation protocol (Ref [16]) and a published classification of Gaussian resource states capable of simulating a given channel (Ref [52]); both are prior work by the authors, but they supply the building blocks (effective channel parameters and the minimum entanglement threshold gamma_min) rather than the paper's target statement that Eve's collective information S(b:E) approaches the Holevo bound and exceeds the optimal individual attack at finite entanglement. The central quantitative step—evaluating S(b:E) from Eq. (5) at the end of the S_g-G-B_eta-B_t sequence—is a direct application of Gaussian-state entropies, benchmarked externally against the Holevo bound (10) and the known optimal individual attack (Refs [28,29]). No parameter is fitted to those benchmarks; the maximization over {eta,kappa} is constrained by the requirement that the simulated channel match G, and the limiting points are identified physically (eta=tau, kappa=sqrt((epsilon-1)/(epsilon+1)) at gamma->1; eta=1 at gamma_min). The main auditability gap is that the joint Alice-Bob-Eve covariance matrix and symplectic eigenvalues behind Fig. 2 are not displayed, so the numerical curves cannot be independently reproduced from the text. That is a reproducibility/correctness concern, not a circular reduction. Because no equation is equivalent to its own input and the benchmark values are not used as fitting data, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses standard Gaussian state machinery and two cited results from the same research group (all-optical teleportation [16] and resource-state simulation bounds [52]). No new physical entities are introduced; the only new ingredient is the application of measurement-free teleportation to collective eavesdropping.

free parameters (5)

channel transmissivity τ = 0.25
Chosen as a numerical example representing about 30 km of optical fiber, not fitted to data.
channel excess noise ε = 1.01
Chosen for the numerical example; the central claim does not depend on this value.
Alice's squeezing ζ = 0.7
Example value used for the numerical plots.
reconciliation efficiency β = 0.95
Typical value used for the key rate plots.
amplification gain g = ∞ (limit)
The main plots use the infinite-gain limit; finite g is mentioned but not optimized.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Gaussian collective and individual attacks are asymptotically optimal for Gaussian CV-QKD protocols.
Invoked in Section II with references [36-39]; this is standard in the QKD security literature.
domain assumption The eavesdropper is limited to Gaussian operations and Gaussian states in the attack.
The paper restricts to Gaussian attacks; optimality of Gaussian attacks is cited [36-39] but not proven here.
standard math The all-optical teleportation protocol implements the effective channel given by Eq. (A5).
This is a known result from Ralph [16], used as a lemma in Appendix A.
standard math The minimal squeezing γmin in Eq. (8) correctly gives the least entanglement needed to simulate the channel G.
Taken from the authors' prior work Ref [52]; the current paper relies on it for the minimum entanglement threshold.
domain assumption Eve can establish stations arbitrarily close to Alice's and Bob's laboratories and can distill pure two-mode squeezed states of arbitrary squeezing.
Stated in Section IV; this is the key enabling assumption for the attack, distinguishing it from the entangling cloner.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teleportation-based collective attacks in Gaussian quantum key distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZ3ERAHF

@misc{pith2026190807665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teleportation-based collective attacks in Gaussian quantum key distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZ3ERAHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07665}
}

read the original abstract

In Gaussian quantum key distribution eavesdropping attacks are conventionally modeled through the universal entangling cloner scheme, which is based on the premise that the whole environment is under control of the adversary, i.e., the eavesdropper purifies the system. This assumption implies that the eavesdropper has either access to an identity (noiseless) channel or infinite amount of entanglement in order to simulate such an identity channel. In this work, we challenge the necessity of this assumption, and we propose a teleportation-based eavesdropping attack, where the eavesdropper is not assumed to have access to the shared channel, that represents the unavoidable noise due to the environment. Under collective measurements, this attack reaches optimality in the limit of infinite amount of entanglement, while for finite entanglement resources it outperforms the corresponding optimal individual attack. We also calculate the minimum amount of distributed entanglement that is necessary for this eavesdropping scheme, since we consider it as the operationally critical quantity capturing the limitations of a realistic attack. We conclude that the fact that infinite amount of entanglement is required for an optimal collective eavesdropping attack signifies the robustness of Gaussian quantum key distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07665 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Eve’s information and key rate. In figure (a) with the solid blue line we plot the amount of information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[52]

Tserkis, J

S. Tserkis, J. Dias, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052335 (2018)

work page 2018
[16]

T. C. Ralph, Opt. Lett. 24, 348 (1999)

1999
[1]

Scarani et al., Rev

V . Scarani et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301 (2009)

work page 2009
[2]

Pirandola et al., arXiv:1906.01645

S. Pirandola et al., arXiv:1906.01645

arXiv 1906
[3]

F. Xu, X. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, J.-W. Pan, arXiv:1903.09051

work page Pith review arXiv 1903
[4]

Bennett and G

C. Bennett and G. Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE, New York, 582 p.175, (1984)

work page 1984
[5]

A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

1991
[6]

T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010303(R) (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 68 references

[7]

Hillery, Phys

M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022309 (2000)

2000
[8]

M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062308 (2000)

2000
[9]

Jouguet, S

P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, and A. Leverrier, Phys. Rev. A84, 062317 (2011)

2011
[10]

Jouguet, S

P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, A. Leverrier, P. Grangier, and E. Diamanti, Nat. Photonics 7, 378 (2013)

2013
[11]

Huang, P

D. Huang, P. Huang, D. Lin, and G. Zeng, Scientiﬁc Reports 6, 19201 (2016)

2016
[12]

Zhang et al., Quantum Sci

Y . Zhang et al., Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 035006 (2019)

2019
[13]

Zhang et al., Nat

G. Zhang et al., Nat. Photonics 7, 378 (2019)

2019
[14]

Renner, PhD Thesis

R. Renner, PhD Thesis. ETH Zurich, 2005

2005
[15]

A. S. Holevo, Probl. Inf. Transm. 9, 31 (1973)

1973
[17]

Grosshans, G

F. Grosshans, G. V . Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, and P. Grangier, Nature421, 238-241 (2003)

2003
[18]

Grosshans, N

F. Grosshans, N. J. Cerf, J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 535 (2003)

2003
[19]

Pirandola, S

S. Pirandola, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200504 (2008)

2008
[20]

Bennett, G

C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1895 (1993)

1993
[21]

Brassard, S

G. Brassard, S. L. Braunstein, and R. Cleve, Physica D, 120, 43-47 (1998)

1998
[22]

Vaidman, Phys

L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A 49, 1473 (1994)

1994
[23]

S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 869 (1998)

1998
[24]

S. L. Braunstein, G. M. D’Ariano, G. J. Milburn, and M. F. Sacchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3486 (2000)

2000
[25]

U. L. Andersen and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 050504 (2013)

2013
[27]

Pirandola, J

S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein Nat. Photonics 9, 641-652 (2015)

2015
[28]

Lodewyck and P

J. Lodewyck and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 76, 022332 (2007)

2007
[29]

Sudjana, L

J. Sudjana, L. Magnin, R. Garcia-Patron, and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052301 (2007)

2007
[30]

Hosseinidehaj, N

N. Hosseinidehaj, N. Walk, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052336 (2019)

2019
[31]

Z. Pan, K. P. Seshadreesan, W. Clark, M. R. Adcock, I. B. Djordjevic, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Guha, arXiv:1903.03136

1903 arXiv
[32]

Garc ´ıa-Patr´on, PhD Thesis

R. Garc ´ıa-Patr´on, PhD Thesis. Universite Libre de Bruxelles, 2007

2007
[33]

Weedbrook, S

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ıa-Patr´on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621- 699 (2012)

2012
[34]

N. J. Cerf, M. Levy, and G. Van Assche, Phys. Rev. A 63, 052311 (2001)

2001
[35]

Grosshans and P

F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057902 (2002)

2002
[36]

Renner and J

R. Renner and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110504 (2009)

2009
[37]

Garc ´ıa-Patr´on, and N

R. Garc ´ıa-Patr´on, and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190503 (2006)

2006
[38]

Navascues, F

M. Navascues, F. Grosshans, and A. Acin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190502 (2006)

2006
[39]

Leverrier, and P

A. Leverrier, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062314 (2010)

2010
[40]

Renner, N

R. Renner, N. Gisin, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012332 (2005)

2005
[41]

Devetak, and A

I. Devetak, and A. Winter, Proc. R. Soc. A 461, 207 (2005)

2005
[42]

A. S. Holevo, Quantum Systems, Channels, Information (De Gruyter, 2019)

2019
[43]

Adesso, S

G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 21, 1440001 (2014)

2014
[44]

Seraﬁni, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of The- oretical Methods, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2017)

A. Seraﬁni, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of The- oretical Methods, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2017)

2017
[45]

L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac & P. Zoller Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2722 (2000)

2000
[46]

Simon Phys

R. Simon Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2726 (2000)

2000
[47]

A. S. Holevo, Probl. Inf. Transm. 43, 1 (2007)

2007
[49]

Giedke and J.I

G. Giedke and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032316 (2002)

2002
[50]

Niset, J

J. Niset, J. Fiur ´aˇsek, and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 120501 (2009)

2009
[51]

Pirandola, R

S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani and L. Banchi, Nat. Comm. 8, 1 (2017)

2017
[53]

Liuzzo-Scorpo, A

P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, A. Mari, V . Giovannetti and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 120503 (2017); P. Liuzzo-Scorpo, A. Mari, V . Giovannetti and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 029904 (2018)

2017
[54]

C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1817 (1982)

1982
[55]

A. S. Holevo, M. Sohma, and O. Hirota Phys. Rev. A 59, 1820- 1828 (1999)

1999
[56]

C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin & W. K. Wooters Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

1996
[57]

Leverrier, Phys

A. Leverrier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 070501 (2015)

2015
[58]

Leverrier, Phys

A. Leverrier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 200501 (2017)

2017
[59]

A. S. Holevo, J. Math. Phys. 52, 042202 (2011)

2011
[60]

Vahlbruch, M

H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110801 (2016)

2016
[61]

Marshall and D

K. Marshall and D. F. V . James, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 31, 423 (2014)

2014
[62]

T. C. Ralph, P. K. Lam and R. E. S. Polkinghorne, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 1, 483489 (1999)

1999
[63]

Bowen and S

G. Bowen and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 267901 (2001)

2001
[64]

Pirandola, S

S. Pirandola, S. Mancini, S. Lloyd, and S. L. Braunstein, Nature Physics, 4, 726 (2008)

2008
[65]

Namiki and T

R. Namiki and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022308 (2003)

2003
[66]

Namiki and T

R. Namiki and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 117901 (2004)

2004
[67]

Croke and S

S. Croke and S. M. Barnett, Advances in Optics and Photonics, 1, 238 (2009)

2009
[68]

J. Lin, T. Upadhyaya, and N. L ¨utkenhaus, arXiv:1905.10896

1905 arXiv
[69]

E. Kaur, S. Guha, M. M. Wilde, arXiv:1901.10099

1901 arXiv
[70]

Ghorai, P

S. Ghorai, P. Grangier, E. Diamanti, and A. Leverrier, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021059 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [52]

Tserkis, J

S. Tserkis, J. Dias, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052335 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [16]

T. C. Ralph, Opt. Lett. 24, 348 (1999)

1999

[3] [1]

Scarani et al., Rev

V . Scarani et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [2]

Pirandola et al., arXiv:1906.01645

S. Pirandola et al., arXiv:1906.01645

arXiv 1906

[5] [3]

F. Xu, X. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, J.-W. Pan, arXiv:1903.09051

work page Pith review arXiv 1903

[6] [4]

Bennett and G

C. Bennett and G. Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE, New York, 582 p.175, (1984)

work page 1984

[7] [5]

A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

1991

[8] [6]

T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010303(R) (1999)

work page 1999