Receiver-device-independent quantum secure direct communication

Cheng Liu; Cheng Zhang; Lan Zhou; Shi-Pu Gu; Xing-Fu Wang; Yu-Bo Sheng

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Receiver-device-independent quantum secure direct communication

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Single-photon QSDC claims MDI-level security, untrusted receivers.

desk verdict New protocol combination, but the security check is degenerate and the MDI-level claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11299 v1 pith:LAZWFWJF submitted 2024-11-18 quant-ph

Cheng Liu , Cheng Zhang , Shi-Pu Gu , Xing-Fu Wang , Lan Zhou , Yu-Bo Sheng This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd03.67.Hk

keywords quantumsecuredirectcommunicationreceiver-device-independentsingle-photonsourcedevice-independentsecuritymeasurement-device-independentblindingattackmemorysecrecycapacity

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

This paper proposes a quantum secure direct communication (QSDC) protocol in which the message is sent directly over the quantum channel without first sharing a key, and the receiving equipment of both parties is treated as untrusted black boxes. The only trusted component is the single-photon source, which the authors argue is nearly on-demand with current technology. Security is claimed to follow solely from comparing the observed statistics of the receivers' measurement outputs with the statistics expected from ideal projective measurements. The paper develops a numerical method for noisy channels and reports that this receiver-device-independent (RDI) protocol reaches the same security level as measurement-device-independent QSDC while offering roughly 26 times the secure distance and about 3415 times the practical communication efficiency of device-independent QSDC.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the basis-dependent measurement-statistics check: Alice prepares each photon in one of $n$ states $|\psi_{x_i}\rangle = \cos\theta|0\rangle + e^{i2\pi x_i/n}\sin\theta|1\rangle$ with $\theta=\pi/4$ and $n\geq3$, $n\neq4$, and Bob measures with projectors $M_{w_m}=|\psi_{w_m}\rangle\langle\psi_{w_m}|$. The theoretical distributions (Eqs. (3) and (6)) give the expected probability of outcome $g=0$ for each preparation-measurement basis pair, and the protocol certifies the black-box receiving devices by comparing these with the observed frequencies. The same two-round statistics, together with the assignment of no-click events to the more probable outcome, feed the error rates $E_{AB}$ and $E_{ABA}$ used in the secrecy-capacity simulation.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to search for an explicit receiving-device model that reproduces the theoretical distributions $P_1(g=0)$ and $P_2(g=0)$ on all test bases but still gives Eve information about Bob's encoded message; finding such a model would show the claimed MDI-level security does not follow from the statistics check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that RDI QSDC can provide MDI-level security using only a trusted single-photon source, with all receiving devices in both laboratories regarded as black boxes. The parties run two rounds of security checking: Bob measures one subset of photons in randomly chosen bases and Alice later measures another subset in her original preparation bases, and the observed probabilities $P_1(g=0)$ and $P_2(g=0)$ are compared with the theoretical distributions given by Eqs. (3) and (6). Any significant deviation ends the communication; the paper argues that the blinding-plus-fake-state attack shifts these distributions toward 50% and is therefore detectable. Using the secrecy capacity $C_S = I(A:B) - I(B:E)$ from wiretap channel theory, the paper simulates noisy channels and finds, for example, that with $P_1(g=0)=0.1$ the protocol sustains secure communication to about 14.72 km while DI QSDC reaches about 0.561 km, and at 0.5 km the practical efficiency is about 3415 times that of DI QSDC.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol's security rests on the assumption that comparing the average measurement outcomes with the expected ideal statistics is enough to confirm the receiving devices are trustworthy; a device that reproduces those averages on the tested bases while leaking information about the message photons would escape detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the security claim holds, QSDC can achieve MDI-level security without entanglement or Bell-state measurements, using only single-photon sources and single-photon measurements.
The protocol detects the blinding attack combined with a fake-state attack, because the attack pushes the outcome statistics toward 50%.
The all-optical storage-loop quantum memory makes the full two-round protocol implementable with current linear-optical technology.
With $P_1(g=0)=0.1$, the simulated secure distance is about 14.72 km, roughly 26 times that of DI QSDC, and the practical communication efficiency at 0.5 km is about 3415 times higher.
There is a trade-off: choosing $P_1(g=0)$ closer to 0.5 improves noise robustness but raises the required detection-efficiency threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

An unstated implication is that the security proof must bound per-photon leaked information, not just average statistics; a memory that mimics the test distributions while leaking on message photons would be a concrete adversary to exclude.
A testable extension is to repeat the simulation with a finite number of photons and composable security definitions, since the reported capacities assume asymptotic statistics and a uniform channel error.
If the protocol is combined with decoy states or passive sources, the efficiency advantage over entanglement-based QSDC would likely shrink but still persist; quantifying that would require a new simulation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

First, the two things you need to know. The protocol is a legitimate new combination: applying the RDI QKD idea of Ioannou et al. to QSDC with a trusted single-photon source, with a two-round blocking scheme and a concrete all-optical storage loop. That part is coherent and worth reading. Second, the load-bearing security claim—matching MDI security—is not supported, and the check as written is degenerate.

The paper does several things well. It picks a practical setup (single photons, SPM, storage loop) and gives a numerical method for rate/distance estimates, including a noise model via δθ. The comparison to DI QSDC is a useful sanity check, even if the absolute numbers depend on simplified assumptions.

The soft spots are serious. Section III only analyzes the blinding attack combined with a fake-state attack, then jumps to 'immune to all possible attacks.' There is no Bell/steering inequality, no entropy accumulation argument, no reduction to a known security proof. The observation is just that the blinding attack changes the average P(g=0), which is only meaningful if the protocol could actually produce a P1(g=0) different from 0.5.

That is where the trouble is. In Step 3, Alice's preparation bases and Bob's measurement bases are chosen uniformly and independently. For any photon pair, the per-shot probability of g=0 is cos^2(π(a_i-w_i)/n). The average over the random basis choices is 1/2 for every n≥2. So for large r the theoretical P1(g=0) is essentially 1/2, with fluctuations of order 1/√r. The security check therefore reduces to 'is the empirical rate of g=0 close to 50/50?' A fully classical receiving device that outputs fair random bits independent of the incoming light passes this test. The paper's own simulations treat P1(g=0) as a tunable parameter (0.001, 0.1, ..., 0.5), but the protocol does not allow that: the basis-selection procedure fixes the expected value at 1/2. That is an internal inconsistency in the security argument, not a missing technical lemma. The same issue applies to the second round.

There are smaller issues too: the tolerable threshold is never defined, and the message-fraction factor in the efficiency comparison (1/4 in Eq. 23 versus the surrounding text) is inconsistent.

Bottom line: this is a paper for QSDC specialists. The protocol idea is worth engaging with, and a serious referee should see it, but the current version's central claim is not supported by the analysis. The authors would need a real security proof—likely based on steering or entropy accumulation on the observed statistics—before the efficiency and distance comparisons mean anything. My recommendation: send it to review, but expect heavy revision or rejection.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a single-photon-based receiver-device-independent quantum secure direct communication (RDI QSDC) protocol. Alice prepares single photons in one of n equator states, sends them to Bob, who stores them and later encodes a message with U0/U1; two rounds of security checking (S1 and S2) are intended to certify the receiving devices as black boxes from the observed measurement statistics, and the message photons S3 are then decoded by Alice. The authors claim that the protocol offers the same security level as MDI QSDC while using only a trusted single-photon source, and they simulate its secrecy message capacity in noisy channels, reporting much longer secure distances and higher efficiencies than DI QSDC.

Significance. If the security claim were established, the protocol would be a practically important step, since it would avoid entangled sources and Bell-state measurements while retaining one-sided device independence, and the reported detection-efficiency thresholds are far below DI QSDC's requirement. The paper also gives a concrete linear-optics implementation and a numerical framework, and it explicitly identifies the blinding attack as a relevant threat. However, the central security argument is not made: the statistical test is not device-independent, and the protocol as specified cannot produce the operating points used in the simulations. The claimed equivalence to MDI QSDC is therefore unsupported.

major comments (5)

[Section II.A, Steps 3 and 5; Eqs. (3) and (6)] The security check does not certify the receiving devices. Since the preparation bases {X1} and the measurement bases {Y1} are chosen uniformly at random, and Bob announces {Y1} only after the measurements, the expected value of P1(g=0) over the random basis choices is, for theta=pi/4, (1/n) sum_w cos^2(pi(a-w)/n) = 1/2 for every n and every a. For large r the theoretical distribution that Alice computes in Eq. (3) is therefore approximately the fair-coin distribution. A receiving device that ignores the photons and outputs fair random bits passes the check with high probability, so the protocol never verifies that the devices implement the assumed projective measurements. A Bell inequality, a steering inequality, or an equivalent entropic certificate would be needed, and none is present.
[Section III, Eq. (7)] The claimed detection of the blinding attack is based on the premise that the theoretical P1(g=0) deviates from 0.5, but under the protocol's random-basis procedure the expected P1(g=0) is 0.5. The blinding parameter p1p2 only shifts the observed rate toward 1/2, which is indistinguishable from the already expected fair-coin rate. The paper's own admission that the n=4 case is insecure because P1(g=0)=0.5 applies to all n once the bases are averaged. Thus the internal inconsistency is load-bearing: the security check cannot detect the described blinding attack.
[Section III and Section IV, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The paper claims that RDI QSDC provides the same security level as MDI QSDC and is immune to all possible attacks on the receiving devices, but the analysis only treats the specific blinding/fake-state attack. There is no security proof for arbitrary adversarial receiving devices: no Bell inequality, no steering inequality, no min-entropy bound, and no composable security definition. Equations (8)-(10) bound Eve's information using ad hoc wiretap-style mutual information expressions, but those bounds depend on error-rate estimates that are not device-independent. This is a missing proof of the central claim, not a presentation issue.
[Section II.A, Step 6] Alice's decoding of the message uses her own measurement device, which the protocol treats as a black box. If that device is malicious, it can report arbitrary outcomes while still passing the statistical checks in Steps 3 and 5; the protocol contains no mechanism for Alice to verify that an individual decoded bit is correct. Therefore the protocol does not achieve secure direct communication under its stated assumptions.
[Section IV, Fig. 3 and Eq. (20)] The numerical simulation treats P1(g=0) as a free parameter (0.001, 0.1, ..., 0.5) and sets P1(g=0)=P2(g=0), but in the actual protocol this quantity is fixed to approximately 1/2 by the random basis procedure. Consequently the claimed thresholds (e.g., 95.81 km at P1(g=0)=0.001) and the 26x distance and 3415x efficiency comparisons are not attainable under the protocol as described. The numerical results simulate a different, unphysical operating point.

minor comments (5)

[Section V] The phrase 'close to 100 $' should read 'close to 100%'; the percent symbol is missing.
[Figs. 4 and 5 and accompanying text] The notation 'P1(b = 0)' is inconsistent with the protocol variable 'P1(g = 0)'; please correct the axis labels and text.
[Section II.A, Step 5] 'If the derivation exceeds the tolerable threshold' should be 'If the deviation exceeds the tolerable threshold.'
[Section III, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is typeset unclearly: the notation 'P(1−p1)r' is ambiguous, and the probabilities p1 and p2 are not defined precisely; please rewrite with explicit sums and definitions.
[Section IV, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) places an absolute value over the entire expression, which is not how a signed error rate should be defined; the sign of cos(...)[1-sin(...)] matters in the subsequent calculation of total error rates.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central security check is defined as agreement with the ideal device model, and the numerical results are driven by an unreachable P1(g=0) input.

self definitional [Section II A Steps 3 and 5, Eqs. (2)-(3) and (5)-(6); Section V conclusion]
"The parties ensure the message security only from the observed statistics, say, the deviation between the theoretical measurement result distribution and the practical measurement result distribution. The RDI QSDC is immune to all possible attacks on the receiving devices and provides the same security level as MDI QSDC."

The 'theoretical distribution' in Eqs. (3) and (6) is computed from the ideal projective measurements M_wm and M_bi of Eqs. (2) and (5). Passing Step 3/5 therefore means the untrusted devices reproduce the exact model whose correctness the check is supposed to certify; the black-box certification is defined as agreement with that model. No Bell/steering inequality or entropy-accumulation argument links the observed aggregate statistic to Eve's information about the S3 photons. Moreover, since Bob's bases w_i are uniform and secret, averaging Eq. (3) over w gives (1/n) sum_w [1+cos(2pi(a-w)/n)]/2 = 1/2 for every n, so the check degenerates to a fair-coin test; a classical device emitting random bits passes.
fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Fig. 3 and surrounding text]
"In Fig. 3, we control θ = π/4 and set the noise operator δθ = π/400 (relatively low noise) and π/40 (relatively high noise), and simulate CS of the RDI QSDC protocol altered with the total detection efficiency η under different values of P1(g = 0)."

P1(g=0) is not an independent protocol parameter: in Step 3, Bob's {Y1} are chosen uniformly at random, and Eq. (3)'s average is 1/2 for every n. The simulation instead sets P1(g=0)=0.001, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 as an input and then reports performance metrics (e.g., 95.81 km and 14.72 km, 3415x and 26x advantages) computed from that hand-picked value. These headline numbers are functions of the assumed input, not predictions determined by the protocol's random-basis statistics. The claim that low P1(g=0) yields high CS is an artifact of choosing an operating point the protocol does not specify how to reach.

full rationale

The central claim of MDI-equivalent security rests on Step 3/5, where the parties compare observed outputs with a theoretical distribution computed from the ideal projective measurement model (Eqs. 2-3 and 5-6). Because the theoretical distribution is generated by the very model the devices are supposed to be certified against, a passing device is by construction one that mimics that model; no DI inequality, steering inequality, or entropy accumulation bound is derived, so the security conclusion is an input assumption rather than a derived result. In fact, the aggregate test is even degenerate: with Bob's basis choices uniform, the expected theoretical P1(g=0) is 1/2 for any n, so the test only checks that the outputs are roughly balanced. A classical fair-coin device passes, and the protocol cannot detect a receiving device that leaks S3 information while producing balanced outputs. The blinding-attack analysis in Sec. III itself assumes an operating point with P1(g=0) far from 0.5, which the protocol's random-basis procedure cannot produce; it therefore does not restore the security claim. The numerical performance section compounds this by treating P1(g=0)=0.001,0.1,... as a free input and presenting the resulting capacities/distances (3415x, 26x, 14.72 km) as protocol performance. The paper's own equations thus make the central security and performance claims reduce to the assumed ideal-model probabilities rather than being derived from black-box statistics. No load-bearing self-citation circularity is present; the circularity is internal to the protocol definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a trusted source, a specific ad hoc noise model, an undefined abort threshold, and the assumption that average probability comparisons certify the devices; none of these are provided with independent justification.

free parameters (3)

Channel noise parameter δθ = π/400 and π/40
Ad hoc noise parameter modeling a uniform unitary rotation on each qubit; the simulation results (thresholds, distances, capacities) are direct functions of this chosen value.
Theoretical probability P1(g=0) = 0.001, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.429, 0.5
Design parameter controlled by the choice of basis distribution; it trades off detection efficiency threshold against noise robustness, and is varied as an input in the simulations.
Tolerable threshold for security check = not specified
The protocol aborts if the deviation between observed and theoretical distributions exceeds a threshold, but the threshold is never defined; it is a free parameter that determines the false-accept and false-reject rates.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The single-photon source is trusted and produces the ideal states on demand.
Assumption (iii) in Section II A; the protocol requires the source to produce exactly the states |ψ_xi> without multi-photon events. The authors discuss PNS attacks as future work, so the current protocol assumes this ideal.
standard math Quantum mechanics is correct.
Assumption (i) in Section II A; the security analysis is based on quantum theory being correct.
domain assumption No unwanted measurement results or encoding operations can escape the communication parties' laboratories.
Assumption (ii) in Section II A; this prohibits side channels such as Trojan-horse attacks.
ad hoc to paper Channel noise is modeled as a unitary rotation U(δθ) acting on each qubit.
Equation (12) introduces a uniform unitary error operator; this is a specific noise model, not derived from physics, and the security and capacity results depend on it.
ad hoc to paper The security check via comparing average probability distributions is sufficient to certify device behavior.
The protocol concludes security if observed average probabilities are close to theoretical values (Eqs. 3, 6); no proof that this certifies general device behavior is given.
domain assumption The secrecy capacity formula CS = I(A:B) - I(B:E) with I(B:E) ≤ Q_AB h(E_AB) applies to this protocol.
Equations (8)-(10) adopt the wiretap channel formula from QKD literature; the bound on Eve's information is heuristic and not proved for this protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Receiver-device-independent quantum secure direct communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAZWFWJF

@misc{pith2026241111299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Receiver-device-independent quantum secure direct communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAZWFWJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11299}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum secure direct communication (QSDC) enables the message sender to directly send secure messages to the receiver through the quantum channel without keys. Device-independent (DI) and measurement-device-independent (MDI) QSDC protocols can enhance QSDC's practical security in theory. DI QSDC requires extremely high global detection efficiency and has quite low secure communication distance. DI and MDI QSDC both require high-quality entanglement. Current entanglement sources prepare entangled photon pairs with low efficiency, largely reducing their practical communication efficiency. In the paper, we propose a single-photon-based receiver-device-independent (RDI) QSDC protocol. It only relies on the trusted single-photon source, which is nearly on-demand under current technology, and treats all the receiving devices in both communication parties as ``black-boxes''. The parties ensure the message security only from the observed statistics. We develop a numerical method to simulate its performance in practical noisy communication situation. RDI QSDC provides the same security level as MDI QSDC. Compared with DI and MDI QSDC, RDI QSDC has some advantages. First, it uses the single-photon source and single-photon measurement, which makes it obtain the practical communication efficiency about 3415 times of that in DI QSDC and easy to implement. The whole protocol is feasible with current technology. Second, it has higher photon loss robustness and noise tolerance than DI QSDC, which enables it to have a secure communication distance about 26 times of that in DI QSDC. Based on above features, the RDI QSDC protocol makes it possible to achieve highly-secure and high-efficient QSDC in the near future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11299 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (a) The implementation of the RDI QSDC protocol with linear optical elements. We use the polarization degree of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The secrecy message capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: The secrecy message capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: The practical communication efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Symbol-Oriented Quantum Communication via Temporal-Mode Multiplexing
quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A temporal-mode extension of the LM05 quantum protocol encodes symbols as bit flips on light pulses, but loss, errors, and the need to encrypt the ordering limit complete recovery to sub-kilometer distances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

C. H. Bennett, and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puters Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore(IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1984), p.175

work page 1984
[2]

In this way, Alice’s measurements are generated with the form of M bi = |ψbi ⟩⟨ψbi | = cos2 θ|0⟩⟨0| + e −i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|0⟩⟨1| + e i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|1⟩⟨0| + sin2 θ|1⟩⟨1|

Alice extracts the cor- responding photons from the QM and measures them based on her original preparation basis sequence {X2} = {b1, b2, b3, · · ·, br}. In this way, Alice’s measurements are generated with the form of M bi = |ψbi ⟩⟨ψbi | = cos2 θ|0⟩⟨0| + e −i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|0⟩⟨1| + e i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|1⟩⟨0| + sin2 θ|1⟩⟨1|. (5) After all the measurem...

work page
[3]

Then, she measures each photon with its original preparation basis

Alice extracts all the encoded photons and recovers the original message transmission photon sequence S3. Then, she measures each photon with its original preparation basis. By comparing the photon state with its initial state, Alice can decode the message transmitted from Bob. B. RDI-QSDC implementation with linear optical elements The RDI QSDC protocol ...

work page
[4]

The security checking system and decoding system in Alice’s location use the same set of devices

All the photons in S′ 2 and S′ 3 sequences are sent back through quantum channel to Alice. The security checking system and decoding system in Alice’s location use the same set of devices. The photons in S′ 2 sequence enter Alice’s security checking system. Alice uses PM5 to realize the measurement basis selec- tion for the photons in S′

work page
[5]

black-boxes

Once the security checking is passed, the photons in S3 sequence enter the decod- ing system. Alice uses PM5 to control the measurement basis for the encoded photons and finally reads out the messages. The QM adopted in our protocol is constructed with the all-optical, polarization insensitive storage loop with the structure in Fig. 2(b) [56]. By controll...

work page 2020
[6]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661-663 (1991)

work page 1991
[7]

H. K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)

2012
[8]

F. H. Xu, X. F. Ma, Q. Zhang, H. K. Lo, and J. W. Pan, Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 79 references

[9]

A. R. Jin, P. Zeng, R. V. Penty, and X. F. Ma, Reference- frame-independent design of phase-matching quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl 16, 034017 (2021)

2021
[10]

P. Zeng, H. Y. Zhou, W. J. Wu, and X. F. Ma, Mode- pairing quantum key distribution, Nat. Commun. 13, 3903 (2022)

2022
[11]

P. Ye, W. Chen, G. W. Zhang, F. Y. Lu, F. X. Wang, G. Z. Huang, S. Wang, D. Y. He, Z. Q. Yin, G. C. Guo, and Z. F. Han, Induced-photorefraction attack against quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054052 (2023)

2023
[12]

T. T. Luo, Q. Liu, X. R. Sun, C. F. Huang, Y. Chen, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Security analysis against the Trojan horse attack on practical polarization-encoding quantum key distribution systems, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042608 (2024)

2024
[13]

D. Luo, X. Liu, K. B. Qin, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Practical asynchronous measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution with advantage distillation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022605 (2024)

2024
[14]

G. L. Long, and X. S. Liu, Theoretically efficient high- capacity quantum-key-distribution scheme, arXiv:quant- ph/0012056 (2000), Phys. Rev. A 65, 032302 (2002)

2000
[15]

F. G. Deng, G. L. Long, and X. S. Liu, Two-step quan- tum direct communication protocol using the Einstein- 11 Podolsky-Rosen pair block, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042317 (2003)

2003
[16]

F. G. Deng, and G. L. Long, Secure direct communication with a quantum one-time pad, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052319 (2004)

2004
[17]

C. Wang, F. G. Deng, Y. S. Li, X. S. Liu, and G. L. Long, Quantum secure direct communication with high- dimension quantum superdense coding, Phys. Rev. A 71, 044305 (2005)

2005
[18]

R. Y. Qi, Z. Sun, Z. Lin, P. Niu, W. Hao, L. Song, Q. Huang, J. Gao, L. Yin, and G. L. Long, Implementation and security analysis of practical quantum secure direct communication, Light Sci. Appl. 8, 22 (2019)

2019
[19]

Li, and G

T. Li, and G. L. Long, Quantum secure direct commu- nication based on single-photon Bell-state measurement, New J. Phys. 22, 063017 (2020)

2020
[20]

G. L. Long, and H. Zhang, Drastic increase of channel capacity in quantum secure direct communication using masking, Sci. Bull. 66, 1267 (2021)

2021
[21]

Z. W. Cao, L. Wang, K. X. Liang, G. Chai, and J. Y. Peng, Continuous-variable quantum secure direct com- munication based on Gaussian mapping, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 024012 (2021)

2021
[22]

X. Liu, Z. J. Li, D. Luo, C. F. Huang, D. Ma, M. M. Geng, J. W. Wang, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Practical decoy state quantum secure direct communication, Sci. China Phys. Mech. & Astron. 64, 120311 (2021)

2021
[23]

J. W. Wu, G. L. Long, and M. Hayashi, Quantum secure direct communication with private dense coding using a general preshared quantum state, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 064011 (2022)

2022
[24]

P. H. Niu, Z. R. Zhou, Z. S. Lin, Y. B. Sheng, L. G. Yin, and G. L. Long, Measurement-device-independent quantum communication without encryption, Sci. Bull. 63, 1345-1350 (2018)

2018
[25]

Z. R. Zhou, Y. B. Sheng, P. H. Niu, L. G. Yin, G. L. Long, and L. Hanzo, Measurement-device-independent quantum secure direct communication, Sci. China Phys. Mech. & Astron. 63, 230362 (2020)

2020
[26]

J. F. Liu, X. F. Zou, X. Wang, Y. Chen, Z. B. Rong, Z. M. Huang, S. G, heng, X. Y. Liang, and J. X. Wu, Applying a class of general maximally entangled states in measurement-device-independent quantum secure direct communication, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 044010 (2024)

2024
[27]

L. Zhou, Y. B. Sheng, and G. L. Long, Device- independent quantum secure direct communication against collective attacks, Sci. Bull. 65, 12-20 (2020)

2020
[28]

Zhou, and Y

L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, One-step device-independent quantum secure direct communication, Sci. China Phys. Mech. & Astron. 65, 250311 (2022)

2022
[29]

L. Zhou, B. W. Xu, W. Zhong, and Y. B. Sheng, Device-independent quantum secure direct communica- tion with single-photon sources, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 014036 (2023)

2023
[30]

H. Zeng, M. M. Du, W. Zhong, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, High-capacity device-independent quantum secure direct communication based on hyper-encoding, Funda. Res. 4, 852 (2024)

2024
[31]

Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, and G. L. Long, One-step quan- tum secure direct communication, Sci. Bull. 67, 367-374 (2022)

2022
[32]

J. W. Ying, L Zhou, W. Zhong, and Y. B. Sheng, Measurement-device-independent one-step quantum se- cure direct communication, Chin. Phys. B 31, 120303 (2022)

2022
[33]

Zhang, M

Q. Zhang, M. M. Du, W. Zhong, Y. B. Sheng, and L. Zhou, Single-photon based three-party quantum secure direct communication with identity authentication, Ann. Phys. (Berlin, Ger.) 536, 2300407 (2024)

2024
[34]

D. Pan, G. L. Long, L. G. Yin, Y. B Sheng, D. Ruan, S. X. Ng, J. H. Lu, and L. Hanzo, The evolution of quantum secure direct communication: on the road to the qinter- net, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 26, 1898-1949 (2024)

2024
[35]

J. W. Ying, P. Zhao, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, X. Y. Li, S. T. Shen, A. L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Passive decoy-state quantum secure direct communication with a heralded single-photon source, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 024040 (2024)

2024
[36]

J. Y. Hu, B. Yu, M. Y. Jing et al., Experimental quantum secure direct communication with single photons, Light Sci. Appl. 5, e16144 (2016)

2016
[37]

Zhang, D

W. Zhang, D. S. Ding, Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B. S. Shi, and G. C. Guo, Quantum secure direct communication with quantum memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017)

2017
[38]

F. Zhu, W. Zhang, Y. B. Sheng, and Y. D. Huang, Ex- perimental long-distance quantum secure direct commu- nication, Sci. Bull. 10, 1519 (2017)

2017
[39]

D. Pan, Z. S. Lin, J. W. Wu, H. R. Zhang, Z. Sun, D. Ruan, L. G. Yin, and G. L. Long, Experimental free- space quantum secure direct communication and its se- curity analysis, Photon. Res. 8, 1522 (2020)

2020
[40]

Z. T. Qi, Y. H. Li et al., A 15-user quantum secure direct communication network, Light Sci. Appl. 10, 183 (2021)

2021
[41]

H. R. Zhang, Z. Sun, R. Y. Qi, L. G. Yin, G. L. Long, and J. H. Lu, Realization of quantum secure direct com- munication over 100 km fiber with time-bin and phase quantum states, Light Sci. Appl. 11, 83 (2022)

2022
[42]

Paparelle, F

I. Paparelle, F. Mousavi, F. Scazza, A. Bassi, M. Paris, and A. Zavatta, Practical quantum secure direct commu- nication with squeezed states, arXiv:2306.14322 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[43]

Z. W. Cao, Y. Lu, G. Chai, H. Yu, K. X. Liang, and L. Wang, Realization of quantum secure direct communica- tion with continuous variable, Research 6, 0193 (2023)

2023
[44]

G. L. Long, D. Pan, Y. B. Sheng, Q. Xue, J. Lu, and L. Hanzo, An evolutionary pathway for the quantum inter- net relying on secure classical repeaters, IEEE Netw. 36, 82-88 (2022)

2022
[45]

Ac ´ ın, N

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

2006
[46]

Ac ´ ın, N

A. Ac ´ ın, 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)

2007
[47]

Pironio, A

S. Pironio, A. Ac ´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V. Scarani, Device-independent quantum key distri- bution secure against collective attacks, New J. Phys.11, 045021 (2009)

2009
[48]

X. J. Zhang, P. Zeng, T. Ye, H. K. Lo, and X. F. Ma, Quantum complementarity approach to device- independent security, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 140801 (2023)

2023
[49]

Zhang, W

Q. Zhang, W. Zhong, M. M. Du, S. T. Shen, X. Y. Li, A. L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Device-independent quantum secret sharing with noise preprocessing and postselection, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042403 (2024)

2024
[50]

X. M. Hu, C. X. Huang, Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B. H. 12 Liu, Y. Guo, C. Zhang, W. B. Xing, Y. F. Huang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Long-distance entanglement purifica- tion for quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010503 (2021)

2021
[51]

Ioannou, P

M. Ioannou, P. Sekatski, A. A. Abbott, D. Rosset, J. D. Bancal, and N. Brunner, Receiver-device-independent quantum key distribution protocols, New J. Phys. 24, 063006 (2022)

2022
[52]

Ioannou, M

M. Ioannou, M. A. Pereira, D. Rusca, F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, M. Perrenoud, A. A. Abbott, P. Sekatski, J. D. Bancal, N. Maring, H. Zbinden, and N. Brunner Receiver-device-independent quantum key distribution, Quantum 6, 718 (2022)

2022
[53]

M¨ uller, S

M. M¨ uller, S. Bounouar, K. D. J¨ ons, M. Gl¨ assl, and P. Michler, On-demand generation of indistinguishable polarization-entangled photon pairs, Nat. Photon. 8, 224-228 (2014)

2014
[54]

Claudon, J

J. Claudon, J. Bleuse, N. S. Malik, M. Bazin, P. Jaf- frennou, N. Gregersen, C. Sauvan, P. Lalanne, and J. M. Gerard, A highly efficient single-photon source based ona quantum dot in a photonic nanowire, Nat. Photon. 4, 174-177 (2010)

2010
[55]

J. C. Loredo, N. A. Zakaria, N. Somaschi, C. Anton, L. de Santis, V. Giesz, T. Grange, M. A. Broome, O. Gaz- zano, G. Coppola, I. Sagnes, A. Lemaitre, A. Auffeves, P. Senellart, M. P. Almeida, and A. G. White, Scalable performance in solid-state single-photon sources, Optica 3...

2016
[56]

H. Wang, Z. C. Duan, Y. H. Li, S. Chen, J. P. Li, Y. M. He, M. C. Chen, Y. He, X. Ding, C. Z. Peng, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, C. Y. Lu, and J. W. Pan, Near-transform-limited single photons from an effi- cient solid-state quantum emitter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 213601 (2016)

2016
[57]

J. H. Kim, T. Cai, C. J. K. Richardson, R. P. Leavitt, and E. Waks, Two-photon interference from a bright single- photon source at telecom wavelengths, Optica 3, 577-584 (2016)

2016
[58]

Somaschi, V

N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Anton, J. Demory, C. Gomez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lemaitre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Near-optimal single- photon source...

2016
[59]

X. Ding, Y. He, Z. C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M. C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, C. Y. Lu, and J. W. Pan, On-demand single photons with high extraction efficiency and near-unity indistin- guishability from a resonantly driven quantum dot in a m...

2016
[60]

Meyer-Scott, N

E. Meyer-Scott, N. Prasannan, I. Dhand, C. Eigner, V. Quiring, S. Barkhofen, B. Brecht, M. B. Plenio, and C. Silberhorn, Scalable generation of multiphoton entangled states by active feed-forward and multiplexing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 150501 (2022)

2022
[61]

Z. H. Wu, A. Q. Huang, H. Chen, S. H. Sun, and J. J. Wu, Hacking single-photon avalanche detector in quan- tum key distribution via pulse illumination, Opt. Express 28, 25574-25590 (2020)

2020
[62]

A. D. Wyner, The wire-tap channel,Bell Syst. Tech. J. 54, 1355 (1975)

1975
[63]

D. V. Reddy, R. R. Nerem, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and V. B. Verma, Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors with 98% system detection efficiency at 1550 nm, Optica 7, 1649 (2020)

2020
[64]

Kirkpatrick, C

S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Optimiza- tion by simulated annealing, Science 220, 671-680(1983)

1983
[65]

W. F. Goffe, G. D. Ferrier, and J. Rogers, Global opti- mization of statistical functions with simulated anneal- ing, JOE 60, 65-99 (1994)

1994
[66]

M. M. Mafarja, and S. Mirjalili, Hybrid whale optimiza- tion algorithm with simulated annealing for feature se- lection, Neurocomputing 260, 302-312 (2017)

2017
[67]

X. B. Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230503 (2005)

2005
[68]

Curty, X

M. Curty, X. F. Ma, B. Qi, and T. Moroder, Passive decoystate quantum key distribution with practical light sources, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022310 (2010)

2010
[69]

W. Y. Wang, R. Wang, C. Q. Hu, V. Zapatero, L. Qian, B. Qi, M. Curty, and H. K. Lo, Fully passive quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 220801 (2023)

2023
[70]

Panayi, M

C. Panayi, M. Razavi, X. F. Ma, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Memory-assisted measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, New J. Phys. 16, 043005 (2014)

2014
[71]

Abruzzo, H

S. Abruzzo, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Measurement-device-independent quantum key dis- tribution with quantum memories, Phys. Rev. A 89, 012301 (2014)

2014
[72]

N. L. Piparo, M. Razavi, and W. J. Munro, Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion with nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022338 (2017)

2017
[73]

N. L. Piparo, N. Sinclair, and M. Razavi, Memory- assisted quantum key distribution resilient against multiple-excitation effects, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 014009 (2018)

2018
[74]

X. Bao, A. Reingruber, P. Dietrich, J. Rui, A. Dck, T. Strassel, L. Li, N. Liu, B. Zhao, and J. W. Pan, Efficient and long-lived quantum memory with cold atoms inside a ring cavity, Nat. Phys. 8, 517-521 (2012)

2012
[75]

Y. W. Cho, G. T. Campbell, J. L. Everett, J. Bernu, D. B. Higginbottom, M. T. Cao, J. Geng, N. P. Robins, P. K. Lam, and B. C. Buchler, Highly efficient optical quantum memory with long coherence time in cold atoms, Optica 3, 100-107 (2016)

2016
[76]

Vernaz-Gris, K

P. Vernaz-Gris, K. Huang, M. Cao, A. S. Sheremet, and J. Laurat, Highly-efficient quantum memory for polariza- tion qubits in a spatially-multiplexed cold atomic ensem- ble, Nat. Commun. 9, 363 (2018)

2018
[77]

Y. Wang, J. Li, S. Zhang, K. Su, Y. Zhou, K. Liao, S. Du, H. Yan, and S. Zhu, Efficient quantum memory for single-photon polarization qubits, Nat. Photon. 13, 346- 351 (2019)

2019
[78]

Z. Bao, Z. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Li, C. Ma, Y. Song, H. Zhang, and L. Duan, On-demand storage and re- trieval of microwave photons using a superconducting multi-resonator quantum memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 010503 (2021)

2021
[79]

Buser, R

G. Buser, R. Mottola, B. Cotting, J. Wolters, and P. Treutlein, Single-photon storage in a ground-state vapor cell quantum memory, PRX Quant. 3, 020349 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

C. H. Bennett, and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puters Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore(IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1984), p.175

work page 1984

[2] [2]

In this way, Alice’s measurements are generated with the form of M bi = |ψbi ⟩⟨ψbi | = cos2 θ|0⟩⟨0| + e −i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|0⟩⟨1| + e i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|1⟩⟨0| + sin2 θ|1⟩⟨1|

Alice extracts the cor- responding photons from the QM and measures them based on her original preparation basis sequence {X2} = {b1, b2, b3, · · ·, br}. In this way, Alice’s measurements are generated with the form of M bi = |ψbi ⟩⟨ψbi | = cos2 θ|0⟩⟨0| + e −i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|0⟩⟨1| + e i2πbi n sin θ cos θ|1⟩⟨0| + sin2 θ|1⟩⟨1|. (5) After all the measurem...

work page

[3] [3]

Then, she measures each photon with its original preparation basis

Alice extracts all the encoded photons and recovers the original message transmission photon sequence S3. Then, she measures each photon with its original preparation basis. By comparing the photon state with its initial state, Alice can decode the message transmitted from Bob. B. RDI-QSDC implementation with linear optical elements The RDI QSDC protocol ...

work page

[4] [4]

The security checking system and decoding system in Alice’s location use the same set of devices

All the photons in S′ 2 and S′ 3 sequences are sent back through quantum channel to Alice. The security checking system and decoding system in Alice’s location use the same set of devices. The photons in S′ 2 sequence enter Alice’s security checking system. Alice uses PM5 to realize the measurement basis selec- tion for the photons in S′

work page

[5] [5]

black-boxes

Once the security checking is passed, the photons in S3 sequence enter the decod- ing system. Alice uses PM5 to control the measurement basis for the encoded photons and finally reads out the messages. The QM adopted in our protocol is constructed with the all-optical, polarization insensitive storage loop with the structure in Fig. 2(b) [56]. By controll...

work page 2020

[6] [6]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661-663 (1991)

work page 1991

[7] [7]

H. K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)

2012

[8] [8]

F. H. Xu, X. F. Ma, Q. Zhang, H. K. Lo, and J. W. Pan, Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002 (2020)

work page 2020