Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Loss-tolerant quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A security proof now covers QKD receivers whose two detectors click with different efficiencies.

desk verdict Extends loss-tolerant QKD to detector efficiency mismatch with a sound but assumption-laden proof and a small real-detector measurement; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09684 v1 pith:2FMQLEYV submitted 2024-12-12 quant-ph

Alessandro Marcomini , Akihiro Mizutani , Fadri Grünenfelder , Marcos Curty , Kiyoshi Tamaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P94 PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords quantumkeydistributionloss-tolerantprotocoldetectionefficiencymismatchstatepreparationflawscoherentattacksphase-errorratesecretsecurityproof
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

Quantum key distribution's promise of verifiable secrecy is threatened when a real receiver's two single-photon detectors have different efficiencies, because an eavesdropper can bias which bit Bob registers. This paper extends the loss-tolerant security proof for the three-state prepare-and-measure QKD protocol to exactly that situation, while also allowing Alice's emitted states to deviate from the ideal ones. It establishes an asymptotic secret key rate lower bound, Eq. (12), valid against arbitrary attacks coordinated across all rounds, and gives both a semidefinite-program recipe and closed-form bounds for the quantities entering it. The authors also measure the polarisation-dependent efficiency mismatch of two commercial single-photon detectors and show that a few-percent mismatch costs little key rate, so the bound is usable in practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the virtual Procrustean filter $\hat G_{BT}$ of Eq. (B20), built from the Gram-matrix diagonalisation $\hat F_0(\hat F_1^\dagger\hat F_1)^{-1}\hat F_0^\dagger = \hat U \hat D \hat U^\dagger$ and the matrix $\hat C$ that balances the two efficiency operators. Composed with Bob's Z-basis filter, it turns his actual X-basis measurement into a virtual X-basis measurement whose success probability and error rate can be bounded by the observed X-basis statistics through the operator inequalities $\lambda_s^- \hat F_s^\dagger\hat F_s \le \hat C^\dagger\hat C \le \lambda_s^+ \hat F_s^\dagger\hat F_s$ for $s=0,1$. Choosing the four parameters $\lambda_s^\pm$ by semidefinite programming, or by the closed-form bounds of Eq. (19), supplies the phase-error bound that enters the key rate formula.

What would settle it

Measure, with full mode-resolved tomography, a pair of single-photon detectors whose efficiency operators either are not invertible or cannot be written as one factor $\hat F_s^\dagger\hat F_s$ acting on a single mode $T$; for such a receiver the construction of $\hat G_{BT}$ in Eq. (B20) is undefined, so any positive key rate predicted by Eq. (12) for that hardware would contradict the security claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a lower bound on the asymptotic secret key rate per channel use, $R \ge p_{\mathrm{sift}}^Z [ r_{\mathrm{virt}}^{L,X}(1-h_2(e_p^U)) - f h_2(e_b)]$ (Eq. 12), for the loss-tolerant three-state prepare-and-measure protocol when Alice's prepared qubit states are flawed and Bob's two detectors have unequal, mode-dependent efficiencies. The proof treats the detection efficiency mismatch through a virtual Procrustean filter that restores basis-independent behaviour in a virtual protocol, and it relates the filtered statistics to the experimentally observed X-basis data through operator inequalities. When the detectors are identical the bound reduces to the original loss-tolerant result. An experimental characterisation of two commercial single-photon avalanche diodes finds roughly a 5% polarisation-dependent efficiency difference, and the simulated key rates show that this mismatch does not greatly reduce performance; for the studied parameters the semidefinite and analytical estimates of the auxiliary parameters coincide.

Load-bearing premise

The proof stands on the assumption that Bob's whole detection setup acts as a perfect qubit measurement on the signal followed by a single efficiency-affecting mode whose effect on each detector is an invertible operator; if real detectors couple several such modes or can have zero efficiency for some mode, the virtual filter used in the proof is not guaranteed to exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QKD receivers no longer need identical detectors: a known, characterised efficiency difference is incorporated into the phase-error estimate instead of being left as an unmodelled loophole.
  • The loss-tolerant inversion handles flaws in the two key states, while the third trial state may deviate arbitrarily from ideal as long as it is fully characterised by Alice.
  • The result is compatible with the decoy-state method, so multi-photon source emissions can be treated separately without re-opening the detector-mismatch gap.
  • For the measured detectors, a polarisation-induced mismatch of roughly 5% costs little simulated secret key rate, and the analytical and semidefinite parameter choices coincide in this regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof assumes a single efficiency-affecting mode with invertible efficiency operators, hardware whose efficiency depends jointly on several coupled modes would need a multi-mode generalisation before this bound can be applied; the paper sketches such a generalisation but does not prove it.
  • The use of a concentration inequality to sum round-conditional probabilities indicates that a finite-size version of the same bound is a natural next step, and Eq. (12) already has the structure a finite-key analysis would start from.
  • An analogous characterisation of superconducting nanowire detectors, whose polarisation-dependent mismatch is typically larger, would be a direct stress test of how much this bound costs under realistic worst-case detector parameters.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a security proof for the loss-tolerant three-state prepare-and-measure QKD protocol in the asymptotic regime, allowing simultaneously for state preparation flaws (SPFs) and detection efficiency mismatch (DEM). Bob's measurement is modeled by POVMs of the form M_{sβ} = |sβ><sβ|_B ⊗ F_s†F_s on a qubit system B and an efficiency-affecting system T, and the authors introduce a virtual Procrustean filter (Eq. B20) that balances the detection efficiencies so that Koashi's complementarity argument can be applied. The main result is the lower bound R ≥ p_sift_Z [ r_virt^L_X (1 - h2(e_p^U)) - f h2(e_b) ] (Eq. 12), with r_virt^L_X and e_p^U computed from Eqs. (15)-(17) using experimentally estimated X-basis statistics and semidefinite or analytical bounds on the efficiency operators. The paper also reports an experimental characterization of two commercial SPADs and simulates the key rate for polarization-dependent DEM.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful step: it extends the loss-tolerant QKD framework to receivers that fail the basis-independent detection efficiency condition, with a coherent-attack proof and a concrete recipe (SDP or analytical bounds) for evaluating the key rate. The derivation in Appendix B is detailed and the operator inequalities (B47)-(B48) give an internally consistent way to translate measured X-basis statistics into bounds on the virtual-X quantities. The experimental characterization, while limited, demonstrates a plausible route to applying the method to real devices. The main caveat is that the validity of the proof is conditional on the invertibility (positive-definiteness) of the efficiency operators, Assumption (A5), and this condition is not certified by the reported experiment.

major comments (1)
  1. [II (Assumption A5), Appendix B (Eqs. B20-B21, Eq. 11)] The central proof object, the virtual filter in Eq. (B20), contains F_0^{-1} and F_1^{-1}, and the operator bounds in Eq. (11) require finite λ±. Thus the derivation of Eqs. (15)-(17), and hence Eq. (12), is valid only if F_0 and F_1 are invertible in a positive-definite sense, with bounded inverses when T is infinite-dimensional. The paper handles this by Assumption (A5), citing Ref. [36] for the claim that no positive key rate is achievable otherwise, but it does not prove that claim or state the precise condition. Real detectors can have modes with vanishing detection probability (for example, polarization orthogonal to the detector's preferred axis, or arrival times outside the detection window), and the experiment in Sec. V A only probes four polarization states and reports up to 5% intensity fluctuations, so it does not certify positive-definiteness over the full mode space. For a mode with a zero eigenvalue of F_s, Eq. (B20) is undefined and the virtual POVM in Eq. (B21) does not exist; the failure is not merely a looser rate but the removal of the proof's foundation. I recommend that the authors either provide a proof (or a precise statement with conditions) of the asserted no-positive-key-rate result, restrict the theorem's statement to settings where positive-definiteness is explicitly verified, or extend the analysis to non-invertible efficiency operators, and adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (16)-(17) and Eq. (B49)] The quantity perr,U_X virt used in Eq. (17) is not defined independently; as written it appears to omit the factor pZA pZB that is present in the corresponding bound in Eq. (B49). Please define all quantities explicitly and explain the normalization, even if the ratio with pvirt,L_X in Eq. (15) makes the factor cancel.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C16) and Eq. (B26)] The operator ρ_E defined in Eq. (C16) is a sum over rounds and is not normalized; calling it a "quantum state" in Eq. (B26) is misleading. Clarify that the traces in Eqs. (B26)-(B50) are taken with respect to an unnormalized operator whose trace grows with N.
  3. [Sec. V A, before Eq. (24)] There is a grammatical typo: "Therefore, have that" should be "Therefore, we have that." Also, the coherent-state ket in Eq. (22) should be written with a matching bra so that the density operator is clearly defined.
  4. [Table I and Fig. 3] No uncertainties are reported for the fitted efficiencies and dead times, despite the text stating that error bars are approximately 1% of the detected values; adding confidence intervals would make the quantitative claim in Sec. V more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-error bound is estimated from measured detection statistics via operator inequalities, and the virtual filter adopted from prior work is transparent independent support.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The central rate bound Eq. (12) is obtained from Koashi's complementarity bound after estimating rvirt,L_X and eU_p. Those estimates (Eqs. (15)-(17)) are linear combinations, with coefficients lambda+/-_s chosen to satisfy the operator inequalities Eq. (11), of the quantities q~_{sX,omega} obtained by inverting the measured X-basis detection probabilities through Eq. (7). This is standard parameter estimation: the phase-error quantity is bounded by actual detection statistics, and no target key-rate value is fed back into the estimator. The virtual filter G_BT in Eq. (B20) and the matrix C in Eqs. (8)-(10) are taken from Ref. [36], a published result overlapping with some of the present authors; the paper states this explicitly and does not present that choice as a new derivation. Ref. [36]'s impossibility claim justifying the invertibility part of Assumption (A5) is an external, parameter-free result, so citing it is not circular. The SDP in Eq. (18) maximizes pvirt,L_X, not the final rate, and any feasible Lambda yields a valid (possibly suboptimal) bound, so this optimization is not a hidden fit of the key rate. The experimental efficiency matrices enter as measured inputs, and the SKR is a computed consequence, not a predicted quantity used to define the inputs. The only caveat is that Assumption (A5) (factorizing POVM with invertible F0 and F1) is a genuine spectral-condition limitation of the proof, but that is a correctness/domain assumption, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the detector model (A5), the qubit-space assumption (A4), and the asymptotic limit (A6); the key-rate simulation further depends on the fitted detector efficiencies and chosen standard parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • Polarization-dependent efficiencies η_σ^s for D0, D1 = D0: H=22.33%, V=23.99%, D=23.78%, L=23.69%; D1: H=22.50%, V=24.20%, D=24.01%, L=23.86%
    Fitted from count-rate data in Sec. V A via nonlinear least squares; they determine the efficiency matrices in Eqs. (27)-(28) and the key-rate simulation.
  • Dead times τ_d for D0 and D1 = 20.18 µs and 20.19 µs
    Fitted in the same interpolation; used only for the detector characterization, not in the security bound.
  • Channel attenuation α = 0.2 dB/km
    Standard loss coefficient for optical fiber, chosen for the simulation in Eq. (33); not fitted to the paper's data.
  • Dark count probability p_dark = 10^-6
    Chosen upper bound for 1 GHz QKD operation; used in the detection probability model in Eq. (33).
  • Z-state overlap c_01^Z = 0.01, 0.1, 0.3
    Scanned values representing different levels of state preparation flaws; used for the key-rate curves in Fig. 4.
  • Error correction efficiency f = 1.16
    Assumed efficiency of the error correction code; used in Eq. (12) for the rate simulation.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A1: Alice knows the exact pure qubit states she sends, they are pairwise linearly independent and lie on the XZ plane of the Bloch sphere.
    Sec. II A1 and Appendix A1; the symmetry of the Z states around the X axis makes the virtual X states coincide with true X eigenstates (Eq. A4).
  • domain assumption A2: Alice's source has no side channels; Eve cannot learn the state from classical information inside Alice's lab.
    Sec. II A2; required so the prepared state is fully characterized by the public description.
  • domain assumption A3 and A5: Bob uses an active basis choice with two detectors, and each detection POVM element is |sβ><sβ|_B ⊗ (F_s†F_s)_T with invertible F_s.
    Sec. II A3-A5, Eq. (1); this is the detector model onto which the whole DEM analysis is built.
  • domain assumption A4: Bob receives the traveling system B in a qubit space.
    Sec. II A4; no squashing model is provided, so multi-photon or higher-dimensional states are not covered.
  • domain assumption A6: Asymptotic regime with infinitely many signals and coherent attacks.
    Sec. II A6 and Appendix B; the proof uses Kato's inequality (Eq. B16) to replace frequencies with probabilities in the limit.
  • standard math Koashi's complementarity security proof is valid for the virtual protocol.
    The phase-error rate estimation relies on Ref. [58]; this framework is assumed as background.
  • standard math Kato's inequality provides the concentration bound used in Eq. (B16).
    Cited as Ref. [66]; enables the asymptotic replacement of conditional probabilities by observed counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Loss-tolerant quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FMQLEYV

@misc{pith2026241209684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Loss-tolerant quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FMQLEYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09684}
}
read the original abstract

Current implementations of quantum key distribution (QKD) typically rely on prepare-and-measure (P&M) schemes. Unfortunately, these implementations are not completely secure, unless security proofs fully incorporate all imperfections of real devices. So far, existing proofs have primarily focused on imperfections of either the light source or the measurement device. In this paper, we establish a security proof for the loss-tolerant P&M QKD protocol that incorporates imperfections in both the source and the detectors. Specifically, we demonstrate the security of this scheme when the emitted states deviate from the ideal ones and Bob's measurement device does not meet the basis-independent detection efficiency condition. Furthermore, we conduct an experiment to characterise the detection efficiency mismatch of commercial single-photon detectors as a function of the polarisation state of the input light, and determine the expected secret key rate in the presence of state preparation flaws when using such detectors. Our work provides a way towards guaranteeing the security of actual implementations of widely deployed P&M QKD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Modelling of a realistic SPD (dotted box). The input state ˆρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Experimental setup for the characterisation of the polarisation-dependent DEM of two detectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Experimental data for the characterisation of the efficiency of detectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Lower bound on the asymptotic SKR for the three-state protocol with SPFs and DEM corresponding to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Illustration of the flawed quantum states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: This diagram illustrates the six scenarios corresponding to the states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Bob’s scheme for a successful measurement in (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Workflow of the security proof provided in this paper. The boxes in this figure refer to either the actual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Bob’s scheme for a successful measurement in the virtual scheme. Bob is allowed to perform any virtual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.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

  1. Security of quantum key distribution with source and detector imperfections through phase-error estimation

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A modular proof technique extends phase-error-estimation security bounds from basis-independent to mismatched detector efficiencies, enabling finite-key QKD security with simultaneous source and detector imperfections.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [36]

    Tan, W.-Y

    H. Tan, W.-Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, W. Li, S.-K. Liao, and F. Xu, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 045008 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    State preparation: Alice selects the Z (X) basis with probability pZA (pXA ). When the Z basis is selected, she prepares a single-photon pulse in the state |ϕ0Z ⟩B or |ϕ1Z ⟩B uniformly at random, whereas a single-photon pulse is prepared in the state |ϕ0X ⟩B for the X basis selection. Then, she sends the single-photon pulse to Bob through a quantum channe...

  3. [2]

    Measurement: For each pulse he receives, Bob selects the Z (X) basis with probability pZB (pXB ). Then, when the Z (X) basis is selected, he performs a measurement ˆM Z BT ( ˆM X BT ) described by the POVM { ˆM 0Z BT , ˆM 1Z BT , ˆM f ailZ BT } { ˆM 0X BT , ˆM 1X BT , ˆM f ailX BT } over systems B and T . The POVM elements ˆM sβ BT for s ∈ {0, 1} and β ∈ ...

  4. [3]

    Sifting: Once the previous steps are completed, Bob announces to Alice over an authenticated public channel in which rounds he obtained detection events, as well as the basis selection he made for each of these. This way, they can compute the sifted key, defined as the bit string generated from the instances in which Alice selected the Z basis and Bob obt...

    work page

  5. [4]

    These are the crucial parameters for privacy amplification and error correction, respectively

    Parameter estimation: By using the estimated probabilities for measurements in the X basis {psX ,i}s,i, Alice estimates an upper bound on the phase-error rate of the sifted key, while she estimates the bit-error rate in theZ basis through the values of {psZ ,i}s,i for i ∈ {0Z, 1Z}. These are the crucial parameters for privacy amplification and error corre...

    work page

  6. [5]

    The following virtual scheme is based on an equivalent entanglement-based (or source-replacement) approach

    Data-postprocessing: Through discussions over an authenticated public channel, Alice and Bob perform error correction, and then they conduct privacy amplification to generate a secret key. The following virtual scheme is based on an equivalent entanglement-based (or source-replacement) approach. Crucially, Eve cannot distinguish this protocol from the act...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Distribution of entanglement: Alice prepares bipartite systems, each of which is composed of a shield system A and a single-photon pulse B, in a joint entangled state in the form |φ⟩AB = 6X c=1 √pc |c⟩A ϕ(c) E B . (3) Each projection of the shield system onto one of the orthonormal basis states {|c⟩A}c∈{1,...,6} corresponds to a different configuration of...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Delayed state preparation and measurement: After transmission, Alice performs the projective measurement described by {|c⟩ ⟨c|A}c over each of the N systems A she holds

    work page

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    cavity effects

    Announcement of detection events and bases for sifting, parameter estimation and postprocessing: These phases are tackled as in the actual protocol. One can follow the scheme provided in Fig. 6 to relate the quantities {psβ ,i}s,β,i introduced in the actual protocol to the sta...

  2. [9]

    0” or “1

    and circular-left ( |L⟩ = (|H⟩ + i |V ⟩) / √ 2), as they suffice in providing a full tomography of the operators { ˆF † s ˆFs}s∈{0,1}. For each polarisation, we measure the average amount of detected photons per second over a 10 s time window. The measured dark counts rates of...

  3. [10]

    These states are illustrated in Fig

    T ransmitter In a three-state QKD scheme, let |ϕ0Z ⟩, |ϕ1Z ⟩ and |ϕ0X ⟩ denote the flawed quantum states prepared by Alice (which can be in principle different from the perfect |0Z⟩, |1Z⟩ and |0X ⟩ states). These states are illustrated in Fig. 5. For later convenience, we make...

  4. [11]

    successful

    Receiver The operators ˆF † s ˆFs acting on system T that appear in Eq. (1) represent the generalised efficiency of the two detectors [36]. Precisely, the quantity ⟨γ| ˆF † s ˆFs|γ⟩T represents the probability of the detector Ds clicking when the system T is in a state |γ⟩. No...

  5. [12]

    The l−th round state takes the form given by Eq

    Security analysis of the actual states Let |Φ⟩ABT = φ(<l) E ABT φ(l) E ABT φ(>l) E ABT , (B1) denote the global state prepared by Alice during N rounds of the protocol, where φ(<l) ABT ( φ(>l) ABT ) denotes the full set of states of the rounds that precede (follow) round l. Th...

  6. [13]

    Crucially, due to the DEM, the probability of successful detection in the Z or X basis for Bob is not the same

    Security analysis of the virtual states In the complementarity framework, the phase-error rate can be computed once we find the errors that Bob en- counters in predicting Alice’s virtual X outcomes for the states they use to produce the sifted key. Crucially, due to the DEM, t...

  7. [14]

    (B28) Note that both quantities are directly estimated by Alice in the protocol (see Sec

    Computing the secret key rate Formally, in the asymptotic limit, the probability of being in sifted key round and the probability of having a bit error in Z basis are respectively given by psif t Z = lim N →∞ 1 N 1X a,s=0 NsZ ,aZ , p err Z := lim N →∞ 1 N X a̸=s NsZ ,aZ . (B28...

  8. [15]

    ˆρE ˆT0X ,1 + ˆT0X ,X 2 ⊗ ˆF † 0 ˆF0 !# − λ− 0 2 Tr

    Bounding the phase-error rate As illustrated in Fig. 8, to relate the phase-error rate to the statistics of the actual X basis measurements we must find lower and upper bounds on the operator ˆC † ˆC in the form given by Eq. (11). One viable option to do so is to employ semide...

  9. [16]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Nature Photonics 8, 595 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ot- taviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in Optics and Photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    J. F. Dynes, A. Wonfor, W. W.-S. Tam, A. W. Sharpe, R. Takahashi, M. Lucamarini, A. Plews, Z. L. Yuan, A. R. Dixon, J. Cho, Y. Tanizawa, J.-P. Elbers, H. Greißer, I. H. White, R. V. Penty, and A. J. Shields, npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    Stucki, M

    D. Stucki, M. Legr´ e, F. Buntschu, B. Clausen, N. Felber, N. Gisin, L. Henzen, P. Junod, G. Litzistorf, P. Monbaron, L. Monat, J.-B. Page, D. Perroud, G. Ribordy, A. Rochas, S. Robyr, J. Tavares, R. Thew, P. Trinkler, S. Ventura, R. Voirol, N. Walenta, and H. Zbinden, New Jou...

    2011

  14. [21]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwara, H. Ishizuka, W. Klaus, K. Wakui, M. Takeoka, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, A. Tanaka, K. Yoshino, Y. Nambu, S. Takahashi, A. Tajima, A. Tomita, T. Domeki, T. Hasegawa, Y. Sakai, H. Kobayashi, T. Asai, K. Shimizu, T. Tokura, T. Tsurumaru, M. Matsui, T....

    2011

  15. [22]

    Y.-A. Chen, Q. Zhang, T.-Y. Chen, W.-Q. Cai, S.-K. Liao, J. Zhang, K. Chen, J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, Z. Chen, S.-L. Han, Q. Yu, K. Liang, F. Zhou, X. Yuan, M.-S. Zhao, T.-Y. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Zhang, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, J.-Y. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, ...

    2021

  16. [23]

    Liao, W.-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, F.-Z. Li, X.-W. Chen, L.-H. Sun, J.-J. Jia, J.-C. Wu, X.-J. Jiang, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, Q. Wang, Y.-L. Zhou, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, Q. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, X.-B...

    2017

  17. [24]

    ThinkQuantum, https://www.thinkquantum.com/ (Accessed 26/09/2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    ID Quantique, https://www.idquantique.com (Accessed 26/09/2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Toshiba, https://www.toshiba.eu/quantum/ (Accessed 26/09/2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Bundesamt f¨ ur Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, A Study on Implementation Attacks against QKD Systems, https://www.bsi.bund.de/EN/Service-Navi/Publikationen/Studien/QKD-Systems/Implementation_Attacks_QKD_ Systems_node.html (Accessed: 15/11/2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    N. Jain, B. Stiller, I. Khan, D. Elser, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Contemporary Physics 57, 366 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    Sun and A

    S. Sun and A. Huang, Entropy 24, 260 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Zhao, C.-H

    Y. Zhao, C.-H. F. Fung, B. Qi, C. Chen, and H.-K. Lo, Physical Review A 78, 042333 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Lydersen, C

    L. Lydersen, C. Wiechers, C. Wittmann, D. Elser, J. Skaar, and V. Makarov, Nature Photonics 4, 686 (2010)

    2010

  25. [32]

    Gerhardt, Q

    I. Gerhardt, Q. Liu, A. Lamas-Linares, J. Skaar, C. Kurtsiefer, and V. Makarov, Nature Communications 2, 349 (2011)

    2011

  26. [33]

    Weier, H

    H. Weier, H. Krauss, M. Rau, M. F¨ urst, S. Nauerth, and H. Weinfurter, New Journal of Physics 13, 073024 (2011)

    2011

  27. [34]

    N. Jain, C. Wittmann, L. Lydersen, C. Wiechers, D. Elser, C. Marquardt, V. Makarov, and G. Leuchs, Physical Review Letters 107, 110501 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    Pang, A.-L

    X.-L. Pang, A.-L. Yang, C.-N. Zhang, J.-P. Dou, H. Li, J. Gao, and X.-M. Jin, Physical Review Applied 13, 034008 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    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, Physical Review Applied 19, 054052 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Z. Wu, A. Huang, H. Chen, S.-H. Sun, J. Ding, X. Qiang, X. Fu, P. Xu, and J. Wu, Optics Express 28, 25574 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Zhang, M.-S

    X.-X. Zhang, M.-S. Jiang, Y. Wang, Y.-F. Lu, H.-W. Li, C. Zhou, Y. Zhou, and W.-S. Bao, Physical Review A 106, 062412 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Baliuka, M

    A. Baliuka, M. St¨ ocker, M. Auer, P. Freiwang, H. Weinfurter, and L. Knips, Physical Review Applied 20, 054040 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zapatero, ´A

    V. Zapatero, ´A. Navarrete, and M. Curty, Advanced Quantum Technologies 7, 2300380 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Sajeed, C

    S. Sajeed, C. Minshull, N. Jain, and V. Makarov, Scientific Reports 7, 8403 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    N. Jain, E. Anisimova, I. Khan, V. Makarov, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, New Journal of Physics 16, 123030 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Wiechers, L

    C. Wiechers, L. Lydersen, C. Wittmann, D. Elser, J. Skaar, C. Marquardt, V. Makarov, and G. Leuchs, New Journal of Physics 13, 013043 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Applied Physics Letters 98, 231104 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Applied Physics Letters 99, 196102 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Sajeed, P

    S. Sajeed, P. Chaiwongkhot, J.-P. Bourgoin, T. Jennewein, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and V. Makarov, Physical Review A91, 062301 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    M. Rau, T. Vogl, G. Corrielli, G. Vest, L. Fuchs, S. Nauerth, and H. Weinfurter, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 21, 187 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Chaiwongkhot, K

    P. Chaiwongkhot, K. B. Kuntz, Y. Zhang, A. Huang, J.-P. Bourgoin, S. Sajeed, N. L¨ utkenhaus, T. Jennewein, and V. Makarov, Physical Review A 99, 062315 (2019). 27

    2019

  42. [50]

    K. Wei, W. Zhang, Y.-L. Tang, L. You, and F. Xu, Physical Review A 100, 022325 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    C.-H. F. Fung, K. Tamaki, B. Qi, H.-K. Lo, and X. Ma, Quantum Information & Computation 9, 131–165 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    Lydersen and J

    L. Lydersen and J. Skaar, Quantum Information & Computation 10, 60 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    J. Ma, Y. Zhou, X. Yuan, and X. Ma, Physical Review A 99, 062325 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    M. K. Bochkov and A. S. Trushechkin, Physical Review A 99, 032308 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Zhang, P

    Y. Zhang, P. J. Coles, A. Winick, J. Lin, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Physical Review Research 3, 013076 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Trushechkin, Quantum 6, 771 (2022)

    A. Trushechkin, Quantum 6, 771 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Hwang, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    W.-Y. Hwang, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Wang, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

    X.-B. Wang, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H.-K. Lo, Physical Review A 72, 012326 (2005)

    2005

  53. [61]

    C. C. W. Lim, M. Curty, N. Walenta, F. Xu, and H. Zbinden, Physical Review A 89, 022307 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Tamaki, M

    K. Tamaki, M. Curty, G. Kato, H.-K. Lo, and K. Azuma, Physical Review A 90, 052314 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Pereira, M

    M. Pereira, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, npj Quantum Information 5 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Kato, A. Mizutani, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Science Advances 6, eaaz4487 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Zapatero, ´A

    V. Zapatero, ´A. Navarrete, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Quantum 5, 602 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S. Nahar, N. L¨ utkenhaus, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 015025 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, A security framework for quantum key distribution implementations (2023), arXiv:2305.05930 [quant-ph]

    2023

  60. [68]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Physical Review Letters 108, 130503 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Lucamarini, Z

    M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Nature 557, 400 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, R.-Q. Wang, P. Ye, Y. Zhou, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, F.-X. Wang, W. Chen, Y.-G. Zhu, P. V. Morozov, A. V. Divochiy, Z. Zhou, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Nature Photonics 16, 154 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Liu, W.-J

    Y. Liu, W.-J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J.-P. Chen, C. Zhang, W.-X. Pan, D. Ma, H. Dong, J.-M. Xiong, C.-J. Zhang, H. Li, R.-C. Wang, J. Wu, T.-Y. Chen, L. You, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 130, 210801 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    J.-Y. Liu, X. Ma, H.-J. Ding, C.-H. Zhang, X.-Y. Zhou, and Q. Wang, Physical Review A 108, 022605 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Koashi, New Journal of Physics 11, 045018 (2009)

    M. Koashi, New Journal of Physics 11, 045018 (2009)

    2009

  66. [74]

    Lo and J

    H.-K. Lo and J. Preskill, Quantum Information & Computation 7, 431 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review A 54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Physical Review A 53, 2046 (1996)

    1996

  69. [77]

    ID Qube NIR Free-Running, https://www.idquantique.com/quantum-detection-systems/products/id-qube-nir-free- running/ (Accessed 15/11/2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Y. Fei, T. Ji, L. Zhang, G. Zhu, J. Tan, J. Lv, Q. Chen, G. He, F. Li, X. Wang, H. Li, Y. Guan, R. Yin, H. Wang, X. Jia, Q. Zhao, X. Tu, L. Kang, J. Chen, and P. Wu, Optics Express 30, 36456 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    G. F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, 3rd ed. , 3rd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2000)

    2000

  72. [80]

    Gottesman, H.-K

    D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Quantum Information & Computation 4, 325 (2004)

    2004

  73. [81]

    Kato, Concentration inequality using unconfirmed knowledge (2020), arXiv:2002.04357 [math.PR]

    G. Kato, Concentration inequality using unconfirmed knowledge (2020), arXiv:2002.04357 [math.PR]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Azuma, Tohoku Mathematical Journal 19, 357 (1967)

    K. Azuma, Tohoku Mathematical Journal 19, 357 (1967)

    1967

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.