Asymmetric protocols for mode pairing quantum key distribution with finite-key analysis

Haiqiang Ma; Jianjun Tang; Tianqi Dou; Weiwen Kong; Yang Liu; Yuheng Xie; Zhenhua Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Asymmetric protocols for mode pairing quantum key distribution with finite-key analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper argues that asymmetric mode-pairing QKD should be run with independently optimized source intensities rather than extra attenuation, and provides a finite-key security analysis for that setting.

desk verdict Irreproducible simulation formulas and a sign error undermine the paper's central numerical claims, though the underlying idea is worth pursuing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12593 v2 pith:VRSIHJU5 submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph

Zhenhua Li , Tianqi Dou , Yuheng Xie , Weiwen Kong , Yang Liu , Haiqiang Ma , Jianjun Tang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P94 PACS 03.67.Dd

keywords mode-pairingquantumkeydistributionasymmetricchannelsfinite-keysecuritydecoy-statemethodparticleswarmoptimizationsecurerateuniversalcomposability

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

Mode-pairing QKD uses paired detection events at a central node so that Alice and Bob need no global phase lock; the catch is that real networks often put them at unequal distances from Charlie. This paper argues that the unequal-distance case is better handled by giving Alice and Bob their own optimized intensities and probabilities than by adding loss to the closer side. It provides a finite-key security analysis with practical three-intensity decoy states and a 12-parameter global optimization, and claims this raises the secure key rate by a factor of roughly 3 at 50 km path imbalance and nearly an order of magnitude at 100 km, e.g. $1.84\times10^{-5}$ versus $5.71\times10^{-6}$ bit/pulse at $L_A+L_B=200$ km. If correct, it removes a major obstacle to deploying MP-QKD in star-shaped quantum networks.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the finite-key rate expression $R=2L/N$, with $L$ bounded by $M^Z_{11}\bigl[1-h(e^{Z,\mathrm{ph}}_{11})\bigr] - \lambda_{\mathrm{EC}} - \log_2(2/\varepsilon_{\mathrm{cor}}) - 2\log_2(1/\varepsilon_{\mathrm{sec}})$. Here $M^Z_{11}$ is the number of single-photon Z-pair events estimated from decoy-state yields $y^Z_{11}$, and $e^{Z,\mathrm{ph}}_{11}$ is the phase-error rate estimated from X-pair bit errors by random sampling without replacement. Around that formula the paper builds a source-parameter vector of 12 independent intensities and probabilities, a Chernoff-bound treatment of statistical fluctuations, and a modified particle-swarm optimizer that enforces physical constraints while searching the non-convex rate landscape. The simulation formulas in Appendix B give the average response probability and pair/error counts in terms of Bessel functions and channel transmittances.

What would settle it

Recompute the step from Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) with an independent derivation of the smooth-min-entropy bound: the paper prints $H_{\min}^{\epsilon}(Z|E) \le M^Z_{11}[1-h(e^{Z,\mathrm{ph}}_{11})]$, while a valid lower bound on $L$ requires $\ge$, so checking the sign settles the security claim. As a numerical cross-check, an independent implementation of the Appendix B formulas should reproduce point B of Table IV ($1.84\times10^{-5}$ bit/pulse at $L_A+L_B=200$ km, $\Delta L=50$ km).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the optimal response to channel asymmetry is not to equalize channels by attenuating the closer party but to let the two sources be genuinely asymmetric. The authors derive a finite-key rate formula for three-intensity decoy-state MP-QKD under the universal composability framework ($\epsilon=10^{-10}$), using Chernoff-bound statistical fluctuations and random sampling without replacement, and they maximize the rate over 12 independent source parameters with a modified particle swarm optimization. The numerical result is that this asymmetric-intensity strategy outperforms attenuation compensation at all tested distances: for $L_A+L_B=200$ km with $\Delta L=50$ km the rate is $1.84\times10^{-5}$ versus $5.71\times10^{-6}$ bit/pulse, and with $\Delta L=100$ km it is $5.89\times10^{-6}$ versus $6.37\times10^{-7}$. The optimized decoy intensities stay close to the rule $\eta_a \nu_a \approx \eta_b \nu_b$, whereas the signal intensities deviate substantially, and increasing the maximum pairing interval improves the rate but does not let the asymmetric finite-key rate surpass the PLOB bound.

Load-bearing premise

The security proof depends on the direction of the smooth-min-entropy bound: the final key-length formula uses the expression in Eq. (5) as a lower bound on the secret randomness remaining to Alice, so if that inequality actually runs the other way, the advertised key rates are not proven secure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $L_A+L_B=200$ km the asymmetric-intensity strategy gives $1.84\times10^{-5}$ bit/pulse with $\Delta L=50$ km and $5.89\times10^{-6}$ with $\Delta L=100$ km, versus $5.71\times10^{-6}$ and $6.37\times10^{-7}$ for extra attenuation.
The optimized settings use unequal intensities: $\mu_a$ drops and $\mu_b$ rises as $\Delta L$ grows, so field deployments need not force $\eta_a \mu_a \approx \eta_b \mu_b$.
The decoy intensities do approximately follow $\eta_a \nu_a \approx \eta_b \nu_b$, giving a practical rule of thumb for setting the decoy states in asymmetric links.
Finite-key security at $\epsilon=10^{-10}$ is claimed for total pulse number $N=10^{13}$, so the rates are meant to be deployment-relevant rather than asymptotic idealizations.
Raising the maximum pairing interval $l$ increases the rate, but in the asymmetric finite-key regime the rate stays below the symmetric-channel value and below the PLOB bound.

Reading between the lines

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

The near-universal behavior of the decoy intensities ($\eta_a \nu_a \approx \eta_b \nu_b$) suggests a two-stage deployment recipe: fix $\nu_a,\nu_b$ by that rule and optimize the remaining signal intensities and probabilities, shrinking the live calibration problem.
Because the optimization ignores the rule $\eta_a \mu_a \approx \eta_b \mu_b$ and still obtains high rates, the same independent-intensity approach may lift rates in other asymmetric two-photon-interference QKD schemes, such as twin-field variants, where that rule is often imposed.
An independent re-derivation of the entropy inequality in Eq. (5) is the first checkpoint before hardware investment: a reversed sign would invalidate the finite-key rate values rather than merely shift them.

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

Hi [Colleague],

The short version: this paper has a load-bearing error in its simulation formulas. The printed Appendix B contains an extra p^2 factor in Eq. (B3), so the counts n^Z_(ka,kb) come out about five orders of magnitude too small for the Table III/IV parameters. I checked the derivation: with p ≈ 1e-3 and l = 2000, the correct prefactor for a labeled pair count is N [1-(1-p)^l]/p, while the paper prints N r_p p^2 with r_p = [1-(1-p)^l]/p + 1/p. That mismatch alone means Table IV's R = 1.84e-5 cannot be obtained from the equations as written. Somebody would have had to use different formulas, so the paper's central numbers are not reproducible from the manuscript.

There is also the sign error in Eq. (5) that the desk reader caught: H_min^ε(Z|E) ≤ M[1-h] should be ≥ for the key length bound in Eq. (6) to go through. That is a smaller fix, but it is load-bearing for the security statement.

To be fair, the paper does address a real gap: asymmetric MP-QKD with finite-key effects and practical decoys was not done before, and the optimization of 12 parameters with a modified PSO is a sensible approach. The qualitative observation that independently optimized intensities beat adding attenuation is plausible and likely correct. The writing is clear and the structure is standard.

But the flaws are not cosmetic. The simulation formulas are the heart of the quantitative contribution. Without code or a corrected derivation, the reported rates, the intensity-ratio plots, and the conclusions about HOM visibility are unsupported. I would not cite this version, and I would not bring it to the reading group as is. The right path is a major revision with explicit corrected formulas, preferably backed by an executable script or a detailed step-by-step derivation of the counting prefactor. The topic is important enough that a serious referee should be assigned, but the current manuscript is not acceptable.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a finite-key security analysis of asymmetric mode-pairing QKD with practical three-intensity decoy states and presents numerical key-rate simulations in which Alice's and Bob's source parameters are optimized independently by a modified particle swarm algorithm. The central quantitative claim is that this asymmetric-intensity optimization substantially improves the secure key rate relative to the strategy of adding extra attenuation to balance the channels, with representative numbers in Table IV (e.g., 1.84e-5 vs 5.71e-6 bit/pulse at 200 km total distance, Delta L = 50 km). The paper also studies how optimized intensities, probabilities, pairing intervals, and block sizes vary with distance.

Significance. The topic is timely: mode-pairing QKD is a leading protocol for moving beyond the repeaterless bound without global phase locking, and asymmetric network deployments need practical finite-key analyses. If the security bound and simulation formulas are correct, the contribution would be a useful engineering-oriented result, and the comparison with the attenuation strategy is a fair baseline. Credit is due for including the composable finite-key framework and for presenting the modified PSO approach; however, the two internal inconsistencies described below currently prevent the results from being taken as validated.

major comments (2)

[Section II, Eq. (5)] The printed inequality H^epsilon_min(Z|E) <= M^Z_11 [1 - h(e^Z,ph_11)] has the wrong direction for the purpose of Eq. (6). A secure final key length bounded below by the right-hand side requires a lower bound on the conditional smooth min-entropy, i.e., H^epsilon_min(Z|E) >= M^Z_11 [1 - h(e^Z,ph_11)]. As printed, Eq. (5) is an upper bound, so Eq. (6) is not a valid lower bound on the secure key length. The finite-key security conclusion rests on this sign, and the derivation should be corrected to '>=' or otherwise justified.
[Appendix B, Eqs. (B1)-(B7)] The pair-count prefactors are not consistent with the definitions given. The expected number of successful pairings per round is p [1 - (1-p)^l], and a click at a given round carries intensity label (k^a,k^b) with probability p_{k^a} p_{k^b} q_{k^a k^b} / p. Therefore the expected number of pairs with a specified intensity pair should scale as N [1 - (1-p)^l] / p times the product of the click-biased probabilities. Equations (B2)-(B3) instead define r_p = [1 - (1-p)^l]/p + 1/p and multiply by an additional p^2, yielding a prefactor of order p rather than 1/p. With p ~ 10^-3 and l = 2000, the printed formulas underestimate pair counts by roughly five orders of magnitude and cannot produce the count rates underlying Table IV. The simulation formulas must be corrected, and the reported numbers must be reconciled with the corrected formulas or accompanied by the simulation code.

minor comments (6)

[Section II, Eq. (7)] The text refers to 'the upper chi and lower chi bounds' but prints both as the same symbol chi; introducing overline{chi} and underline{chi} would make the decoy-state formulas that use these bounds much easier to follow.
[Section III, Eq. (9)] The notation n^Z_{(ka,kb)} is used for both the upper and lower Chernoff bounds in the printed equation, even though the two must generally take different values; please use distinct symbols, e.g., overline{n} and underline{n}.
[Appendix A, Algorithm 1] Line 25 of Algorithm 1 uses a quantity R_new(Gbest) that is never defined; the termination criterion should be specified precisely, along with the numerical values of N_PSO, T, w_init, w_final, c1 ranges, c2 ranges, h, and zeta needed to reproduce the optimization.
[Section III, discussion after Table IV] The statement that the asymmetric-intensity strategy gives 'approximately an order of magnitude' improvement at LA+LB = 200 km is not supported for Delta L = 50 km, where Table IV shows a factor of 3.2; the factor is about 9.2 for Delta L = 100 km. The claim should be made quantitative and split by Delta L.
[Figure 1 and general notation] The label 'total distance (LA+LB) between Alice and Bob' is imprecise, since LA and LB are the Alice-Charlie and Bob-Charlie distances and Charlie is not necessarily on the direct Alice-Bob path; please rephrase to 'sum of Alice-Charlie and Bob-Charlie distances'.
[Appendix B, Eqs. (B6)-(B7)] The factor 2 Delta / pi in the X-pair formulas is introduced without explaining whether Delta is measured in radians or how the phase-slice acceptance condition maps to the postselection window; please define this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the finite-key analysis and asymmetric-strategy comparison derive from external entropic-uncertainty, decoy-state, and random-sampling results, and the optimization is not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The final key-length expression in Eq. (6) is assembled from standard min-entropy, chain-rule, and leftover-hash results cited to external work [22-25], while the decoy-state estimates in Eqs. (8)-(13) follow external published methods [27-32]. The asymmetric-versus-attenuation comparison in Fig. 1 and Table IV uses one common simulation model (Appendix B) with independently optimized source parameters, so the improvement is a genuine optimization result rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Self-citations [13,14] only motivate the practicality of MP-QKD and are not load-bearing for the security derivation; under the hard rules, non-load-bearing self-citation is not circularity. Two non-circular correctness risks should nevertheless be weighed separately: (i) Eq. (5) prints H_min^epsilon(Z|E) <= M^Z_11[1-h(e^Z,ph_11)], but substituting that upper bound into Eq. (6) cannot yield a lower bound on L; the printed inequality direction invalidates the key-length derivation as written. (ii) The pair-count prefactors in Eqs. (B1)-(B3) appear inconsistent with the reported Table IV rates, since a click-pairing count per round is of order p[1-(1-p)^l], whereas the printed prefactor p^2 r_p is of order p for the stated parameters; this suggests the published formulas are not the formulas used for the central quantitative claims. Neither issue is a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs, so the circularity score remains 0.

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

The ledger lists the device parameters and background theorems the simulation and security claim depend on. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unaccounted assumptions are the optimistic Z-pair misalignment and the unproven global optimality of the PSO routine.

free parameters (5)

Z-pair misalignment eZ_d = 1e-6
Chosen in Table III and directly suppresses Z-basis bit error; this is optimistic for a realistic setup and inflates key rates.
X-pair misalignment eX_d = 0.1
Chosen in Table III; controls the phase-error estimate.
Error correction efficiency f = 1.1
Chosen standard value; linearly affects lambda_EC in Eq. (6).
Total pulse number N = 1e13
Finite-key statistics and SKR depend strongly on N; chosen simulation scale.
Maximum pairing interval l = 2000
Set for the main figures; Fig. 4 shows SKR grows with l, so this choice matters.

assumptions (5)

standard math Smooth min-entropy uncertainty relation lower-bounds conditional entropy from single-photon counts and phase error rate (used in Eq. 5).
External theorem from Tomamichel et al.; the paper relies on it without proof but prints the inequality direction incorrectly.
standard math Chernoff bound governs statistical fluctuations of observed counts (Eq. 7).
Standard tail bound; assumed valid for the finite-key parameter regime.
domain assumption Decoy-state method yields lower bounds on single-photon yields and phase error rates (Eqs. 8 to 12).
Standard practical decoy assumption for phase-randomized coherent states; equations are stated without derivation.
domain assumption Channel model with independent phase-randomized coherent states, fixed loss alpha, detector dark counts pd and efficiency eta_d (Appendix B).
The simulation model assumes exact knowledge of these parameters and no unmodeled side channels or intensity correlations.
ad hoc to paper Modified PSO converges to the global optimum of R(g).
Algorithm 1 is heuristic; no optimality certificate is provided despite global optimization claims.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetric protocols for mode pairing quantum key distribution with finite-key analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRSIHJU5

@misc{pith2026241212593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetric protocols for mode pairing quantum key distribution with finite-key analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRSIHJU5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12593}
}

read the original abstract

The mode pairing quantum key distribution (MP-QKD) protocol has attracted considerable attention for its capability to ensure high secure key rates over long distances without requiring global phase locking. However, ensuring symmetric channels for the MP-QKD protocol is challenging in practical quantum communication networks. Previous studies on the asymmetric MP-QKD protocol have relied on ideal decoy state assumptions and infinite-key analysis, which are unattainable for real-world deployment. In this paper, we conduct a security analysis of asymmetric MP-QKD protocol with the finite-key analysis, where we discard the previously impractical assumptions made in the decoy-state method. Combined with statistical fluctuation analysis, we globally optimized the 12 independent parameters in the asymmetric MP-QKD protocol by employing our modified particle swarm optimization. The simulation results demonstrate that our work can achieve significantly enhanced secure key rates and transmission distances compared to the original strategy with adding extra attenuation. We further investigate the relationship between the intensities and probabilities of signal, decoy, and vacuum states with transmission distance, facilitating its more efficient deployment in future quantum networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12593 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The optimized probabilities of the signal, decoy, an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The optimized ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Optimized SKR with asymmetric intensity strategy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Optimized SKR with asymmetric intensity strategy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_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

Security Analysis of Mode-Pairing Quantum Key Distribution with Flexible Pairing Strategy
quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A decoy-state mode-pairing QKD protocol with a tunable round-filtering pairing strategy increases simulated secret key rates by over 65% in the asymptotic case and extends reach in the finite case.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

It is reasonable and intuitive to expect that the particles, after initialization, should satisfy Eq

Lines 1- 11 initialize the position, velocity, individual best, and global best of the particle swarm. It is reasonable and intuitive to expect that the particles, after initialization, should satisfy Eq. ( III). An often overlooked detail is that the intermediate parameters must also adhere to 7 their physical signiﬁcance as shown below 0 < n Z (ka,kb), ...

work page
[2]

2, it can be observed that the value of ηaµa ηbµb is signiﬁcantly distant from 1, largely deviating from the condition ηaµa ≈ ηbµb

Addition- ally, from Fig. 2, it can be observed that the value of ηaµa ηbµb is signiﬁcantly distant from 1, largely deviating from the condition ηaµa ≈ ηbµb. The reason for this phenomenon is that the signal state is primarily used for key gener- ation, where the intensity µa (µb) not only impacts the quantum bit error rate but also inﬂuences the probabil...

work page 2000
[3]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s the- orem, Physical Review Letters 67, 661 (1991)

1991
[4]

Lo and H

H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Unconditional security of quan- tum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances, Sci- ence 283, 2050 (1999)

1999
[5]

P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol, Physical Review Letters 85, 441 (2000)

work page 2000
[6]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (1984) p. 175

work page 1984
[7]

Pirandola, R

S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions, Nature Communications 8, 1 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Lucamarini, Z

M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters, Nature 557, 400 (2018)

2018

Show all 39 references

[9]

Pittaluga, M

M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, M. Lucamarini, M. San- zaro, R. I. Woodward, M.-J. Li, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, 600-km repeater-like quantum communications with dual-band stabilization, Nature Photonics 15, 530 (2021)

2021
[10]

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, et al., Experimental twin-ﬁeld quantum key distribution over 1000 km ﬁber distance, Physical Review Letters 130, 210801 (2023)

2023
[11]

P. Zeng, H. Zhou, W. Wu, and X. Ma, Mode-pairing quantum key distribution, Nature Communications 13, 3903 (2022)

2022
[12]

Xie, Y.-S

Y.-M. Xie, Y.-S. Lu, C.-X. Weng, X.-Y. Cao, Z.-Y. Jia, Y. Bao, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, 9 Breaking the rate-loss bound of quantum key distribution with asynchronous two-photon interference, PRX Quan- tum 3, 020315 (2022)

2022
[13]

H.-T. Zhu, Y. Huang, H. Liu, P. Zeng, M. Zou, Y. Dai, S. Tang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, et al. , Experimental mode-pairing measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution without global phase locking, Physical Review Letters 130, 030801 (2023)

2023
[14]

L. Zhou, J. Lin, Y.-M. Xie, Y.-S. Lu, Y. Jing, H.-L. Yin, and Z. Yuan, Experimental quantum communica- tion overcomes the rate-loss limit without global phase tracking, Physical Review Letters 130, 250801 (2023)

2023
[15]

H.-T. Zhu, Y. Huang, W.-X. Pan, C.-W. Zhou, J. Tang, H. He, M. Cheng, X. Jin, M. Zou, S. Tang, et al. , Field test of mode-pairing quantum key distribution, Optica 11, 883 (2024)

2024
[16]

Z. Li, T. Dou, M. Cheng, Y. Liu, and J. Tang, Field ex- perimental mode-pairing quantum key distribution with intensity ﬂuctuations, Optics Letters 49, 6609 (2024)

2024
[17]

Tang, H.-L

Y.-L. Tang, H.-L. Yin, Q. Zhao, H. Liu, X.-X. Sun, M.- Q. Huang, W.-J. Zhang, S.-J. Chen, L. Zhang, L.-X. You, et al. , Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution over untrustful metropolitan network, Physical Review X 6, 011024 (2016)

2016
[18]

Rubenok, J

A. Rubenok, J. A. Slater, P. Chan, I. Lucio-Martinez, and W. Tittel, Real-world two-photon interference and proof-of-principle quantum key distribution immune to detector attacks, Physical Review Letters 111, 130501 (2013)

2013
[19]

Z. Lu, G. Wang, C. Li, and Z. Cao, Asymmetric mode- pairing quantum key distribution, Physical Review A 109, 012401 (2024)

2024
[20]

M¨ uller-Quade and R

J. M¨ uller-Quade and R. Renner, Composability in quan- tum cryptography, New Journal of Physics 11, 085006 (2009)

2009
[21]

Chau, Security of ﬁnite-key-length measurement- device-independent quantum key distribution using an arbitrary number of decoys, Physical Review A 102, 012611 (2020)

H. Chau, Security of ﬁnite-key-length measurement- device-independent quantum key distribution using an arbitrary number of decoys, Physical Review A 102, 012611 (2020)

2020
[22]

Jiang, Z.-W

C. Jiang, Z.-W. Yu, X.-L. Hu, and X.-B. Wang, Higher key rate of measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution through joint data processing, Physical Review A 103, 012402 (2021)

2021
[23]

J. L. Carter and M. N. Wegman, Universal classes of hash functions, in Proceedings of the ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (1977) pp. 106–112

1977
[24]

Tomamichel, C

M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Ren- ner, Tight ﬁnite-key analysis for quantum cryptography, Nature Communications 3, 634 (2012)

2012
[25]

Tomamichel and R

M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Uncertainty relation for smooth entropies, Physical Review Letters 106, 110506 (2011)

2011
[26]

Renner, Security of quantum key distribution, Inter- national Journal of Quantum Information 6, 1 (2008)

R. Renner, Security of quantum key distribution, Inter- national Journal of Quantum Information 6, 1 (2008)

2008
[27]

Curty, F

M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C. C. W. Lim, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Finite-key analysis for measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Nature commu- nications 5, 3732 (2014)

2014
[28]

Yin, M.-G

H.-L. Yin, M.-G. Zhou, J. Gu, Y.-M. Xie, Y.-S. Lu, and Z.-B. Chen, Tight security bounds for decoy-state quan- tum key distribution, Scientiﬁc Reports 10, 1 (2020)

2020
[29]

Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Physical Review Let- ters 94, 230503 (2005)

X.-B. Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Physical Review Let- ters 94, 230503 (2005)

2005
[30]

H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Decoy state quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

2005
[31]

F. Xu, M. Curty, B. Qi, and H.-K. Lo, Practical aspects of measurement-device-independent quantum key distri- bution, New Journal of Physics 15, 113007 (2013)

2013
[32]

C.-H. F. Fung, X. Ma, and H. Chau, Practical issues in quantum-key-distribution postprocessing, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 81, 012318 (2010)

2010
[33]

C. C. W. Lim, M. Curty, N. Walenta, F. Xu, and H. Zbinden, Concise security bounds for practical decoy- state quantum key distribution, Physical Review A 89, 022307 (2014)

2014
[34]

Chau, Decoy-state quantum key distribution with more than three types of photon intensity pulses, Physi- cal Review A 97, 040301 (2018)

H. Chau, Decoy-state quantum key distribution with more than three types of photon intensity pulses, Physi- cal Review A 97, 040301 (2018)

2018
[35]

W. Wang, F. Xu, and H.-K. Lo, Asymmetric protocols for scalable high-rate measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution networks, Physical Review X 9, 041012 (2019)

2019
[36]

Wang and H.-K

W. Wang and H.-K. Lo, Simple method for asymmet- ric twin-ﬁeld quantum key distribution, New Journal of Physics 22, 013020 (2020)

2020
[37]

F. Xu, H. Xu, and H.-K. Lo, Protocol choice and param- eter optimization in decoy-state measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Physical Review A 89, 052333 (2014)

2014
[38]

F. Xu, B. Qi, and H.-K. Lo, Experimental demonstration of phase-remapping attack in a practical quantum key distribution system, New Journal of Physics 12, 113026 (2010)

2010
[39]

Kennedy, Particle swarm optimization, in Encyclopedia of Machine Learning , edited by C

J. Kennedy, Particle swarm optimization, in Encyclopedia of Machine Learning , edited by C. Sam- mut and G. I. Webb (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2010) pp. 760–766. Test Figure Wide Test Figure

2010

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

It is reasonable and intuitive to expect that the particles, after initialization, should satisfy Eq

Lines 1- 11 initialize the position, velocity, individual best, and global best of the particle swarm. It is reasonable and intuitive to expect that the particles, after initialization, should satisfy Eq. ( III). An often overlooked detail is that the intermediate parameters must also adhere to 7 their physical signiﬁcance as shown below 0 < n Z (ka,kb), ...

work page

[2] [2]

2, it can be observed that the value of ηaµa ηbµb is signiﬁcantly distant from 1, largely deviating from the condition ηaµa ≈ ηbµb

Addition- ally, from Fig. 2, it can be observed that the value of ηaµa ηbµb is signiﬁcantly distant from 1, largely deviating from the condition ηaµa ≈ ηbµb. The reason for this phenomenon is that the signal state is primarily used for key gener- ation, where the intensity µa (µb) not only impacts the quantum bit error rate but also inﬂuences the probabil...

work page 2000

[3] [3]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s the- orem, Physical Review Letters 67, 661 (1991)

1991

[4] [4]

Lo and H

H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Unconditional security of quan- tum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances, Sci- ence 283, 2050 (1999)

1999

[5] [5]

P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the bb84 quantum key distribution protocol, Physical Review Letters 85, 441 (2000)

work page 2000

[6] [6]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (1984) p. 175

work page 1984

[7] [7]

Pirandola, R

S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions, Nature Communications 8, 1 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Lucamarini, Z

M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters, Nature 557, 400 (2018)

2018