Secure Quantum Key Distribution Using a Room-Temperature Quantum Emitter

Daniel K. L. Oi; Furkan A\u{g}larc{\i}; Mustafa G\"undo\u{g}an; \"Omer S. Tap\c{s}{\i}n; Roberto G. Pousa; Serkan Ate\c{s}

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Secure Quantum Key Distribution Using a Room-Temperature Quantum Emitter

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single defect in hexagonal boron nitride, operated at room temperature, can run the B92 quantum key distribution protocol at 40 MHz with a finite-key secure key rate of 7 kbps, the fastest dynamically modulated…

desk verdict A real experimental advance in high-speed room-temperature single-photon modulation, but the headline secure key rate does not follow from the implemented receiver, as the authors admit. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13902 v2 pith:B5DC7R4F submitted 2025-01-23 quant-ph

Ömer S. Tapş{i}n , Furkan Ağlarc{i} , Roberto G. Pousa , Daniel K. L. Oi , Mustafa Gündoğan , Serkan Ateş This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumkeydistributionhexagonalboronnitridesingle-photonsourceB92protocolroom-temperatureemitterfinite-keysecuritypolarizationencodingtemporalfiltering

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The authors report a quantum key distribution experiment in which single photons from a defect in hexagonal boron nitride, kept at room temperature, are encoded with polarization states at a 40 MHz clock rate under the B92 protocol. They claim a sifted key rate of 17.5 kbps, a quantum bit error rate of 6.49%, and a finite-key secure key rate of 7 kbps, which they describe as one of the highest for a room-temperature single-photon source with active polarization encoding. If correct, this would show that defects in hBN can serve as practical, compact, non-cryogenic sources for QKD, and would establish the fastest dynamically modulated B92 system to date. The claim matters because room-temperature operation removes the need for bulky cryogenic equipment, a major barrier to real-world quantum communication.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the B92 two-state protocol, in which Alice encodes non-orthogonal polarization states ($|V\rangle$ and $|D\rangle$) and Bob randomly chooses between two measurement bases using a 50:50 beam splitter and polarizing beam splitters. The finite-key security proof of Ref. [42] bounds the secret key length via the smooth-Rényi entropy uncertainty relation $H^{\bar\varepsilon}_{\min}(X_A|E) + H^{\bar\varepsilon}_{\max}(Z_A|B) \geq q$, with $q=1$ assumed for perfect qubits. Temporal filtering, based on the emitter's decay time, is used to optimize the sifted key rate and QBER; this is the same technique previously applied to quantum-dot sources. The mean photon number before the quantum channel is $\mu = 0.0131$, and the receiver efficiency is $\eta_{\mathrm{rec}} = 0.42$.

What would settle it

Measure the actual positive-operator-valued measure of Bob's receiver and show that the effective quality factor $q$ is strictly less than 1, or simulate an unambiguous state discrimination attack on the reported parameters and show that an eavesdropper would harvest a non-negligible fraction of the 7 kbps 'secure' key. If either is demonstrated, the central secure-key-rate claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single defect in hexagonal boron nitride, emitting at 626 nm with a lifetime of 4.58 ns and single-photon purity $g^{(2)}(0)=0.24$, can act as an on-demand single-photon source for the B92 protocol at a 40 MHz repetition rate. Using temporal filtering of the photon arrival window, the authors obtain a sifted key rate of 17.5 kbps, a QBER of 6.49%, and a finite-key secure key rate of 7 kbps based on a smooth-Rényi entropy bound. The paper further argues that with cavity coupling and reduced experimental losses, the same source could approach megabit-per-second key rates, and that a single quantum repeater node with memory times on the order of 10 ms would allow this platform to outperform point-to-point QKD over longer distances.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-key B92 security proof is assumed to apply to a receiver that only performs two projective measurements (a 50:50 beam splitter and polarizing beam splitters), by setting the quality factor $q=1$ for perfect qubits, even though the authors explicitly note this configuration is vulnerable to unambiguous state discrimination attacks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the rates hold, room-temperature QKD no longer requires cryogenic coolers, lowering cost and size for field deployments.
The demonstration sets a benchmark clock rate of 40 MHz for active polarization encoding with a room-temperature single-photon source, which future two-state QKD implementations can compare against.
The temporal filtering technique, previously used for quantum dots, is shown to transfer to hBN emitters and to be essential for optimizing QBER and key rate.
The finite-key analysis, if valid, gives a concrete secure key rate for practical block sizes rather than an asymptotic limit.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that the 40 MHz clock rate is not an intrinsic limit of hBN emitters; the authors note the emitter's short lifetime could support higher speeds if the pulse driving the electro-optic modulator is optimized.
If the same hBN source were used in a BB84 implementation, rather than B92, the larger state set would likely offer better loss tolerance and resilience to unambiguous state discrimination attacks, as the paper's own simulations suggest.
The paper's comparison with cryogenic quantum-dot sources is informative only if the security assumptions are aligned; a direct experimental BB84 implementation with the same emitter would provide a fairer benchmark.
The claimed 'record' status depends on the chosen comparison class (room-temperature, active-encoding, single-photon-source QKD); excluding passive-encoding or cryogenic sources changes the ranking.

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

Let me give you the short version: the experiment is real and worth knowing about, but the paper's central number—the 7 kbps secure key rate—doesn't hold for the device they actually built.

The genuinely new thing is the 40 MHz dynamic polarization encoding of single photons from an hBN defect at room temperature. Previous hBN QKD runs were at 1 and 0.5 MHz, so this is a solid step forward. The source characterization (lifetime 4.58 ns, g2(0)=0.24, purity) is consistent, and the sifted key rate of 17.5 kbps with QBER 6.49% is a measured result that appears plausible. The temporal filtering maps are a nice way to visualize the tradeoff.

The soft spot is the security claim. The finite-key SKR is computed from the B92 proof of Mafu et al. (Ref. [42]), which assumes a three-outcome POVM with an inconclusive result. The actual receiver is a 50:50 beamsplitter followed by PBSs, giving only two projective outcomes. The authors themselves write that this 'weakens security, allowing Eve to exploit imperfections through unambiguous state discrimination.' They set q=1 for 'perfect qubits,' but the measurement isn't the ideal POVM, so the entropy bound does not apply to the demonstrated configuration. That means the 7 kbps number is not a secure key rate for this experiment. It's a conditional rate under an idealized measurement assumption. This isn't a minor detail; it's the headline claim.

Minor issues: the temporal filter window is optimized on the same data that yields the headline rates, and there are no error bars on the efficiency values. Those are fixable. The BB84 and repeater calculations are reasonable but standard; they don't add new theory.

Overall, this is a useful platform demonstration, but it is not yet a demonstration of secure QKD. The fix is to either implement a proper B92 measurement with an inconclusive outcome (or use a security proof that covers two-outcome measurements), or clearly label the SKR as an ideal-measurement projection. As is, I'd reject, but this deserves a serious referee to push for that revision rather than a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a room-temperature B92 quantum key distribution demonstration using a single defect in hexagonal boron nitride, with active polarization encoding at a 40 MHz clock rate. The authors measure a sifted key rate of 17.5 kbps, a QBER of 6.49%, and claim a finite-key secure key rate of 7 kbps. They also present performance simulations for non-decoy efficient BB84 and a single-node quantum repeater based on parameters of their emitter, and discuss possible future improvements.

Significance. If the secure key rate claim were justified, the demonstration would be a notable step for room-temperature single-photon QKD with active encoding, and the parameterized simulations of BB84 and repeater performance are useful for comparing emitter platforms. The paper provides concrete experimental characterization (g2(0)=0.24, lifetime 4.58 ns, SiKR 17.5 kbps, QBER 6.49%) and detailed parameter tables that are, in principle, reproducible. However, the central security claim is not established because the finite-key proof used does not apply to the implemented receiver, a limitation the authors themselves acknowledge.

major comments (4)

[QKD section and Appendix, Eq. (3)] The finite-key analysis used to obtain the headline 7 kbps secure key rate assumes that Bob performs a three-outcome POVM with an inconclusive result and that Alice's encoded states satisfy the uncertainty relation with q=1 in Eq. (3). The implemented receiver uses only two projective measurements (50:50 beam splitter followed by PBSs) with no defined inconclusive outcome, and the authors explicitly state in the QKD section that this configuration 'allows Eve to exploit imperfections through unambiguous state discrimination (USD) measurements.' Under a USD attack, Eve can partially distinguish the two non-orthogonal states, so the bound Hmin(XA|E)+Hmax(ZA|B) ≥ q with q=1 does not apply to the actual device. No alternative security proof (e.g., measurement-device-independent, squashing, or a B92 proof tailored to two-outcome measurements) is provided. Therefore the claimed 7 kbps is not a proven secure key rate for the demonstrated system.
[Results, Fig. 3(e)] The temporal filter parameters (t0, Δt) are optimized by scanning a grid and selecting the values that maximize SKR on the same dataset that is used to report the final SKR, QBER, and SiKR. Because the reported values are a maximum over a large number of filter choices, the headline numbers are subject to selection bias; the authors should either pre-register the filter choice or evaluate the chosen filter on an independent dataset.
[Appendix, Eq. (3)] The setting q=1 is asserted for 'perfect qubits' without specifying the overlap c of the two encoded polarization states or the POVM elements used in the uncertainty relation. For the states actually prepared (|V⟩ and |D⟩, with |⟨V|D⟩|=1/√2), the quality factor is not trivially 1, and the authors do not derive it from the experimental states and measurements. This needs clarification even if the POVM issue were resolved.
[Optical characterization and QKD experiment] The B92 finite-key analysis does not account for the multi-photon component of the source (g2(0)=0.24). The security proof of Ref. [42] assumes single-photon signals, while the source has nonzero multi-photon probability (µ=0.0131 and g2(0)=0.24); no tagging, decoy, or other treatment is applied to close this loophole. This is a further gap between the security model and the experimental implementation.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'failiure' near Eq. (1), 'trasmisivity' in the asymptotic framework paragraph, and grammatical issues in the Fig. 4 caption ('These times does not generate the same block size').
[Eq. (1)] The quantity NR is described as 'number of total measured events per second', but in a finite-key bound it should be a block size (an integer number of rounds); the notation should be made consistent so that l is a key length rather than a rate.
[Table I] The comparison in Table I mixes secure key rates, sifted key rates, and asymptotic key rates obtained under different loss conditions; this should be clarified so that the claimed record is not overstated.
[Discussion / Fig. 5] The claim that a memory time of order 10^-3 s would be sufficient is based on asymptotic analysis with specific parameters; the text should state clearly that finite-key effects and realistic memory efficiencies may shift this threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims follow from measured data and external security proofs, not from the claims themselves.

full rationale

The paper's headline result, a finite-key SKR of 7 kbps, is obtained by applying an external security proof (Ref. [42], Mafu et al.) to measured sifted-key and QBER data. Eqs. (1)-(8) implement standard smooth-Renyi-entropy bounds, with q=1 justified by the B92 qubit overlap; this is an assumption about ideal qubits, not a quantity fitted to the experimental output. The temporal-filter optimization over t0 and Δt is performed on the same dataset that yields the reported SKR, so the quoted values are an empirical maximum rather than an out-of-sample prediction. This is a selection effect, but it is not a reduction of the derived key rate to the optimization criterion by construction; the SKR still depends on independently measured count rates, QBER, and leak estimation. The BB84 and quantum-repeater simulations use parameter tables (Tables II and III) and external frameworks (Refs. [43,49,53]), not the B92 result, so those projections are also not circular. Several cited works include the present authors (e.g., Refs. [34,43,53]), but they are used for comparison, for finite-key methodology, or for prior experimental context, not as the sole justification of the central claim. The main weakness in the paper is that the B92 security proof assumes a perfect three-outcome POVM, while the experiment uses two projective measurements and is admitted to be vulnerable to unambiguous state discrimination. That is a correctness or validity gap between assumptions and implementation, not a circularity in the derivation chain. No equation or parameter in the paper is shown to be equivalent by construction to the result it is used to support.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claim rests on a measured dataset plus a security proof whose applicability is the weakest link. The main free parameters are the post-hoc temporal filter window and the idealized q=1 setting; the BB84 and repeater simulations introduce additional optimized parameters. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (5)

Temporal filter start t0 = 0.5 ns
Chosen from a 2D scan (0-4 ns in 100 ps steps) to maximize the reported SKR from the same dataset; this post-hoc selection affects the headline rates.
Temporal filter width Delta t = 3-10.5 ns
Chosen together with t0 to maximize SKR; the abrupt change at 10.5 ns is attributed to the EOM drive pulse shape.
Quality factor q = 1
Set to 1 in the B92 finite-key analysis assuming perfect qubits and ideal POVM, but the implemented receiver uses two projective measurements; this idealized assumption raises the secure key rate.
Basis bias px and pre-attenuation eta_tr (BB84 simulation) = optimized per dB loss
In the expected-performance BB84 analysis, both are optimized for each channel loss point to maximize the asymptotic and finite-key rates; they are simulation choices, not experimental.
Memory time T2 (repeater simulation) = 5 ms and 10 ms
Varied to show the crossover where a single quantum repeater node outperforms direct transmission; not measured in this work.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Finite-key security proof for B92 (Ref. [42])
Used to derive the secure key length inequality (Eq. 1 and Appendix Eq. 2), including the uncertainty relation Eq. (3) with q=1. The proof assumes ideal qubits and perfect POVMs.
standard math Devetak-Winter bound and asymptotic BB84 analysis
Used for the asymptotic key rate formula (Eq. 12-13), assuming i.i.d. and infinite block size.
domain assumption Multiplicative Chernoff bound finite-key analysis for BB84 (Refs. [43,53])
Used to estimate non-multiphoton event bounds and phase error rate; the formulas are cited from prior work.
domain assumption Single-node quantum repeater model (Ref. [49])
Used for the repeater scenario in Figs. 4-5, including memory entanglement generation, Bell measurement, and position optimization; formulas are not reproduced in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure Quantum Key Distribution Using a Room-Temperature Quantum Emitter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5DC7R4F

@misc{pith2026250113902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure Quantum Key Distribution Using a Room-Temperature Quantum Emitter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5DC7R4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13902}
}

read the original abstract

On-demand generation of single photons from solid-state quantum emitters is essential to build practical quantum networks and QKD systems by potentially enabling higher secure key rates (SKR) and lower quantum bit error rates (QBER) in short-range distances. Room-temperature operation is particularly important as it eliminates the need for bulky cryogenic setups, reducing complexity and cost for real-world applications. In this work, we showcase the versatility of defects in hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) at room temperature by implementing the B92 protocol. Our experiments yield a sifted key rate (SiKR) of 17.5 kbps with a QBER of 6.49% at a dynamic polarization encoding rate of 40 MHz, and finite-key analysis provides a SKR of 7 kbps, one of the highest achieved for a room-temperature single photon source. We analyzed the non-decoy efficient BB84 using our hBN emitter and other promising quantum dot source for QKD, and compare their key performance with a single quantum repeater scenario. We also explore potential applications of hBN defects beyond QKD and analyze scenarios that could outperform conventional point-to-point QKD schemes. These results underscore the promise of hBN emitters for advancing quantum communication technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13902 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental configuration employed for the optical investigation of defects in hBN and the implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Optical characterization of investigated defect (a) PL spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) shows the normalized histogram of APD detection events at Bob, together with the decay curve of the emission obtained from the time-resolved PL measurement. As observed, while the single-photon emission is stronger in the early part of the detection window, the weaker signal at later times leads to a reduced signal-to-noise ratio. As discussed earlier, linearly polarized single-photon emission is used as the s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

[42]

M. Mafu, K. Garapo, and F. Petruccione, Physical Review A 88, 062306 (2013)

work page 2013
[1]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science 362 (2018), 10.1126/science.aam9288

doi:10.1126/science.aam9288 2018
[2]

Lu and J.-W

C.-Y . Lu and J.-W. Pan, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 1294 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

Gyongyosi and S

L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, Communications of the ACM 65, 52 (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theoretical Computer Science 560, 7 (2014)

2014
[5]

C. H. Bennett, Physical Review Letters 68, 3121 (1992)

work page 1992
[6]

Bruß, Physical Review Letters 81, 3018 (1998)

D. Bruß, Physical Review Letters 81, 3018 (1998). TABLE III. Parameters used in MA-QKD calculations Description Parameter* Value Entangled state preparation efficiency ηp 0.7 Preparation time Tp 10−6 s Fiber coupling and frequency conversion efficiency ηc 0.7 Detection efficiency ηd 0.7 BSM ideality parameter λBSM 1 BSM success probability ηBSM 0.175 Erro...

work page 1998
[7]

Inoue, E

K. Inoue, E. Waks, and Y . Yamamoto, Physical Review Letters 89, 037902 (2002)

work page 2002

Show all 78 references

[8]

A. K. Ekert, Physical Review Letters 67, 661 (1991)

1991
[9]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Physical Re- view Letters 68, 557 (1992)

1992
[10]

Hwang, Physical Review Letters91, 057901 (2003)

W.-Y . Hwang, Physical Review Letters91, 057901 (2003)

2003
[11]

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

2005
[12]

Wang, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

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

2005
[13]

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

2020
[14]

Couteau, S

C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 326 (2023)

2023
[15]

E. Waks, K. Inoue, C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuckovic, G. S. Solomon, and Y . Yamamoto, Nature420, 762 (2002)

2002
[16]

Zahidy, M

M. Zahidy, M. T. Mikkelsen, R. Müller, B. D. Lio, M. Krehbiel, Y . Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, M. Galili, S. Forch- hammer, P. Lodahl, L. K. Oxenløwe, D. Bacco, and L. Midolo, npj Quantum Information 10, 2 (2024)

2024
[17]

Zhang, X

Y . Zhang, X. Ding, Y . Li, L. Zhang, Y .-P. Guo, G.-Q. Wang, Z. Ning, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, J.-Y . Zhao, G.-Y . Zou, H. Wang, Y . Cao, Y .-M. He, C.-Z. Peng, Y .-H. Huo, S.-K. Liao, C.-Y . Lu, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, arXiv (2024), 2406.02045

2024 arXiv
[18]

Dzurnak, R

B. Dzurnak, R. M. Stevenson, J. Nilsson, J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan, J. Skiba-Szymanska, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Applied Physics Letters 107, 261101 (2015)

2015
[19]

F. B. Basset, M. Valeri, E. Roccia, V . Muredda, D. Poderini, J. Neuwirth, N. Spagnolo, M. B. Rota, G. Carvacho, F. Sciar- rino, and R. Trotta, Science Advances 7, eabe6379 (2021)

2021
[20]

Schimpf, M

C. Schimpf, M. Reindl, D. Huber, B. Lehner, S. F. C. D. Silva, S. Manna, M. Vyvlecka, P. Walther, and A. Rastelli, Science Advances 7, eabe8905 (2021)

2021
[21]

F. B. Basset, M. Valeri, J. Neuwirth, E. Polino, M. B. Rota, D. Poderini, C. Pardo, G. Rodari, E. Roccia, S. F. C. d. Silva, G. Ronco, N. Spagnolo, A. Rastelli, G. Carvacho, F. Sciarrino, and R. Trotta, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 025002 (2023)

2023
[22]

Lodahl and S

P. Lodahl and S. Stobbe, Nanophotonics 2, 39 (2013)

2013
[23]

Arakawa and M

Y . Arakawa and M. J. Holmes, Applied Physics Reviews 7, 021309 (2020)

2020
[24]

D. A. Vajner, L. Rickert, T. Gao, K. Kaymazlar, and T. Heindel, Advanced Quantum Technologies 5, 2100116 (2022)

2022
[25]

Xingjian, Z

Z. Xingjian, Z. Haoran, R. M. Chua, J. Eng, M. Meunier, J. A. Grieve, G. Weibo, and A. Ling, National Science Re- 10 view , nwaf147 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance- article-pdf/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaf147/62941607/nwaf147.pdf

2025 doi
[26]

Beveratos, R

A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, A. Villing, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Physical Review Letters89, 187901 (2002)

2002
[27]

Alléaume, F

R. Alléaume, F. Treussart, G. Messin, Y . Dumeige, J.-F. Roch, A. Beveratos, R. Brouri-Tualle, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, New Journal of Physics 6, 92 (2004)

2004
[28]

Leifgen, T

M. Leifgen, T. Schröder, F. Gädeke, R. Riemann, V . Métil- lon, E. Neu, C. Hepp, C. Arend, C. Becher, K. Lauritsen, and O. Benson, New Journal of Physics 16, 023021 (2014)

2014
[29]

T. T. Tran, K. Bray, M. J. Ford, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 37 (2016)

2016
[30]

Kianinia, Z.-Q

M. Kianinia, Z.-Q. Xu, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Applied Physics Reviews 9, 011306 (2022)

2022
[31]

A. R.-P. Montblanch, M. Barbone, I. Aharonovich, M. Atatüre, and A. C. Ferrari, Nature Nanotechnology 18, 555 (2023)

2023
[32]

Cholsuk, A

C. Cholsuk, A. Zand, A. Çakan, and T. V ogl, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 128, 12716 (2024)

2024
[33]

Çakan, C

A. Çakan, C. Cholsuk, A. Gale, M. Kianinia, S. Paçal, S. Ate¸ s, I. Aharonovich, M. Toth, and T. V ogl, arXiv (2024), 2410.07712

2024 arXiv
[34]

Samaner, S

C. Samaner, S. Paçal, G. Mutlu, K. Uyanık, and S. Ate¸ s, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies 5, 2200059 (2022)

2022
[35]

Al-Juboori, H

A. Al-Juboori, H. Z. J. Zeng, M. A. P. Nguyen, X. Ai, A. Laucht, A. Solntsev, M. Toth, R. Malaney, and I. Aharonovich, Advanced Quantum Technologies 6 (2023), 10.1002/qute.202300038

2023 doi
[36]

Ahmadi, S

N. Ahmadi, S. Schwertfeger, P. Werner, L. Wiese, J. Lester, E. Da Ros, J. Krause, S. Ritter, M. Abasifard, C. Cholsuk, R. G. Krämer, S. Atzeni, M. Gündo ˘gan, S. Sachidananda, D. Pardo, S. Nolte, A. Lohrmann, A. Ling, J. Bartholomäus, G. Corrielli, M. Krutzik, and T. V ogl, Ad...

2024
[37]

H. L. Stern, Q. Gu, J. Jarman, S. Eizagirre Barker, N. Mendel- son, D. Chugh, S. Schott, H. H. Tan, H. Sirringhaus, I. Aharonovich, and M. Atatüre, Nature Communications 13, 618 (2022)

2022
[38]

Durand, T

A. Durand, T. Clua-Provost, F. Fabre, P. Kumar, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, P. Udvarhelyi, A. Gali, X. Marie, C. Robert, J. M. Gérard, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, and V . Jacques, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 116902 (2023)

2023
[39]

Kupko, M

T. Kupko, M. v. Helversen, L. Rickert, J.-H. Schulze, A. Strittmatter, M. Gschrey, S. Rodt, S. Reitzenstein, and T. Heindel, npj Quantum Information 6, 29 (2020)

2020
[40]

E. Waks, C. Santori, and Y . Yamamoto, Physical Review A66, 042315 (2002)

2002
[41]

Gottesman, H

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

2004
[43]

R. G. Pousa, D. K. L. Oi, and J. Jeffers, arXiv (2024), 10.48550/arxiv.2405.19963, 2405.19963

2024 doi arXiv
[44]

Cuscó, B

R. Cuscó, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, and L. Artús, Physical Review B 94, 155435 (2016)

2016
[45]

Kumar, C

A. Kumar, C. Samaner, C. Cholsuk, T. Matthes, S. Paçal, Y . Oyun, A. Zand, R. J. Chapman, G. Saerens, R. Grange, S. Suwanna, S. Ate¸ s, and T. V ogl, ACS Nano (2024), 10.1021/acsnano.3c08940

2024 doi
[46]

Li, Z.-Q

C. Li, Z.-Q. Xu, N. Mendelson, M. Kianinia, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nanophotonics 8, 2049 (2019)

2019
[47]

L. J. Martínez, T. Pelini, V . Waselowski, J. R. Maze, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, and V . Jacques, Physical Review B 94, 121405 (2016)

2016
[48]

Tomamichel, J

M. Tomamichel, J. Martinez-Mateo, C. Pacher, and D. Elkouss, Quantum Information Processing 16, 280 (2017), 1401.5194

2017 arXiv
[49]

Luong, L

D. Luong, L. Jiang, J. Kim, and N. Lütkenhaus, Appl. Phys. B 122, 96 (2016)

2016
[50]

Dušek, M

M. Dušek, M. Jahma, and N. Lütkenhaus, Physical Review A 62 (2000), 10.1103/physreva.62.022306

2000 doi
[51]

Ko, B.-S

H. Ko, B.-S. Choi, J.-S. Choe, and C. J. Youn, Quantum Infor- mation Processing 17 (2017), 10.1007/s11128-017-1784-7

2017 doi
[52]

Tamaki and N

K. Tamaki and N. Lütkenhaus, Physical Review A 69 (2004), 10.1103/physreva.69.032316

2004 doi
[53]

C. L. Morrison, R. G. Pousa, F. Graffitti, Z. X. Koong, P. Bar- row, N. G. Stoltz, D. Bouwmeester, J. Jeffers, D. K. L. Oi, B. D. Gerardot, and A. Fedrizzi, Nature Communications 14, 3573 (2023)

2023
[54]

V ogl, R

T. V ogl, R. Lecamwasam, B. C. Buchler, Y . Lu, and P. K. Lam, ACS Photonics 6, 1955 (2019)

2019
[55]

Murtaza, M

G. Murtaza, M. Colautti, M. Hilke, P. Lombardi, F. S. Catal- iotti, A. Zavatta, D. Bacco, and C. Toninelli, Optics Express 31, 9437 (2023)

2023
[56]

Heindel, C

T. Heindel, C. A. Kessler, M. Rau, C. Schneider, M. Fürst, F. Hargart, W.-M. Schulz, M. Eichfelder, R. Roßbach, S. Nauerth, M. Lermer, H. Weier, M. Jetter, M. Kamp, S. Reitzenstein, S. Höfling, P. Michler, H. Weinfurter, and A. Forchel, New Journal of Physics 14, 083001 (2012)

2012
[57]

J. Yang, Z. Jiang, F. Benthin, J. Hanel, T. Fandrich, R. Joos, S. Bauer, S. Kolatschek, A. Hreibi, E. P. Rugeramigabo, M. Jet- ter, S. L. Portalupi, M. Zopf, P. Michler, S. Kück, and F. Ding, Light: Science & Applications 13, 150 (2024)

2024
[58]

T. Gao, M. v. Helversen, C. Antón-Solanas, C. Schneider, and T. Heindel, npj 2D Materials and Applications 7, 4 (2023)

2023
[59]

C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Phys. Rev. X9, 031045 (2019)

2019
[60]

P.-J. Stas, Y . Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, A. Suley- manzade, B. Pingault, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, C. M. Knaut, D. R. Assumpcao, Y .-C. Wei, M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, D. D. Sukachev, H. Park, M. Lonˇcar, D. S. Levonian, and M. D. Lukin, Science 378, 557 (2022)

2022
[61]

M. H. Appel, A. Ghorbal, N. Shofer, L. Zaporski, S. Manna, S. F. C. da Silva, U. Haeusler, C. Le Gall, A. Rastelli, D. A. Gangloff, and M. Atatüre, Nature Physics (2025), 10.1038/s41567-024-02746-z

2025 doi
[62]

Gottscholl, M

A. Gottscholl, M. Diez, V . Soltamov, C. Kasper, A. Sper- lich, M. Kianinia, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, and V . Dyakonov, Science Advances 7, eabf3630 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abf3630

2021 doi
[63]

H. L. Stern, C. M. Gilardoni, Q. Gu, S. Eizagirre Barker, O. F. J. Powell, X. Deng, S. A. Fraser, L. Follet, C. Li, A. J. Ramsay, H. H. Tan, I. Aharonovich, and M. Atatüre, Nature Materials 23, 1379 (2024)

2024
[64]

M. Ye, H. Seo, and G. Galli, npj Computational Materials 5, 44 (2019)

2019
[65]

Sajid and K

A. Sajid and K. S. Thygesen, Phys. Rev. B 106, 104108 (2022)

2022
[66]

Langenfeld, P

S. Langenfeld, P. Thomas, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230506 (2021)

2021
[67]

Although we assumed a single pair of memories located at the central node, this scheme has been generalized to m pairs that yields a superior performance [78]
[68]

Haußler, G

S. Haußler, G. Bayer, R. Waltrich, N. Mendelson, C. Li, D. Hunger, I. Aharonovich, and A. Kubanek, Advanced Op- tical Materials 9, 2002218 (2021)

2021
[69]

M. A. Sakib, B. Triplett, W. Harris, N. Hussain, A. Senichev, M. Momenzadeh, J. Bocanegra, P. Vabishchevich, R. Wu, A. Boltasseva, V . M. Shalaev, and M. R. Shcherbakov, Nano 11 Letters (2024), 10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c02581

2024 doi
[70]

Dowran, U

M. Dowran, U. Kilic, S. Lamichhane, A. Erickson, J. Barker, M. Schubert, S. Liou, C. Argyropoulos, and A. Laraoui, Laser & Photonics Reviews (2024), 10.1002/lpor.202400705, 2405.09683

2024 arXiv
[71]

Abasifard, C

M. Abasifard, C. Cholsuk, R. G. Pousa, A. Kumar, A. Zand, T. Riel, D. K. L. Oi, and T. V ogl, APL Quantum 1, 016113 (2024), 2303.02106

2024 arXiv
[72]

M. Yu, J. Lee, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and J. Lee, ACS Nano (2024), 10.1021/acsnano.4c10276

2024 doi
[73]

Zhigulin, G

I. Zhigulin, G. Park, K. Yamamura, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Toth, J. Kim, and I. Aharonovich, arXiv (2025), 2501.07846

2025 arXiv
[74]

Tomamichel and R

M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 110506 (2011)

2011
[75]

Tomamichel, C

M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Nature Communications 3, 634 (2012)

2012
[76]

Tomamichel, C

M. Tomamichel, C. Schaffner, A. Smith, and R. Renner, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57, 5524 (2011)

2011
[77]

Devetak and A

I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and engineering sciences 461, 207 (2005)

2005
[78]

Trényi and N

R. Trényi and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A101, 012325 (2020)

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [42]

M. Mafu, K. Garapo, and F. Petruccione, Physical Review A 88, 062306 (2013)

work page 2013

[2] [1]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Science 362 (2018), 10.1126/science.aam9288

doi:10.1126/science.aam9288 2018

[3] [2]

Lu and J.-W

C.-Y . Lu and J.-W. Pan, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 1294 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [3]

Gyongyosi and S

L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, Communications of the ACM 65, 52 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [4]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theoretical Computer Science 560, 7 (2014)

2014

[6] [5]

C. H. Bennett, Physical Review Letters 68, 3121 (1992)

work page 1992

[7] [6]

Bruß, Physical Review Letters 81, 3018 (1998)

D. Bruß, Physical Review Letters 81, 3018 (1998). TABLE III. Parameters used in MA-QKD calculations Description Parameter* Value Entangled state preparation efficiency ηp 0.7 Preparation time Tp 10−6 s Fiber coupling and frequency conversion efficiency ηc 0.7 Detection efficiency ηd 0.7 BSM ideality parameter λBSM 1 BSM success probability ηBSM 0.175 Erro...

work page 1998

[8] [7]

Inoue, E

K. Inoue, E. Waks, and Y . Yamamoto, Physical Review Letters 89, 037902 (2002)

work page 2002