Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references

The Initial Experimental Guide to Implement QKD Polarization Encoding System at Telecom Wavelength

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 5 km fiber link carried 3000 polarization-encoded QKD bits at 10 bits per second with reported error under 1%.

desk verdict A teaching-lab writeup that overclaims QKD; the QBER is not independently measured, the numbers are internally inconsistent, and the architecture is already in the cited literature. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02656 v1 pith:EUEEHFLJ submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Zeshan Haider This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionpolarizationencodingweakcoherentpulses1550nmtelecomwavelengthphasemodulatorbirefringencesingle-photonavalanchedetectorbiterrorrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a laboratory-scale quantum key distribution experiment that encodes bits as horizontal or vertical polarization of weak coherent pulses at 1550 nm. Alice sends 10 pulses per second through a 5 km fiber, and Bob separates the two polarizations with a polarizing beam splitter while detecting only the horizontal arm. In a five-minute run the authors report exchanging 3000 bits, with zero bit-flip errors in the first 2.5 minutes and a total quantum bit error rate below one percent. The goal is to establish that the simplest single-basis polarization setup can work on a telecom fiber, and to document the synchronization and alignment steps needed to build it.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the Pockel-cell phase modulator: an FPGA applies a random 0 V or 4 V on each cycle of a 10 Hz master clock, and the lithium-niobate crystal converts those voltages into phase shifts $\varphi=0$ or $\varphi=\pi$ between horizontal and vertical field components, preparing each weak coherent pulse as $|\psi\rangle=\cos(\varphi/2)|H\rangle+\sin(\varphi/2)|V\rangle$. The same master clock synchronizes the intensity modulator, the phase modulator, and the time-tagging unit, so each pulse is aligned with the voltage that encoded it. At Bob, a polarizing beam splitter sends H light to the single-photon detector and V light away from it; the two count levels are separated by a fixed threshold, the data-processing step that actually converts optical counts into bits.

What would settle it

Send a known alternating H/V sequence over the same 5 km fiber with the count-rate threshold fixed before the run begins, decode the bits from the recorded counts, and compare the decoded sequence to the sent one for the full five minutes. If errors appear before the 2.5-minute mark, or if the measured H and V count distributions overlap substantially at any point, the claimed zero-error interval and sub-1% QBER do not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a polarization-encoded channel with one basis, one detector arm, and 10 Hz clocking can carry key material over 5 km of standard fiber. Horizontal and vertical states are prepared by applying 0 V or 4 V to a lithium-niobate phase modulator, and Bob reconstructs the bits from the count rate measured by a single InGaAs single-photon detector behind a polarizing beam splitter: roughly $2\times 10^4$ counts per second marks H, and roughly $7.5\times 10^3$ counts per second marks V. The authors report that no bit was flipped for the first 2.5 minutes and that the QBER stayed below one percent across the five-minute observation period, after which polarization drift lowered the contrast between the two states.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that a fixed count-rate threshold, chosen after the data were already recorded, will keep cleanly separating horizontal from vertical pulses over 5 km of ordinary fiber for at least 2.5 minutes, even though the fiber's birefringence is drifting and no active polarization compensation is running.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single polarization basis and a single detector arm are enough to move 3000 bits over 5 km at 10 bit/s with reported error below one percent.
  • Because the key rate is fixed by the 10 Hz master clock, increasing the clock frequency is the paper's stated route to higher bit rates.
  • The slow drift that appears after 2.5 minutes stays small enough that ordinary error correction can clean the channel without fast active compensation.
  • Removing sifting simplifies Bob's receiver, but it also means the demonstration operates outside the full BB84 security model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The QBER figure is not fully independent: the same threshold used to classify bits was selected after viewing the data, so a pre-registered threshold test would be a stricter check of the scheme.
  • The 2.5-minute stable window is a drift timescale, not a physical limit; active birefringence compensation or polarization-maintaining fiber should extend it, and the setup's own references suggest those routes.
  • A two-basis extension, adding a diagonal basis, would restore sifting and close the single-basis security gap at the cost of a second detection arm or faster phase modulation.
  • At 10 bit/s and only 3000 bits, finite-key effects and photon-number-splitting vulnerabilities dominate, so the result is best read as a feasibility and training demonstration of the optical channel, not as a secure key source.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a low-speed (10 Hz) polarization-encoding QKD setup over 5 km of fiber at 1550 nm, using weak coherent pulses, a single H-arm SPAD, and count-rate thresholding to recover bits. The authors claim that 3000 binary bits were distributed in 5 minutes, with zero QBER for the first 2.5 minutes and QBER below 1% overall. The stated purpose is to serve as an initial experimental guide for laboratory-scale demonstrations of polarization-encoded QKD.

Significance. If the central claims were reproducible and the QBER were independently measured, this would be a modest training demonstration rather than a novel scientific result. The system uses a single polarization basis, has no sifting, no decoy states, no privacy amplification, and explicitly operates with multiphoton pulses; as such, it does not demonstrate QKD in any cryptographically meaningful sense. The manuscript does provide a useful component-level checklist and a clear schematic that could help a student assemble a polarization-encoding testbed, and it honestly acknowledges several of its own limitations. However, the experimental evidence is internally inconsistent, and the reported error rate is not an independent metric because the same data are used both to choose the H/V discrimination threshold and to estimate the QBER.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II] The phase-to-voltage mapping is stated inconsistently. The text first says 'at φ = 0 or V = 0 V (φ = π or V = 4 V), we get H-polarized (V-polarized) light,' but later says 'In Fig. 4, it is marked that the voltage level 0 V (4V) modulates the refractive index ... inducing the phase shift φ = π (φ = 0).' These two sentences assign opposite phase shifts to the same voltages, and the reader cannot tell whether a calibration error or a typographical slip is present. Since the entire bit-recovery scheme rests on the 0 V / 4 V assignments, this contradiction must be resolved.
  2. [Section II, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7] The reported count rates are mutually inconsistent by orders of magnitude. Fig. 2 states that after 5 km the 'peak photonic counts are ≈ 1.2 × 10^6 per second,' Fig. 4 states '≈ 4.5 × 10^4 counts/sec' for the H-polarized case, and Fig. 5 reports '≈ 2 × 10^4 counts' for H and '≈ 7.5 × 10^3 counts' for V. Fig. 7 then states that vertically polarized pulses sit at the dark-count level. These numbers cannot all describe the same system under the same operating conditions. Because the threshold method depends on the relative heights of these count distributions, the inconsistency directly affects the reliability of the bit-recovery and QBER claims.
  3. [Section II, Figs. 6–8] The reported QBER is not an independent measurement. Bob's decision rule is described as separating 'two levels of counts above the dark counts' and associating them with H or V, with the threshold effectively chosen from the observed data (e.g., the ≈2×10^4 vs ≈7.5×10^3 levels in Fig. 5 and the 'dark count level' in Fig. 7). The same 5-minute record is then used to estimate the QBER in Fig. 8. A threshold selected post hoc will always 'explain' the data on which it was fit; the claimed <1% error rate therefore does not characterize channel quality. The authors should pre-register a fixed threshold from a separate calibration run and apply it to the full raw timetag stream, or report a per-instance decision rule with confidence intervals.
  4. [Abstract and Section II] The claim of 'key distribution' is not supported by any security analysis, and the paper's own acknowledgments of multiphoton pulses and the PNS attack make this a central limitation, not a small caveat. With an average photon number not specified, a single basis, no decoy states, and no privacy amplification, the system is a classical polarization channel with quantum-relevant components. The title and framing as a QKD implementation are therefore misleading; at best this is a proof-of-principle testbed for polarization encoding. The authors should either provide a full security analysis under explicit assumptions or explicitly relabel the demonstration as a classical channel test, in which case the 'error rate less than unity' claim has no cryptographic meaning.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III] The abstract states that '3000 binary bits were distributed ... with an error rate less than unity,' while Section III claims 'QBER remained below 1% throughout.' 'Less than unity' conventionally means less than 1, i.e., less than 100%, which is trivially true for any useful channel; this ambiguity should be fixed.
  2. [Fig. 7 and Section II] The abstract and Section II say 3000 bits were distributed in 5 minutes, which is consistent with the 10 Hz rate, but Fig. 7 is labeled 'first 5000 bits/pulses.' At 10 Hz for 5 minutes, only 3000 pulses occur, so the axis and the claim need to be reconciled.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors that impede readability: 'aLiN bO3', 'comprized', 'eleminated', 'Pockel cell' (should be 'Pockels cell'), 'SPDAD' (likely 'SPAD'), 'Oscilloscop' in Fig. 1, and inconsistent capitalization of 'Horizontal' and 'Vertical.' A careful language edit is needed.
  4. [Section II] The description of the TTU sampling is unclear: 'The temporal resolution of TTU is kept 1 × 10^-2 s that takes 100 data counts samples after each second.' At 10 Hz, this is not obviously consistent with 'one sample per cycle of the MCSS.' Please state the actual binning and selection procedure with a timing diagram or pseudocode.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The <1% QBER is not an independent result: Bob's H/V bit threshold is extracted from the same 5-minute record used to compute the error rate, so the low error rate is partly forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II, paragraphs around Figs. 5-8]
    "At Bob's end, detection data from TTU accompanied by the data of MCSS is analyzed and two levels of counts above the dark counts from the data are duly separated by associating them with the H or V polarization (0 or 1 of the binary key, respectively). ... Finally a part of the key is chunked and shared between them to estimate the QBER as shown in Fig. 8. The system is operated for 5 minutes and 3000 bits are shared between Alice and Bob on 5km long fiber link. It is worth noting that no bit is fliped for 2.5 minutes and QBER remained at zero."

    Bob's H/V decision rule is not a fixed, pre-registered instrument calibration; it is a separation level ('two levels of counts') read off from the same recorded detection data that are then used to compute the QBER. With a threshold placed anywhere between the observed H and V/V-dark count modes, the first 2.5 minutes of the record will show zero errors by construction, and the overall <1% QBER is an artifact of fitting the classifier to the very dataset on which it is evaluated. The reported error rate therefore does not independently validate the polarization encoding; it is a success criterion extracted from the same data it claims to characterize.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental report rather than a theoretical derivation, and most of its setup description is calibration, not circular reasoning: the 0 V and 4 V PM settings are calibrated from the observed phase-modulator response, and the fiber attenuation is measured directly. The circular element is concentrated in the QBER estimate. Bob's bit decision is defined by separating 'two levels of counts' in the received data (Sec. II, Fig. 5-6), and the same record is then used to report that no bits flipped for 2.5 minutes and that QBER remained below 1% (Fig. 8). Because the threshold is chosen after seeing the data, the zero-error interval is guaranteed for any threshold placed between two well-separated count modes; it does not constitute an independent test of the transmitted V polarization state. The paper also contains a non-circular but serious inconsistency: Fig. 5 places V pulses at roughly 7.5e3 counts above dark counts, while Fig. 7 states that vertically polarized pulses sit at the dark-count level, and Fig. 4 says all V population disappears from the H detector. This matters because with a single H-arm detector and no active birefringence compensation, the low V-pulse count cannot separately verify correct V-state transmission. Self-citations (Refs. 6, 26, 29) are not load-bearing for the main result. Overall, the central quantitative claim partially reduces to a data-fitted threshold, so the circularity score is 6 rather than 0-2.

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

The central demonstration rests on standard electro-optic and polarizing components, plus several calibration choices (4 V swing, attenuation, count thresholds) that are made on the same data that are then reported as successful. No raw data, error bars, or security model are provided, so the paper contributes a setup description rather than an independently grounded result.

free parameters (4)
  • PM switching voltage swing = 4 V
    The 0 V and 4 V levels are selected from the measured H/V response in Fig. 3; the phase modulator half-wave voltage is not independently calibrated, so the orthogonality of the states is set empirically.
  • EVOA attenuation level = -21.55 dBm for 5 km
    The attenuation is 'adjusted keeping in view the length of the quantum channel' and reported as a single operating point with no systematic scan or uncertainty.
  • H/V count-rate threshold = Between observed 7.5e3 and 2e4 counts/s
    Bits are assigned by comparing counts against the two observed levels; the threshold is chosen after inspecting the measured distribution, not predicted from detector or channel parameters.
  • MCSS repetition rate = 10 Hz
    The 10 pulses/s clock directly sets the 10 bit/s key rate; this is an experimental choice rather than a fitted constant, but the central rate claim depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The phase modulator induces a phase shift phi between H and V components, with state |psi> = cos(phi/2)|H> + sin(phi/2)|V>.
    Used in Section II to map 0 V to H and 4 V to V. This is standard electro-optic behavior, but the V-pi calibration is not measured.
  • domain assumption The polarizing beam splitter sends horizontal light to the single detector and vertical light away from it, so vertical pulses yield only dark counts when the states are orthogonal.
    Invoked in Section II and Fig. 3; assumes an ideal PBS and stable fiber polarization over the measurement window.
  • domain assumption Dark counts and leakage are low enough that a single count-rate threshold can separate H from V pulses.
    Load-bearing for bit assignment in Figs. 5-7, but no dark count statistics or signal-to-noise analysis are given.
  • ad hoc to paper Using a single polarization basis eliminates the need for sifting and is adequate for a QKD demonstration.
    Stated in Section II: 'working in one polarization basis ... eliminates the step of sifting.' This is only true pedagogically; it does not constitute a secure QKD protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Initial Experimental Guide to Implement QKD Polarization Encoding System at Telecom Wavelength." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUEEHFLJ

@misc{pith2026250602656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Initial Experimental Guide to Implement QKD Polarization Encoding System at Telecom Wavelength},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUEEHFLJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02656}
}
abstract

The experimental implementation of the polarization encoding system is presented using weak coherent pulses at a low enough frequency. The optical pulses are generated through intensity modulation at the repetition rate of $10$ pulses/sec with the intensity of $7\mu W$, whose polarization is modulated by the Pockel cell. For a $ 5$ km long fiber link, the key rate is thus limited to $ 10$ bits/sec accompanied by temporal synchronization among the Intensity Modulator (IM), Pockel cell, and the gate of the detector. The system was continuously operated for $5$ minutes, and $3000$ binary bits were distributed between two nodes with an error rate less than unity. We have used only a single polarization basis, i.e., horizontal and vertical polarizations, as the objective of this experiment is to validate the feasibility of the setup under simplified conditions, intended primarily for the laboratory-scale demonstrations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02656 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The optical intensity modulation is sketched for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The schematic diagram for the experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The working of the phase modulator and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The optical intensity and the applied voltages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The real-time detection result at the receiver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Illustration of how Bob extracts his key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: QBER plotted as a function of time (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theoreti- cal computer science 560, 7 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Ribordy, J

    G. Ribordy, J. Brendel, J.-D. Gautier, N. Gisin, and H. Zbinden, Long-distance entanglement-based quantum key distribution, Physical Review A 63, 012309 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Jennewein, C

    T. Jennewein, C. Simon, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum cryptography with entangled pho- tons, Physical review letters 84, 4729 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    D. G. Enzer, P. G. Hadley, R. J. Hughes, C. G. Peterson, and P. G. Kwiat, Entangled-photon six-state quantum cryptography, New Journal of Physics 4, 45 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Ma, C.-H

    X. Ma, C.-H. F. Fung, and H.-K. Lo, Quantum key distri- bution with entangled photon sources, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76, 012307 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    This strategy shrinks the large data samples into one sample per cycle of the MCSS and helps to generate the raw key. The nine samples, for example, are retained based on the arrival of MCSS and the count rate level of ≈ 2 × 104 (≈ 7.5 × 103) can be linked to the H (V) polar- izations measured by the H-detector in Fig. 6. Ideally, the H-detector must be a...

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    M. H. Saeed, H. Sattar, M. H. Durad, and Z. Haider, Im- plementation of qkd bb84 protocol in qiskit, in 2022 19th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 689–695

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    J. Chen, G. Wu, L. Xu, X. Gu, E. Wu, and H. Zeng, Stable quantum key distribution with active polarization control based on time-division multiplexing, New Journal of Physics 11, 065004 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Xavier, N

    G. Xavier, N. Walenta, G. V. de Faria, G. Tempor˜ ao, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden, and J.-P. Von Der Weid, Exper- imental polarization encoded quantum key distribution over optical fibres with real-time continuous birefringence compensation, New Journal of Physics11, 045015 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Agnesi, M

    C. Agnesi, M. Avesani, A. Stanco, P. Villoresi, and G. Vallone, All-fiber self-compensating polarization en- coder for quantum key distribution, Optics letters 44, 2398 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Brassard, N

    G. Brassard, N. L¨ utkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, Limitations on practical quantum cryptography, Physical review letters 85, 1330 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Zhao, C.-H

    Y. Zhao, C.-H. F. Fung, B. Qi, C. Chen, and H.-K. Lo, Quantum hacking: Experimental demonstration of time- shift attack against practical quantum-key-distribution systems, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 78, 042333 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Kraus, C

    B. Kraus, C. Branciard, and R. Renner, Security of quantum-key-distribution protocols using two-way clas- sical communication or weak coherent pulses, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 75, 012316 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Li, W.-s

    Y. Li, W.-s. Bao, H.-w. Li, C. Zhou, and Y. Wang, Pas- sive decoy-state quantum key distribution using weak co- herent pulses with intensity fluctuations, Physical Review A 89, 032329 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Zapatero, ´A

    V. Zapatero, ´A. Navarrete, and M. Curty, Implemen- tation security in quantum key distribution, Advanced Quantum Technologies 8, 2300380 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Ashkenazy, Y

    A. Ashkenazy, Y. Idan, D. Korn, D. Fixler, B. Dayan, and E. Cohen, Photon number splitting attack–proposal and analysis of an experimental scheme, Advanced Quantum Technologies 7, 2300437 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Avanesov and D

    A. Avanesov and D. Kronberg, Generalized photon- number-splitting attack on a coherent one-way quantum- key-distribution protocol, Physical Review A 111, 042601 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H.-K. Lo, Practical de- coy state for quantum key distribution, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 72, 012326 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Y. Zhao, B. Qi, X. Ma, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, Ex- perimental quantum key distribution with decoy states, Physical review letters 96, 070502 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Rosenberg, J

    D. Rosenberg, J. W. Harrington, P. R. Rice, P. A. Hiskett, C. G. Peterson, R. J. Hughes, A. E. Lita, 6 S. W. Nam, and J. E. Nordholt, Long-distance decoy- state quantum key distribution in optical fiber, Physical review letters 98, 010503 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Schmitt-Manderbach, H

    T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, M. F¨ urst, R. Ursin, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Scheidl, J. Perdigues, Z. Sodnik, C. Kurtsiefer, J. G. Rarity, et al., Experimental demon- stration of free-space decoy-state quantum key distribu- tion over 144 km, Physical Review Letters 98, 010504 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    F.-Y. Lu, X. Lin, S. Wang, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, P. Ye, R. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, et al., Intensity modulator for secure, stable, and high- performance decoy-state quantum key distribution, npj Quantum Information 7, 75 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Rosenblum, O

    S. Rosenblum, O. Bechler, I. Shomroni, Y. Lovsky, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, Extraction of a single photon from an optical pulse, Nature Photonics 10, 19 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Pasharavesh and M

    A. Pasharavesh and M. Bajcsy, A sprint-based single pho- ton subtractor for pns attacks on qkd, in 2024 Photonics North (PN) (IEEE, 2024) pp. 1–2

    2024

  17. [25]

    Huang, A

    R. Huang, A. Miranowicz, J.-Q. Liao, F. Nori, and H. Jing, Nonreciprocal photon blockade, Physical review letters 121, 153601 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Hamsen, K

    C. Hamsen, K. N. Tolazzi, T. Wilk, and G. Rempe, Two- photon blockade in an atom-driven cavity qed system, Physical review letters 118, 133604 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Haider, S

    Z. Haider, S. Qamar, and M. Irfan, Multiphoton block- ade and antibunching in an optical cavity coupled with dipole-dipole-interacting λ-type atoms, Physical Review A 107, 043702 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    D. K. Thapa and S. Biswas, Single photon generation from quantum dots: recent advances, challenges and fu- ture directions, Nanoscale 17, 7651 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    S. E. Thomas, L. Wagner, R. Joos, R. Sittig, C. Nawrath, P. Burdekin, I. M. de Buy Wenniger, M. J. Rasiah, T. Huber-Loyola, S. Sagona-Stophel, et al., Deterministic storage and retrieval of telecom light from a quantum dot single-photon source interfaced with an atomic quantum...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Haider, M

    Z. Haider, M. H. Saeed, M. E.-u.-H. Zaheer, Z. A. Alvi, M. Ilyas, T. Nasreen, M. Imran, R. U. Islam, and M. Ikram, Quantum random number generator (qrng): theoretical and experimental investigations, The Euro- pean Physical Journal Plus 138, 797 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Dixon and H

    A. Dixon and H. Sato, High speed and adaptable error correction for megabit/s rate quantum key distribution, Scientific reports 4, 7275 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    G¨ um¨ u¸ s, T

    K. G¨ um¨ u¸ s, T. A. Eriksson, M. Takeoka, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, L. Schmalen, and A. Alvarado, A novel error correction protocol for continuous variable quantum key distribution, Scientific reports 11, 10465 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.