Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Passive polarization and phase stabilization scheme for Twin-Field QKD

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Sagnac-like interferometer with Faraday mirrors passively stabilizes both phase and polarization in Twin-Field QKD, holding net interferometric visibility at 95.3% for 72 hours of continuous operation.

desk verdict A solid passive-stabilization engineering result for TF-QKD, with the main gap being that the experiment stops short of a modulated, pulsed, deployed-fiber demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01205 v1 pith:FHAY3X7L submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph

Christiano M. S. Nascimento , Felipe Calliari , Guilherme P. Temporão This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P94 PACS 03.67.Hk
keywords Twin-FieldQKDSagnacinterferometerFaradaymirrorpassivepolarizationstabilizationphaseplug-and-playquantumkeydistributionfiberinterferometry
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 sets out to show that Twin-Field QKD's two hardest practical problems — keeping the phase reference stable and keeping the two interfering pulses in the same polarization — can both be solved passively, without any active feedback. It proposes a modified Sagnac interferometer that borrows the plug-and-play trick of Faraday mirrors: any polarization rotation picked up in the fiber is undone on reflection, so the pulses always recombine with matching polarizations, while the Sagnac geometry continues to cancel path-length fluctuations. A 72-hour experiment over 22 km of fiber backs this up: net visibility held at 95.3% with a 0.47% standard deviation, whereas a standard Sagnac loop drifted between 97% and 1%. The paper also shows the configuration extends to multi-user star, bus, and mixed networks. If the stabilization survives pulsed, single-photon-level operation, it would remove an entire class of active-control hardware from practical TF-QKD.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified Sagnac configuration: a Sagnac-like interferometer in which a beam splitter at Charlie's station sends two pulse halves toward Alice and Bob, each of whom reflects them with a Faraday mirror after passing them through a polarizing beamsplitter. The Faraday mirror rotates polarization by 90 degrees on reflection, so any unitary polarization rotation picked up in the fiber is undone on the return trip; the PBSs then route each returning pulse to the opposite arm, making the two halves traverse exactly the same optical path before recombining. What the machinery does is convert the polarization-matching requirement, which in a standard Sagnac setup would reduce visibility, into an automatic property of the round trip, while preserving the Sagnac phase-cancellation property.

What would settle it

Operate the modified Sagnac setup in pulsed mode with the amplitude and phase modulators active and single-photon-level returns, while applying rapid, non-reciprocal polarization perturbations, for example squeezing or bending a short section of the fiber at frequencies comparable to or faster than the round-trip time; if the net visibility drops by more than the roughly 0.5% level seen in the 72-hour spool test, the assumption that the two counter-propagating pulses experience identical fiber transformations is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that adding Faraday mirrors to a Sagnac-style beamsplitter network converts it into a modified Sagnac interferometer in which polarization drift is compensated passively, so the two counter-propagating pulse halves always return to the beamsplitter in the same polarization state. Because the two halves still travel the same optical path in opposite directions, path-length and phase fluctuations cancel as in a standard Sagnac loop, while the Faraday mirrors guarantee polarization reciprocity. The claim is supported by a 72-hour continuous-wave experiment over 22 km of fiber showing a net visibility of 95.3% with a standard deviation of 0.47%, while a standard Sagnac loop under the same conditions fluctuated between roughly 97% and 1%. The paper further claims that the configuration generalizes to multi-user networks with star, bus, or mixed topologies using slow optical switches.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration ran in continuous-wave mode on a 22-km fiber spool in the laboratory, without the amplitude and phase modulators, single-photon-level pulses, or deployed-fiber disturbances of a real Twin-Field QKD session; the passive stabilization claim for a working link assumes the Faraday-mirror round trip stays exactly reciprocal under those conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Twin-Field QKD links built on this configuration can run for days without active polarization tracking, since phase and polarization drift are both compensated by the same optical path.
  • The same passive stabilization extends to multi-user star, bus, and mixed networks: any pair of users can be connected by configuring slow optical switches, without high-speed switching.
  • The visibility ceiling in the current implementation is set by Rayleigh backscattering and PBS extinction ratio or polarization misalignment, both of which the paper argues can be raised with polarization-maintaining fiber and gated detection in pulsed operation.
  • Because the information-carrying modulation is applied only at the last pass, the twin-field key-rate advantage proportional to the square root of the channel transmission is preserved.
  • The scheme is compatible with hybrid fiber and free-space networks, since a free-space channel only affects the branch in use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the passive stability carries over to pulsed single-photon operation, TF-QKD field links could drop their fast active phase-locking feedback loops, simplifying the hardware and reducing the electronics an adversary could attack.
  • Inference: The same Faraday-mirror round-trip idea should transfer to any first-order interferometric protocol whose visibility is limited by polarization mismatch, not only TF-QKD.
  • Inference: A direct stress test would compare the modified loop against a standard Sagnac loop under deliberately applied fast birefringence perturbations; the modified loop should stay flat while the standard loop degrades, isolating the polarization-compensation mechanism.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modified Sagnac interferometer that combines Faraday mirrors and polarizing beamsplitters to passively stabilize both phase and polarization fluctuations in a fiber-based Twin-Field QKD (TF-QKD) setup. The authors present a formal description of the round-trip propagation, report an experimental demonstration on a 22-km fiber spool in continuous-wave (CW) mode with no amplitude or phase modulators, and observe a net interferometric visibility of about 95.3% over 72 hours with a standard deviation of 0.476%. They also model the effects of Rayleigh backscattering and PBS extinction, discuss the influence of a fitted polarization alignment factor, and outline an extension of the scheme to multi-user star, bus, and mixed topologies.

Significance. If the scheme works as claimed under realistic TF-QKD operating conditions, it would remove the need for active polarization control in TF-QKD links, which is a practically important simplification. The 72-hour stability data with a standard deviation below 0.5% is a solid experimental contribution, and the explicit comparison with a standard Sagnac interferometer clearly illustrates the benefit of the passive polarization compensation. The paper also provides a useful conceptual extension to multi-user networks. However, the significance is qualified by the fact that the experiment omits the amplitude and phase modulators and the pulsed, single-photon-level operation that are essential to actual TF-QKD; the quantitative visibility models rely on a parameter fitted to the same data; and the experiment uses a laboratory spool rather than a deployed fiber link. These caveats mean the central claim is best read as a proof-of-principle for the passive core rather than a full validation for TF-QKD.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV and Section II] The 72-hour stability demonstration was performed in continuous-wave mode with no amplitude or phase modulators implemented (Section IV, first paragraph), whereas the TF-QKD use described in Section II requires Alice and Bob to apply AM and PM modulation on the return pass only, after the pulse has been reflected by the Faraday mirror. Because the Faraday-mirror round-trip compensation is only exact for reciprocal propagation that is identical in the forward and backward directions, the asymmetric insertion of the modulated AM/PM stages on the return pass can introduce polarization-dependent loss and birefringence that are not cancelled by the Faraday mirror. The visibility model, Eq. (11), includes only PBS extinction eta and static misalignment xi, and does not account for modulator PDL or modulation-induced birefringence. The experimental data therefore support the stability of the passive configuration tested, but they do not establish that the same visibility is maintained when the actual TF-QKD encoding stages are active, and the claim that the setup passively stabilizes phase and polarization 'for Twin-Field QKD' is conditional on this untested assumption.
  2. [Section V.B] The alignment factor xi is estimated 'from the behavior of the single photon detection counts over time', i.e., from the same data used to report the visibility. Since xi is a free parameter fitted to the measured data, the agreement between Eq. (11) and the observed visibility is not a predictive test of the noise model. Moreover, using the stated values (t^2 approx 0.074, xi = 0.97, eta = 0.0156) in Eq. (11) yields V approx 98.7%, whereas the measured average net visibility is 95.3%; the discrepancy is not discussed, so the claim that the visibility is 'primarily limited' by the two modeled mechanisms is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V.B] The text says 'we measured an attenuation of 11.3 dB ... corresponding to t approx 0.074'. Since t is defined as the one-way channel transmission in Eq. (7), the correct statement is t^2 approx 0.074 (or equivalently t approx 0.27); otherwise Eq. (11) does not yield the reported visibility of approximately 98.7%.
  2. [Section II] The sentence 'the polarization state of the optical pulses that return to Charlie always correspond to the horizontal state |V⟩' is internally contradictory; it should read 'vertical state |V⟩' (or be otherwise made consistent with the notation for horizontal and vertical polarizations).
  3. [Section III] The text refers to figures with no number in two places ('as shown in Fig. .' and 'in Fig. .'); the figure reference should be completed (likely Fig. 2) and the corresponding caption should be checked.
  4. [Section IV] The procedure for subtracting dark counts to obtain the reported 'net' visibilities is not described; the reader only learns in Section V that dark counts were subtracted and that the raw visibility was 91.4%. Please state the formula or method used for this subtraction.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract reports the experimental visibility result without mentioning that the measurement was performed in CW mode with no modulators; given that this is an important scope limitation, the abstract (or at least the conclusions) should explicitly state that the demonstration is for the passive core and that the active encoding stages were not included.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the passive phase/polarization-stability claim rests on an independent differential measurement, with only a minor back-fitted alignment parameter in the discussion.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.B, Polarization Misalignment, Eq. (11)]
    "From the behavior of the single photon detection counts over time, we estimate an alignment factor ξ ≈ 0.97... Plugging these values into Eq. 11, we get V ≈ 98.7%"

    The alignment factor ξ is not independently measured but is estimated from the same single-photon counting statistics that define the measured interferometric visibility. Eq. (11) is then evaluated using this fitted ξ and compared with the measured visibility, so the agreement is partly constructed from the input rather than being a clean first-principles prediction. Since V is monotonic in ξ, a value can always be chosen to reproduce the observed level. This is a back-fit consistency check, not an independent validation. It is confined to explaining the observed visibility ceiling, however, and it is not used to derive the paper's main 72-hour passive-stability claim, which is supported by direct differential measurement against a standard Sagnac interferometer.

full rationale

The central claim—simultaneous passive phase and polarization stabilization—is not derived from the fitted parameter. Section II gives an algebraic round-trip argument: Faraday mirrors return the polarization to the orthogonal PBS eigenstate irrespective of reciprocal fiber birefringence, and because both interfering pulses traverse the same optical path, Sagnac-style phase cancellation holds. The decisive evidence is the 72-hour differential experiment (Table II), in which the standard Sagnac visibility swings from ~97% to ~1% while the modified Sagnac stays within 94.4% to 97.6% (average 95.3%, SD 0.476%). That is a direct empirical comparison under identical laboratory conditions, not a prediction from a fitted model. The only circularity-like element is the polarization-misalignment model of Section V.B: ξ is estimated from the detection counts and then inserted into Eq. (11) to recover a visibility value, making that portion a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. This back-fit does not feed back into the stability claim and is explicitly presented as a discussion of limiting factors. The self-citations in the paper ([14]-[16], [33]-[36], [40]) are background references or parameter sources; reference [40] concerns PBS characterization, and the paper also uses the measured 18 dB extinction ratio, so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Thus the derivation is largely self-contained, and the only minor fitted input is non-central, warranting a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The two domain assumptions about fiber reciprocity and Faraday mirror behavior are standard for plug-and-play QKD but are not validated on deployed fibers here. The only fitted parameter is the polarization alignment factor used in the explanatory visibility model.

free parameters (1)
  • Polarization alignment factor xi = 0.97 (estimated)
    Estimated from the single-photon detection counts over time and used in Eq. (11) to model visibility loss from PBS misalignment.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Faraday mirrors return any input polarization to the original polarization state after a round trip through a reciprocal fiber
    Invoked in Section II, Eq. (2)-(4), as the basis for passive polarization compensation.
  • domain assumption Fiber birefringence is reciprocal and varies on timescales longer than the round-trip time
    Required for both the Sagnac phase cancellation and Faraday mirror polarization compensation; stated in Section II, paragraph after Eq. (4).
  • domain assumption Rayleigh backscattering model Eq. (5)-(7) uses literature values for gamma and alpha
    Used in Section V.A to estimate the visibility ceiling; parameters from [41] and standard fiber specs.
  • domain assumption The PBS extinction ratio model Eq. (8)-(11) assumes incoherent addition of spurious power
    Used in Section V.B; assumes coherence length shorter than optical path.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Passive polarization and phase stabilization scheme for Twin-Field QKD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHAY3X7L

@misc{pith2026250701205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Passive polarization and phase stabilization scheme for Twin-Field QKD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHAY3X7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01205}
}
read the original abstract

Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribution requires first-order interference between coherent states sent by Alice and Bob in a mid-station Charlie. In order to obtain stable operation and maximum interferometric visibility, not only phase stabilization but also polarization control is required, especially in optical-fiber setups. In this paper, we propose an experimental setup that simultaneously provides passive stabilization of phase and polarization fluctuations by combining a Sagnac-like interferometer with a "Plug-and-Play" configuration employing Faraday mirrors. Experimental results show a net interferometric visibility maintained around 95.3% during 72 hours of continuous operation, with a standard deviation of 0.47%. The setup can be straightforwardly adapted to a multi-user scenario employing either a star network, a bus topology, or a combination of both.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Similarly to a Sagnac configuration, a faint laser pulse in an arbitrary polarization state |SOP⟩ is split into a ”clockwise” and a ”counterclockwise” component (in analogy to a Sagnac interferometer) by a beamsplitter (BS): the first going towards Alice in mode ca, the second towards Bob in mode cb. Fixed polarization controllers (PC) ensure that the polarization states at the PBS al￾ways match one of its eigenstat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Demonstration of an LLO CV-QKD system over 12 km of optical fiber

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Gaussian CV-QKD link with independent transmitter and receiver lasers generated 4.67 Mbit/s finite-size secret key over 12 km fiber under a trusted-device model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    K. Xue, S. Zhao, Q. Mao, and R. Xu, Plug-and-play sending-or-not-sending twin-field quantum key distribu- tion, Quantum Information Processing 20, 320 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  3. [2]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Quantum communication, Nature Photonics 1, 165 (2007). 7

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theo- retical Computer Science 560, 7 (2014), theoretical As- pects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84

    2014

  5. [4]

    Scarani, A

    V. Scarani, A. Ac ´ ın, G. Ribordy, and N. Gisin, Quantum cryptography protocols robust against photon number splitting attacks for weak laser pulse implementations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 057901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    Makarov and D

    V. Makarov and D. R. Hjelme, Faked states attack on quantum cryptosystems, Jour- nal of Modern Optics 52, 691 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340410001730986

    work page doi:10.1080/09500340410001730986 2005

  7. [6]

    Makarov, A

    V. Makarov, A. Anisimov, and J. Skaar, Effects of de- tector efficiency mismatch on security of quantum cryp- tosystems, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022313 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Makarov, Controlling passively quenched single pho- ton detectors by bright light, New Journal of Physics 11, 065003 (2009)

    V. Makarov, Controlling passively quenched single pho- ton detectors by bright light, New Journal of Physics 11, 065003 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Lydersen, C

    L. Lydersen, C. Wiechers, C. Wittmann, D. Elser, J. Skaar, and V. Makarov, Thermal blinding of gated de- tectors in quantum cryptography, Opt. Express18, 27938 (2010)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Q. Liu, A. Lamas-Linares, C. Kurtsiefer, J. Skaar, V. Makarov, and I. Gerhardt, A universal setup for active control of a single-photon de- tector, Review of Scientific Instruments 85, 013108 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4854615/14775825/0131...

    2014 doi

  3. [10]

    Sauge, L

    S. Sauge, L. Lydersen, A. Anisimov, J. Skaar, and V. Makarov, Controlling an actively-quenched single pho- ton detector with bright light, Opt. Express 19, 23590 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    Weier, H

    H. Weier, H. Krauss, M. Rau, M. F¨ urst, S. Nauerth, and H. Weinfurter, Quantum eavesdropping without intercep- tion: an attack exploiting the dead time of single-photon detectors, New Journal of Physics 13, 073024 (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    Qi, C.-H

    B. Qi, C.-H. F. Fung, H.-K. Lo, and X. Ma, Time-shift at- tack in practical quantum cryptosystems, Quantum Info. Comput. 7, 73–82 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Avoiding the blinding attack in qkd, Nature Photonics 4, 800 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Ferreira da Silva, G

    T. Ferreira da Silva, G. B. Xavier, G. P. Tempor˜ ao, and J. P. von der Weid, Real-time monitoring of single-photon detectors against eavesdropping in quantum key distribu- tion systems, Opt. Express 20, 18911 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    Ferreira da Silva, G

    T. Ferreira da Silva, G. C. do Amaral, G. B. Xavier, G. P. Tempor˜ ao, and J. P. von der Weid, Safeguarding quan- tum key distribution through detection randomization, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 21, 159 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    C. C. W. Lim, N. Walenta, M. Legr´ e, N. Gisin, and H. Zbinden, Random variation of detector efficiency: A countermeasure against detector blinding attacks for quantum key distribution, IEEE Journal of Selected Top- ics in Quantum Electronics 21, 192 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    Qian, D.-Y

    Y.-J. Qian, D.-Y. He, S. Wang, W. Chen, Z.-Q. Yin, G.- C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Robust countermeasure against detector control attack in a practical quantum key dis- tribution system, Optica 6, 1178 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    10, 22 (2023)

    Acheva, Polina, Zaitsev, Konstantin, Zavodilenko, Vladimir, Losev, Anton, Huang, Anqi, and Makarov, Vadim, Automated verification of countermeasure against detector-control attack in quantum key distribu- tion, EPJ Quantum Technol. 10, 22 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

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

    2012

  13. [20]

    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, Nature557, 400 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Yin and Y

    H.-L. Yin and Y. Fu, Measurement-device-independent twin-field quantum key distribution, Scientific Reports 9, 3045 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communica- tions, Nature Communications 8, 15043 (2017)

    2017

  16. [23]

    J.-P. Chen, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Jiang, W.-J. Zhang, Z.- Y. Han, S.-Z. Ma, X.-L. Hu, Y.-H. Li, H. Liu, F. Zhou, H.-F. Jiang, T.-Y. Chen, H. Li, L.-X. You, Z. Wang, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Twin-field quan- tum key distribution over a 511 km optical fibre linking tw...

    2021

  17. [24]

    H. Liu, C. Jiang, H.-T. Zhu, M. Zou, Z.-W. Yu, X.-L. Hu, H. Xu, S. Ma, Z. Han, J.-P. Chen, Y. Dai, S.-B. Tang, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, Y. Hua, H. Hu, H. Zhang, F. Zhou, Q. Zhang, X.-B. Wang, T.-Y. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Field test of twin-field quantum key dis- tributi...

    2021

  18. [25]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, R.-Q. Wang, P. Ye, Y. Zhou, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, F.-X. Wang, Y.-G. Zhu, P. V. Morozov, A. V. Divochiy, Z. Zhou, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Twin-field quantum key distribution over 830- km fibre, Nature Photonics 16, 154 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Liu, W.-J

    Y. Liu, W.-J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J.-P. Chen, C. Zhang, W.-X. Pan, D. Ma, H. Dong, J.-M. Xiong, C.-J. Zhang, H. Li, R.-C. Wang, J. Wu, T.-Y. Chen, L. You, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental twin-field quantum key distribution over 1000 km fiber distance, Phys. Rev....

    2023

  20. [27]

    L. Zhou, J. Lin, Y. Jing, and Z. Yuan, Twin-field quan- tum key distribution without optical frequency dissemi- nation, Nature Communications 14, 928 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, Y. Lu, Z.-P. Li, C. Jiang, Y. Liu, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. You, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, Twin-field quantum key distribu- tion without phase locking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 250802 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 250801 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Zhong, J

    X. Zhong, J. Hu, M. Curty, L. Qian, and H.-K. Lo, Proof-of-principle experimental demonstration of twin- field type quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100506 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Zhong, W

    X. Zhong, W. Wang, R. Mandil, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, Simple multiuser twin-field quantum key distribution network, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 014025 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Mandil, L

    R. Mandil, L. Qian, and H.-K. Lo, Long-fiber sagnac interferometers for twin-field quantum key distribution networks, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 034040 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    Xavier, T

    G. Xavier, T. da Silva, G. Tempor˜ ao, and J. von der Weid, Polarisation drift compensa- tion in 8km-long mach-zehnder fibre-optical in- 8 terferometer for quantum communication, Elec- tronics Letters 47, 608 (2011), https://digital- library.theiet.org/doi/pdf/10.1049/el.2011.0470

    2011

  27. [34]

    G. B. Xavier, G. V. de Faria, T. F. da Silva, G. P. Tem- por˜ ao, and J. P. von der Weid, Active polarization con- trol for quantum communication in long-distance optical fibers with shared telecom traffic, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters 53, 2661 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    G. B. Xavier, G. V. de Faria, G. P. Tempor˜ ao, and J. P. von der Weid, Full polarization control for fiber optical quantum communication systems using polarization en- coding, Opt. Express 16, 1867 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    G. V. de Faria, J. Ferreira, G. Xavier, G. Tempor˜ ao, and J. von der Weid, Polarisation control schemes for fibre-optics quantum communications using polarisation encoding, Electronics Letters 44, 228 (2008)

    2008

  30. [37]

    M. F. Ramos, N. A. Silva, N. J. Muga, and A. N. Pinto, Full polarization random drift compensation method for quantum communication, Opt. Express 30, 6907 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Ribordy, J.-D

    G. Ribordy, J.-D. Gautier, N. Gisin, O. Guinnard, and H. Zbinden, Automated plug and play quantum key dis- tribution, Electronics Letters 34, 2116 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    Calliari, P

    F. Calliari, P. Tovar, C. Nascimento, B. Perlingeiro, G. Amaral, and G. Tempor˜ ao, Alignment-free character- ization of polarizing beamsplitters, Appl. Opt. 58, 4395 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Derickson, Fiber optic test and measurement (Pren- tice Hall, 1998)

    D. Derickson, Fiber optic test and measurement (Pren- tice Hall, 1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.