Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Device-Independent Private Quantum Randomness Beacon

T0 review · 3 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 Client detectors above 50% suffice for certified private randomness

desk verdict A genuinely new architecture for private device-independent randomness via routed Bell tests, but the headline >50% efficiency claim is not yet reproducible and Eq. (9) has a normalization issue that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09963 v2 pith:GNXSKCVW submitted 2025-07-14 quant-ph

Ignatius William Primaatmaja , Hong Jie Ng , Koon Tong Goh This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords device-independentquantumrandomnumbergenerationroutedBelltestprivaterandomnessentropyaccumulationnetworksbeaconnonlocalitydetectionefficiency
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

Device-independent random number generation normally demands expensive, high-efficiency detectors on every user's side. The paper claims that a routed Bell test can shift almost all of that burden onto a central server while still certifying the client's output without trusting the internal workings of the client's device, and while keeping that output private from the server. In the protocol, the server holds an entangled-photon source and two high-performance measurement devices; an optical switch randomly sends the second photon either to the server's other device or to the client. The client's device only needs a much weaker long-range quantum correlation with the server, so it can tolerate significant loss; in the paper's binary-setting example the asymptotic randomness rate per heralded event is positive whenever the client's detection efficiency exceeds 50%. If this is right, private and device-independently certified randomness becomes practical as a network service, with most of the cost shared across many clients.

What carries the argument

The central object is the routed Bell test, a three-party configuration in which an optical switch randomly sends the second half of each entangled pair either to a second server-side device or to the client's device. Its role is to decouple the certification burden from the client: only the two server-side parties must violate a Bell inequality, while the client only needs a long-range quantum correlation that survives large loss. The security proof is carried by the generalised entropy accumulation theorem with testing, applied to GEAT channels (completely positive maps satisfying a non-signalling condition) that encode the protocol's structure, in particular that the quantum state prepared for the client is independent of the switch input, and that the server's and client's devices do not communicate. The single-round conditional entropy is then bounded from below by a min-tradeoff function, an affine lower bound on the entropy as a function of the observed test distribution, constructed by solving a semidefinite-programming hierarchy for the client's guessing probability given the server's public data.

What would settle it

Run the semi-device-independent protocol with the client's detection efficiency swept from below to above 50% and measure the certified randomness rate per heralded event; the paper predicts the rate drops to zero at the 50% threshold, so a positive rate below that efficiency would falsify the central quantitative claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces the Device-Independent Private Quantum Randomness Beacon (DIPQRB) and argues that it is the first protocol to combine three properties at once: device-independent certification, cost-effective client hardware, and privacy of the client's output against the server. Inside the server, Alice and Bob perform a standard Bell test, establishing nonlocal correlation, while Charlie, the client, need only share a long-range quantum correlation with Alice. After n rounds the server broadcasts its inputs, outputs, and switch settings; the client combines that broadcast with its own outcomes and estimates the conditional smooth min-entropy of its string using the generalised entropy accumulation theorem with testing. The single-round analysis, which treats the server's announcement data as public, bounds Charlie's guessing probability through a semidefinite-programming hierarchy and yields a min-tradeoff function. In the semi-device-independent version, with fair sampling assumed on the server's detectors, the asymptotic rate per heralded event is found to be positive exactly when the client's detection efficiency exceeds 50%, well below the detection-efficiency threshold of a conventional device-independent generator based on the same Bell test.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the server is honest-but-curious: it prepares the quantum state sent to the client independently of the switch input and truthfully announces its own inputs and outputs, because every entropy estimate is computed from that announced data and a lying server makes the certification vacuous.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One well-equipped server can serve many clients, sharing the cost of the high-efficiency detectors and the entangled source and making randomness-as-a-service economical.
  • In the binary-setting example, the client's detector only needs to exceed 50% efficiency for a positive asymptotic rate, substantially below the threshold for a conventional device-independent generator.
  • Increasing the number of measurement bases on the client's side improves loss tolerance further, so clients can use cheaper avalanche-photodiode detectors rather than cryogenic superconducting nanowire detectors.
  • Because the server's data is broadcast after each round, the client can compute its entropy estimate from public information, while its own raw output remains private and uncorrelated with the server's registers.
  • The same routed Bell test hardware and quantum links can also be used for quantum key distribution, spreading the infrastructure cost across multiple applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate next step is a finite-key analysis, which the paper leaves for future work; the asymptotic 50% threshold will carry a correction term that shrinks as the square root of the number of rounds, so practical beacons will need to budget extra rounds.
  • The security proof trusts the server to announce its data truthfully; a natural extension is a post-hoc verification layer, such as authenticated commitments, that lets the client detect a lying server without changing the physical setup.
  • The model considers an honest-but-curious server and does not cover a server that actively lies about its inputs and outputs; real deployments would need a separate trust anchor for server behaviour.
  • The protocol's privacy guarantee rests on the client's device not leaking; a hardware demonstration would need to check that optical and electromagnetic side channels are suppressed before the claimed privacy is realised.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DIPQRB, a protocol for generating private random numbers from untrusted devices using a routed Bell test between a server (Alice and Bob) and clients (Charlie). The server runs high-performance devices and routes one share of each entangled state to a client; the client measures and generats raw randomness. Security is analyzed via the generalised entropy accumulation theorem (GEAT) with testing, with single-round entropy bounds obtained from an NPA-hierarchy optimisation. The paper claims that in the semi-device-independent variant, the asymptotic randomness generation rate per heralded event is positive whenever the client detection efficiency exceeds 50%. It also discusses a fully device-independent mode and positions the scheme as a cost-effective randomness-as-a-service application.

Significance. If the security proof is correct, the proposal would be a genuinely useful application of routed Bell tests: it would relax the detector-efficiency requirements for device-independent randomness generation while giving the client privacy against the server, which existing DIQRNG implementations do not offer at low client cost. The paper uses established external tools (GEAT from Ref. [29], NPA hierarchy from Ref. [32]) and is transparent about the honest-but-curious-server assumption and the semi-device-independent fair-sampling assumption. The main value is the conceptual protocol and the claimed efficiency threshold; however, the proof as written has several load-bearing gaps that must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.B, Definition 2 (Eq. (3)) and Theorem 1 (Eq. (5))] The min-tradeoff function in Eq. (3) is defined via H(C_i|E_i, \tilde E_{i-1}), but Theorem 1 in Eq. (5) bounds H^ε_min(C^n|D^n,E^n). In the infrequent-sampling virtual protocol, D_i is a function of C_i (among other registers) in test rounds, so conditioning on D^n can reduce the entropy; a simple counterexample with D_i=C_i and independent E_i would violate Eq. (5) if Eq. (3) were the only hypothesis. Either Definition 2 should condition on D_i, i.e. f(q) ≤ H(C_i|E_i,\tilde E_{i-1},D_i)_ν, or Theorem 1 should not condition on D^n (and the reduction to the actual protocol must be restated). As written, the two statements are inconsistent, and the single-round analysis in Section V.C never accounts for D_i, so h* is potentially overestimated.
  2. [Section V.C, Eq. (9)] The left-hand side of Eq. (9) is written as the conditional guessing probability Pg(C_i|Z_i≠X_i,S_i=1,A_iE), but the right-hand side sums over all x,z with weights Pr[X_i=x,Z_i=z|S_i=1] without dividing by Pr[Z_i≠X_i|S_i=1]. Consequently the quantity computed is Pr[Z_i≠X_i|S_i=1] times the desired conditional guessing probability (assuming zero support on x=z in the relevant branch). Substituting this into Eq. (8) without normalization introduces an extra factor of about −log₂ Pr[Z_i≠X_i|S_i=1] ≈ 0.5 bits into the rate estimate, inflating the single-round entropy. Since the headline claim of a positive rate above η=50% depends on this rate, the normalization must be fixed and Fig. 3 recomputed.
  3. [Section V.C, Eqs. (6)–(8)] The entropy chain as written is not a valid lower bound. The left side of Eq. (6) conditions on A_i,B_i,X_i,Y_i,S_i,E but not on Z_i, yet the right side introduces conditioning on Z_i≠X_i, so the first inequality cannot follow simply by discarding non-negative terms. If Z_i is inserted into the left side, then replacing H(C_i|A_i,B_i,X_i,Y_i,Z_i,S_i=1,E) by H(C_i|A_i,E,S_i=1,Z_i≠X_i) goes in the wrong direction: dropping conditioning on X_i (and Y_i,B_i) can only increase the entropy, so the inequality would need to be reversed or justified by an additional conditional-independence (non-signalling) argument. The SDP in Eq. (9) actually conditions on X_i and Z_i through the sum over x,z, so the correct object being bounded is closer to Pg(C_i|A_i,X_i,Z_i,S_i=1,Z_i≠X_i,E); the notation and the entropy chain must be corrected to match, and the rate must be re-derived from the corrected expression.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section V.A] The abstract advertises generation from 'untrusted devices', but Assumption 3 requires the server to be honest-but-curious and to announce its inputs and outputs truthfully. This is a substantial trust assumption and should be stated prominently in the abstract and introduction.
  2. [Section V.C, Eq. (9)] The optimisation problem does not explicitly state the normalisation condition on the adversary's POVM elements E_{c|axz} (e.g., ∑_c E_{c|axz} = I for each a,x,z), which is needed for the NPA hierarchy implementation.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Section III] The numerical claim behind Fig. 3 is not reproducible from the text: the paper does not report the optimised guessing probability value, the specific NPA level, or provide a verification script. Including these would materially strengthen the paper.
  4. [Section I, paragraph 8] There is a grammatical error: 'it was recently showed it is possible' should be 'it was recently shown that it is possible'.
  5. [Eq. (6) and surrounding text] Eq. (6) appears to omit Z_i from the conditioning set; the subsequent text discusses discarding terms with Z_i=X_i, so Z_i should be present in the displayed entropy expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the >50% client-efficiency rate claim is a forward-derived SDP output, and the load-bearing GEAT, NPA, and routed-Bell-test tools come from external groups.

full rationale

This paper's advertised result, a positive asymptotic randomness rate whenever the client detection efficiency eta exceeds 50%, is a forward-derived output of the simulation chain: the SPDC-source model fixes the expected server CHSH winning probability and the client error rates Q0 and Q1; the NPA SDP in Eq. (9) upper-bounds the guessing probability Pg from those correlations; and Eq. (8) converts Pg into the rate -Pr[Si=1,Zi!=Xi]log2 Pg. No constant is fitted to make the threshold land at 50%, and the measurement settings (0/45 degrees for Alice and Charlie, +/-22.5 degrees for Bob) are the standard CHSH settings. The load-bearing tools, GEAT with testing (Ref. [29], quoted as Theorem 1, Corollary 4.6) and the NPA hierarchy (Ref. [32]), are external results by other groups, as are the routed-Bell-test foundations (Refs. [24, 25]); no uniqueness theorem or ansatz of the authors' own forces the conclusion. The only author self-citation, Ref. [26] (a power-limiter paper co-authored by Primaatmaja), supports an engineering countermeasure for the fair-sampling assumption and is not load-bearing; that assumption is also stated independently as Assumption 6 in Section V.A, and the remaining trust assumptions (honest-but-curious server, GEAT non-signalling conditions, no client-device leakage) are explicit. The skeptical concerns that the min-tradeoff function in Definition 2 (Eq. (3)) conditions on E_i but not on the announced test register D_i while Theorem 1 bounds H_min(C^n|D^n,E^n), and that the SDP in Eq. (9) may need normalization by Pr[Zi!=Xi|Si=1], are technical correctness risks in applying external GEAT/NPA results; even if valid, they make the entropy bound over-optimistic (a numerical error), not a conclusion equivalent to its input by construction. No circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs appears in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol rests on standard quantum-cryptographic assumptions: quantum theory, trusted inputs, no leakage, and non-signalling device structure. The most notable additional premise is the honest-but-curious server that must announce its data correctly, which the paper acknowledges. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • test-round probability gamma = arbitrarily small
    The paper sets the probability of choosing a test round gamma arbitrarily small because finite-size effects are out of scope (Section V.B). This is a protocol freedom, not fitted to data, and it affects the finite-size term that the paper does not compute.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Quantum theory is correct
    Listed as assumption 1 in Section V.A; the security proof is entirely within quantum theory.
  • domain assumption Inputs are chosen from trusted random sources independent of the adversary
    Assumption 2 in Section V.A, needed to apply GEAT with inputs generated inside the measurement channels.
  • domain assumption The server is honest-but-curious and announces its data honestly
    Assumption 3 in Section V.A and elaborated in Section V.B: the client's entropy estimation requires the server to send Ai, Bi, Xi, Yi, Si honestly and to respect the non-signalling structure of the routed Bell test.
  • domain assumption The client and server devices do not communicate outside the protocol
    Assumption 4 in Section V.A, inherited from the standard routed Bell test analysis [24].
  • domain assumption The client's device does not leak information to the adversary or server
    Assumption 5 in Section V.A. This is required for privacy against the server; the paper notes in Section IV that a server that leaks after the protocol is fine, but device leakage during the protocol is excluded.
  • domain assumption Fair sampling for the server's devices (semi-DI version only)
    Assumption 6 in Section V.A: whether Alice or Bob register a click is independent of their inputs. The paper explicitly says this is not needed in the fully device-independent mode, but the numerical results focus on the semi-DI mode.
  • standard math Validity of GEAT Corollary 4.6 of Ref. [29]
    Invoked as Theorem 1 in Section V.B to get the finite-size form. This is an external theorem, not proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption The NPA hierarchy can be solved as an SDP with projectors for the untrusted switch that may not commute with Bob/Charlie projectors
    Eq. 9 explicitly assumes projectors for Alice, Bob, Charlie, and the adversary E, with the note that Bob's projectors may not commute with Charlie's. This is a mathematical modeling choice that the paper does not justify in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Device-Independent Private Quantum Randomness Beacon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNXSKCVW

@misc{pith2026250709963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Device-Independent Private Quantum Randomness Beacon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNXSKCVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09963}
}
read the original abstract

Device-independent quantum random number generation (DIQRNG) is the gold standard for generating truly random numbers, as it can produce certifiably random numbers from untrusted devices. However, the stringent device requirements of traditional DIQRNG protocols have limited their practical applications. Here, we introduce Device-Independent Private Quantum Randomness Beacon (DIPQRB), a novel approach to generate random numbers from untrusted devices based on routed Bell tests. This method significantly relaxes the device requirements, enabling a more practical way of generating randomness from untrusted devices. By distributing the device requirements across a network of servers and clients, our proposal allows the server to operate high-performance devices while the clients can be equipped with more cost-effective devices. Moreover, the outputs of the client's device are also private, even against the server, which is essential in cryptographic applications. Therefore, DIPQRB provides a cost-effective method to generate secure and private random numbers from untrusted devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of a routed Bell test between three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The plot of the asymptotic randomness generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  2. [32]

    Y. Liu, X. Yuan, M.-H. Li, W. Zhang, Q. Zhao, J. Zhong, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, L.-K. Chen, H. Li, et al., High-speed device-independent quantum random number generation 9 without a detection loophole, Physical review letters120, 010503 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    One part of the entangled state is sent to Alice, while the other part is sent to the optical switch

    Routed Bell test : For every round i ∈ {1, ..., n}, repeat the following steps (a) Entanglement distribution : A quantum source emits a pair of entangled quantum states. One part of the entangled state is sent to Alice, while the other part is sent to the optical switch. (b) Routing: The switch receives the input Si ∈ {0, 1}. If Si = 0, the switch directs...

    work page

  4. [2]

    If yes, the client pro- ceeds to the next step

    Entropy estimation : Based on the input-output data accumulated over n rounds, the client estimates the conditional smooth min-entropy H ε min(C|Z, P, E) and checks whether it is above a certain threshold h 1. If yes, the client pro- ceeds to the next step. Otherwise, the client will abort the protocol. Here, E denotes the quantum side-information that an...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Randomness extraction: The client perform a ran- domness extraction protocol on the raw string C to obtain a uniformly random bit string. 1 This is typically done by setting some range of accepted input- When both the locality and the detection loopholes are closed, the above protocol will be fully device- independent. In this case, the server’s detectors...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Quantum theory is correct

    work page

  7. [5]

    The inputs for the server’s and the client’s devices are chosen from trusted random sources that are in- dependent from the adversary and from each other

    work page

  8. [6]

    We say that the server is honest-but-curious

    The server and the client follow the protocol hon- estly. We say that the server is honest-but-curious

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [7]

    The server and the client’s devices do not commu- nicate with one another, unless required by the pro- tocol

  2. [8]

    The client’s device does not leak any information to the adversary nor the server

  3. [9]

    The first assumption is necessary since our analysis is based on quantum theory, thus the security of the proto- col relies heavily on the correctness of quantum theory

    (For semi-device-independent version of the proto- col) Whether or not the server’s devices (Alice and Bob) register a click in a given round, is indepen- dent of the inputs to the devices. The first assumption is necessary since our analysis is based on quantum theory, thus t...

  4. [10]

    For all i ∈ [n], the channel Mi has the following non-signalling property: there exists a CPTP map Ni : Ei−1 → Ei such that TrRiCiDi ◦ Mi = Ni ◦ TrRi−1 (1)

  5. [11]

    Let M′ i = TrDi ◦ Mi. There exists a channel T : 6 C nEn → C nEnDn of the following form T [ωCnEn ] = X p,q Π(p) Cn ⊗ Π(q) En ωCnEn Π(p) Cn ⊗ Π(q) En ⊗ |F (p, q)⟩ ⟨F (p, q)|Dn , (2) where {Π(p) Cn }p and {Π(q) En }q are mutually orthogonal projectors on C n and En, respectivel...

  6. [12]

    Then, the adversary sends the quantum register QAi to Alice and the quantum register E′ i to the switch

    The adversary prepares the quantum state using the channel Mprep i : Ei−1 → QAi E′ i based on her side information in the previous round. Then, the adversary sends the quantum register QAi to Alice and the quantum register E′ i to the switch

  7. [13]

    The quantum register QBi is sent to Bob, the quantum register QCi is sent to Charlie and the quantum register E′′ i is kept by the adversary

    The channel Mswitch i : E′ i → QBi QCi E′′ i randomly generates the input Si ∈ {0, 1} to the switch, then depending on Si and E′ i, the switch prepares the quantum registers QBi , QCi , and E′′ i . The quantum register QBi is sent to Bob, the quantum register QCi is sent to Ch...

  8. [14]

    Similarly, the channel generates the input Yi for Bob, then measures the register QBi to obtain the outcome Bi and the post-measured quantum register Q′ Bi

    The channel Mmeas i : QAi QBi QCi Ri−1Si → XiAiQ′ Ai YiBiQ′ Bi ZiCiRiSi generates the input Xi for Alice, then measures the register QAi to obtain the outcome Ai and the post-measured quantum register Q′ Ai . Similarly, the channel generates the input Yi for Bob, then measures...

  9. [15]

    The register Ti de- notes whether the i-th round is used as a test round or a generation round

    The channel Mtest i : SiAiBiCiXiYiZi → SiTiAiBiCiXiYiZiDi generates the classical regis- ter Ti ∈ {0, 1} based on Si2. The register Ti de- notes whether the i-th round is used as a test round or a generation round. Then, the channel gener- ates Di based on Ti and Si, Ai, Bi, C...

  10. [16]

    Then, we can construct the GEAT channel Mi = Mcollect i ◦ Mtest i ◦ Mmeas i ◦ Mswitch i ◦ Mprep i

    The channel Mcollect i : XiYiZiSiTiAiBiQ′ Ai Q′ Bi E′′ i → Ei collects the registers Xi, Yi, Zi, Si, Ti, Ai, Bi, Q′ Ai , Q′ Bi , E′′ i and gives them to the adversary, forming the quantum register Ei. Then, we can construct the GEAT channel Mi = Mcollect i ◦ Mtest i ◦ Mmeas i ...

  11. [17]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Se- cure quantum key distribution with realistic devices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

  12. [18]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  13. [19]

    Daiss, S

    S. Daiss, S. Langenfeld, S. Welte, E. Distante, P. Thomas, L. Hartung, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, A quantum-logic gate between distant quantum-network modules, Science 371, 614 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, et al., Real- ization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid- state qubits, Science 372, 259 (2021)

    2021

  15. [21]

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

    2021

  16. [22]

    van Leent, M

    T. van Leent, M. Bock, F. Fertig, R. Garthoff, S. Eppelt, Y. Zhou, P. Malik, M. Seubert, T. Bauer, W. Rosenfeld, et al., Entangling single atoms over 33 km telecom fibre, Nature 607, 69 (2022)

    2022

  17. [23]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. Fioretto, Y. Pu, A. Mazloom, P. Sekatski, M. Can- teri, M. Teller, et al., Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters, Physical Review Letters 130, 050803 (2023)

    2023

  18. [24]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, et al., Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom net- work, Nature 629, 573 (2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    O. Amer, S. Chakrabarti, K. Chakraborty, S. Eloul, N. Kumar, C. Lim, M. Liu, P. Niroula, Y. Satsangi, R. Shaydulin, et al., Applications of certified random- ness, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19759 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [26]

    X. Ma, X. Yuan, Z. Cao, B. Qi, and Z. Zhang, Quantum random number generation, npj Quantum Information 2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  21. [27]

    Smith, D

    P. Smith, D. Marangon, M. Lucamarini, Z. Yuan, and A. Shields, Out-of-band electromagnetic injection attack on a quantum random number generator, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 044044 (2021)

    2021

  22. [28]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  23. [30]

    Colbeck, Quantum and relativistic protocols for secure multi-party computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.3814 (2009)

    R. Colbeck, Quantum and relativistic protocols for secure multi-party computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.3814 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Ac ´ ın, S. Massar, A. B. de la Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning, and C. Monroe, Random numbers certi- fied by Bell’s theorem, Nature 464, 1021 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Liu, M.-H

    W.-Z. Liu, M.-H. Li, S. Ragy, S.-R. Zhao, B. Bai, Y. Liu, P. J. Brown, J. Zhang, R. Colbeck, J. Fan, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Device-independent randomness expan- sion against quantum side information, Nature Physics 17, 448 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    L. K. Shalm, Y. Zhang, J. C. Bienfang, C. Schlager, M. J. Stevens, M. D. Mazurek, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, M. W. Mitchell, M. A. Alhejji, et al., Device-independent randomness expansion with entangled photons, Nature Physics 17, 452 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Huang, H

    L. Huang, H. Zhou, K. Feng, and C. Xie, Quantum ran- dom number cloud platform, npj Quantum Information 7, 107 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kumar, J

    V. Kumar, J. B. B. Rayappan, R. Amirtharajan, and P. Praveenkumar, Quantum true random number gen- eration on IBM’s cloud platform, Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 34, 6453 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Tamura and Y

    K. Tamura and Y. Shikano, Quantum random num- bers generated by a cloud superconducting quantum computer, in International Symposium on Mathemat- ics, Quantum Theory, and Cryptography: Proceedings of MQC 2019 (Springer Singapore, 2021) pp. 17–37

    2019

  30. [38]

    Rukhin, J

    A. Rukhin, J. Soto, J. Nechvatal, M. Smid, E. Barker, S. Leigh, M. Levenson, M. Vangel, D. Banks, N. Hecker, J. Dray, S. Vo, and L. Bassham, A statistical test suite for random and pseudorandom number generators for cryptographic applications, Tech. Rep. Special Publica- tion ...

    2010

  31. [39]

    M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S.-H. Hung, W. Y. Kon, E. Cervero-Mart ´ ın, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson, et al., Certified randomness using a trapped-ion quantum processor, Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    E. P. Lobo, J. Pauwels, and S. Pironio, Certifying long- range quantum correlations through routed Bell tests, Quantum 8, 1332 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sekatski, J

    P. Sekatski, J. Pauwels, E. P. Lobo, S. Pironio, and N. Brunner, Certification of quantum correlations and diqkd at arbitrary distances through routed Bell tests, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12241 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zhang, I

    G. Zhang, I. W. Primaatmaja, J. Y. Haw, X. Gong, C. Wang, and C. C. W. Lim, Securing practical quan- tum communication systems with optical power limiters, PRX Quantum 2, 030304 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Lydersen, C

    L. Lydersen, C. Wiechers, C. Wittmann, D. Elser, J. Skaar, and V. Makarov, Hacking commercial quan- tum cryptography systems by tailored bright illumina- tion, Nature photonics 4, 686 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  37. [45]

    Metger, O

    T. Metger, O. Fawzi, D. Sutter, and R. Renner, Gener- alised entropy accumulation, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 405, 261 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Arqand, T

    A. Arqand, T. A. Hahn, and E. Y.-Z. Tan, General- ized R´ enyi entropy accumulation theorem and gener- alized quantum probability estimation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05912 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dupuis and O

    F. Dupuis and O. Fawzi, Entropy accumulation with im- proved second-order term, IEEE Transactions on infor- mation theory 65, 7596 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Navascu´ es, S

    M. Navascu´ es, S. Pironio, and A. Ac ´ ın, Bounding the set of quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 010401 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    E. Y.-Z. Tan and R. Wolf, Entropy bounds for device- independent quantum key distribution with local bell test, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 120803 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Le Roy-Deloison, E

    T. Le Roy-Deloison, E. P. Lobo, J. Pauwels, and S. Piro- nio, Device-independent quantum key distribution based on routed bell tests, PRX Quantum 6, 020311 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Brown, H

    P. Brown, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, Device-independent lower bounds on the conditional von neumann entropy, Quantum 8, 1445 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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