Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Entanglement-based quantum key distribution with non-Gaussian continuous variables

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Adding a single photon to a two-mode-squeezed state raises the intrinsic secret key rate and extends secure continuous-variable QKD distance, provided the keyrate is computed without the Gaussian extremity assumption.

desk verdict Neat postselection trick, but the keyrate numbers hinge on a normalization ambiguity in Eq. (19) that needs a code check before trusting any distances. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18000 v1 pith:J6TB66IB submitted 2025-07-24 quant-ph

Hao Jeng , Ping Koy Lam , Syed M. Assad This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P9481V80 PACS 03.67.Dd42.50.-p
keywords quantumkeydistributioncontinuousvariablesphotonadditionnon-Gaussianstatestwo-mode-squeezedvacuumHolevoboundGaussianextremityprinciplestatetomography
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 paper claims that adding photons to two-mode-squeezed-vacuum states makes them better resources for entanglement-based continuous-variable quantum key distribution, provided security is analysed without the customary Gaussian shortcut. Under the Gaussian extremity principle — the rule that the Gaussian state with the same covariance matrix bounds the keyrate from below — photon addition looks catastrophic: the bound on Eve's information jumps and the protocol keyrate goes negative. Evaluated numerically from the tomographically reconstructed density matrix, the keyrate $K = I_{AB} - \chi_E$ (mutual information minus the Holevo bound on Eve's information) instead rises with each added photon. One added photon lengthens the maximum secure distance from 6.5 dB to 7.4 dB of channel loss, about 43 km to 49 km of fiber, and the paper reports that the addition protects the protocol against both passive loss and active thermal noise.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photon-added two-mode-squeezed-vacuum state $(a^\dagger)^k |\mathrm{TMSV}\rangle$, prepared without physical single-photon sources by a postselective identity: adding a photon before heterodyne detection is equivalent to weighting each heterodyne outcome by $|\alpha|^{2k}$, implemented with the capped acceptance function of Eq. (9). The evaluative machinery is the keyrate $K = I_{AB} - \chi_E$ computed with no Gaussian assumption: $I_{AB}$ by numerical integration of the measured joint homodyne distribution, and $\chi_E$ from Holevo's bound with the conditional entropy reduced to $S(\langle y| \rho_{AB} |y\rangle)$ using the purity of the conditional state. The contrast object is the Gaussian extremity principle, which derives both quantities from the covariance matrix alone and which the paper argues overestimates Eve's information for these non-Gaussian states.

What would settle it

Repeat the maximum-likelihood reconstruction with a different photon-number truncation (say 12) or a different postselection cutoff than $|\alpha_c|^2 = 6$, and check whether the one-photon-added state still shows a positive keyrate at 7.4 dB of loss; alternatively, engineer an active eavesdropping attack that drives the shared state away from the reconstructed one and test whether the claimed 43-to-49 km advantage collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that photon addition to two-mode-squeezed-vacuum states distils entanglement in a way that is directly useful for key distribution: the intrinsic secret key rate per shared state increases with each added photon, and single-photon addition protects the protocol against both passive loss and active thermal noise, extending the secure range from 6.5 dB to 7.4 dB of channel loss. The non-Gaussian character of the states is essential to the claim, because applying the Gaussian extremity principle to the same states returns a negative keyrate and would wrongly kill the protocol. The authors therefore evaluate the mutual information $I_{AB}$ and the Holevo bound $\chi_E$ numerically from the reconstructed joint density matrix, with no Gaussianity assumption, and show that the Gaussian bound's overestimate of Eve's information is what creates the illusion of a compromised protocol. For ideal pure states, the paper further finds that two and three added photons push the keyrate above the repeaterless bound $K = -\log(1 - T)$, although the probabilistic success overhead of photon addition (about an order of magnitude per added photon) means the physical protocol does not violate that bound.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the tomographically reconstructed density matrix is exactly the state Alice and Bob share and that Eve's information is fully captured by its purification; the paper concedes that a different attack producing different states would make the conclusions not strictly apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One added photon raises the secure distance from 6.5 dB to 7.4 dB of channel loss (43 km to 49 km of fiber at 0.15 dB/km), so in that interval only the photon-added state delivers a key.
  • The full non-Gaussian keyrate increases with each added photon, up to three, at every tested loss level, whereas the Gaussian-bound keyrate is negative from the first added photon onward.
  • A sign-of-quadrature binary encoding with maximum a posteriori decoding gives a bit error rate at least as good as the Gaussian state's, and better with each added photon, so information reconciliation is not harder.
  • For ideal pure states, two- and three-photon-added keyrates exceed the repeaterless bound $-\log(1 - T)$ by roughly 10% and 50%, but only when the probabilistic success overhead is neglected; with realistic success probabilities the physical rate stays below the bound.
  • Adding the photons on the attenuated mode or on the other mode gives similar keyrates, but adding before the attenuation on the same mode makes the keyrate negative at finite loss, and forward reconciliation fails as in Gaussian QKD.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported protection against passive and active decoherence is robust, photon addition could serve as a state-based alternative to postselection-based noiseless linear amplification for extending continuous-variable QKD reach, since both share the same commutation with heterodyne detection.
  • The $|\alpha|^{2k}$ postselective equivalence suggests a testable extension: with more data or higher squeezing, four or more added photons might lift the experimental keyrate ceiling observed at three photons, and the method should transfer to other non-Gaussian sources such as photon-subtracted or discretely modulated states.
  • The security statement is only as strong as the tomography: because the bound assumes the reconstructed state is exactly the shared state, an actual deployment would need a worst-case analysis (the paper itself points to semidefinite programming or Bayesian bounds) to close the gap against attacks that produce different states.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes photon-added two-mode-squeezed-vacuum states as a resource for continuous-variable QKD. Using archived heterodyne/homodyne experimental data, the authors reconstruct the two-mode density matrix by maximum-likelihood estimation, implement photon addition as a postselection reweighting of heterodyne outcomes, and evaluate the Devetak-Winter rate K = I_AB - chi_E without the Gaussian extremity assumption. They report that adding one photon increases the intrinsic keyrate and extends the secure distance from 6.5 to 7.4 dB of channel loss (43 to 49 km of fiber), and that for ideal states two and three added photons yield keyrates approaching or exceeding the repeaterless bound K = -log(1-T) when the probabilistic overhead is neglected. The Gaussian-extremity analysis is shown to drive the keyrate negative after one added photon, which the authors attribute to an overestimate of Eve's information by the Gaussian bound.

Significance. If the numerical results can be verified after correction, the paper would make a useful contribution: it gives a concrete route to security analysis of non-Gaussian CV-QKD states without the Gaussian-extremity assumption, applies the method to real experimental data, and provides reproducible code and data on Zenodo. The independent comparison against the Gaussian-extremity bound is a valuable benchmark. However, the headline quantitative claims are currently not supported as written because of a normalization issue in the Holevo formula and the absence of uncertainty quantification on the reconstructed keyrates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (19)-(23)] The Holevo expression is written with subnormalized conditional states. Eq. (20) defines rho_y = Tr_A <y|rho_ABE|y>, whose trace is P_B(y) by Eq. (17), so rho_y is not a density matrix. The entropy in Eq. (23) should be evaluated on the normalized state <y|rho_AB|y>/P_B(y), not on <y|rho_AB|y>. As printed, the term P_B(y) S(rho_y) evaluates to P_B(y)^2 S(rho_tilde_y) - P_B(y)^2 log P_B(y) (or another nonstandard convention), rather than the required P_B(y) S(rho_tilde_y). All keyrate numbers in Figs. 7 and 8, including the 6.5 to 7.4 dB distance shift and the comparison with -log(1-T), depend on this term and are unverified unless the released code [43] normalizes internally. The authors must check the code, correct the equations, and confirm or rerun the reported numbers.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 8 and the distance claim] The central quantitative claim - the increase from 6.5 to 7.4 dB of tolerable loss, corresponding to a 14% distance increase - is presented as a point estimate from a single maximum-likelihood reconstruction. The reconstruction is statistical, and the paper gives no error bars, confidence intervals, or sensitivity analysis with respect to the Fock truncation (10) and the postselection cutoff |alpha_c|^2 = 6, which are described in Sec. III as chosen by trial and error. The statement in the conclusion that reconstruction fidelities are high (Sec. IV) does not bound the error in a highly nonlinear functional such as the keyrate. Without uncertainty quantification, the non-Gaussian advantage and the distance increase cannot be assessed.
  3. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract and the penultimate paragraph of Sec. V claim that photon addition protects the protocol against active decoherence, identified as thermal noise on the entangled state. However, no thermal-noise model, simulation, or experimental result is presented anywhere in the paper; the only channel considered in the rate-loss analysis is optical attenuation (Fig. 8). This claim should either be substantiated with the corresponding analysis or removed/qualified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The integrand is written with (x^2+p^2)^{2k}, but the displayed result 2^k k! sigma^{2k}/|alpha_c|^{2k} follows only if the exponent is k, i.e., if the weight is |alpha|^{2k} as in Eq. (8). Please correct this typo.
  2. [Eq. (24)] The bit variable is denoted X while x is also used for the quadrature outcome, which makes the maximum a posteriori formula harder to read; a separate symbol for the encoded bit would be clearer.
  3. [References and data availability] Reference [43] (Zenodo) is cited, but the main text never states where the code and data are available; an explicit data-availability statement should be added.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (9)] The sentence 'All the outcomes that fall outside the cut-off radius |alpha_c| are accepted' is imprecise: for those outcomes f(alpha)=1, which is not the ideal photon-addition weight |alpha|^{2k}. The text says the effect is negligible, but this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: keyrates are computed from tomographically reconstructed states using standard Holevo bounds, the photon-addition postselection is an exact operational identity rather than a fitted target, and the comparisons use external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. Photon addition is implemented by postselecting heterodyne outcomes with weight |α|^{2k} (Eqs. 7-9), an exact identity following from coherent states being eigenstates of the annihilation operator; the filter cutoff |α_c|^2=6 and Fock truncation 10 are chosen 'after much trial and error' for reconstruction fidelity (Section III), not to force a positive keyrate. Keyrates are then evaluated from the maximum-likelihood reconstructed density matrix via Eqs. 14-23, with no fitted parameter appearing in the reported rates, and the Gaussian extremity bound provides an external benchmark rather than an input. The cited previous work [27] supplies the archived experimental dataset, and the authors release code and data [43], so the citation is reproducible evidence rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The paper also explicitly limits its security claim to attacks consistent with the reconstructed state ('Had the eavesdropper carried out a different attack that resulted in quantum states deviating from those observed in this paper, the conclusions drawn in this paper would not strictly apply'), which is a scope limitation, not circularity. A separate non-circular correctness concern is that Eqs. 19-23 use unnormalized conditional states before multiplying by P_B(y); whether the code normalizes internally should be checked against [43], but this does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard quantum mechanics and Holevo's theorem, plus two domain assumptions: the postselection filter faithfully implements photon addition, and the reconstructed state is the true state shared by Alice and Bob. The Fock truncation and postselection cutoff are hand-chosen computational parameters, not fundamental physics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Fock space truncation = 10
    Maximum photon number kept in the two-mode density matrix reconstruction; chosen by trial and error to balance accuracy and compute time (Section III).
  • Postselection cutoff |α_c|^2 = 6
    Cut-off radius for the capped acceptance filter f(α); chosen to minimize non-Gaussian artefacts from the non-differentiable filter while keeping 99.99% of data inside (Section III).
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Holevo bound and von Neumann entropy formulas apply to arbitrary non-Gaussian states
    Used in Section V to compute Eve's accessible information without Gaussian assumption.
  • domain assumption The postselection filter with cap at |α_c| accurately implements ideal k-photon addition
    Section III assumes negligible probability mass beyond the cutoff so that the capped filter is indistinguishable from |α|^{2k} weighting; verified by the success-probability fit in Fig. 3b.
  • domain assumption The tomographically reconstructed density matrix equals the true shared state
    Section V and Conclusion: keyrates are computed from the reconstructed state; the paper notes other attacks are not considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement-based quantum key distribution with non-Gaussian continuous variables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J6TB66IB

@misc{pith2026250718000,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement-based quantum key distribution with non-Gaussian continuous variables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J6TB66IB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18000}
}
read the original abstract

Addition of single photons to two-mode-squeezed-vacuum states has the effect of distilling quantum entanglement, and, when deployed in quantum key distribution, should lead also to an increase in the secret key rate. However, the extraction of secret keys from non-Gaussian entangled states is a complex issue and is at present not fully understood. In this paper we describe a technique for adding photons to entangled states, and demonstrate how it leads to an increase in secret key rates and the maximal distance for which keys can be distributed assuming asymptotic conditions. The quantum correlations thus produced were found to be of a highly non-Gaussian character, such that the Gaussian extremity principle returns a negative keyrate and effectively kills the protocol; we have therefore developed methods of analysis that do not require prior assumptions about the state. Although it could have been that the addition of single photons would make the system more fragile, this turned out not to be the case. Rather, the addition of a single photon was found to protect the protocol against both passive and active decoherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18000 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Reconstructions of the joint density matrix in the photon number basis ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Reconstructions of the local Wigner functions of photon-added two-mode-squeezed-vacuum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Logarithmic negativity. Shown in the main figure is the dependence on channel loss, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Joint probability distributions between the amplitude quadratures of the two modes (zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dependence of mutual information ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Rate-loss dependence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Bit error rates for a binary encoding scheme, where the sign of homodyne outcomes is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Software-enhanced simultaneous quantum-classical communication protocol with Gaussian post-selection

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gaussian post-selection on Alice's modulation data lets SQCC key rates and reach approach the best fixed-variance choice in fluctuating fibre and satellite channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [43]

    Leverrier, R

    A. Leverrier, R. All´ eaume, J. Boutros, G. Z´ emor, and P. Grangier, Multidimensional recon- ciliation for a continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042325 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    The initial entangled states are pure two mode squeezed vacuum states

    work page

  3. [2]

    No additional sources of inefficiencies other than optical attenuation

    work page

  4. [3]

    Both parties perform homodyne detection and implement reverse reconciliation

    work page

  5. [4]

    Under these conditions, we find that the keyrate is positive no matter how many photons are added, increasing with the number of added photons at each level of channel losses

    The probabilistic overhead is neglected (in order to assess the intrinsic keyrate of the state). Under these conditions, we find that the keyrate is positive no matter how many photons are added, increasing with the number of added photons at each level of channel losses. In the limit of very large channel losses, the keyrates converge to approximately th...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Hillery, Quantum cryptography with squeezed states, Phys

    M. Hillery, Quantum cryptography with squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022309 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [6]

    Jeng, Contributions to quantum operations with light, Phd thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (2022), available at http://hdl.handle.net/1885/286645

    H. Jeng, Contributions to quantum operations with light, Phd thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (2022), available at http://hdl.handle.net/1885/286645

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    H. Jeng, L. Conlon, P. K. Lam, and S. Assad, Strong cubic phase shifts on the photonic 17 vacuum state (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Grosshans and P

    F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Continuous variable quantum cryptography using coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057902 (2002)

    2002

  2. [9]

    Grosshans, G

    F. Grosshans, G. Van Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, and P. Grangier, Quantum key distribution using gaussian-modulated coherent states, Nature 421, 238 (2003)

    2003

  3. [10]

    M. M. Wolf, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Extremality of gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 080502 (2006)

    2006

  4. [11]

    N. J. Cerf, M. L´ evy, and G. V. Assche, Quantum distribution of gaussian keys using squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 63, 052311 (2001)

    2001

  5. [12]

    T. C. Ralph, Continuous variable quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010303 (1999)

    1999

  6. [13]

    Leverrier and P

    A. Leverrier and P. Grangier, Unconditional security proof of long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution with discrete modulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180504 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Z. Li, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, B. Xu, X. Peng, and H. Guo, Non-gaussian postselection and virtual photon subtraction in continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012310 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    A. S. Holevo, Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel, Probl. Peredachi Inf. 9, 3 (1973)

    1973

  9. [16]

    Eisert, S

    J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Distilling gaussian states with gaussian operations is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137903 (2002)

    2002

  10. [17]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek, Gaussian transformations and distillation of entangled gaussian states, Phys

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Gaussian transformations and distillation of entangled gaussian states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137904 (2002)

    2002

  11. [18]

    Giedke and J

    G. Giedke and J. Ignacio Cirac, Characterization of gaussian operations and distillation of gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032316 (2002)

    2002

  12. [19]

    Niset, J

    J. Niset, J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, and N. J. Cerf, No-go theorem for gaussian quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 120501 (2009)

    2009

  13. [20]

    Fadrn´ y, M

    J. Fadrn´ y, M. Neset, M. Bielak, M. Jeˇ zek, J. B ´ ılek, and J. Fiur´ aˇ sek, Experimental preparation of multiphoton-added coherent states of light, npj Quantum Inf 10, 89 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Zavatta, S

    A. Zavatta, S. Viciani, and M. Bellini, Quantum-to-classical transition with single-photon-added coherent states of light, Science 306, 660 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1103190

    2004 doi

  15. [22]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating opti- cal schr¨ odinger kittens for quantum information processing, Science 312, 83 (2006), 18 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1122858

    2006 doi

  16. [23]

    J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, B. M. Nielsen, C. Hettich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Generation of a superposition of odd photon number states for quantum information networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 083604 (2006)

    2006

  17. [24]

    Wakui, H

    K. Wakui, H. Takahashi, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Photon subtracted squeezed states generated with periodically poled ktiopo4, Opt. Express 15, 3568 (2007)

    2007

  18. [25]

    A. E. Ulanov, I. A. Fedorov, A. A. Pushkina, Y. V. Kurochkin, T. C. Ralph, and A. I. Lvovsky, Undoing the effect of loss on quantum entanglement, Nature Photonics 9, 764 (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Quantum computation over continuous variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1784 (1999)

    1999

  20. [27]

    Navarrete-Benlloch, R

    C. Navarrete-Benlloch, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, J. H. Shapiro, and N. J. Cerf, Enhancing quantum entanglement by photon addition and subtraction, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012328 (2012)

    2012

  21. [28]

    Takahashi, J

    H. Takahashi, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, M. Takeuchi, M. Takeoka, K. Hayasaka, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Entanglement distillation from gaussian input states, Nature Photonics 4, 178 (2010)

    2010

  22. [29]

    Kurochkin, A

    Y. Kurochkin, A. S. Prasad, and A. I. Lvovsky, Distillation of the two-mode squeezed state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 070402 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    A. I. Lvovsky, Iterative maximum-likelihood reconstruction in quantum homodyne tomogra- phy, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 6, S556 (2004)

    2004

  24. [31]

    Ourjoumtsev, A

    A. Ourjoumtsev, A. Dantan, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Increasing entanglement be- tween gaussian states by coherent photon subtraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030502 (2007)

    2007

  25. [32]

    H. M. Chrzanowski, N. Walk, S. M. Assad, J. Janousek, S. Hosseini, T. C. Ralph, T. Symul, and P. K. Lam, Measurement-based noiseless linear amplification for quantum communication, Nature Photonics 8, 333 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    Fiur´ aˇ sek and N

    J. Fiur´ aˇ sek and N. J. Cerf, Gaussian postselection and virtual noiseless amplification in continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 86, 060302(R) (2012)

    2012

  27. [34]

    N. Walk, T. C. Ralph, T. Symul, and P. K. Lam, Security of continuous-variable quantum cryptography with gaussian postselection, Phys. Rev. A 87, 020303(R) (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    Weedbrook, A

    C. Weedbrook, A. M. Lance, W. P. Bowen, T. Symul, T. C. Ralph, and P. K. Lam, Quantum cryptography without switching, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 170504 (2004)

    2004

  29. [36]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 19 (2002)

    2002

  30. [37]

    R. G.-P. Sanchez, Quantum information with optical continuous variables: from Bell tests to key distribution, Phd thesis, Universit´ e Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium (2007)

    2007

  31. [38]

    Grosshans and P

    F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Reverse reconciliation protocols for quantum cryptography with continuous variables, arXiv:quant-ph/0204127 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0204127 (2002)

    2002 doi arXiv

  32. [39]

    Pirandola, R

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

    2017

  33. [40]

    K.-T. Kim, U. Villa, M. Parno, Y. Marzouk, O. Ghattas, and N. Petra, hippylib-muq: A bayesian inference software framework for integration of data with complex predictive models under uncertainty, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 49, 10.1145/3580278 (2023)

    2023 doi

  34. [41]

    is a rapidly growing research area. By using such methods that provide bounds on keyrates rather than point-estimates, it will also be possible to account for the statistical uncertainties that arise due to the finite number of measurements, and to perform parameter estimation...

  35. [42]

    Van Assche, J

    G. Van Assche, J. Cardinal, and N. Cerf, Reconciliation of a quantum-distributed gaussian key, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 50, 394 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    J. Lin, T. Upadhyaya, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Asymptotic security analysis of discrete-modulated continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041064 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Winick, N

    A. Winick, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and P. J. Coles, Reliable numerical key rates for quantum key distribution, Quantum 2, 77 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    J. C. Chapman, J. M. Lukens, B. Qi, R. C. Pooser, and N. A. Peters, Bayesian homodyne and heterodyne tomography, Opt. Express 30, 15184 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Erkılı¸ c, B

    O. Erkılı¸ c, B. Shajilal, L. O. Conlon, A. Walsh, A. Das, S. Kish, T. Symul, P. K. Lam, S. M. Assad, and J. Zhao, Software enhanced continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Unpublished (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    H. Jeng, P. K. Lam, and S. Assad, Data and analysis for ”entanglement-based quantum key distribution with non-gaussian continuous variables”, 10.5281/zenodo.15319640 (2025). 20 FIG. 1. Reconstructions of the joint density matrix in the photon number basis ( a-d) for zero, one,...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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