Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Highly integrated quantum key distribution transmitter enabled by silicon photonics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A standalone QKD transmitter the size of a half-height PCIe card delivers practical secure keys over metropolitan fiber.

desk verdict Real board-level full-stack QKD transmitter at PCIe-card scale with metropolitan finite-key rates; integration is the result, finite-key arithmetic is under-specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23413 v1 pith:YA4VICVK submitted 2026-07-26 quant-ph

Rende Liu , Yan-Lin Tang , Cheng-Guang Dong , Yan Ma , Guo-Qing Liu , Zhi-Lin Xie , Shuai Li , Mi Zou
show 2 more authors
Hao Liang Shi-biao Tang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionsiliconphotonicsintegratedtransmitterdecoy-stateBB84board-levelQKDSOIsecurerateTrojan-horseprotection
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 sets out to show that the remaining barrier to deployable quantum key distribution is system-level integration, not photonic chips alone. The authors pack optical pulse generation, silicon-photonic state encoding, true random numbers, authentication, thermal control, and real-time decoy-state BB84 post-processing into a single board of 167×56×21 mm³—more than thirty times smaller than a conventional 1U rack transmitter. Paired with an ordinary discrete receiver, that board still produces 219.1 kbps of composable secure key over 51.3 km of standard fiber and 17.9 kbps over 101.8 km. A sympathetic reader cares because the result moves QKD transmitters from rack equipment toward board-level modules that can fit size- and weight-limited platforms and multi-user access networks.

What carries the argument

Hybrid board-level architecture: a silicon photonic chip that performs attenuation, decoy-state intensity modulation, and polarization encoding, driven by a single programmable system-on-chip that also hosts the hardware TRNG, secure element, and real-time BB84 protocol stack.

What would settle it

Run this board transmitter and a conventional discrete transmitter back-to-back over the same fiber spool into the same four-detector receiver and check whether the secure key rates at 51 km and 102 km agree within experimental uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A complete standalone QKD transmitter built around a commercial silicon-on-insulator encoding chip, integrating every essential practical function in roughly 0.2 dm³, achieves secure key rates of 219.1 kbps over 51.3 km and 17.9 kbps over 101.8 km of standard single-mode fiber under a composable finite-key decoy-state analysis, with performance the authors judge comparable to conventional discrete-component transmitters.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of performance comparable to ordinary discrete transmitters rests on literature figures rather than a same-link head-to-head test, and the rates were measured with a two-detector receiver the authors themselves call lossier than a standard four-detector lab receiver.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QKD transmitters can shrink from 1U racks to half-height half-width PCIe-card scale while still serving metropolitan fiber links.
  • Size- and weight-constrained platforms such as UAVs and small satellites become more realistic hosts for QKD transmitters.
  • Multi-user access networks can place many compact transmitters that share one centralized receiver.
  • System-level co-integration of photonics, electronics, and protocol processing—not photonic chips alone—is the next practical integration step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If commercial SOI multi-project-wafer yields hold, unit cost could fall enough for commodity board modules rather than specialty instruments.
  • Thermal management still occupies a large share of the volume; further shrinkage likely depends on lower-power modulators or denser heat sinking, not photonics alone.
  • The authors’ choice of a two-detector TDM receiver already anticipates receiver miniaturization; pairing this transmitter with a similarly integrated receiver is the natural next system test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a standalone decoy-state BB84 QKD transmitter built around a commercial-process SOI encoding chip, integrating optical pulse generation, on-chip attenuation/decoy/polarization encoding, Trojan-horse isolation (>160 dB), a hardware TRNG, synchronization optics, an SoC executing the full real-time post-processing stack (authentication, sifting, Winnow error correction, CRC-64 verification, Toeplitz privacy amplification), and thermal management in 167×56×21 mm³ (~0.2 dm³), >30× smaller than a 1U rack unit. Paired with a discrete-component two-detector TDM receiver, it achieves finite-key secure rates of 219.1 kbps over 51.3 km and 17.9 kbps over 101.8 km of standard fiber at 625 MHz, with a 12-hour stability run and good agreement between measured SKR and simulation.

Significance. If the numbers hold up, this is a meaningful step for the field: most prior integrated-QKD work stops at the photonic chip or requires a rack instrument plus an external PC, whereas here the complete transmitter chain is demonstrated in a board-level module with measured (not extrapolated) finite-key rates at metropolitan distances and a 12-hour continuous stability run. The claims are concrete and falsifiable: stated intensities and probabilities, a stated clock rate, a standard security framework, and an explicit receiver-loss budget. The use of a deliberately conservative two-detector receiver, openly acknowledged in §3.1, strengthens rather than weakens the transmitter claim. The work does not advance QKD theory or photonic-device performance, but it credibly establishes system-level integration as the next milestone for deployable QKD hardware.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (1)] The headline figures (219.1 kbps at 51.3 km; 17.9 kbps at 101.8 km) are stated to be composable finite-key rates against general attacks [36–40], but the two quantities that most determine a finite-key rate are never reported: (i) the sifted-key block size per privacy-amplification run (or accumulation time), which sets the statistical-fluctuation penalties in M_1^L and e_1^pU via [38, 39]; and (ii) the total security parameter ε and its ε_cor/ε_sec budget. Furthermore, Eq. (1) contains only the single-photon entropy terms minus leak_EC; the standard correctness/secrecy terms of the Tomamichel/Lim-type analysis (e.g., log2(2/ε_cor) and the privacy-amplification leftover-hash terms such as 2 log2(1/ε_PA) or 6 log2(21/ε_sec)) do not appear. If these are suppressed in notation rather than omitted from the computation, the text must say so explicitly. The measured QBER and leak_EC (or error-
  2. [§3.3 and §3.1 (comparison to [28, 29])] The claim of 'performance comparable to conventional discrete-component implementations [28, 29]' is not supported by any same-link or normalized comparison. Reference [29] is a field trial of QKD-secured coherent transport over trusted-node links, not a discrete-component transmitter benchmark; reference [28] is a Sagnac time-bin system at a different encoding and clock rate. The authors do acknowledge (§3.1) that the two-detector TDM receiver is lossier and more afterpulse-prone than a four-detector receiver, which makes the reported SKR conservative — this is commendable and partly mitigates the concern — but 'comparable' remains an unquantified assertion. A short table or sentence comparing SKR-at-distance against [28, 29] (and ideally the 1U systems of Table 1), with the receiver caveat stated, would suffice; alternatively, soften the wording to 'rates consistent with metropolitan-s
  3. [§2.1 / §4 — power consumption not reported] The motivation throughout (§1, §4) is deployment on size/weight/power-constrained platforms (UAVs, small satellites, PON access), yet total power consumption of the module is never reported. This is conspicuous given that the thermal-management assembly (heat sink plus three fans, §2.1) is said to occupy 'a substantial fraction of the module volume', implying a non-trivial thermal load. A single number (typical and peak draw) and the operating temperature range over which the 12-hour stability was demonstrated would substantially strengthen the deployment claim, which is the paper's main contribution.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] Grammar: 'after basis sift' should read 'after basis sifting', and 'detailed calculated following [40]' should read 'calculated in detail following [40]'.
  2. [Fig. 3] The QBER trace is shown in Fig. 3(b) but no numerical value or range is quoted in the text; please state the average QBER at 51.3 km and 101.8 km. Also, the axis labels and legend in the published figure are small and crowded; consider increasing font size for the final version.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Security' column mixes two distinct properties (authentication and Trojan-horse protection) into one entry, and 'NR' dominates the table. Defining the column explicitly, and perhaps adding a row-level note on whether each reference implements finite-key composable security, would make the comparison more informative.
  4. [§3.1 — decoy intensities] Only a bound w < 0.003 is given for the vacuum intensity. Please state the measured value and how the bound is established (e.g., monitor-PIN calibration), since the vacuum yield enters the decoy bounds in Eq. (1).
  5. [§2.2 — synchronization path] The synchronization laser at 1569.59 nm is only ~19.5 nm from the quantum channel at 1550.12 nm. Please state the measured suppression of sync light at the receiver quantum port (and any Raman-scattering assessment), as out-of-band noise is a common SKR limiter in co-propagating sync schemes.
  6. [Data Availability Statement] 'Data not publicly available but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request' is weaker than the journal's usual expectation for experimental papers; a supplementary table of the raw count data underlying Fig. 3 would address this and simultaneously support Major Comment 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: measured experimental SKR under standard external finite-key decoy-state bounds; self-citations supply components/methods only.

full rationale

This is a hardware/systems demonstration paper, not a first-principles derivation. The headline quantities (219.1 kbps @ 51.3 km, 17.9 kbps @ 101.8 km, volume ~0.2 dm³) are direct experimental measurements and physical dimensions, not quantities forced by fitting or by definitional identity with inputs. Secure-key length Eq. (1) is the standard composable finite-key decoy-state expression drawn from the external literature [36–40] (Tomamichel, Lim, Zhang, etc.); even where [40] overlaps in authorship, it is used as a calculation recipe whose inputs are measured counts/QBER, not as a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives or smuggles the result. Simulation curves in Fig. 3(a) are compared to experiment rather than fitted and re-labeled as predictions. Self-citations for the TRNG ASIC [31], prior discrete-component baselines [28], and field-test analysis [40] are ordinary methodological/component references and do not make SKR equal an input by construction. Missing finite-key bookkeeping (block size, ε) is a reproducibility/correctness gap, not circularity. No self-definitional loop, fitted-as-prediction, or ansatz-via-self-citation pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Load-bearing content is experimental systems engineering on top of standard decoy-state BB84 security theory. No new physical entities. Free parameters are protocol and hardware operating points chosen for the demo. Axioms are the usual QKD domain assumptions and the composable finite-key formulas taken from the literature.

free parameters (3)
  • Signal/decoy/vacuum mean photon numbers μ=0.3, ν=0.1, w<0.003 = μ=0.3, ν=0.1, w<0.003 with probabilities 6/8, 1/8, 1/8
    Chosen operating intensities for the three-intensity decoy scheme; they directly set the measured SKR and are not derived from first principles in this work.
  • Pulse repetition rate and optical pulse width = 625 MHz, 41.6 ps FWHM @ 1550.12 nm
    625 MHz repetition and 41.6 ps FWHM are design choices that bound rate and synchronization behavior.
  • Receiver SPD efficiency and dark-count rate = ~25% efficiency, <800 cps dark counts, 1.25 GHz gated
    Detection efficiency ~25% and dark counts <800 cps are apparatus parameters entering the key-rate evaluation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Composable finite-key security of decoy-state BB84 against general attacks as formulated in the cited works, with secure key length given by Eq. (1).
    Sec. 3.3 invokes [36–40] for L in terms of single-photon bounds and phase-error rates; the paper does not re-derive the security proof.
  • domain assumption Gain-switched DFB operation provides adequate global phase randomization for the BB84/decoy analysis.
    Sec. 2.2 states phase randomization is ensured by gain-switching; residual phase correlations are not experimentally bounded in the text.
  • domain assumption Three optical isolators providing >160 dB isolation suffice for the Trojan-horse protection model used in practical security analyses.
    Sec. 2.2 cites Trojan-horse bounds [30] and claims >160 dB isolation; quantitative attack-model parameters are not re-measured end-to-end here.
  • standard math Standard binary entropy and leak_EC accounting correctly capture error-correction leakage for the Winnow+CRC-64 pipeline.
    Eq. (1) and Sec. 3.2 treat leak_EC as the EC leakage term in the usual way.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Highly integrated quantum key distribution transmitter enabled by silicon photonics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YA4VICVK

@misc{pith2026260723413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Highly integrated quantum key distribution transmitter enabled by silicon photonics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YA4VICVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23413}
}
abstract

Quantum key distribution (QKD) provides information-theoretic security independent of computational assumptions, yet the bulk and cost of current systems hinder large-scale deployment. Although integrated photonic technologies have enabled highly integrated QKD chips, practical QKD transmitters are still predominantly implemented as rack-mounted systems. Here, we demonstrate a highly integrated standalone QKD transmitter that integrates all essential functionalities required for practical QKD operation within a compact platform built around a silicon photonic encoding chip. The transmitter occupies only $167 \times 56 \times 21~\mathrm{mm}^3$ ($\sim 0.2~\mathrm{dm}^3$), comparable in size to a half-height, half-width PCIe card and more than 30 times smaller in volume than a conventional 1U rack-mounted system. Paired with a conventional discrete-component receiver, it achieves a secure key rate of 219.1 kbps over 51.3 km of standard single-mode fiber, with performance comparable to that of conventional discrete-component implementations. This work bridges the gap between photonic chip integration and deployable QKD hardware, marking an important step toward transitioning QKD transmitters from conventional rack-mounted equipment to compact board-level platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Photograph of the QKD transmitter; (b) Schematic of the optical subsystem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. QKD experimental setup. Optical signals from the proposed standalone QKD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)Simulated secret-key rate (SKR) as a function of transmission distance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [29]

    400-Gbps Coherent Transmission of 100-Gbps QKD-Secured Data Stream Over 184-km of Standard Single Mode Fiber Through Three QKD Links and Two Trusted Nodes,

    E. Pincemin, P. Gavignet, F. Herviou,et al., “400-Gbps Coherent Transmission of 100-Gbps QKD-Secured Data Stream Over 184-km of Standard Single Mode Fiber Through Three QKD Links and Two Trusted Nodes,” J. Light. Technol.42, 4302–4309 (2024)

    2024

  2. [28]

    Time-bin phase-encoding quantum key distribution using Sagnac-based optics and compatible electronics,

    Y.-L. Tang, C. Zhou, D.-D. Li,et al., “Time-bin phase-encoding quantum key distribution using Sagnac-based optics and compatible electronics,” Opt. Express31, 26335 (2023)

    2023

  3. [1]

    Post-quantum cryptography,

    D. J. Bernstein and T. Lange, “Post-quantum cryptography,” Nature549, 188–194 (2017)

    2017

  4. [2]

    The security of practical quantum key distribution,

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf,et al., “The security of practical quantum key distribution,” Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301–1350 (2009)

    2009

  5. [3]

    MadQCI: A heterogeneous and scalable SDN-QKD network deployed in production facilities,

    V. Martin, J. P. Brito, L. Ortíz,et al., “MadQCI: A heterogeneous and scalable SDN-QKD network deployed in production facilities,” npj Quantum Inf.10, 80 (2024)

    2024

  6. [4]

    Linking QKD Testbeds across Europe,

    M. Brauer, R. J. Vicente, J. S. Buruaga,et al., “Linking QKD Testbeds across Europe,” Entropy26, 123 (2024)

    2024

  7. [5]

    Implementation of a 46-node quantum metropolitan area network,

    T.-Y. Chen, X. Jiang, S.-B. Tang,et al., “Implementation of a 46-node quantum metropolitan area network,” npj Quantum Inf.7, 134 (2021)

    2021

  8. [6]

    Implementation of carrier-grade quantum communication networks over 10000 km,

    H.-Z. Chen, M.-H. Li, Y. Z. Wang,et al., “Implementation of carrier-grade quantum communication networks over 10000 km,” npj Quantum Inf.11, 137 (2025)

    2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu,et al., “Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,” Nature549, 43–47 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution,

    Y. Li, W.-Q. Cai, J.-G. Ren,et al., “Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution,” Nature640, 47–54 (2025)

    2025

  3. [9]

    Experimental Demonstration of Drone-Based Quantum Key Distribution,

    X.-H. Tian, R. Yang, H.-Y. Liu,et al., “Experimental Demonstration of Drone-Based Quantum Key Distribution,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 200801 (2024)

    2024

  4. [10]

    Siliconphotonictransmitterforpolarization-encodedquantumkeydistribution,

    C.Ma,W.D.Sacher,Z.Tang,et al.,“Siliconphotonictransmitterforpolarization-encodedquantumkeydistribution,” Optica3, 1274 (2016)

    2016

  5. [11]

    Chip-based quantum key distribution,

    P. Sibson, C. Erven, M. Godfrey,et al., “Chip-based quantum key distribution,” Nat. Commun.8, 13984 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

    Integrated silicon photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution,

    P. Sibson, J. E. Kennard, S. Stanisic,et al., “Integrated silicon photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution,” Optica4, 172–177 (2017)

    2017

  7. [13]

    Metropolitan Quantum Key Distribution with Silicon Photonics,

    D. Bunandar, A. Lentine, C. Lee,et al., “Metropolitan Quantum Key Distribution with Silicon Photonics,” Phys. Rev. X8, 021009 (2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    Stable quantum key distribution using a silicon photonic transceiver,

    W. Geng, C. Zhang, Y. Zheng,et al., “Stable quantum key distribution using a silicon photonic transceiver,” Opt. Express27, 29045 (2019)

    2019

  9. [15]

    A photonic integrated quantum secure communication system,

    T. K. Paraïso, T. Roger, D. G. Marangon,et al., “A photonic integrated quantum secure communication system,” Nat. Photonics15, 850–856 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    Polarization-Based Quantum Key Distribution Encoder and Decoder on Silicon Photonics,

    G. Zhang, Z. Zhao, J. Dai,et al., “Polarization-Based Quantum Key Distribution Encoder and Decoder on Silicon Photonics,” J. Light. Technol.40, 2052–2059 (2022)

  11. [17]

    High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 Mb s–1,

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan,et al., “High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 Mb s–1,” Nat. Photonics17, 416–421 (2023)

    2023

  12. [18]

    High-speed integrated QKD system,

    R. Sax, A. Boaron, G. Boso,et al., “High-speed integrated QKD system,” Photonics Res.11, 1007–1014 (2023)

    2023

  13. [19]

    Resource-efficient quantum key distribution with integrated silicon photonics,

    K. Wei, X. Hu, Y. Du,et al., “Resource-efficient quantum key distribution with integrated silicon photonics,” Photonics Res.11, 1364 (2023)

    2023

  14. [20]

    A hybrid integrated quantum key distribution transceiver chip,

    J. A. Dolphin, T. K. Paraïso, H. Du,et al., “A hybrid integrated quantum key distribution transceiver chip,” npj Quantum Inf.9, 84 (2023)

    2023

  15. [21]

    Polarization states preparation based on TFLN integrated chip and SOI 2D grating coupler,

    C. Zhang, H. Yang, P. Cui,et al., “Polarization states preparation based on TFLN integrated chip and SOI 2D grating coupler,” Opt. & Laser Technol.188, 112935 (2025)

    2025

  16. [22]

    Polarization encoding chips based on 2-D grating and PBRS,

    C. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Li,et al., “Polarization encoding chips based on 2-D grating and PBRS,” Opt. & Laser Technol. 187, 112778 (2025)

    2025

  17. [23]

    IntegratedPhotonicsandElectronicsforHigh-SpeedQuantumKeyDistribution,

    Z.-Y.Chen,X.-Z.Wang,Y.Li,et al.,“IntegratedPhotonicsandElectronicsforHigh-SpeedQuantumKeyDistribution,” Laser & Photonics Rev. p. e01080 (2025)

    2025

  18. [24]

    Integrated lithium niobate photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution,

    Z. Lin, Y. Gao, L. Zhou,et al., “Integrated lithium niobate photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution,” Opt. Quantum3, 195 (2025)

    2025

  19. [25]

    On-chip quantum key distribution over field-deployed fiber using lithium niobate photonic circuit,

    H. Heo, M. K. Woo, C.-H. Park,et al., “On-chip quantum key distribution over field-deployed fiber using lithium niobate photonic circuit,” APL Photonics10, 031301 (2025)

    2025

  20. [26]

    High-rate quantum key distribution with compact state preparation and detection,

    G.-J. Fan-Yuan, W.-X. Xie, D.-Y. He,et al., “High-rate quantum key distribution with compact state preparation and detection,” Proc. National Acad. Sci.123, e2521590123 (2026)

    2026

  21. [27]

    Quantum key distributionover a metropolitan network using an integrated photonics based prototype,

    M. A. Pereira, G.Gualandi, R. Sax,et al., “Quantum key distributionover a metropolitan network using an integrated photonics based prototype,” (2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    Practical Security Bounds Against the Trojan-Horse Attack in Quantum Key Distribution,

    M. Lucamarini, I. Choi, M. B. Ward,et al., “Practical Security Bounds Against the Trojan-Horse Attack in Quantum Key Distribution,” Phys. Rev. X5, 031030 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    10-Gbps true random number generator accomplished in ASIC,

    X. Wang, F. Liang, P. Miao,et al., “10-Gbps true random number generator accomplished in ASIC,” in2016 IEEE-NPSS Real Time Conference (RT),(2016), pp. 1–4

    2016

  24. [32]

    Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication,

    W.-Y. Hwang, “Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057901 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Beating the Photon-Number-Splitting Attack in Practical Quantum Cryptography,

    X.-B. Wang, “Beating the Photon-Number-Splitting Attack in Practical Quantum Cryptography,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 230503 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Decoy State Quantum Key Distribution,

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, “Decoy State Quantum Key Distribution,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution,

    X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H.-K. Lo, “Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A72, 012326 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Practical issues in quantum-key-distribution postprocessing,

    C.-H. F. Fung, X. Ma, and H. F. Chau, “Practical issues in quantum-key-distribution postprocessing,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 012318 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography,

    M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, “Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography,” Nat. Commun.3, 634 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Concise security bounds for practical decoy-state quantum key distribution,

    C. C. W. Lim, M. Curty, N. Walenta,et al., “Concise security bounds for practical decoy-state quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A89, 022307 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Improved key-rate bounds for practical decoy-state quantum-key- distribution systems,

    Z. Zhang, Q. Zhao, M. Razavi, and X. Ma, “Improved key-rate bounds for practical decoy-state quantum-key- distribution systems,” Phys. Rev. A95, 012333 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Field test of quantum key distribution over aerial fiber based on simple and stable modulation,

    Y.-L. Tang, Z.-L. Xie, C. Zhou,et al., “Field test of quantum key distribution over aerial fiber based on simple and stable modulation,” Opt. Express31, 26301 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.