Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Enhancing the security of coherent one-way quantum key distribution using CHSH correlations

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 Monitoring Bell correlations instead of pulse coherence lets COW quantum key distribution reach about 259 km with linear rate scaling.

desk verdict Modest hardware tweak plus CHSH monitoring gives COW nice simulated range, but the qubit entropy bound is applied to coherent states without a real reduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26856 v1 pith:YCQYVGSF submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Mahdi Shaban , Farnaz Farman , Alireza Bahrampour This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd03.67.Hk42.50.Ex
keywords coherentone-wayQKDCOWprotocolCHSHinequalityBellcorrelationssemi-device-independentdistributed-phase-referencesecretkeyratequantumdistribution
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

Coherent one-way quantum key distribution is simple and widely implemented, but its usual security check—watching coherence between successive pulses—fails against certain eavesdropping attacks that leave no bit errors and keep the coherence intact. Those attacks force the secret key rate to scale only as the square of the channel transmittance and have been reported to cap secure distance below 20 km. This paper replaces the coherence monitor with a test of CHSH Bell correlations, adds one extra decoy state on Alice’s side, and retunes Bob’s monitoring interferometer so he can measure the two bases needed for the CHSH test. With those changes the asymptotic key rate is bounded directly by the observed CHSH value S, recovers linear scaling with transmittance, and, in simulation, remains positive out to roughly 259 km. The result matters because it keeps the hardware almost unchanged while restoring a practically usable range for an already-deployed protocol family.

What carries the argument

The Woodhead–Pironio min-entropy bound Hmin(A|E) ≥ 1 - log2(1 + √(2 - S²/4)), which converts the observed CHSH parameter S into a lower bound on Eve’s uncertainty and thereby into the key-rate formula R ≥ Qz [1 - log2(1 + √(2 - S²/4)) - fEC h(Ez)].

What would settle it

Run the modified protocol over a calibrated loss channel and check whether the measured CHSH value S and QBER produce a positive asymptotic key rate that continues to scale linearly with transmittance out to distances well beyond 20 km; any systematic failure of S to stay above 2, or a return to quadratic scaling, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Replacing adjacent-pulse coherence monitoring in COW-QKD with a CHSH Bell test (plus one extra decoy state and a retuned Mach–Zehnder interferometer) yields an asymptotic secret-key rate that scales linearly with channel transmittance and extends the simulated secure distance to approximately 259 km.

Load-bearing premise

The security bound that links CHSH violation to secret-key rate is assumed to apply directly to this infinite-dimensional coherent-state protocol once the weak-pulse X-basis states are treated as approximate qubits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing COW hardware can be upgraded to longer secure distances by adding one decoy intensity/phase setting and retuning the monitoring interferometer to 85:15 plus a switchable phase.
  • Secret-key rate recovers linear scaling with channel transmittance (reported R ≈ 0.002 η), matching the scaling of decoy-state BB84 rather than earlier unconditional COW analyses.
  • Zero-error attacks that preserve pulse coherence but break Bell correlations become detectable through the CHSH monitor.
  • The same CHSH-monitoring idea can be ported, with only minor optical changes, to other coherent-state or distributed-phase-reference QKD schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the security argument rests on an effective qubit bound, any experimental demonstration must also verify that multi-photon and higher-dimensional leakage remain negligible under the chosen mean photon number.
  • Finite-key analysis and composable security proofs for the CHSH-monitored COW variant are natural next steps before field deployment.
  • If the linear scaling holds under realistic detector dark counts and misalignment, metropolitan and short-haul backbone links become realistic targets for upgraded COW systems.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a modified coherent-one-way (COW) QKD protocol in which adjacent-pulse coherence monitoring is replaced by a CHSH test in Bob’s monitoring line, together with one additional X-basis decoy state on Alice’s side. Bob’s Mach–Zehnder interferometer is retuned (50:50 + 85:15 beam splitters and a 0/π phase) so that the monitoring line implements the CHSH observables B1=(\sigma z+\sigma x)/√2 and B2=(\sigma z−\sigma x)/√2. Security is argued via the Woodhead–Pironio prepare-and-measure min-entropy bound Hmin(A|E)≥1−log2(1+√(2−S²/4)) (Eq. 15), yielding the asymptotic rate R≥Qz[1−log2(1+√(2−S²/4))−fEC h(Ez)] (Eq. 16). Simulations with ea=1%, dark-count probability 10−8 and ηd=90% report linear scaling R≈0.002η and a maximum secure distance of ~259 km, substantially beyond recent COW bounds that scale as O(η²).

Significance. If the security reduction holds, the work would restore linear transmittance scaling for a practically relevant DPR protocol and push the simulated secure distance from the sub-20 km / ~100 km regime of recent unconditional analyses to ~259 km, with only modest hardware changes. The optical construction of the CHSH bases (Appendix A) and the explicit ideal correlators giving S=2√2 (Appendix B) are carefully done, and the authors release simulation code and data on Zenodo, which supports reproducibility. The conceptual move—importing a prepare-and-measure CHSH monitor into COW—is interesting and could be useful more broadly. The significance, however, is conditional on a rigorous justification that the qubit-bounded entropy formula applies to the actual coherent-state implementation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Security Analysis, Eqs. (15)–(16)] Eqs. (15)–(16) and the citation to Woodhead–Pironio (Ref. 37): the min-entropy bound is proven under an explicit qubit (or bounded-dimension) assumption on Alice’s preparations. The protocol prepares weak coherent time-bin states (Eqs. 2, 6–7), with X states only informally approximated by “∼” for α≪1. The manuscript never quantifies the weight outside the single-photon early/late subspace, the multi-photon component, or the resulting degradation of Hmin(A|E). Without a dimension-reduction or leakage argument, an observed monitoring-line S does not, by the cited theorem, lower-bound Eve’s uncertainty on the data-line key, nor does it automatically rule out zero-error-class attacks that exploit the larger Hilbert space. This reduction is load-bearing for the linear-rate and 259 km claims and must be supplied or the security statement appropriately weakened.
  2. [Introduction; Security Analysis; Conclusion] Protocol description / Security Analysis: the text frames the scheme as semi-device-independent and claims detection of a “broader class of potential attacks,” including those that leave adjacent-pulse coherence intact. Under collective i.i.d. attacks the rate formula is standard once Hmin(S) is granted, but the manuscript does not show that CHSH monitoring in the modified line excludes the known zero-error attack of Trenyi–Curty (or analogous attacks) when multi-photon and vacuum components are present. A concrete argument—either a reduction to the qubit case with explicit error terms, or a direct attack analysis under the optical model—is needed to support the central security claim.
  3. [simulation Results, Figs. 3–4] Simulation Results and Figs. 3–4: the reported R≈0.002η and 259 km are obtained by feeding the simulated S(Q) directly into Eq. (16). Because that step inherits the unproven qubit reduction, the numerical comparison with Refs. 28 and 32 (which aim at unconditional or tighter COW analyses) is not yet on equal footing. Either the reduction must be established with quantitative bounds that remain valid at the simulated μ and distances, or the figures should be clearly labeled as performance under the qubit-SDI assumption rather than as an unconditional improvement of COW.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Protocol description, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2): the symbol “∼” for the X-basis states should be replaced by an explicit fidelity or trace-distance bound in α, even if only in an appendix, so that the approximation error is trackable.
  2. [Fig. 1; §0.3] Fig. 1 caption and main text: the decoy labels |f1⟩, |f2⟩ vs |0x⟩, |1x⟩ are used interchangeably; unify notation.
  3. [Modified Protocol; simulation Results] The security thresholds S0 and Q0 are mentioned but never specified numerically for the simulations; state the values used to declare a positive key rate out to 259 km.
  4. [§0.4 secret key rate formula] Finite-key analysis is outlined (smooth min-entropy, leftover hash) but the reported rates are purely asymptotic. A short remark on how finite-size corrections would affect the 259 km figure would help the reader.
  5. [Conclusion; References] Typos / style: “notably,” mid-sentence in the Conclusion; “ass-block” in Ref. 24; inconsistent spacing in |α/√2⟩ kets. Also arXiv id 2607.26856 looks nonstandard (year 2607)—verify metadata.
  6. [Appendix A] Appendix A: the cyclic identification a′3→a′1 for the virtual mode is fine for vacuum, but a one-line remark that no physical amplitude occupies that mode under the protocol’s two-bin inputs would remove any ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymptotic rate is an external CHSH min-entropy bound applied to independently computed monitoring statistics, not a quantity forced by its own inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing security formula (Eq. 16) is R ≥ Qz [1 − log2(1+√(2−S²/4)) − fEC h(Ez)], obtained by substituting the Woodhead–Pironio prepare-and-measure CHSH bound Hmin(A|E) ≥ 1−log2(1+√(2−S²/4)) (Eq. 15, citing Ref. 37) into a standard leftover-hashing asymptotic rate. S is defined from detector click counts (Eq. 17) and, in the ideal case, is derived from the MZI transfer matrix and coherent-state amplitudes in Appendix B, yielding S=2√2 by direct calculation rather than by assuming the key rate. The simulation then evaluates S(L) and Q(L) under a channel/detector model and plugs those values into Eq. 16; it does not fit a free parameter to a target rate and re-label the fit as a prediction. Ref. 37 is by different authors (Woodhead & Pironio), so there is no self-citation chain. The α≪1 qubit approximation and the applicability of the qubit-bounded entropy inequality to infinite-dimensional coherent states are modeling/correctness assumptions, not circular reductions of the claimed derivation to its inputs. No step reduces Eq. 16 or the 259 km figure to a tautology or a fitted input renamed as output.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The headline distance and linear scaling rest on an imported CHSH-to-min-entropy inequality, a qubit-like reading of coherent time-bin states for small α, collective i.i.d. attacks in the asymptotic limit, and a standard lossy-channel plus dark-count simulation model with several numerically chosen device parameters. No new physical entity is postulated; the protocol modification is the main construct.

free parameters (6)
  • misalignment ea = 1%
    Fixed at 1% in data and monitoring lines for all headline curves; directly sets QBER and degrades S versus distance.
  • dark-count probability = 1e-8 (main); 1e-7 (comparison)
    Chosen as 1e-8 for the 259 km claim and 1e-7 for comparison plots; dark counts dominate long-distance S and Q and therefore the cutoff distance.
  • detector efficiency ηd = 90% / 99%
    Set to 90% in main simulation and 99% in comparison; scales gain Qz and achievable distance.
  • error-correction inefficiency fEC = 1.1
    Fixed at 1.1 in the rate formula without protocol-specific justification.
  • decoy fraction f, mean photon number μ, data-line transmittance tB
    Protocol free parameters that control Qz, S statistics, and multi-photon content; values used for the 259 km curve are not fully tabulated in the text.
  • security thresholds S0, Q0
    Protocol aborts unless S≥S0 and Q≤Q0; thresholds are described as pre-determined but not given numerical values tied to a composable ε.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Woodhead–Pironio bound: Hmin(A|E) ≥ 1 − log2(1 + sqrt(2 − S^2/4)) for prepare-and-measure CHSH with a qubit dimension constraint.
    Used verbatim as Eq. 15 to turn measured S into secrecy; load-bearing for any positive rate.
  • domain assumption X-basis coherent states approximate qubit superpositions when α ≪ 1 (|0x⟩,|1x⟩ in Eq. 2).
    Needed to treat Alice’s preparations as the A1=σz, A2=σx observables assumed by the CHSH entropy bound.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic i.i.d. collective attacks suffice for the claimed rate and scaling (smooth min-entropy → n Hmin).
    Stated in the security-analysis section before taking N→∞; does not cover general coherent attacks or finite-key composability for the 259 km figure.
  • domain assumption Quantum channel acts as a beamsplitter loss channel with constant misalignment; detections are Poissonian with given dark counts.
    Simulation model underlying Figs. 2–4 and the 259 km cutoff.
  • ad hoc to paper CHSH correlators estimated from monitoring-line clicks (Eq. 17) with DM1/DM2 mapped to ±1 certify the same S that enters the entropy bound.
    Requires that loss, multi-photon components, double-clicks, and basis-dependent detection efficiencies do not invalidate the reduction used in Ref. 37.
  • standard math Standard leftover-hashing / cascade EC leakage bounds in the asymptotic limit (Eqs. 8–14).
    Ordinary finite-key scaffolding specialized to R = Qz[Hmin − fEC h(Ez)].
invented entities (1)
  • Modified COW monitoring line realizing B1=(σz+σx)/√2 and B2=(σz−σx)/√2 via 50:50 + 85:15 MZI and phase 0/π
    purpose: Replace visibility/coherence monitoring with CHSH tests inside a COW-like receiver
    Engineering construct derived in Appendix A; not a new physical law or particle. Independent evidence would be an experiment showing the predicted basis eigenstate behavior and CHSH values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing the security of coherent one-way quantum key distribution using CHSH correlations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCQYVGSF

@misc{pith2026260726856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing the security of coherent one-way quantum key distribution using CHSH correlations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCQYVGSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26856}
}
read the original abstract

The coherent one-way (COW) protocol is a quantum key distribution scheme that has attracted significant attention, leading to the development and commercialization of practical implementations. Despite this progress, the security of the COW protocol has remained a fundamental challenge since its introduction. Numerous studies have investigated its security, and several security proofs have been proposed over the years. More recently, a number of works have questioned the security of this protocol. In particular, one of the latest studies introduced an attack that severely limits the security of COW-QKD and reported a maximum secure distance of less than 20km. In this work, we introduce minimal alteration to the COW protocol that can enhance its security. Specifically, instead of monitoring the coherence between successive pulses, we propose to monitor quantum correlations through the violation of Bell inequalities. This approach enables the detection of a broader class of potential attacks. Our simulation results indicate that, by employing this method, the maximum secure distance of the protocol can be extended to approximately 259km.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26856 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the modified COW protocol considered in our work. Alice randomly sends a sequence of states |0⟩2k−1|α⟩2k , |α⟩2k−1|0⟩2k , | √α 2 ⟩2k−1| √α 2 ⟩2k , and | − √α 2 ⟩2k−1| √α 2 ⟩2k to Bob. Bob routes all incoming pulses to the data line with probability tB, and to the monitoring line with probability 1−tB. Compared to the original version of the protocol, Alice sends an additional decoy state. Moreover, in B… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The CHSH inequality parameter S (solid line) and the quantum bit error rate (dashed line) as a function of the transmission distance between Alice and Bob. The optical misalignment error is set to ea = 1%. The classical limit S = 2 is indicated by the black dotted line. This relation connects the secrecy of the key directly to the violation of the CHSH inequality. By substituting this bound into Eqs. (14), we obtain… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Secret key rates in the asymptotic regime. When ea = 1%, the secret key rate exhibits linear scaling, O(η). For comparison, the figure also shows reference curves with linear and quadratic scaling in η, together with the PLOB bound. 0 50 100 150 200 Distance (km) 10 −9 10 −8 10 −7 10 −6 10 −5 10 −4 10 −3 10 −2 10 −1 Key rate (per pulse) Variant of COW QKD in [28] Variant of COW QKD in [32] This work [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of asymptotic secret key rates of COW-QKD in this work and the variants of COW-QKD using active basis choice28, 32. The misalignment error ea is set to 1%, the dark count rate is set to 10−7 , and the detection efficiency of ηd = 99%. The variant in Ref.28 u…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Input and output modes of the asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer. We order the basis states in a time-major, spatial-minor sequence. The explicit representation of these basis states as six-dimensional column vectors is given by: |1,1⟩ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bennett, C. H. & Brassard, G. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing.Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Comput.Systems and Signal Processing, 175–179, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025 (1984)

    doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025 2014

  2. [2]

    Ekert, A. K. Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem.Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.67.661 (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Scarani, V .et al.The security of practical quantum key distribution.Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301, DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.81.1301 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    & Pan, J.-W

    Xu, F., Ma, X., Zhang, Q., Lo, H.-K. & Pan, J.-W. Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices.Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025002, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.025002 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.025002 2020

  5. [5]

    Pirandola, S.et al.Advances in quantum cryptography.Adv. Opt. Photon.12, 1012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP. 361502 (2020)

    doi:10.1364/aop 2020

  6. [6]

    & Jahma, M

    Lütkenhaus, N. & Jahma, M. Quantum key distribution with realistic states: photon-number statistics in the photon-number splitting attack.New J. Phys.4, 344, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/4/1/344 (2002)

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/4/1/344 2002

  7. [7]

    Quantum key distribution with high loss: toward global secure communication.Phys

    Hwang, W.-Y . Quantum key distribution with high loss: toward global secure communication.Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 057901, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.057901 (2003)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.057901 2003

  8. [8]

    & Chen, K

    Lo, H.-K., Ma, X. & Chen, K. Decoy state quantum key distribution.Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 230503, DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.94.230504 (2005)

    2005

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Unconditional security of coherent-state quantum key distribution with strong phase-reference pulse.Phys

    Koashi, M. Unconditional security of coherent-state quantum key distribution with strong phase-reference pulse.Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 120501, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.120501 (2004)

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    & Gisin, N

    Scarani, V ., Acin, A., Ribordy, G. & Gisin, N. Quantum cryptography protocols robust against photon number splitting attacks for weak laser pulses implementations.Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 057901, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92. 057901 (2004)

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    & Yamamoto, Y

    Inoue, K., Waks, E. & Yamamoto, Y . Differential phase shift quantum key distribution.Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 037902, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.037902 (2002)

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    & Yamamoto, Y

    Inoue, K., Waks, E. & Yamamoto, Y . Differential-phase-shift quantum key distribution using coherent light.Phys. Rev. A 68, 022317, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022317 (2003)

    2003 doi

  5. [14]

    & Koashi, M

    Sasaki, T., Yamamoto, Y . & Koashi, M. Practical quantum key distribution protocol without monitoring signal disturbance. Nature509, 475, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13303 (2014)

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    & Tamaki, K

    Hatakeyama, Y ., Mizutani, A., Kato, G., Imoto, N. & Tamaki, K. Differential-phase-shift quantum-key-distribution protocol with a small number of random delays.Phys. Rev. A95, 042301, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.042301 (2017)

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    & Zbinden, H

    Stucki, D., Brunner, N., Gisin, N., Scarani, V . & Zbinden, H. Fast and simple one-way quantum key distribution.Appl. Phys. Lett.87, 194108, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2126792 (2005)

    2005 doi

  8. [17]

    Express17, 13326, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.013326 (2009)

    Stucki, D.et al.Continuous high speed coherent one-way quantum key distribution.Opt. Express17, 13326, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.013326 (2009)

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    Phys.11, 075003, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/075003 (2009)

    Stucki, D.et al.High rate, long-distance quantum key distribution over 250 km of ultra low loss fibres.New J. Phys.11, 075003, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/075003 (2009)

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    Phys.16, 013047, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/1/013047 (2014)

    Walenta, N.et al.A fast and versatile quantum key distribution system with hardware key distillation and wavelength multiplexing.New J. Phys.16, 013047, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/1/013047 (2014)

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    Photonics9, 163, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.327 (2015)

    Korzh, B.et al.Provably secure and practical quantum key distribution over 307 km of optical fibre.Nat. Photonics9, 163, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.327 (2015)

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    Commun.8, 2041, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13984 (2017)

    Sibson, P.et al.Chip-based quantum key distribution.Nat. Commun.8, 2041, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13984 (2017)

    doi

  13. [22]

    Sibson, P.et al.Integrated silicon photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution.Optica4, 179, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.4.000172 (2017). 14/15

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    L.et al.Manipulating photon coherence to enhance the security of distributed phase reference quantum key distribution.Appl

    Roberts, G. L.et al.Manipulating photon coherence to enhance the security of distributed phase reference quantum key distribution.Appl. Phys. Lett.111, 261106, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5004488 (2017)

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    & Yang, L

    Dai, J., Zhang, L., Fu, X., Zheng, X. & Yang, L. ass-block architecture for distributed-phase-reference quantum key distribution using silicon photonics.Opt. Lett.45, 2014, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.388654 (2020)

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    IEEE Access13, 66752, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3558944 (2025)

    Dadahkhani, A.et al.Experimental implementation of enhanced security coherent one-way quantum key distribution. IEEE Access13, 66752, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3558944 (2025)

    2025

  17. [26]

    Phys.11, 075001, DOI: https://doi.org/10

    Peev, M.et al.The secoqc quantum key distribution network in vienna.New J. Phys.11, 075001, DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1088/1367-2630/11/7/075001 (2009)

    2009

  18. [27]

    & Scarani, V

    Branciard, C., Gisin, N. & Scarani, V . Upper bounds for the security of two distributed-phase reference protocols of quantum cryptography.New J. Phys.10, 013031, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/1/013031 (2008)

    2008 doi

  19. [28]

    Moroder, T.et al.Security of distributed-phase-reference quantum key distribution.Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 260501, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.260501 (2012)

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    & Chen, Z

    Li, M., Cao, X., Xie, Y ., Yin, H. & Chen, Z. Finite-key analysis for coherent one-way quantum key distribution.Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013022 (2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    M.et al.Real-time operation of a multi-rate, multi-protocol quantum key distribution transmitter.Optica8, 911, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.423517 (2021)

    Innocenzo, D. M.et al.Real-time operation of a multi-rate, multi-protocol quantum key distribution transmitter.Optica8, 911, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.423517 (2021)

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    & Curty, M

    Trenyi, R. & Curty, M. Zero-error attack against coherent-one-way quantum key distribution.New J. Phys.23, 093005, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac1e41 (2021)

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    Express30, 23783, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.461669 (2022)

    Gao, R.-Q.et al.Simple security proof of coherent-one-way quantum key distribution.Opt. Express30, 23783, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.461669 (2022)

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Acin, A.et al.Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks.Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 230501, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.230501 (2007)

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    & Acin, A

    Masanes, L., Pironio, S. & Acin, A. Secure device-independent quantum key distribution with causally independent measurement devices.Nat. Commun.2, 238, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1244 (2011)

    2011 doi

  26. [35]

    & Brunner, N

    Pawlowski, M. & Brunner, N. Semi-device-independent security of one-way quantum key distribution.Phys. Rev. A84, 010302, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.010302 (2011)

    2011 doi

  27. [36]

    & Pironio, S

    Woodhead, E. & Pironio, S. Semi-device-independent qkd based on bb84 and a chsh-type estimation. 107–115, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35656-8_9 (2013)

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    & Pironio, S

    Woodhead, E. & Pironio, S. Secrecy in prepare-and-measure chsh tests with a qubit bound.Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 150501, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.150501 (2015). 38.Singh, A.et al.Photonic quantum information with time-bins, DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2...

    2015 doi arXiv

  29. [39]

    & Renner, R

    Tomamichel, M., Schaffner, C., Smith, A. & Renner, R. Leftover hashing against quantum side information.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory57, 5524, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2011.2158473 (2011)

    2011

  30. [40]

    & Schaffner, C

    Konig, R., Renner, R. & Schaffner, C. The operational meaning of min- and max-entropy.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory55, 4337, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2009.2025545 (2009)

    2009

  31. [41]

    Security of quantum key distribution.ETH ZurichPhD thesis, DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/ 0512258 (2008)

    Renner, R. Security of quantum key distribution.ETH ZurichPhD thesis, DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/ 0512258 (2008). 15/15

    2008 doi

Pith tools

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