Mesoscopic Quantum Communication via Photon-Number Moments

Alessia Allevi; Alex Pozzoli; Gabriele Cenedese; Luca Razzoli

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Mesoscopic Quantum Communication via Photon-Number Moments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A mesoscopic quantum communication protocol encodes eight symbols in photon-number moments and uses twin-beam noise correlations as a security witness, achieving nonzero key generation rates under intercept-resend and beam-splitting attacks

desk verdict Nice proof-of-principle for moment-encoded mesoscopic QKD, but the key-rate claim doesn't survive contact with the paper's own security filter. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03418 v1 pith:TEJGFPYS submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph physics.optics

Gabriele Cenedese , Alex Pozzoli , Luca Razzoli , Alessia Allevi This is my paper

classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.Dd

keywords mesoscopicquantumcommunicationphoton-number-resolvingdetectorstwin-beamstatesnoisereductionfactorkeydistributionintercept-resendattackbeam-splittingphoton-numbermoments

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that quantum key distribution can work in the mesoscopic intensity regime—light pulses with tens of photons rather than single photons—provided the receiver can count photons and the sender adds a twin-beam state as a security witness. The proposal encodes each symbol in the first two moments (mean and variance) of the photon-number distribution of classical states, giving an eight-symbol alphabet, and uses the noise reduction factor R between the two arms of the twin beam to test whether an eavesdropper has tampered with a transmitted sample. Numerical simulations of two standard attacks, intercept-resend and beam-splitting, give nonzero key generation rates in a parameter window (IR fraction α≲0.4; BS reflectivity 1−t≲0.3), and a symbol-resolved R-based acceptance test flags weak attacks that the simple R<1 criterion misses. The point is that mesoscopic light, which tolerates loss far better than single photons, can carry secure keys if the security check is tailored to the photon statistics.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the noise reduction factor R = σ²(n1−n2)/(⟨n1⟩+⟨n2⟩), the variance of the photon-number difference between the two twin-beam arms normalized by the shot-noise level. R<1 is a sufficient condition for nonclassical correlation; adding a classical signal with variance σ² = ⟨m_s⟩(a⟨m_s⟩+1) raises R by an amount controlled by the coefficient a, so the eight symbols separate into distinct (⟨m_Bob⟩, R) clouds. The protocol then replaces the coarse 'R<1' check with pre-calibrated 95% confidence ellipses for each symbol; a received sample is accepted only if its measured (⟨m_Bob⟩, R) falls inside the ellipse for the declared symbol. This symbol-resolved witness is what catch

What would settle it

Use a variable attenuator that applies the same transmission to the signal and to the sent twin-beam arm, recompute the key generation rate for IR and BS attacks with the paper's parameters (⟨m_Alice⟩=5, Δ=0.5, η=0.4, d_sample=2×$10^{4}$), and check whether KGR remains positive in the stated windows. If it drops to zero for reasonable symmetric loss values, the lone-TWB-loss assumption is load-bearing and the protocol's security claim fails in realistic channels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that photon-number moments are a workable encoding alphabet for secure communication in the mesoscopic regime, provided a twin-beam state is co-propagated and the noise reduction factor is used as a symbol-resolved acceptance witness. Alice prepares four classical super-Poissonian states (single-mode pseudo-thermal, multi-mode pseudo-thermal, speckled-speckle super-thermal, and second-harmonic super-thermal) at two mean photon numbers each; Bob estimates the mean and variance of detected photons and, in parallel, the R value computed with Alice's measured arm. Under intercept-resend attacks with fraction α≲0.4 and beam-splitting attacks with reflectivity 1−t≲0.3, the mut

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that channel loss hits only the twin-beam arm and not the encoded signal (Sec. III A); in a real shared channel both beams would attenuate, which would change the variance contrast and could shrink or eliminate the R<1 security margin and the positive key-rate window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A secure key can be generated in the mesoscopic photon-number regime using photon-number-resolving detectors with moderate quantum efficiency (η=0.4), making the protocol accessible with existing silicon photomultiplier technology.
The R-based symbol-resolved acceptance test detects eavesdropping at weaker attacks (IR α≈0.2, BS reflectivity≈0.4) than the simple R<1 criterion, which only triggered at α≳0.35 and 1−t≳0.6.
The key generation rate is positive for IR α≲0.4 and BS reflectivity 1−t≲0.3 in the simulated setting, and remains correlated with the R-based true-positive rate, giving a measurable security figure of merit.
Because the eight symbols are discriminated from mean and variance alone and all six classifiers perform similarly, the encoding's distinguishability is essentially a property of the photon-number distributions, not of a particular machine-learning rule.
Higher key generation rates should be obtainable by expanding the alphabet with additional mean values or new distributions, provided state overlap is kept at a level that preserves discrimination.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the paper only simulates two attack models; a natural extension is to test whether an adaptive or collective eavesdropper who listens to the public R-calibration channel and interleaves IR and BS operations can force R inside the acceptance ellipses while still learning the symbol.
Editorial inference: because the simulations assume loss affects only the twin-beam arm, the reported secure windows likely shrink under symmetric channel loss; a direct test is to apply the same attenuation to both arms and recompute the key generation rate.
Editorial inference: the correlation between key generation rate and R-based true-positive rate suggests that, in an implementation, the experimentally measured R-based rate could serve as a real-time proxy for key-generation security without reconstructing full mutual information.
Editorial inference: the moment-based encoding idea is portable—any set of states whose variance lines separate in the (mean, variance) plane could be substituted, so the eight-symbol alphabet here is one instance of a more general moment-encoding construction.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short take: the eight-symbol moment encoding is a genuine idea, and the TWB-based R witness is used more carefully than in prior work. But the paper's headline claim—nonzero KGR against IR and BS attacks—doesn't hold as stated because the KGR is computed without applying the protocol's own acceptance filter.

What's new: encoding information in the first two moments of photon-number distributions for eight symbols, a systematic comparison of six classifiers, and a symbol-resolved security test based on calibrated ellipses (Eq. 17). The numerical simulation is careful and the chosen parameters (SiPM efficiency 0.4, μ=100 TWB, mean photon numbers) are experimentally realistic. The paper also correctly identifies that the bare p(R<1) criterion is too weak and needs a calibrated test.

The load-bearing problem: TPR_R (Fig. 5, stars) vanishes for α>0.2 and 1−t>0.4. That means Bob's security test rejects every received symbol in those regimes. Yet Fig. 7 reports nonzero KGR for α up to ~0.4 and 1−t up to ~0.3. The KGR in Eq. (18) is just I(A:B)−I(A:E); it is not multiplied by the probability of passing the acceptance test. So the reported rates are not achievable: if Bob discards symbols that fail the R-based test, the effective key rate is zero whenever TPR_R=0. The conclusion that nonzero KGR indicates secure key generation is therefore unsupported. This needs to be fixed—condition the KGR on the acceptance region, or state it as an un-conditional mutual-information difference that ignores the security test.

Second issue: the loss model assumes Δ affects only the TWB arm, not the signal. The authors justify this by compensating the classical signal intensity, but in a real shared channel both beams attenuate, changing the variance contrast and the R margins. This is acknowledged in Sec. III A, but it weakens the practical relevance of the numerical key rates.

Third, minor: the security analysis covers only IR and BS attacks with restricted Eve capabilities; the KGR is a heuristic, not a composable secret-key rate.

On balance: the core idea is promising, and the simulations are honest enough to expose the inconsistency between their own TPR and KGR curves. With the KGR conditioning fixed and the loss model clarified, this could be a solid proof-of-principle for mesoscopic QKD. I would send it to peer review; referee reports should focus on the key-rate definition and the attack model. I wouldn't cite it as a secure protocol in its current form, but I'd keep it on the reading pile.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mesoscopic quantum communication protocol in which Alice encodes information in the first two moments (mean and variance) of classical optical states whose light is superimposed on one arm of a twin-beam (TWB) state. Bob decodes with photon-number-resolving detectors. Security is argued through the noise-reduction factor R of the TWB, with a symbol-resolved acceptance test based on pre-calibrated confidence ellipses in the (⟨m_Bob⟩, R_Bob) plane. Numerical simulations assess Bob's and Eve's classification accuracies under intercept-resend (IR) and beam-splitting (BS) attacks, and compute a key generation rate KGR = I(A:B) − I(A:E) that is nonzero for weak-to-moderate attacks. The paper concludes that nonzero KGR indicates secure key generation against the considered attacks.

Significance. The idea of encoding in photon-number moments and using TWB correlations as an experimentally accessible security witness is interesting and could be a useful proof-of-principle for the mesoscopic regime. The manuscript contains extensive simulations, compares several machine-learning classifiers, and is explicit about the experimental parameters (SiPM efficiency, sample sizes, TWB modes). However, the central security claim is not supported by the analysis as presented: the KGR is not conditioned on the protocol's own acceptance filter, the loss model is asymmetric in a way that favors the claimed security, and the rate formula omits essential reconciliation and privacy-amplification costs. These are load-bearing issues, not presentation problems. If the authors were to redo the rate computation conditional on accepted symbols and clarify the assumptions, the protocol could still be a legitimate contribution, but the current manuscript overstates what the simulations demonstrate.

major comments (4)

[§III C, §IV, Eq. (18), Figs. 5 and 7] The KGR is computed as I(A:B) − I(A:E) with no factor accounting for the protocol's own security filter. In §III C, a symbol is kept only if its measured (⟨m_Bob⟩, R_Bob) lies inside the acceptance ellipse of Eq. (17); otherwise it is discarded. Figure 5 shows TPR_R = 0 for α ≳ 0.2 (IR) and 1−t ≳ 0.4 (BS), meaning Bob would reject every symbol in those regimes. Yet Fig. 7 reports nonzero KGR for α up to ~0.4 and 1−t up to ~0.3. The conclusion that nonzero KGR indicates secure key generation is therefore not justified. The correct rate must be conditional on acceptance, e.g., KGR_cond = P_accept · max{0, I(A:B|accept) − I(A:E|accept)} (or an equivalent expression), which vanishes when TPR_R = 0. This is an internal inconsistency between the security test and the claimed key-generation capability.
[§III A, Eq. (15)] The loss model assumes that channel loss Δ affects only the TWB arm and not the superimposed signal, with the justification that signal intensity can be increased to compensate. In a realistic shared channel both the TWB and the signal attenuate. Since Eq. (15) and the R-based acceptance criterion depend on the relative size of ⟨m_s⟩ and ⟨m_TWB⟩, symmetric loss changes the variance contrast and the R thresholds. The simulated TPR_R and KGR values are therefore not robust to the stated physical scenario. The authors should either model loss on both arms or provide a concrete physical implementation where asymmetric loss is guaranteed; otherwise the security claim is tied to an ad hoc assumption.
[§IV, Eq. (18), Conclusions] The KGR defined in Eq. (18) is a classical mutual-information difference with no term for error-correction leakage, no privacy-amplification cost, and no finite-size security analysis. In quantum key distribution, the secret-key rate is not simply I(A:B) − I(A:E); this expression is at best a heuristic upper bound under restrictive assumptions, and the manuscript does not cite or justify the conditions under which it would be valid. The conclusion that 'nonzero values of the KGR indicate that the protocol enables secure key generation' is therefore stronger than what the information-theoretic quantity supports. At minimum, the authors should rephrase this as a preliminary heuristic and explicitly state what is missing for a full security proof.
[§II A, §III C] The attacks considered are restricted: Eve is assumed to replace stolen light with a signal having exactly the same first two moments as the measured distribution, and the security analysis is limited to IR and BS attacks. A general Eve is not required to preserve moments and could use collective or coherent attacks. The paper's claim is explicitly scoped to 'the considered eavesdropping attacks,' which is honest, but the manuscript should make this limitation more prominent in the abstract and conclusions. As written, the reader may take 'secure key generation' as a full security statement. Adding a sentence that the result is a proof-of-principle against two restricted attack models would mitigate this concern.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'highligths' should be 'highlights'.
[Reference [5]] The title appears corrupted: 'Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and con tos5' should likely be 'Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing'.
[Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'Missclassiﬁed' should be 'Misclassified'.
[§IV; Fig. 8] The claim that KGR and TPR_R are 'strongly correlated' is based on a logit fit and a linear fit with only a handful of points. The text should report goodness-of-fit values or at least error bars on the points; otherwise the correlation statement is not quantitatively supported.
[Data availability] The data availability statement says 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.' For a numerical simulation paper, providing the code or data in a repository would greatly improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; KGR/TPR mismatch is a consistency gap, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

No load-bearing step in the derivation reduces to its own input. The photon-number distributions (Eqs. 1–6), the variances (Eqs. 7–11), the noise-reduction-factor expressions (Eqs. 13–15), and the attack models are all stated as explicit simulation inputs, not as outputs of the security claim. The operating point Δ=0.5, ⟨m_Alice⟩=5 is chosen in Sec. III B from independent preliminary scans of ACC and p(R>1) (Fig. 3), before the attack analysis; the acceptance ellipses in Eq. (17) are calibrated under trusted conditions, which is a standard reference test rather than a device for importing the conclusion. The KGR in Eq. (18) is a simulated MI difference, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. The many self-citations (e.g., [19], [31], [34]) provide prior experimental characterizations and protocol background; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem forcing the present choice, and the security numbers are computed within this paper's own model. The most important weakness is a non-circular consistency gap: Figs. 5 and 7 show regimes where TPR_R=0 but KGR>0, because Eq. (18) is not multiplied by the probability that a symbol passes the R-based acceptance test. Thus the conclusion that nonzero KGR means a secure key is actually obtainable is not supported in those regimes. That is an omitted conditioning step / correctness issue, not an instance of the derivation being equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol introduces no new physical entities or forces. It relies on standard optical states (thermal, super-thermal, twin-beam) and detectors, with several parameters chosen by hand to operate in the R<1 regime. The main extra assumptions are the restricted attack model and the asymmetric loss treatment, both of which are ad hoc to the simulation.

free parameters (8)

Signal mean photon numbers = ⟨m_s,L⟩=0.40, ⟨m_s,H⟩=0.45
Chosen to keep the noise reduction factor below 1 while preserving discrimination; directly controls the symbol statistics and the R margin.
TWB mean photon number at Alice = ⟨m_Alice⟩=5.0
Selected after preliminary scans as the 'most representative' operating condition; affects both accuracy and R<1 probability.
Number of TWB modes = µ=100
Assumed for the multi-mode twin-beam model; enters the R expression and the variance.
Number of modes for multi-mode pseudo-thermal signal = µ_s=10
Chosen to produce a distinct variance (a=1/µ_s) in the eight-symbol alphabet.
Channel loss on TWB = Δ=0.5
Selected as the 'most representative' loss value; the paper assumes loss affects only the TWB, not the signal.
Detection efficiency = η=0.4
Corresponds to silicon photomultipliers in the visible range; enters all detected moment expressions.
Sample size per symbol = d_sample=2×10^4
Minimum sample size for ACC_σ^2 to saturate at 1 in the preliminary characterization; affects all subsequent statistics.
Acceptance ellipse confidence level = 0.95
Chosen for the chi-squared threshold in Eq. (17); affects the trade-off between false rejection and attack detection.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The twin-beam state is a tensor product of µ equally populated two-mode squeezed states (Eq. 12).
This model underlies the expressions for the noise reduction factor and all simulated correlations.
standard math Detection loss and channel loss follow a Bernoullian (binomial) model.
Used to relate incident and detected photon numbers, including the invariance of variance expressions under Bernoullian detection.
domain assumption The superimposed classical signal is uncorrelated with the twin-beam.
Justifies the additive form of the variance in Eq. (14) and the R expression in Eq. (15).
ad hoc to paper Eve replaces stolen light with a signal having exactly the same first two moments as the measured distribution.
Defines the attack model in Sec. III A; limits the threat model to attacks preserving the first two moments, which may not cover broader adversarial strategies.
ad hoc to paper Channel loss affects only the TWB and not the signal, compensable by increasing signal intensity.
Stated in Sec. III A; not physically justified for a shared channel and directly impacts the simulated performance.
domain assumption Alice and Bob can perform a trusted calibration phase before communication.
The acceptance ellipses are calibrated under trusted conditions (Sec. III C); the security of this phase is not analyzed.
domain assumption Sharing Alice's measured photon numbers over the untrusted classical channel does not reveal symbol information.
The protocol relies on classical communication to compute R; the paper asserts the data contain no symbol information, but does not analyze tampering by Eve.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mesoscopic Quantum Communication via Photon-Number Moments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEJGFPYS

@misc{pith2026260803418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mesoscopic Quantum Communication via Photon-Number Moments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEJGFPYS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03418}
}

read the original abstract

Mesoscopic optical states are a promising resource for quantum communication, combining robustness against losses with the preservation of genuine quantum features. Here, we propose a quantum communication protocol in which information is encoded in the first and second moments of the photon-number distributions of classical optical states, and then decoded by photon-number-resolving detectors. Security relies on the nonclassical photon-number correlations of a twin-beam state transmitted alongside the signal in the quantum channel, providing an experimentally accessible security witness against both intercept-resend and beam-splitter attacks investigated in this work. Numerical simulations performed in experimentally accessible parameter regimes support the feasibility and security of the proposed communication protocol, yielding nonzero key generation rates under the considered eavesdropping attacks, and motivating its future experimental implementation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03418 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Sketch of the proposed communication scheme, where Alice encodes information into classical optical states of light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Bob’s discrimination accuracies ACC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Bob’s discrimination accuracy ACC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bob’s (dots) and Eve’s (open circles) discrimination accuracy ACC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Noise reduction factor calculated by Bob as a function of the mean number of photons he detects in the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: a certain degree of overlap can enhance security, whereas excessive overlap can compromise discrimination. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. MI between Alice and Bob, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. KGR (in bit per symbol) as a function of the TPR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

Cariolaro,Quantum communications, Vol

G. Cariolaro,Quantum communications, Vol. 2 (Springer, 2015)

work page 2015
[2]

Benenti, G

G. Benenti, G. Casati, D. Rossini, and G. Strini,Principles of quantum computation and information: a comprehensive textbook(World Scientific, 2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Diamanti, H.-K

E. Diamanti, H.-K. Lo, B. Qi, and Z. Yuan, Practical challenges in quantum key distribution, npj Quantum Information 2, 16025 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Rusca and N

D. Rusca and N. Gisin, Quantum cryptography: an overview of quantum key distribution, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04044 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[5]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and con tos5, inProceedings of the international conference on computers, systems and signal processing(1984) pp. 175–179. 13

work page 1984
[6]

C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, Experimental quantum cryptography, Journal of cryptology5, 3 (1992)

work page 1992
[7]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Physical Review Letters67, 661 (1991)

1991
[8]

M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov, Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detectors, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 071101 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 58 references

[9]

Flamini, N

F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Photonic quantum information processing: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016001 (2019)

2019
[10]

Cozzolino, B

D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenløwe, High-dimensional quantum communica- tion: Benefits, progress, and future challenges, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 1900038 (2019), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qute.201900038

2019 doi
[11]

R. Sax, A. Boaron, G. Boso, S. Atzeni, A. Crespi, F. Gr¨ unenfelder, D. Rusca, A. Al-Saadi, D. Bronzi, S. Kupijai,et al., High-speed integrated qkd system, Photonics Research11, 1007 (2023)

2023
[12]

Scarani, H

V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duˇ sek, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1301 (2009)

2009
[13]

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

2020
[14]

M. T. DiMario and F. E. Becerra, Robust measurement for the discrimination of binary coherent states, Physical Review Letters121, 023603 (2018)

2018
[15]

DiMario, L

M. DiMario, L. Kunz, K. Banaszek, and F. Becerra, Optimized communication strategies with binary coherent states over phase noise channels, npj Quantum Information5, 65 (2019)

2019
[16]

X. Li, J. Tan, K. Zheng, L. Zhang, L. Zhang, W. He, P. Huang, H. Li, B. Zhang, Q. Chen,et al., Enhanced photon communication through bayesian estimation with an snspd array, Photonics Research8, 637 (2020)

2020
[17]

Azuma, W

H. Azuma, W. J. Munro, and K. Nemoto, Heralded single-photon source based on superpositions of squeezed states, Physical Review A109, 053711 (2024)

2024
[18]

Allevi and M

A. Allevi and M. Bondani, Nonlinear and quantum optical properties and applications of intense twin-beams, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics66, 49 (2017)

2017
[19]

Razzoli, A

L. Razzoli, A. Pozzoli, and A. Allevi, Hybrid discrimination strategy in quantum communication based on photon-number- resolving detectors and mesoscopic twin-beam states, Quantum Science and Technology10, 045036 (2025)

2025
[20]

F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, Implementation of generalized quantum measurements for unambiguous discrimi- nation of multiple non-orthogonal coherent states, Nature communications4, 2028 (2013)
[21]

Sanvito, S

A. Sanvito, S. Cassina, M. Lamperti, M. N. Notarnicola, S. Olivares, and A. Allevi, Assessing a binary quantum channel exploiting a silicon photomultiplier based hybrid receiver, Optics Express32, 39846 (2024)

2024
[22]

Chesi, L

G. Chesi, L. Malinverno, A. Allevi, R. Santoro, M. Caccia, and M. Bondani, Measuring nonclassicality with silicon photo- multipliers, Opt. Lett.44, 1371 (2019)

2019
[23]

Cassina, A

S. Cassina, A. Allevi, V. Mascagna, M. Prest, E. Vallazza, and M. Bondani, Exploiting the wide dynamic range of silicon photomultipliers for quantum optics applications, EPJ Quantum Technology8, 4 (2021)

2021
[24]

M. Endo, K. Takahashi, T. Nomura, T. Sonoyama, S. Miki, M. Yabuno, H. Terai, T. Kashiwazaki, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, et al., Optically sampled superconducting-nanostrip photon-number resolving detector for non-classical quantum state generation, Optics Express33, 32545 (2025)

2025
[25]

Cattaneo, M

M. Cattaneo, M. G. Paris, and S. Olivares, Hybrid quantum key distribution using coherent states and photon-number- resolving detectors, Physical Review A98, 012333 (2018)

2018
[26]

M. N. Notarnicola, M. G. Paris, and S. Olivares, Hybrid near-optimum binary receiver with realistic photon-number- resolving detectors, Journal of the Optical Society of America B40, 705 (2023)

2023
[27]

M. N. Notarnicola and S. Olivares, Employing weak-field homodyne detection for optical communications, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (2025)

2025
[28]

V. C. Usenko, A. Ac ´ ın, R. All´ eaume, U. L. Andersen, E. Diamanti, T. Gehring, A. A. Hajomer, F. Kan- itschar, C. Pacher, S. Pirandola,et al., Continuous-variable quantum communication, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12801 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12801 (2025)

2025 doi arXiv
[29]

Calsamiglia, S

J. Calsamiglia, S. M. Barnett, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Conditional beam-splitting attack on quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A65, 012312 (2001)

2001
[30]

Allevi and M

A. Allevi and M. Bondani, Multi-mode twin-beam states in the mesoscopic intensity domain, Physics Letters A423, 127828 (2022)

2022
[31]

Allevi and M

A. Allevi and M. Bondani, Novel scheme for secure data transmission based on mesoscopic twin beams and photon-number- resolving detectors, Scientific Reports12, 15621 (2022)

2022
[32]

S. B. Kotsiantis, I. D. Zaharakis, and P. E. Pintelas, Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques, Artificial Intelligence Review26, 159 (2006)

2006
[33]

F. Y. Osisanwo, J. E. Akinsola, O. Awodele, J. O. Hinmikaiye, O. Olakanmi, J. Akinjobi,et al., Supervised machine learning algorithms: classification and comparison, International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) 48, 128 (2017)

2017
[34]

Allevi and M

A. Allevi and M. Bondani, Effect of noisy channels on the transmission of mesoscopic twin-beam states, Optics Express 29, 32842 (2021)

2021
[35]

Bianciardi, A

C. Bianciardi, A. Allevi, and M. Bondani, Experimental validation of the statistical properties of speckled-speckle fields in the mesoscopic intensity regime, Applied Sciences13, 10.3390/app13074490 (2023). 14

2023 doi
[36]

Allevi and M

A. Allevi and M. Bondani, Direct detection of super-thermal photon-number statistics in second-harmonic generation, Opt. Lett.40, 3089 (2015)

2015
[37]

Mandel, E

L. Mandel, E. Wolf, and J. H. Shapiro,Optical coherence and quantum optics(American Institute of Physics, 1996)

1996
[38]

J. W. Goodman,Speckle phenomena in optics: theory and applications(Roberts and company Publishers, 2007)

2007
[39]

Allevi and M

A. Allevi and M. Bondani, Thermal and superthermal noise signals as resources for underwater quantum communication, Physics Letters A492, 129207 (2023)

2023
[40]

Izumi, M

S. Izumi, M. Takeoka, M. Fujiwara, N. D. Pozza, A. Assalini, K. Ema, and M. Sasaki, Displacement receiver for phase- shift-keyed coherent states, Phys. Rev. A86, 042328 (2012)

2012
[41]

F. E. Becerra, J. Fan, G. Baumgartner, J. Goldhar, J. Kosloski, and A. Migdall, Experimental demonstration of a receiver beating the standard quantum limit for multiple nonorthogonal state discrimination, Nature Photonics7, 147 (2013)

2013
[42]

C. R. M¨ uller and C. Marquardt, A robust quantum receiver for phase shift keyed signals, New Journal of Physics17, 032003 (2015)

2015
[43]

Machulka, O

R. Machulka, O. Haderka, J. Peˇ rina Jr, M. Lamperti, A. Allevi, and M. Bondani, Spatial properties of twin-beam correla- tions at low-to high-intensity transition, Optics Express22, 13374 (2014)

2014
[44]

Allevi, A

A. Allevi, A. Andreoni, F. A. Beduini, M. Bondani, M. G. Genoni, S. Olivares, and M. G. Paris, Conditional measurements on multimode pairwise entangled states from spontaneous parametric downconversion, EPL (Europhysics Letters)92, 20007 (2010)

2010
[45]

Harder, T

G. Harder, T. J. Bartley, A. E. Lita, S. W. Nam, T. Gerrits, and C. Silberhorn, Single-mode parametric-down-conversion states with 50 photons as a source for mesoscopic quantum optics, Physical Review Letters116, 143601 (2016)

2016
[46]

Agliati, M

A. Agliati, M. Bondani, A. Andreoni, G. De Cillis, and M. G. Paris, Quantum and classical correlations of intense beams of light investigated via joint photodetection, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics7, S652 (2005)

2005
[47]

Gaidash, V

A. Gaidash, V. Egorov, and A. Gleim, Revealing beam-splitting attack in a quantum cryptography system with a photon- number-resolving detector, Journal of the Optical Society of America B33, 1451 (2016)

2016
[48]

Hamamatsu Photonics, Mppc (multi-pixel photon counter) s13360 series (2025)

2025
[49]

Pozzoli, S

A. Pozzoli, S. Carsi, A. Abba, and A. Allevi, Developing a photon-number-resolving detection chain for quantum commu- nication protocols involving mesoscopic states of light, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19980 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[50]

Efron, Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife, inBreakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution (Springer, 1992) pp

B. Efron, Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife, inBreakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution (Springer, 1992) pp. 569–593

1992
[51]

guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement

BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, and OIML, Evaluation of measurement data—supplement 1 to the “guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement”—propagation of distributions using a monte carlo method (jcgm 101) (2008)

2008
[52]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and J.-M. Robert, Privacy amplification by public discussion, SIAM journal on Computing 17, 210 (1988)

1988
[53]

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, and U. M. Maurer, Generalized privacy amplification, IEEE Transactions on Information theory41, 1915 (1995)

1915
[54]

Cachin and U

C. Cachin and U. M. Maurer, Linking information reconciliation and privacy amplification, journal of Cryptology10, 97 (1997)

1997
[55]

The logit (logistic unit) function, logit(x) =f −1(x) = ln[x/(1−x)] withx∈(0,1), is the inverse of the standard logistic functionf(x) = 1/(1 +e −x)
[56]

Gr¨ unenfelder, A

F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, G. V. Resta, M. Perrenoud, D. Rusca, C. Barreiro, R. Houlmann, R. Sax, L. Stasi, S. El- Khoury,et al., Fast single-photon detectors and real-time key distillation enable high secret-key-rate quantum key distri- bution systems, Nature Photonics17, ...

2023
[57]

Pirandola, Limits and security of free-space quantum communications, Physical Review Research3, 013279 (2021)

S. Pirandola, Limits and security of free-space quantum communications, Physical Review Research3, 013279 (2021)

2021
[58]

Ramilli, A

M. Ramilli, A. Allevi, V. Chmill, M. Bondani, M. Caccia, and A. Andreoni, Photon-number statistics with silicon photo- multipliers, Journal of the Optical Society of America B27, 852 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cariolaro,Quantum communications, Vol

G. Cariolaro,Quantum communications, Vol. 2 (Springer, 2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Benenti, G

G. Benenti, G. Casati, D. Rossini, and G. Strini,Principles of quantum computation and information: a comprehensive textbook(World Scientific, 2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Diamanti, H.-K

E. Diamanti, H.-K. Lo, B. Qi, and Z. Yuan, Practical challenges in quantum key distribution, npj Quantum Information 2, 16025 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Rusca and N

D. Rusca and N. Gisin, Quantum cryptography: an overview of quantum key distribution, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04044 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and con tos5, inProceedings of the international conference on computers, systems and signal processing(1984) pp. 175–179. 13

work page 1984

[6] [6]

C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, Experimental quantum cryptography, Journal of cryptology5, 3 (1992)

work page 1992

[7] [7]

A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Physical Review Letters67, 661 (1991)

1991

[8] [8]

M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov, Invited review article: Single-photon sources and detectors, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 071101 (2011)

work page 2011