Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Characterising higher-order phase correlations in gain-switched laser sources with application to quantum key distribution

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tunable cascade interferometer can determine the phase-correlation security parameter q of a gain-switched laser, allowing decoy-state QKD with fast sources.

desk verdict Fills the lc>1 gap with a clean cascade-interferometer recipe, but the security parameter q rests on an unvalidated constant-variance Gaussian assumption; the simulation never checks estimated q against the true q. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03738 v1 pith:ANEW7X63 submitted 2024-12-04 quant-ph

Alessandro Marcomini , Guillermo Currás-Lorenzo , Davide Rusca , Angel Valle , Kiyoshi Tamaki , Marcos Curty This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributiongain-switchedlasersphasecorrelationsdecoy-statemethodrandomisationgeneralisedvisibilitywrappedGaussianlasernoise
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 provides an experimental recipe for determining how much phase randomness a gain-switched laser actually has when it is pulsed quickly enough that each pulse inherits light from earlier pulses. The central quantity is the security parameter $q$, the minimum uniform component of the conditional phase distribution, which a recent security proof needs to certify decoy-state QKD. The paper shows that a cascade interferometer with tunable attenuators and a phase shifter can be optimised over a generalised visibility $v^{(\ell_c)}$ to estimate the phase-noise width $\sigma_{\ell_c}$, the residual-field ratios $r_{i-k}$, and the phase offset $\delta\varphi$. These estimates feed a numerical minimisation that yields $q$ for any finite correlation length. If this works, high-speed gain-switched sources can be certified for secure key distribution without changing the source.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalised visibility $v^{(\ell_c)}$, an ensemble-averaged interference cosine in which the intensity measured at each round is rescaled so that the reconstructed combination intensity and the pulse phase are decoupled. It is measured in a cascade Mach-Zehnder interferometer with delay lines of lengths $0, T, 2T, \ldots, \ell_c T$, tunable attenuators $A_k$, and a phase shifter $\varphi$. The optimisation $\max_{\varphi,\{A_k\}} v^{(\ell_c)}$ returns $\sigma_{\ell_c}$ through Eq. (25), the residual-field ratios $r_{i-k}$, and the phase offset $\delta\varphi$; the matched attenuator settings make the interfering state $|\chi\rangle$ carry the same phase that the laser cavity would produce by coherently combining residual photons from the previous $\ell_c$ pulses, so the remaining spread in the interference is the spontaneous-emission noise.

What would settle it

A phase-resolved measurement of every pulse at a high repetition rate, binning the observed conditional distribution $f(\varphi_i|\varphi_{i-1},\varphi_{i-2})$ over many alignments of the previous phases, would settle the central model: if the jitter spread changes with the alignment of previous phases or the conditional distribution departs from a wrapped Gaussian, the visibility-based estimates of $\sigma_{\ell_c}$ and $q$ would not be reliable lower bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the security parameter $q$ of a gain-switched laser source with phase correlations of arbitrary finite range $\ell_c$ can be obtained from interferometric measurements alone. The key claim is that a cascade of delay lines can be tuned so that the phase of a reconstructed coherent state $|\chi\rangle$ equals the conditional centre $\hat{\phi}^{(\ell_c)}_i$ of the next pulse phase; the visibility of the interference between $|\chi\rangle$ and the actual pulse then measures the spontaneous-emission jitter. Maximising the generalised visibility $v^{(\ell_c)}$ gives $\sigma_{\ell_c}$ through $\max v^{(\ell_c)} = \exp(-\sigma_{\ell_c}^2/2)$, and the optimal attenuator settings give the residual-field ratios $r_{i-k}$ and the phase offset $\delta\varphi$. Feeding these into the wrapped-Gaussian conditional distribution and the law of total probability yields $q$. Numerical simulations with a stochastic laser model at 100 MHz to 10 GHz show that $q$ stays close to 1 at low rates and can fall below 0.001 at 5 GHz and above, where the paper applies the security proof to compute achievable secret key rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase jitter added at each pulse is independent and identically distributed with a fixed spread regardless of the actual previous phase values or how well they align, which is what lets visibility measurements calibrate $\sigma_{\ell_c}$ and feeds the $q$ calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A gain-switched laser with phase correlations of any finite length $\ell_c$ can be certified for decoy-state QKD without changing the source hardware or the state preparation.
  • The measurement can run during key distribution because it does not alter the emitted states, so $q$ can be monitored in situ.
  • At a fixed phase-noise spread $\sigma_{\ell_c}$, the worst-case $q$ in the simulations occurs near $r_{i-2}=1$, so that value can serve as a conservative bound when the residual ratio is uncertain.
  • At low channel loss, a faster source with slightly lower $q$ can still produce more secure bits per second than a slower source with $q\approx 1$.
  • For sources with $q=0$ the proof used here gives no positive key rate, and the paper notes that such non-random-phase sources require a different security analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same interferometric characterisation could serve as a continuous monitor of phase-randomisation quality for other phase-sensitive tasks, such as quantum random number generation or coherent-state communication, not just QKD.
  • If correlations decay exponentially, the feedback-loop variant of the scheme suggests a direct test: fit measured visibilities across several delay lengths to confirm that a single decay ratio $r_0$ captures the full history.
  • The strongest test of the model would be phase-resolved measurements of individual pulses at 5-10 GHz, comparing the observed conditional distribution with the predicted wrapped Gaussian; this would show whether the constant-spread assumption in the paper's central model holds.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the practical problem of certifying gain-switched laser sources for decoy-state QKD when phase correlations between consecutive pulses are present. It proposes an interferometric method, based on a cascade of delay lines with tunable attenuators and a phase shifter, to estimate the parameters of a wrapped-Gaussian phase-noise model: the conditional standard deviation σ_ℓc, the relative residual-photon amplitudes r_{i−k}, and the phase offset δφ. From these parameters, the security parameter q appearing in the recent security proof of Currás-Lorenzo et al. is computed numerically for arbitrary correlation length ℓc, via Eqs. (13), (24) and (25). The authors simulate a gain-switched laser using stochastic rate equations, apply their estimation scheme for ℓc = 1 and 2, and present resulting secret-key rates. The main claimed contribution is a practical recipe to quantify the impact of arbitrary-order phase correlations without modifying the source.

Significance. If the proposed method is valid, it would substantially increase the applicability of the security proof of Ref. [37] to high-speed gain-switched lasers, which is an important practical issue for decoy-state QKD. The manuscript contains a clear algebraic derivation of the generalized visibility, a self-contained derivation of the wrapped-Gaussian conditional distribution from Assumption (A4), and a numerical demonstration based on realistic laser rate equations. The extension to exponentially decaying correlations in Appendix D is also a useful contribution. The derivation of Eq. (C18) and the optimization procedure are, within the model, internally consistent. However, the significance is conditional: the method is a parametric characterization under Assumption (A4), and the paper does not yet provide evidence that this assumption holds for the simulated laser or that the resulting q is a conservative lower bound under model mismatch.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI and Appendix A, Eqs. (C17)-(C18) and (13)] The central claim that the protocol certifies q for an arbitrary gain-switched source is not established because Assumption (A4) is not validated against the simulated laser, and Appendix A explicitly concedes that σ_ℓc may depend on the previous phase realisations. Equations (C17)-(C18) rely on the independence of δφ_i from the past phases to factor the average ⟨cos(δφ_i+φ) cos ε'_i⟩; if the conditional variance is history-dependent, the measured max_{φ,A} v^(ℓc) is an average of exp(−σ²(history)/2) over histories, not a value that bounds every history. Since q in Eq. (1) is a minimum over histories, plugging a single σ_ℓc obtained from this average into Eq. (13) can yield q_est above the true q. The simulations in Sec. VI should directly test Assumption (A4), for example by estimating the empirical conditional phase distribution of the simulated laser as a function of the previous phase-alignment variables and checking that the variance is constant and the shape is wrapped Gaussian. Alternatively, the estimation procedure should be modified to produce a conservative lower bound on σ for every history, for instance by binning histories and taking the worst-case conditional variance.
  2. [Secs. IV-VI, Tables I and II] The paper does not provide a finite-sample or confidence analysis for the estimated security parameter. In Sec. VI, v^(2) is estimated from 10^4 pulses and then maximized over φ and A; the maximum of noisy sample averages is biased upward relative to the true maximum, and Tables I-II report point values of σ_ℓc and q without error bars. Because the security statement requires a certified lower bound on q in Eq. (1), the procedure as written is an estimator rather than a certification. The authors should state how many pulses are needed, provide concentration bounds or bootstrap confidence intervals, and explain how the reported q values should be interpreted conservatively in a security analysis.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3, Eq. (13)] The numerical minimization of Eq. (13) is not specified in terms of grid size or optimization algorithm; please provide these details so the results in Fig. 3 can be reproduced.
  2. [Eqs. (19) and (24), Sec. VI] The generalized visibility expressions can have near-zero denominators when the interfering previous-pulse amplitudes are nearly opposite in phase, making the per-round cosine undefined or noisy; the manuscript should discuss how such rounds are treated in the average and whether this affects the estimate.
  3. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues: 'Ito' should be 'Itô' and 'Mach-Zender' should be 'Mach-Zehnder'; also, the notation for the off-current I_off is typeset inconsistently in Tables I and II.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: q is obtained by estimating model parameters from interferometric data and evaluating the security proof's formula; the model assumption is explicit and the cited security proof is independent.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) assume a wrapped-Gaussian conditional phase model (A4); (ii) measure generalized visibilities v^(lc) that are functions of measured intensities; (iii) derive the relation max v^(lc) = exp(-sigma_lc^2/2) under (A4); (iv) estimate sigma_lc, r, and delta_phi from the visibility optimization; and (v) compute q by numerically minimizing Eq. (13) using the wrapped-Gaussian conditional densities with those parameters. Step (iii) is a derived identity, not a definition of q; q is a different functional of the conditional density (a minimum density ratio) and is not equal to the visibility by construction. The parameters are estimated from data, not fitted to the target quantity q. The security proof in Ref. [37] is an external, published result that takes q as an input and does not rely on the estimation scheme; the self-citations are appropriate references to the security framework and to prior phase-correlation visibility results, and they do not force the estimation result. Appendix A explicitly acknowledges the limitation that sigma may depend on previous phase values, which is a model-mismatch concern rather than circularity. No equation in the paper reduces q to the measured visibility or to a fitted parameter by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything rests on the wrapped-Gaussian phase model (A4). The paper provides physical motivation but no direct validation of the model against the simulated source's actual conditional distribution. The free parameters sigma_lc, r_{i-k}, and delta_phi are the unknowns the interferometric scheme is designed to estimate.

free parameters (3)
  • sigma_lc (phase-noise standard deviation) = e.g., 3.238 rad for 100 MHz, Ioff=0 mA (Table I); estimated as sqrt(-2 ln max v^(lc))
    Central unknown in Assumption A4; estimated from the generalized visibility maximum in Eq. (22)/(25). The value of q is a function of this fitted parameter.
  • r_{i-k} (relative residual-photon amplitudes) = estimated from optimal attenuator settings A_{max,k} via Eq. (25); in the simulation r'_{i-2}=sqrt(A)
    Weights in the phase-prediction function h in Eq. (6); not known a priori and are obtained by maximizing v^(lc).
  • delta_phi (phase-noise central shift) = estimated as -phi_max, Eq. (21)
    Offset of the wrapped Gaussian noise; enters the conditional PDF and hence q.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A1: Alice's laser output is a single-mode coherent state of constant intensity each round.
    Sec. II; standard idealization for decoy-state QKD sources, but real gain-switched lasers have intensity fluctuations.
  • domain assumption A2: The phase process is generalized-Markovian with finite, known memory lc.
    Sec. II Eq. (3); required by the security proof [37]. If the true correlation length exceeds the assumed lc, the q estimate is invalid.
  • domain assumption A3: Conditional phase distribution is stationary across rounds.
    Sec. II Eq. (4); needed so signal parameters r_n and sigma are constant. Appendix A admits this holds only within the source coherence time.
  • ad hoc to paper A4: phi_i = arg(sum r_n e^{i phi_{i-n}}) + delta_phi_i mod 2pi, with iid wrapped-Gaussian delta_phi_i.
    Core model introduced by the paper; all estimators and the q computation use this wrapped-Gaussian form. Appendix A notes sigma may depend on previous phase alignment, so the independence part is an assumption.
  • domain assumption Ergodicity: ensemble averages in v^(lc) can be replaced by time averages over many rounds.
    Sec. IV after Eq. (19); valid if increments are iid, but sample size and convergence are not quantified.
  • standard math Lossless 50:50 beam splitters and energy conservation in the interferometer model.
    Used throughout Appendix C to relate detector intensities to cos(...) and to derive v^(lc). Real BS losses would bias the estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterising higher-order phase correlations in gain-switched laser sources with application to quantum key distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANEW7X63

@misc{pith2026241203738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterising higher-order phase correlations in gain-switched laser sources with application to quantum key distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANEW7X63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03738}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-photon emissions in laser sources represent a serious threat for the security of quantum key distribution (QKD). While the decoy-state technique allows to solve this problem, it requires uniform phase randomisation of the emitted pulses. However, gain-switched lasers operating at high repetition rates do not fully satisfy this requirement, as residual photons in the laser cavity introduce correlations between the phases of consecutive pulses. Here, we introduce experimental schemes to characterise the phase probability distribution of the emitted pulses, and demonstrate that an optimisation task over interferometric measures suffices in determining the impact of arbitrary order correlations, which ultimately establishes the security level of the implementation according to recent security proofs. We expect that our findings may find usages beyond QKD as well.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03738 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Experimental scheme of the asymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Experimental scheme for the estimation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Results for the numerical minimisation of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: General scheme for the estimation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Average value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Secret-key rate of the decoy-state BB84 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Feedback-loop interferometer scheme for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Secure quantum key distribution against correlated leakage source

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A new QKD security framework uses round rearrangement and the generalized chain rule to give the first finite-key analysis for correlated sources, and a two-state SNS protocol tolerant to large correlation ranges.

  2. Security of quantum key distribution with source and detector imperfections through phase-error estimation

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A modular proof technique extends phase-error-estimation security bounds from basis-independent to mismatched detector efficiencies, enabling finite-key QKD security with simultaneous source and detector imperfections.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    Kobayashi, A

    T. Kobayashi, A. Tomita, and A. Okamoto, Physical Re- view A 90, 032320 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    generalised

    Second order - Eq. (22) Consider Fig. 2 for reference. Allowing for an attenua- tor module A in the longer arm and a local phase shift φ in the shorter arm, the three circulating states at round i in the interferometer are given by Eq. (16). Let us focus on the recombination of the beams. The states |ξ⟩ and |χ⟩ take the form |ξ⟩ = α′ i−1 − α′ i−2√ 2 , |χ⟩...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Again, the aim is to make each pulse interfere with a combina- tion of previous pulses whose phase matches ˆϕϕϕ (ℓc) i

    Generalisation to arbitrary order - Eq.(24) Here we generalise the approach for the second order case to correlations of arbitrary finite length ℓc. Again, the aim is to make each pulse interfere with a combina- tion of previous pulses whose phase matches ˆϕϕϕ (ℓc) i . Consider the general setup shown in Fig. 4. Let |α′ n⟩ = p µ′nejϕϕϕn E (C25) for i − ℓc...

    work page

  4. [3]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Nature Photonics 8, 595 (2014)

    2014

  5. [4]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Re- 14 views of Modern Physics 92, 025002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Vil- loresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in Optics and Photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing (IEEE NY, Bangalore, India, 1984)

    work page 1984

  8. [7]

    J. F. Dynes, A. Wonfor, W. W.-S. Tam, A. W. Sharpe, R. Takahashi, M. Lucamarini, A. Plews, Z. L. Yuan, A. R. Dixon, J. Cho, Y. Tanizawa, J.-P. Elbers, H. Greißer, I. H. White, R. V. Penty, and A. J. Shields, npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019)

    2019

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Stucki, M

    D. Stucki, M. Legr´ e, F. Buntschu, B. Clausen, N. Felber, N. Gisin, L. Henzen, P. Junod, G. Litzistorf, P. Mon- baron, L. Monat, J.-B. Page, D. Perroud, G. Ribordy, A. Rochas, S. Robyr, J. Tavares, R. Thew, P. Trinkler, S. Ventura, R. Voirol, N. Walenta, and H. Zbinden, New J...

    2011

  2. [9]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwara, H. Ishizuka, W. Klaus, K. Wakui, M. Takeoka, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, A. Tanaka, K. Yoshino, Y. Nambu, S. Takahashi, A. Tajima, A. Tomita, T. Domeki, T. Hasegawa, Y. Sakai, H. Kobayashi, T. Asai, K. Shimizu, T. Tokura, T. Tsurumaru, M. Matsui, T....

    2011

  3. [10]

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

    2021

  4. [11]

    Liao, W.-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, F.-Z. Li, X.-W. Chen, L.-H. Sun, J.-J. Jia, J.-C. Wu, X.-J. Jiang, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, Q. Wang, Y.-L. Zhou, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, Q. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, X.-B...

    2017

  5. [12]

    Brassard, N

    G. Brassard, N. L¨ utkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, Physical Review Letters 85, 1330 (2000)

    2000

  6. [13]

    Gottesman, H.-K

    D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Quantum Information & Computation 4, 325 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Hwang, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    W.-Y. Hwang, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    2003

  8. [15]

    Wang, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

    X.-B. Wang, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

    2005

  9. [16]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H.-K. Lo, Physical Review A 72, 012326 (2005)

    2005

  11. [18]

    C. C. W. Lim, M. Curty, N. Walenta, F. Xu, and H. Zbinden, Physical Review A 89, 022307 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    Y. Zhao, B. Qi, X. Ma, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, Physical Review Letters 96, 070502 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    Rosenberg, J

    D. Rosenberg, J. W. Harrington, P. R. Rice, P. A. Hiskett, C. G. Peterson, R. J. Hughes, A. E. Lita, S. W. Nam, and J. E. Nordholt, Physical Review Letters 98, 010503 (2007)

    2007

  14. [21]

    Liu, T.-Y

    Y. Liu, T.-Y. Chen, J. Wang, W.-Q. Cai, X. Wan, L.- K. Chen, J.-H. Wang, S.-B. Liu, H. Liang, L. Yang, C.- Z. Peng, K. Chen, Z.-B. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Optics Express 18, 8587 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    Fr¨ ohlich, M

    B. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, L. C. Coman- dar, W. W.-S. Tam, A. Plews, A. W. Sharpe, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Optica 4, 163 (2017)

    2017

  16. [23]

    Z. Yuan, A. Plews, R. Takahashi, K. Doi, W. Tam, A. W. Sharpe, A. R. Dixon, E. Lavelle, J. F. Dynes, A. Mu- rakami, M. Kujiraoka, M. Lucamarini, Y. Tanizawa, H. Sato, and A. J. Shields, Journal of Lightwave Tech- nology 36, 3427 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Boaron, G

    A. Boaron, G. Boso, D. Rusca, C. Vulliez, C. Autebert, M. Caloz, M. Perrenoud, G. Gras, F. Bussi` eres, M.-J. Li, D. Nolan, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, Physical Review Letters 121, 190502 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Schmitt-Manderbach, H

    T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, M. F¨ urst, R. Ursin, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Scheidl, J. Perdigues, Z. Sodnik, C. Kurtsiefer, J. G. Rarity, A. Zeilinger, and H. Wein- furter, Physical Review Letters 98, 010504 (2007)

    2007

  19. [26]

    Liao, W.-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, J. Handsteiner, B. Liu, J. Yin, L. Zhang, D. Rauch, M. Fink, J.-G. Ren, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, F.-Z. Li, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Koidl, P. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, X.-B. Wang, M. Steindor- fer, G. ...

    2018

  20. [27]

    ThinkQuantum, https://www.thinkquantum.com/ (Ac- cessed 26/09/2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    ID Quantique, https://www.idquantique.com (Accessed 26/09/2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Toshiba, https://www.toshiba.eu/quantum/ (Accessed 26/09/2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Y. Zhao, B. Qi, and H.-K. Lo, Applied Physics Letters 90, 044106 (2007)

    2007

  24. [31]

    Z. Cao, Z. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and X. Ma, New Journal of Physics 17, 053014 (2015)

    2015

  25. [32]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, L

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, L. Wooltorton, and M. Razavi, Phys- ical Review Applied 15, 014016 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    Sixto, G

    X. Sixto, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, EPJ Quantum Technology 10, 53 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Z. L. Yuan, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Applied Physics Letters 90, 011118 (2007)

    2007

  28. [35]

    A. R. Dixon, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Optics Express 16, 18790 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    Lucamarini, K

    M. Lucamarini, K. A. Patel, J. F. Dynes, B. Fr¨ ohlich, A. W. Sharpe, A. R. Dixon, Z. L. Yuan, R. V. Penty, and A. J. Shields, Optics Express 21, 24550 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Gr¨ unenfelder, A

    F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, D. Rusca, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, Applied Physics Letters 117, 144003 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S. Nahar, N. L¨ utkenhaus, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 015025 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    R. J. Glauber, Physical Review 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  33. [41]

    Agulleiro, F

    A. Agulleiro, F. Gr¨ unenfelder, M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as- Lorenzo, H. Zbinden, M. Curty, and D. Rusca, In prepa- ration (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Mizutani, D. Rusca, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum Science and Tech- 15 nology 10, 015001 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rosado, A

    A. Rosado, A. P´ erez-Serrano, J. M. G. Tijero, A. Valle Gutierrez, L. Pesquera, and I. Esquivias, IEEE J. Quantum Electron 55, 1 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Quirce and A

    A. Quirce and A. Valle, Optics & Laser Technology 150, 107992 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Lo and J

    H.-K. Lo and J. Preskill, Quantum Info. Comput. 7, 431 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Lax, Physical Review 160, 290 (1967)

    M. Lax, Physical Review 160, 290 (1967)

    1967

  39. [47]

    Henry, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 18, 259 (1982)

    C. Henry, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 18, 259 (1982)

    1982

  40. [48]

    Henry, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics19, 1391 (1983)

    C. Henry, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics19, 1391 (1983)

    1983

  41. [49]

    Septriani, O

    B. Septriani, O. de Vries, F. Steinlechner, and M. Gr¨ afe, AIP Advances 10, 055022 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light , third edition, third edition ed

    R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light , third edition, third edition ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    L. A. Coldren, S. W. Corzine, and M. L. Mashanovitch, Diode lasers and photonic integrated circuits , Vol. 218 (John Wiley & Sons, 2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    G. P. Agrawal and N. K. Dutta, Semiconductor lasers (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Valle, Physical Review Applied 19, 054005 (2023)

    A. Valle, Physical Review Applied 19, 054005 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Valle, Photonics 8, 388 (2021)

    A. Valle, Photonics 8, 388 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Lovic, D

    V. Lovic, D. G. Marangon, M. Lucamarini, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Physical Review Applied 16, 054012 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Shakhovoy, M

    R. Shakhovoy, M. Puplauskis, V. Sharoglazova, A. Du- plinskiy, D. Sych, E. Maksimova, S. Hydyrova, A. Tu- machek, Y. Mironov, V. Kovalyuk, et al. , Physical Re- view A 107, 012616 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Fatadin, D

    I. Fatadin, D. Ives, and M. Wicks, IEEE Journal of Quan- tum Electronics 42, 934 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    McDaniel and A

    A. McDaniel and A. Mahalov, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 54, 1 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Risken, in The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, edited by H

    H. Risken, in The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, edited by H. Risken (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996) pp. 63–95

    1996

  52. [60]

    P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen, in Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations , edited by P. E. Kloe- den and E. Platen (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992) pp. 103–160

    1992

  53. [61]

    Quirce and A

    A. Quirce and A. Valle, Optics Express 29, 39473 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.