Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Experimental Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Cryptographic Conferencing

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper experimentally demonstrates a three-user measurement-device-independent quantum cryptographic conferencing protocol using four-intensity decoy states and GHZ-state projection, producing secure conference keys.

desk verdict Solid first experimental realization of three-user MDI QCC with four-intensity decoys; the main soft spot is the undisclosed data-selection rule during active system adjustment. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14890 v2 pith:GGUEEZ34 submitted 2024-11-22 quant-ph physics.optics

Yifeng Du , Yufeng Liu , Chengdong Yang , Xiaodong Zheng , Shining Zhu , Xiao-song Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 03.67.Dd03.67.Hk
keywords measurement-device-independentquantumcryptographicconferencingGHZ-stateprojectiondecoy-statemethodpolarizationencodingfinite-sizekeyrateweakcoherentpulsesnetwork
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 reports a working three-user quantum cryptographic conferencing setup in which the detection equipment can be completely untrusted. It shows that three parties can share a secure conference key by sending weak laser pulses to a central Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state analyzer, with no need to prepare or distribute fragile multipartite entangled states. The authors adapt the four-intensity decoy-state method to the three-user protocol, which lets them estimate the single-photon yield and phase error rate from finite data, and they measure conference key rates of 7.54, 1.17, and 0.097 bits per second at total attenuations of 14.1, 17.8, and 21.5 dB. The result matters because it moves measurement-device-independent conference key agreement from theory to a practical, loss-tolerant network node.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GHZ-state analyzer at the untrusted detection node combined with the four-intensity decoy-state protocol. The analyzer uses three pairs of polarization beam splitters and half-wave plates to project three incoming photons onto the $|\Phi^{\pm}\rangle$ basis; the four intensity settings $\mu_z,\mu_x,\mu_y,0$ allow the users to estimate the yield $Y^{Z}_{111}$ and phase error rate $e^{PZ}_{111}$ of the single-photon components without trusting any detector. The decoy analysis uses the assumption that all three users have identical photon-number statistics to cancel unwanted multi-photon terms, and finite-size Chernoff-bound joint constraints turn measured counts into rigorous key-rate bounds.

What would settle it

Independently measure each user's photon-number distribution and the three-user joint gains, then recompute the single-photon yield bound without the identical-source assumption; if the quoted key rates cannot be reproduced with realistic per-user statistics, the central claim of secure finite-size key generation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that measurement-device-independent quantum cryptographic conferencing is experimentally realizable. Three users Alice, Bob, and Charlie each prepare phase-randomized weak coherent pulses with four intensity settings, encode signal states in the Z basis and decoy states in the X basis, and send them to an untrusted relay containing a GHZ-state analyzer. When the analyzer projects the three incoming pulses onto one of the GHZ states $|\Phi^+\rangle=(|HHH\rangle+|VVV\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ or $|\Phi^-\rangle=(|HHH\rangle-|VVV\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, the users share multipartite correlation from which a conference key is distilled. The four-intensity decoy analysis yields a lower bound on the single-photon yield and an upper bound on the phase error rate, giving positive finite-size key rates at all three tested attenuations. The paper also reports a theoretically predicted improvement of about two orders of magnitude in key rate over the three-intensity protocol at 13.5 dB attenuation.

Load-bearing premise

The key-rate calculation assumes the three users' light sources have identical photon-number statistics ($a_n^s=b_n^s=c_n^s$); if the users' intensities differ beyond calibration accuracy, or phase randomization is uneven, the estimated single-photon yield and phase error bounds could be invalid and the finite-size key rate overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measurement-device-independent conference key agreement no longer requires a shared entangled state; three independent weak coherent sources suffice.
  • The four-intensity decoy protocol raises the finite-size key rate and extends reachable loss relative to the three-intensity version, and it lowers the minimum number of pulses needed for a positive key.
  • Because all detector side channels are removed, an untrusted relay can serve as the central hub of a multiparty quantum network.
  • The measured key rates at 14.1-21.5 dB support metropolitan-scale implementations, although the $O(\eta^N)$ scaling of multiphoton projection limits the distance beyond roughly 100 km.
  • A GHZ-HOM visibility near 21.8%, corresponding to QBER X of 39.10%, is consistent with the protocol's loss tolerance and quantifies the interference quality required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By extension, the same four-intensity decoy machinery could be carried over to single-photon-based MDI QCC protocols, which the discussion identifies as the route around the $O(\eta^N)$ rate scaling.
  • By extension, the identical-source symmetry used to cancel $(2,1,1)$-type terms is a practical weak point; an asymmetric decoy analysis or per-user intensity certification would harden the protocol against source mismatch.
  • By extension, improving the GHZ-HOM visibility from about 21.8% toward the ideal 25% would lower the phase-error bound and directly raise the conference key rate at fixed loss.
  • By extension, the frequency-feedback and passive polarization-encoding design shown here could be integrated into a compact multi-node network, with detector efficiency and the $O(\eta^N)$ scaling setting the practical size limit.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental demonstration of measurement-device-independent quantum cryptographic conferencing (MDI-QCC) with three users, using weak coherent pulses, polarization encoding, and a GHZ-state projection analyzer. The authors implement a four-intensity decoy-state protocol and use a Chernoff-bound finite-size analysis to estimate the single-photon yield and phase-error rate. They report conference key rates of 7.54, 1.17, and 0.097 bps at overall attenuations of 14.1, 17.8, and 21.5 dB over 8×10^4 s, based on a single run with active system stabilization every 1000 s. The supplementary material derives the four-intensity decoy-state bounds and provides the experimental data tables.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is an important experimental step: it shows that the MDI approach to quantum key distribution can be extended to multipartite conference-key agreement with practical weak coherent pulses and decoy states, avoiding detector side channels. The work includes a self-contained decoy-state derivation, finite-size analysis, and detailed stability and calibration data, which are strengths. The main limitations are the use of simulated channel loss (EVOAs) rather than real fiber spans, and the reliance on assumptions that need to be made explicit before the quantitative key-rate claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [S2, data-handling during active adjustments] Section S2 states that the authors check QBER X and QBER Z every 1000 seconds and adjust the system 1–3 times during the 23-hour run, but no rule is given for how data acquired before an adjustment is treated. If data windows with high error rate were excluded or re-synchronized after the adjustment, the reported key rates in Table S5 could be materially affected, particularly the 21.5-dB point with 0.097 bps. Please specify the exact data-handling procedure, whether any data were discarded, and report the key rates under a conservative inclusion of all data.
  2. [S3.1, Eq. (S3.11)–(S3.15)] The derivation of the lower bound in Eq. (S3.15) relies on the assumption a_s_n = b_s_n = c_s_n, stated in S3.1. The experiment uses three independent lasers and separate intensity modulators/EVOAs, but the paper provides no per-user measurement of mean photon number or of the accuracy to which the three intensities are matched. The polarization fidelities in Table S2 do not constrain the photon-number statistics. If the user intensities differ, the cancellation of (2,1,1)-type terms in Eq. (S3.11) is invalid and the reported finite-size key rates may be overestimated. Please provide per-user intensity calibration and a sensitivity analysis, or perform an asymmetric decoy-state analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text and Table S5] The dark count probability is quoted as 'about 10^-6' in the Table S5 remark, while the main text gives a dark count rate of 250 Hz with a 156.25-ps coincidence window; please clarify the units and reconcile the numbers.
  2. [Fig. 4] The theoretical curves use a fixed misalignment error e_d = 2.25% and the text says 'take the interference visibility into consideration'; please state how e_d was determined from the measured GHZ-HOM visibility and whether the same value is used in the experimental data analysis.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'three-user quantum communication network' is stronger than what is demonstrated, since all channel losses are simulated by EVOAs in a single lab; suggest 'three-user MDI-QCC link with simulated channel loss'.
  4. [Note Added] The 'Note Added' should be integrated into the introduction with a brief comparison to Ref. [67], so that the reader can assess the novelty relative to the concurrent work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported key rates are computed from measured counts using external decoy-state theory, not from fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is experimental realization of a three-user MDI-QCC protocol. The key-rate formula in Eq. (1) is imported from Fu et al. (2015) and Zhao et al. (2020), both published external results, and the four-intensity decoy-state analysis in S3.1 follows Zhou et al. (2016) and Jiang et al. (2021). The reported experimental key rates (7.54, 1.17, and 0.097 bps) are obtained from measured gains and error counts through the Chernoff-bound finite-size analysis, with no fitted parameter entering those reported values; the misalignment parameter e_d = 2.25% appears only in the illustrative simulation curves, not in the experimental key-rate computation. The symmetric-source assumption a_s_n = b_s_n = c_s_n is an explicitly stated modeling assumption used to cancel higher-order terms, not a consequence of the target result, and the GHZ-HOM interference analysis is a forward calculation from assumed coherent-state inputs. Although the reference list includes prior work by a present author, the load-bearing formulas also appear in external references, and the cited results are independently published rather than assumed for this paper's conclusion. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard decoy-state security proof, the symmetry assumption of identical sources, and the phase-randomization assumption. No new physical entities are introduced; the fitted experimental parameters are the intensities, probabilities, misalignment error, and finite-key failure probability.

free parameters (7)
  • signal intensity mu_z = 0.100
    Optimized for key rate at the chosen channel loss; affects Y_111 and Q_z in Eq. (1).
  • decoy intensity mu_x = 0.0281
    Chosen decoy intensity for finite-key estimation.
  • decoy intensity mu_y = 0.152
    Second decoy intensity, with mu_y > mu_x for the decoy-state analysis.
  • source probabilities p_z, p_x, p_y = 0.33, 0.51, 0.09
    Optimized probabilities for choosing signal and decoy sources.
  • misalignment error e_d = 2.25%
    Used for the theoretical three- versus four-intensity comparison; consistent with measured Z-basis QBER of about 2%.
  • error correction efficiency f = 1.16
    Standard value in decoy-state QKD analyses, used in Eq. (1).
  • failure probability epsilon = 10^-10
    Chosen for the Chernoff bound in the finite-size analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three users' light sources have identical photon-number statistics (a_s_n = b_s_n = c_s_n) in the decoy-state analysis.
    Invoked in S3.1 to cancel sum-4 terms in the single-photon yield bound; if the users' intensities differ, the lower-bound formula may fail.
  • domain assumption The phase of each coherent pulse is uniformly random over [0, 2π).
    Required for the Poisson photon-number statistics and decoy-state security; used in S1.1 and S3.1. The experiment relies on unlocked relative phases of three independent cw lasers.
  • domain assumption The GHZ-state analyzer projection identifies |Φ+> and |Φ->, with yields given by detector clicks and dark counts as modeled in S3.3.
    The yield formulas (S3.79)-(S3.102) assume ideal PBS/HWP behavior and equal dark counts; small calibration errors would shift the estimated yields.
  • standard math The security proof for the three-intensity polarization-encoding MDI-QCC protocol extends to the four-intensity version.
    The paper uses the key rate formula Eq. (1) from [43,45] and states the security of the three-intensity protocol has been proved; they do not provide a fresh security proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Cryptographic Conferencing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGUEEZ34

@misc{pith2026241114890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Cryptographic Conferencing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGUEEZ34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14890}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum cryptographic conferencing (QCC) allows sharing secret keys among multiple distant users and plays a crucial role in quantum networks. Because of the fragility and low generation rate of genuine multipartite entangled states required in QCC, realizing and extending QCC with the entanglement-based protocol is challenging. Measurement-device-independent (MDI) QCC, which removes all detector side channels, is a feasible long-distance quantum communication scheme to practically generate multipartite correlation with multiphoton projection measurement. Here we experimentally realize the three-user MDIQCC protocol with four-intensity decoy-state method, in which we employ the polarization encoding and the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state projection measurement. Our work demonstrates the experimental feasibility of the MDI QCC, which lays the foundation for the future realization of quantum networks with multipartite communication tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14890 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme of polarization encoding measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental setup of MDI QCC. (a) The encoding system to generate polarization qubits for three users, A, B, and C. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum bit error rate (QBER) of GHZ-state measurement. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results of conference key generation. In theoretical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    eδL (1 + δL)1+δL #χ/(1+δL) = 1 2 ε,

    = SL + − SU − − e−3µy µ4 yH e−3µx−3µy µ3xµ4y − µ4xµ3y , (S3.15) where H = Hxxx, (S3.16) S+ = e−3µy µ4 y⟨Qxxx⟩ + e−3µx µ4 x e−3µy ⟨Qooo⟩+ e−µy (⟨Qoyy ⟩ + ⟨Qyoy ⟩ + ⟨Qyyo ⟩) , (S3.17) S− = e−3µx µ4 x ⟨Qyyy ⟩ + e−2µy (⟨Qyoo⟩ + ⟨Qoyo⟩ + ⟨Qooy⟩) . (S3.18) On the other hand, we can also use the same method to estimate the single-photon phase error rate with the...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, New York, 1984) p. 175–179

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quantum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ot- taviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Advances in quantum cryptography, Adv. Opt. Photon. 12, 1012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Hwang, Quantum key distribution with high loss: Toward global secure communication, Phys

    W.-Y. Hwang, Quantum key distribution with high loss: Toward global secure communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057901 24 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Phys

    X.-B. Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230503 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Decoy state quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    Ac ´ ın, N

    A. Ac ´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola, Side-channel-free quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130502 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Lucamarini, Z

    M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters, Nature 557, 400 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Xie, Y.-S

    Y.-M. Xie, Y.-S. Lu, C.-X. Weng, X.-Y. Cao, Z.-Y. Jia, Y. Bao, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Breaking the rate-loss bound of quantum key distribution with asynchronous two-photon interference, PRX Quantum 3, 020315 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    P. Zeng, H. Zhou, W. Wu, and X. Ma, Mode-pairing quantum key distribution, Nature Communications 13, 3903 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Yin, Y.-H

    J. Yin, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y. Cao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, S.-L. Li, R. Shu, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, L. Li, Q. Zhang, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, X.-B. Wang, F. Xu, J.-Y. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, A. K. Ekert, and J.-W. Pan, Entanglement-based secure ...

    2020

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, S.-K. Liao, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, H.-K. Mao, B. Yan, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, L. You, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 mb s–1, Nature Photonics 17, 416 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Liu, W.-J

    Y. Liu, W.-J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J.-P. Chen, C. Zhang, W.-X. Pan, D. Ma, H. Dong, J.-M. Xiong, C.-J. Zhang, H. Li, R.-C. Wang, J. Wu, T.-Y. Chen, L. You, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental twin-field quantum key distribution over 1000 km fiber distance, Phys. Rev....

    2023

  13. [21]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Wengerowsky, S

    S. Wengerowsky, S. K. Joshi, F. Steinlechner, H. H¨ ubel, and R. Ursin, An entanglement-based wavelength-multiplexed quantum communication network, Nature 564, 225 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    S. K. Joshi, D. Aktas, S. Wengerowsky, M. Lonˇ cari´ c, S. P. Neumann, B. Liu, T. Scheidl, G. C. Lorenzo, ˇZeljko Samec, L. Kling, A. Qiu, M. Razavi, M. Stipˇ cevi´ c, J. G. Rarity, and R. Ursin, A trusted node–free eight-user metropolitan quantum communication network, Scienc...

    2020

  17. [25]

    W. Wen, Z. Chen, L. Lu, W. Yan, W. Xue, P. Zhang, Y. Lu, S. Zhu, and X.-S. Ma, Realizing an entanglement-based multiuser quantum network with integrated photonics, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024059 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    S. Bose, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping, Phys. Rev. A 57, 822 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Chen and H.-K

    K. Chen and H.-K. Lo, Multipartite quantum cryptographic protocols with noisy ghz states, Quantum Information and Computation 7 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Murta, F

    G. Murta, F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Quantum conference key agreement: A review, Advanced Quantum Technologies 3, 2000025 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V. Buˇ zek, and A. Berthiaume, Quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, How to share a quantum secret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 648 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    Tittel, H

    W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Experimental demonstration of quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042301 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Chen, A.-N

    Y.-A. Chen, A.-N. Zhang, Z. Zhao, X.-Q. Zhou, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental quantum secret sharing and third-man quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 200502 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Schmid, P

    C. Schmid, P. Trojek, M. Bourennane, C. Kurtsiefer, M. ˙Zukowski, and H. Weinfurter, Experimental single qubit quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230505 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Gaertner, C

    S. Gaertner, C. Kurtsiefer, M. Bourennane, and H. Weinfurter, Experimental demonstration of four-party quantum secret sharing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 020503 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    B. A. Bell, D. Markham, D. A. Herrera-Mart ´ ı, A. Marin, W. J. Wadsworth, J. G. Rarity, and M. S. Tame, Experimental demonstration of graph-state quantum secret sharing, Nature Communications 5, 5480 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    S. M. Lee, S.-W. Lee, H. Jeong, and H. S. Park, Quantum teleportation of shared quantum secret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 060501 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Augusiak and P

    R. Augusiak and P. Horodecki, Multipartite secret key distillation and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 80, 042307 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Carrara, H

    G. Carrara, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and G. Murta, Genuine multipartite entanglement is not a precondition for secure conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013264 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    S. Das, S. B¨ auml, M. Winczewski, and K. Horodecki, Universal limitations on quantum key distribution over a network, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041016 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond bell’s theorem, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe , edited by M. Kafatos (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 69–72. 25

    1989

  33. [41]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Epping, H

    M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. macchiavello, and D. Bruß, Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribution in networks, New Journal of Physics 19, 093012 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Grasselli, H

    F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Finite-key effects in multipartite quantum key distribution protocols, New Journal of Physics 20, 113014 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Fu, H.-L

    Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, T.-Y. Chen, and Z.-B. Chen, Long-distance measurement-device-independent multiparty quantum com- munication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090501 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Grasselli, H

    F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Conference key agreement with single-photon interference, New Journal of Physics 21, 123002 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    S. Zhao, P. Zeng, W.-F. Cao, X.-Y. Xu, Y.-Z. Zhen, X. Ma, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, and K. Chen, Phase-matching quantum cryptographic conferencing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024010 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    X.-Y. Cao, J. Gu, Y.-S. Lu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Coherent one-way quantum conference key agreement based on twin field, New Journal of Physics 23, 043002 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Cao, Y.-S

    X.-Y. Cao, Y.-S. Lu, Z. Li, J. Gu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, High key rate quantum conference key agreement with unconditional security, IEEE Access 9, 128870 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Bai, Y.-M

    J.-L. Bai, Y.-M. Xie, Z. Li, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Post-matching quantum conference key agreement, Optics Express 30, 28865 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Carrara, G

    G. Carrara, G. Murta, and F. Grasselli, Overcoming fundamental bounds on quantum conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064017 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Lu, Y.-M

    Y.-S. Lu, Y.-M. Xie, Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Repeater-like asynchronous measurement-device-independent quantum conference key agreement (2024), arXiv:2406.15853 [quant-ph]

    2024

  44. [52]

    Xie, Y.-S

    Y.-M. Xie, Y.-S. Lu, Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Multi-field quantum conferencing overcomes the network capacity limit, Communications Physics 7, 410 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Proietti, J

    M. Proietti, J. Ho, F. Grasselli, P. Barrow, M. Malik, and A. Fedrizzi, Experimental quantum conference key agreement, Science Advances 7, eabe0395 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Pickston, J

    A. Pickston, J. Ho, A. Ulibarrena, F. Grasselli, M. Proietti, C. L. Morrison, P. Barrow, F. Graffitti, and A. Fedrizzi, Conference key agreement in a quantum network, npj Quantum Information 9, 82 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Zhou, Z.-W

    Y.-H. Zhou, Z.-W. Yu, and X.-B. Wang, Making the decoy-state measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution practically useful, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042324 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    C. Jiang, Z.-W. Yu, X.-L. Hu, and X.-B. Wang, Higher key rate of measurement-device-independent quantum key distri- bution through joint data processing, Phys. Rev. A 103, 012402 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Pan and A

    J.-W. Pan and A. Zeilinger, Greenberger-horne-zeilinger-state analyzer, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2208 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Pan, Z.-B

    J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, and M. ˙Zukowski, Multiphoton entanglement and interfer- ometry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 777 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Li, Y.-H

    Y. Li, Y.-H. Li, H.-B. Xie, Z.-P. Li, X. Jiang, W.-Q. Cai, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, S.-K. Liao, and C.-Z. Peng, High-speed robust polarization modulation for quantum key distribution, Optics Letters 44, 5262 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    W. Luo, Y. Li, Y. Li, X. Tao, L. Han, W. Cai, J. Yin, J. Ren, S. Liao, and C. Peng, Intrinsically stable 2-ghz polarization modulation for satellite-based quantum key distribution, IEEE Photonics Journal 14, 1 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    C.-Y. Lu, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental multiparticle entanglement swapping for quantum networking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 020501 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Jing, X.-J

    B. Jing, X.-J. Wang, Y. Yu, P.-F. Sun, Y. Jiang, S.-J. Yang, W.-H. Jiang, X.-Y. Luo, J. Zhang, X. Jiang, X.-H. Bao, and J.-W. Pan, Entanglement of three quantum memories via interference of three single photons, Nature Photonics 13, 210 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Pramanik, D.-H

    T. Pramanik, D.-H. Lee, Y.-W. Cho, H.-T. Lim, S.-W. Han, H. Jung, S. Moon, K. J. Lee, and Y.-S. Kim, Equitable multiparty quantum communication without a trusted third party, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 064074 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  57. [65]

    I), which includes Ref

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.040802 for the detailed analysis of the GHZ-HOM interference (Sec. I), which includes Ref. [68]

    doi

  58. [66]

    Herman, A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 23, 493 (1952)

    C. Herman, A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 23, 493 (1952)

    1952

  59. [67]

    Zhang, Q

    Z. Zhang, Q. Zhao, M. Razavi, and X. Ma, Improved key-rate bounds for practical decoy-state quantum-key-distribution systems, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012333 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Yang, Y.-L

    K.-X. Yang, Y.-L. Mao, H. Chen, X. Dong, J. Zhu, J. Wu, and Z.-D. Li, Experimental measurement-device-independent quantum conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 210803 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Li and S

    W. Li and S. Zhao, Security research on practical measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042445 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.