Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Fault-Tolerant Quantum Key Distribution: Enabling Overclocked Modulation

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An overclocked quantum-key-distribution transmitter can be run securely at four times its rated clock by modeling, measuring, and suppressing pulse correlations; the authors demonstrate 1.1 Mbps at 5 km, double the ideal safe-clock rate.

desk verdict A genuine advance in practical QKD: cross-correlations folded into one security proof with strong experimental support; referee with a careful eye on sub-module independence and finite-key gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00438 v3 pith:IW46JBEB submitted 2025-08-30 quant-ph

Feng-Yu Lu , Jia-Xuan Li , Ze-Hao Wang , Shuang Wang , Zhen-Qiang Yin , Alvaro Navarrete , Marcos Curty , Wei Chen
show 3 more authors
De-Yong He Guang-Can Guo Zheng-Fu Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributiondecoy-stateprotocolpulsecorrelationsstatepreparationflawsmode-dependentsidechannelsoverclockedtransmittertime-binencodingsecretrate
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

Quantum key distribution normally has to operate a transmitter below its modulation bandwidth, because overclocking makes each pulse's intensity and bit/basis encoding depend on previous settings, and those correlations plus side channels can leak information to an eavesdropper. This paper tries to break that bandwidth bottleneck by constructing a decoy-state protocol that stays secure with state-preparation flaws, mode-dependent side channels, and finite-range pulse correlations, including cross-correlations between intensity and encoding. The protocol works by having Alice characterize the actual pulses for every pattern of the last ξ settings before the key exchange, then feeding those measured deviations into a proof that bounds the information leakage. The authors also report two techniques—a 'deviation microscope' for measuring weak-intensity correlations and a 'double suppressing' method—that reduce correlated deviations to about 0.02%. With a 1 GHz time-bin setup whose components were previously shown to be bandwidth-limited at 250 MHz, the experiment obtains 1.1 Mbps at 5 km, roughly double the simulated ideal BB84 rate at the safe clock.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the correlation table: before the protocol runs, Alice measures, for each possible sequence of the last ξ intensity and bit/basis settings, the actual intensity and single-photon encoding of the emitted pulse, and turns those measurements into fine-grained ε parameters that limit how much any previous setting can change the current state. The proof's second engine is the Cauchy-Schwarz (CS) inequality, in a linearized form, which relates the detection statistics of the real, leaky states to those of an auxiliary state in the qubit space spanned by the Z-basis states; this supplies the upper bound on the phase-error rate needed for privacy amplification. Around thes

What would settle it

Run the same 1 GHz transmitter while measuring the emitted intensity and encoding for all joint setting sequences of length 4—i.e., look for correlations one round beyond the assumed ξ = 3—and compare the worst-case deviations with the ε bounds used in the key-rate calculation. If any measured deviation exceeds those bounds, or if correlations appear between the three supposedly independent sub-modules, the security proof no longer covers the device and the claimed rate is not guaranteed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the asymptotic secret-key rate formula K = pµ P A Z P B Z [p L 1|µ y L Z (1 − h(e U p )) − f Q Z µ h(e b )] remains valid for an overclocked transmitter when the actual mean photon numbers α and the actual single-photon encodings ι are characterized for every length-ξ sequence of intensity and bit/basis settings. The proof splits the protocol into ξ+1 subprotocols, uses rejected-data analysis to handle state-preparation flaws, and uses the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality—linearized so the bounds can be solved by linear programming—to estimate the single-photon yields and phase-error rate that enter the formula. Experimentally, the paper reports that the method, combined w

Load-bearing premise

The security argument assumes that correlations between pulses stop after three rounds (ξ = 3) and that the three modulator sub-modules each misbehave independently; if a longer correlation or hidden cross-module coupling exists but was not captured by the measured ε parameters, the bounds on information leakage would be too optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A transmitter rated for 250 MHz can run at 1 GHz with a secret-key rate gain close to the clock-speed-up at metropolitan distances; the experiment doubles the ideal safe-clock rate at 5 km, and simulations give about a 3x gain at 10 dB loss even when cross-correlations are included.
  • Hardware cost stops being the main lever for higher rate: commercial bandwidth-limited modulators, once characterized and compensated, can be pushed beyond their nominal frequency without invalidating security.
  • Vacuum decoy correlations and time-bin encoding, which earlier intensity-correlation measurements could not see, become measurable and suppressible, so the security analysis covers the full decoy set.
  • The same security framework extends to any finite correlation range, and to infinite ranges by combining with the unbounded-correlation result cited in the paper.
  • Overclocked operation remains advantageous at intercity distances when better detectors (SNSPDs) are used, not only at short range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof's sub-module decomposition is a practical shortcut, not a logical necessity; if hidden cross-module coupling appears with temperature or ageing, the full joint correlation table would be required, and the same measurement apparatus can produce it at the cost of longer calibration.
  • The deviation-microscope idea—biasing a modulator to its most sensitive point to amplify small correlation-induced changes—is a general metrology trick that could be applied to high-speed optical transmitters outside QKD.
  • Because the security proof only relies on measured tables and ε bounds, the protocol could be adapted to other bandwidth-limited encoding platforms, such as directly modulated lasers or silicon-photonic transmitters, by repeating the characterization step.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decoy-state QKD protocol and two experimental techniques (a 'deviation microscope' and 'double suppressing') intended to make a bandwidth-limited transmitter secure even when overclocked. The protocol is designed to handle state preparation flaws (SPFs), mode-dependent side channels, and finite-range pulse correlations, including cross-correlations between intensity and bit/basis encoding. A security proof is given in the appendices, based on measured ε-parameters and a linearized Cauchy–Schwarz constraint. The experiment reports a 1.1 Mbps secret-key rate at 5 km with a 1 GHz system whose nominal safe rate is 250 MHz, roughly double the simulated ideal BB84 rate. The central claim is that the protocol simultaneously achieves security, high speed, and low cost by overcoming the modulation bandwidth limitation.

Significance. If the security proof and its assumptions hold, this is a valuable contribution: it generalizes earlier correlation-robust QKD analyses to cross-correlations between intensity and bit/basis settings, and it demonstrates a concrete experimental path to overclocking with low residual correlations. The measured sub-module correlation tables (Tables II–V) and the reported suppression to ~0.02% deviations are useful experimental data. The proof structure—using experimentally characterized ε-parameters as inputs and a refined decoy-state method with linearized CS constraints—is appropriate in spirit. However, the central experimental claim currently rests on several unverified or asymptotic assumptions, so the result is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. The final correlation table is assembled from three independently measured sub-modules under the assertion 'Since the three modules are independent, any result in the final correlation table can be easily deduced from the three sub-tables.' This independence is not experimentally verified. If there is hidden cross-module coupling (e.g., RF crosstalk, thermal/electrical coupling, or power-dependent transmission in the SI/OS), the measured sub-tables do not correctly predict the actual fine-grained state/intensity for a full pattern s_k...k−ξ. Then the ε parameters used in the security proof no longer bound the true leakage, and Eq. (B1) may overestimate the key rate. The agreement between experimental points and the simulation in Fig. 3 is not a sufficient check, because the simulation is built on the same sub-module model. This is a load-bearing missing verification for the claimed 1.1 M
  2. The key rate formula (B1) is asymptotic: it assumes infinitely many rounds and vanishing statistical fluctuations. No finite-key analysis is provided for the experimental data. The reported 1.1 Mbps at 5 km and 69.3 kbps at 11 dB loss are therefore not fully justified as finite-key secure rates. Finite-size corrections can be significant, especially at higher loss where the number of detected events is small. Either a finite-key security proof should be added (along with block sizes and confidence levels for the experimental points), or the experimental claims should be explicitly labeled as asymptotic approximations. As it stands, the claim 'secure key rate' is stronger than what the manuscript proves.
  3. The proof sets δ1 ≈ 0 and δ3 ≈ 0, stating this holds 'in nearly all practical scenarios', and then uses δ2 = δ3 ≈ 0. These δ parameters are derived from the actual single-photon states and are directly related to the SPF angles Δ1, Δ2. Thus, as written, the security proof does not cover non-negligible SPFs, even though the paper's abstract and introduction claim the protocol handles SPFs. The rejected-data analysis is invoked, but the phase-error bound in Eqs. (B11)–(B19) relies on the small-SPF simplification. Either the proof must be extended to general δ1, δ3 (or to measured upper bounds on them), or the claim of robustness against SPFs must be restricted. This is a load-bearing gap between the stated scope and the proven result.
  4. The derivation of the bound for χ′ contains a step asserting that a certain function is monotonically decreasing/increasing under conditions 'a≈x≈√2/2, y≈0', without proof or explicit verification from the measured parameters. The same appendix states that 'We find that when Δ1,2, εΔ → 0, χ′ increases monotonically...'—again without a rigorous derivation. These monotonicity claims are load-bearing because they justify the lower bound on χ, which directly enters the phase-error bound (B11). Please provide a rigorous derivation or a numerical verification of these monotonicity properties for the relevant parameter ranges.
minor comments (5)
  1. The text says 'These constraints will be used in Appendix A to prove the security of the protocol', but the security proof is in Appendix B. This is a cross-reference error.
  2. In the definitions of S2 and related quantities, 'qv +' appears where 'pv +' is presumably intended. Also check the labeling of T3/T4 in Eq. (B17) and the use of c2/c5, which currently appears inconsistent with the preceding text.
  3. The experimental points are shown without error bars or confidence intervals. Adding error bars (even if small) would clarify the statistical significance of the claimed factor-of-two improvement.
  4. Reference [61] is listed as 'in preparation' and is used to support a statement about chip-based QKD. Such references should be replaced by a published source or explicitly marked as unpublished personal communication.
  5. The claim that the achieved correlation deviations are 'state-of-the-art' would be more persuasive if the paper explicitly compared the measured maximum deviation (0.052%) with the numerical values from the cited prior works [50–54,57], rather than only citing them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured ε parameters are inputs to the security proof, not outputs, and the key-rate bound is not defined in terms of any fitted quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is non-circular. The security proof in Appendix B takes as inputs (i) the transmitter model assumptions A1–A4, (ii) the experimentally characterized ε parameters defined in Eqs. (A11)–(A18), and (iii) the measured gains/QBERs, and then solves linear programs (Eq. (B35)) to bound the single-photon yield and phase-error rate. The final key rate Eq. (B1) is a consequence of these bounds; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the key rate itself. The ε parameters are physically characterized quantities, not free parameters fitted to the claimed key rate. The use of prior CS constraints and linearized CS inequalities from Refs. [10,23,24] is standard external theoretical support; these are not unique theorems invoked to forbid alternatives. The correlation range ξ=3 is taken from prior measurement [53,54], which is an external experimental result, and the paper also independently measures sub-tables up to three preceding settings. The 'sub-module independence' assumption in Appendix C ('Since the three modules are independent...') is a modeling assumption; if violated, the security proof would not apply, but this is a correctness/verification risk, not a circular reduction. The experimental vs. simulated agreement is a consistency check, not the load-bearing security argument. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured correlation parameters, a finite correlation range, Poisson statistics, and sub-module independence. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'deviation microscope' and 'double suppressing' are techniques, not entities. The main free inputs are the decoy intensities, setting probabilities, and the experimentally characterized epsilon bounds.

free parameters (5)
  • decoy intensities mu, nu, omega = not stated numerically in main text
    Chosen to optimize secret key rate; the key-rate formula depends on them.
  • setting probabilities p_a, p_r = not explicitly given in main text
    Alice's choice probabilities for intensity and bit/basis settings; enter key-rate and security bounds.
  • correlation range xi = 3
    Taken from prior characterization [53]; assumed finite and fixed. If larger, the proof would need the unbounded-correlation result of [58].
  • epsilon parameters (epsilon_delta, epsilon_r, epsilon_a, epsilon_hat_r, epsilon_hat_a, coarse-grained variants) = inferred from Tables II-V; max residual deviation ~0.052% after double suppressing
    Measured from correlation tables and used as inputs to the security proof. These are experimentally fitted constants, not derived from first principles.
  • SPF angles Delta_1, Delta_2 = not given numerically
    Determined experimentally from average single-photon states; enter virtual-state inner product bounds.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Correlations have finite range xi.
    Appendix A, assumption (2): settings older than xi rounds cannot influence the current preparation. This is load-bearing for the finite table structure.
  • domain assumption Imperfections do not change the Poissonian character of photon-number statistics.
    Appendix A, assumption (3): the emitted pulses remain phase-randomized weak coherent pulses with Poisson statistics, only with distorted mean intensities.
  • domain assumption Global phase of emitted PR WCPs is uniformly random.
    Appendix A, assumption (4): needed for the decoy-state and phase-error analysis.
  • domain assumption Bob's detection efficiency is independent of his measurement basis.
    First paragraph of Appendix A: used to simplify the POVM modeling; the paper notes this can be removed with MDI protocols.
  • domain assumption The transmitter can be separated into independent sub-modules whose correlation tables can be combined.
    Appendix C, methodology step 2: sub-module independence is assumed to reduce the size of the correlation table; hidden cross-module coupling would invalidate the combination.
  • standard math The CS inequality as stated in [10,23] holds and can be linearized as in Eqs. (B24)-(B27).
    Used throughout Appendix B to relate measurement statistics of actual and virtual states.
  • ad hoc to paper In nearly all practical scenarios the SPF angles satisfy Delta_1 approximately 0 and Delta_3 approximately 0, and Delta_2 is set equal to Delta_3 approximately 0.
    Appendix A before Eq. (A9): this simplification is used to bound the inner products chi; it is justified by small imperfections but is introduced specifically for this proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Key Distribution: Enabling Overclocked Modulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IW46JBEB

@misc{pith2026250900438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fault-Tolerant Quantum Key Distribution: Enabling Overclocked Modulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IW46JBEB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00438}
}
read the original abstract

Implementation security, higher generation rate, and lower cost are primary missions in the domain of quantum key distributions in recent years. However, simultaneously achieving robust security, high speed, and low cost often resembles an ``impossible triangle''. This is largely because the modulation system imposes a strict bandwidth limitation. Pushing a low-cost modulator to a high repetition frequency inevitably introduces correlations and misalignment, which can create security loopholes. Conversely, operating at a conservative rate fails to exploit the system's potential, while adopting ultra-high-bandwidth components is often expensive for practical implementation, forcing a perpetual trade-off among implementation security, key rate, and cost. In this work, we propose a comprehensive countermeasure to overcome this modulation bandwidth bottleneck. We present a protocol specifically designed to address the security loopholes arising from modulation imperfections, ensuring security even in overclocked modulation systems. Furthermore, we develop two practical techniques to characterize and mitigate the detrimental correlations. Our experimental setup demonstrates that the proposed method achieves the lowest correlated deviation reported in similar studies, while maintaining a high secret key rate using a bandwidth-limited modulation system. By simultaneously enhancing security, performance, and practicality, this work releases QKD systems from the traditional performance-cost trade-off in the near term, paving the way for widespread deployment. In the long run, this work can be readily integrated with high-bandwidth components to further push the boundaries of system performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Secret-key rate (SKR) of the refined decoy-state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental setup for validating our protocol in a bandwidth-limited system. LD: laser diode, IM: intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental and theoretical simulated SKRs. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. RF signals for the IM, the PM of the SI, and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic of our correlation measurent system. LD: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Experimental results with the deviation microscope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Conceptual diagram of the most general measurement method for the correlations. RNG Sys.: random number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Conceptual diagram of the simplified measurement procedure. LD: laser diode, RNG Sys.: random number generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Correlation measurement in our experiment. RNG Sys.: random number generation system, Mod. Sys.: modulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Detection system in our Correlation measurement. RNG Sys.: random number generation system, EVOA: electronic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    Lo and H

    H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Unconditional security of quan- tum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances, Sci- ence 283, 2050 (1999)

  3. [3]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol, Physical Review Letters 85, 441 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    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, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Renner, Security of quantum key distribution, Inter- national Symposium on Information Theory 6, 1 (2008)

    R. Renner, Security of quantum key distribution, Inter- national Symposium on Information Theory 6, 1 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Hwang, Quantum key distribution with high loss: toward global secure communication, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    W.-Y. Hwang, Quantum key distribution with high loss: toward global secure communication, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Physical Review Let- ters 94, 230503 (2005)

    X.-B. Wang, Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography, Physical Review Let- ters 94, 230503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Decoy state quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Pereira, M

    M. Pereira, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key dis- tribution with flawed and leaky sources, npj Quantum Information 5, 62 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Kato, A. Mizutani, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with correlated sources, Science Advances 6, eaaz4487 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Tamaki, M

    K. Tamaki, M. Curty, G. Kato, H.-K. Lo, and K. Azuma, Loss-tolerant quantum cryptography with imperfect sources, Physical Review A 90, 052314 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Wang, X.-L

    X.-B. Wang, X.-L. Hu, and Z.-W. Yu, Practical long- distance side-channel-free quantum key distribution, Physical Review Applied 12, 054034 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Lu, Z.-H

    F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, R. Wang, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, X.-J. Huang, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, Z. Zhou, et al. , Unbalanced-basis-misalignment-tolerant measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion, Optica 9, 886 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 108, 130503 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Tomamichel, C

    M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Ren- ner, Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography, Nature Communications 3, 634 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola, Side-channel-free quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 108, 130502 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Sajeed, A

    S. Sajeed, A. Huang, S. Sun, F. Xu, V. Makarov, and M. Curty, Insecurity of detector-device-independent quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 117, 250505 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Curty, F

    M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C. C. W. Lim, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Finite-key analysis for measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Nature Commu- nications 5, 3732 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Pirandola, C

    S. Pirandola, C. Ottaviani, G. Spedalieri, C. Weedbrook, S. L. Braunstein, S. Lloyd, T. Gehring, C. S. Jacob- sen, and U. L. Andersen, High-rate measurement-device- independent quantum cryptography, Nature Photonics9, 397 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Tamaki, M

    K. Tamaki, M. Curty, and M. Lucamarini, Decoy-state quantum key distribution with a leaky source, New Jour- nal of Physics 18, 065008 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Hwang, H.-Y

    W.-Y. Hwang, H.-Y. Su, and J. Bae, Improved measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion with uncharacterized qubits, Physical Review A 95, 062313 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Mizutani, G

    A. Mizutani, G. Kato, K. Azuma, M. Curty, R. Ikuta, T. Yamamoto, N. Imoto, H.-K. Lo, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with setting- choice-independently correlated light sources, npj Quan- tum Information 5, 8 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Zapatero, ´A

    V. Zapatero, ´A. Navarrete, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Security of quantum key distribution with intensity cor- relations, Quantum 5, 602 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sixto, V

    X. Sixto, V. Zapatero, and M. Curty, Security of decoy- state quantum key distribution with correlated intensity fluctuations, Physical Review Applied 18, 044069 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Nagamatsu, A

    Y. Nagamatsu, A. Mizutani, R. Ikuta, T. Yamamoto, N. Imoto, and K. Tamaki, Security of quantum key distri- bution with light sources that are not independently and identically distributed, Physical Review A 93, 042325 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    W. Wang, R. Wang, C. Hu, V. Zapatero, L. Qian, B. Qi, M. Curty, and H.-K. Lo, Fully passive quantum key dis- tribution, Physical Review Letters 130, 220801 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Zapatero, W

    V. Zapatero, W. Wang, and M. Curty, A fully passive transmitter for decoy-state quantum key distribution, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 025014 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    George, J

    I. George, J. Lin, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Numerical calcula- tions of the finite key rate for general quantum key dis- tribution protocols, Physical Review Research 3, 013274 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Wang and N

    W. Wang and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Numerical security proof for the decoy-state BB84 protocol and measurement- device-independent quantum key distribution resistant against large basis misalignment, Physical Review Re- search 4, 043097 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Navarrete, M

    ´A. Navarrete, M. Pereira, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Practical quantum key distribution that is secure against side channels, Physical Review Applied 15, 034072 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    F. Xu, M. Curty, B. Qi, L. Qian, and H.-K. Lo, Dis- crete and continuous variables for measurement-device- independent quantum cryptography, Nature Photonics9, 772 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Lucamarini, Z

    M. Lucamarini, Z. Yuan, J. Dynes, and A. Shields, Over- coming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribu- tion without quantum repeaters, Nature 557, 400 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Tanaka, M

    A. Tanaka, M. Fujiwara, K.-i. Yoshino, S. Takahashi, Y. Nambu, A. Tomita, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, M. Sasaki, et al. , High-speed quantum key distribution system for 1-Mbps real-time key generation, IEEE Jour- 33 nal of Quantum Electronics 48, 542 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Z. Yuan, A. Plews, R. Takahashi, K. Doi, W. Tam, A. Sharpe, A. Dixon, E. Lavelle, J. Dynes, A. Murakami, et al. , 10-Mb/s quantum key distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology 36, 3427 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Bacco and M

    D. Bacco and M. Colautti, High secret key rate goes a long way, Nature Photonics 17, 378 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, S.-K. Liao, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, H.-K. Mao, B. Yan, et al. , High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 Mb s–1, Nature Photonics , 1 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Boaron, G

    A. Boaron, G. Boso, D. Rusca, C. Vulliez, C. Autebert, M. Caloz, M. Perrenoud, G. Gras, F. Bussi` eres, M.-J. Li, et al., Secure quantum key distribution over 421 km of op- tical fiber, Physical Review Letters 121, 190502 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, R.-Q. Wang, P. Ye, Y. Zhou, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, F.-X. Wang, Y.-G. Zhu, et al. , Twin-field quantum key distribution over 830-km fibre, Nature Photonics 16, 154 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    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,et al., Experimental twin-field quantum key distribution over 1000 km fiber distance, Physical Review Letters 130, 210801 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Gr¨ unenfelder, A

    F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, D. Rusca, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, Performance and security of 5 GHz repe- tition rate polarization-based quantum key distribution, Applied Physics Letters 117 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    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 Research 11, 1007 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Sibson, C

    P. Sibson, C. Erven, M. Godfrey, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, H. Terai, M. G. Tanner, C. M. Natarajan, et al. , Chip-based quantum key distribution, Nature Communications 8, 13984 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Sibson, J

    P. Sibson, J. E. Kennard, S. Stanisic, C. Erven, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated silicon pho- tonics for high-speed quantum key distribution, Optica 4, 172 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    K. Wei, W. Li, H. Tan, Y. Li, H. Min, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, X. Jiang, et al. , High-speed measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion with integrated silicon photonics, Physical Review X 10, 031030 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Zhang, W

    G.-W. Zhang, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, L. Zhang, F.- X. Wang, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Liu, J.-M. An, et al., Polarization-insensitive quantum key distribu- tion using planar lightwave circuit chips, Science China Information Sciences 65, 200506 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Fan-Yuan, F.-Y

    G.-J. Fan-Yuan, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, Z. Zhou, Z.-H. Wang, J. Teng, G.-C. Guo, et al. , Robust and adaptable quantum key distribution network without trusted nodes, Optica 9, 812 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Yin, T.-Y

    H.-L. Yin, T.-Y. Chen, Z.-W. Yu, H. Liu, L.-X. You, Y.-H. Zhou, S.-J. Chen, Y. Mao, M.-Q. Huang, W.-J. Zhang, et al., Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution over a 404 km optical fiber, Physical Re- view Letters 117, 190501 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Comandar, M

    L. Comandar, M. Lucamarini, B. Fr¨ ohlich, J. Dynes, A. Sharpe, S.-B. Tam, Z. Yuan, R. Penty, and A. Shields, Quantum key distribution without detector vulnerabili- ties using optically seeded lasers, Nature Photonics 10, 312 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    R. I. Woodward, Y. Lo, M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, T. Para ¨ ıso, M. Lucamarini, Z. Yuan, and A. Shields, Gi- gahertz measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution using directly modulated lasers, npj Quan- tum Information 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Yoshino, M

    K.-i. Yoshino, M. Fujiwara, K. Nakata, T. Sumiya, T. Sasaki, M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, A. Tajima, M. Koashi, and A. Tomita, Quantum key distribution with an effi- cient countermeasure against correlated intensity fluctu- ations in optical pulses, npj Quantum Information 4, 1 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Roberts, M

    G. Roberts, M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, M. Lucamarini, J. Dynes, Z. Yuan, and A. Shields, Patterning-effect mit- igating intensity modulator for secure decoy-state quan- tum key distribution, Optics Letters 43, 5110 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    F.-Y. Lu, X. Lin, S. Wang, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, P. Ye, R. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, et al. , Intensity modulator for secure, stable, and high- performance decoy-state quantum key distribution, npj Quantum Information 7, 75 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Kang, F.-Y

    X. Kang, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, J.-L. Chen, Z.-H. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, et al. , Patterning-effect calibration algorithm for secure decoy-state quantum key distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology 41, 75 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Lu, Z.-H

    F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, J.-L. Chen, X. Kang, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, et al., Intensity tomography method for secure and high-performance quantum key distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Laing, V

    A. Laing, V. Scarani, J. G. Rarity, and J. L. O’Brien, Reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution, Physical Review A 82, 012304 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Agulleiro, F

    A. Agulleiro, F. Gr¨ unenfelder, M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as- Lorenzo, H. Zbinden, M. Curty, and D. Rusca, Modeling and characterization of arbitrary order pulse correlations for quantum key distribution, preprint arXiv:2506.18684 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gao and Z

    Y. Gao and Z. Yuan, Suppression of patterning effect using IQ modulator for high-speed quantum key distri- bution systems, Optics Letters 48, 1068 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Mizutani, D. Rusca, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with unbounded pulse correlations, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015001 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Wang, X.-T

    C. Wang, X.-T. Song, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, W. Chen, C.- M. Zhang, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Phase-reference- free experiment of measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 115, 160502 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    C. Li, M. Curty, F. Xu, O. Bedroya, and H.-K. Lo, Se- cure quantum communication in the presence of phase- and polarization-dependent loss, Physical Review A 98, 042324 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Xing, ´A

    T. Xing, ´A. Navarrete, Y. Du, Z. Zhao, D. Trefilov, Z. Chen, P. Qingquan, X. Hua, X. Xiao, V. Makarov, K. Wei, M. Curty, and A. Huang, Cross polarization- intensity correlations in chip-based QKD (2025), in preparation

    2025

  54. [62]

    Lu, Z.-Q

    F.-Y. Lu, Z.-Q. Yin, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, R. Wang, H. Liu, S. Wang, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, W. Huang, B.-J. Xu, et al., Efficient decoy states for the reference-frame-independent measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- 34 tion, Physical Review A 101, 052318 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Lu, Z.-H

    F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, V. Zapatero, J.-L. Chen, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, M. Curty, D.-Y. He, R. Wang, W. Chen,et al., Experimental demonstration of fully passive quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 131, 110802 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    C. Hu, W. Wang, K.-S. Chan, Z. Yuan, and H.-K. Lo, Proof-of-principle demonstration of fully passive quan- tum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 131, 110801 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    D.-Y. He, S. Wang, W. Chen, Z.-Q. Yin, Y.-J. Qian, Z. Zhou, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Sine-wave gating InGaAs/InP single photon detector with ultralow after- pulse, Applied Physics Letters 110, 111104 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Ribordy, J.-D

    G. Ribordy, J.-D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Performance of InGaAs/InP avalanche photodiodes as gated-mode photon counters, Applied Optics 37, 2272 (1998)

    1998

  59. [67]

    Yoshizawa, R

    A. Yoshizawa, R. Kaji, and H. Tsuchida, Gated-mode single-photon detection at 1550 nm by discharge pulse counting, Applied Physics Letters 84, 3606 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Huang, F.-Y

    X.-J. Huang, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, Z.-H. Wang, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Dependency model for high-performance quantum-key-distribution systems, Physical Review A 106, 062607 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Huang, Z.-H

    X.-J. Huang, Z.-H. Wang, J.-L. Chen, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, J. Geng, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, et al. , Realistic detector model for a time-bin-encoding quantum key distribution system, Physical Review Ap- plied 23, 054071 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Hao, Q.-Y

    H. Hao, Q.-Y. Zhao, Y.-H. Huang, J. Deng, F. Yang, S.- Y. Ru, Z. Liu, C. Wan, H. Liu, Z.-J. Li, et al., A compact multi-pixel superconducting nanowire single-photon de- tector array supporting gigabit space-to-ground commu- nications, Light: Science & Applications 13, 25 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    P. Ye, W. Chen, G.-W. Zhang, F.-Y. Lu, F.-X. Wang, G.-Z. Huang, S. Wang, D.-Y. He, Z.-Q. Yin, G.-C. Guo, et al. , Induced-photorefraction attack against quantum key distribution, Physical Review Applied 19, 054052 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    F.-Y. Lu, P. Ye, Z.-H. Wang, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, R. Wang, X.-J. Huang, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-J. Fan- Yuan, et al. , Hacking measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Optica 10, 520 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Eraerds, M

    P. Eraerds, M. Legr´ e, J. Zhang, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Photon counting OTDR: advantages and limitations, Journal of Lightwave Technology 28, 952 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Kirmani, D

    A. Kirmani, D. Venkatraman, D. Shin, A. Cola¸ co, F. N. Wong, J. H. Shapiro, and V. K. Goyal, First-photon imaging, Science 343, 58 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    D. Shin, F. Xu, D. Venkatraman, R. Lussana, F. Villa, F. Zappa, V. K. Goyal, F. N. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Photon-efficient imaging with a single-photon camera, Nature Communications 7, 12046 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Navarrete, A. Mizu- tani, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Modified BB84 quantum key distribution protocol robust to source im- perfections, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023065 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, ´A

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, ´A. Navarrete, M. Pereira, and K. Tamaki, Finite-key analysis of loss-tolerant quantum key distribution based on random sampling theory, Phys- ical Review A 104, 012406 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    H.-B. Xie, Y. Li, C. Jiang, W.-Q. Cai, J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, X.-B. Wang, S.-K. Liao, and C.-Z. Peng, Optically in- jected intensity-stable pulse source for secure quantum key distribution, Opt. Express 27, 12231 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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