Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Asymmetry effects in homodyne and heterodyne measurements: Positive operator-valued measures and asymptotic security of Gaussian-continuous-variable quantum key distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that asymmetry in detector efficiencies and beam-splitter ratios cannot be fully captured by coherent-state idealizations: for double-homodyne (heterodyne) detection, the correct noiseless reference is a family of squeezed-

desk verdict The POVM work is solid and novel; the security conclusion overreaches because the r-optimization lacks a physical dilation argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.22591 v3 pith:OM2HXLWZ submitted 2025-12-27 quant-ph

A. S. Naumchik , Roman K. Goncharov , Alexei D. Kiselev This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4581P1581V8094A60 PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords continuous-variablequantumkeydistributionhomodynedetectionheterodynePOVMsqueezedstatesadditivenoisechanneldetectorasymmetryHolevoinformation
topics The Measurement Problem
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

The paper tries to establish that, within a Gaussian approximation to photocount statistics, imbalanced beam splitters and mismatched photodetector efficiencies in homodyne and double-homodyne measurements can be represented as an ideal measurement followed by an additive-noise channel. For double homodyne, the ideal measurement must be taken as projecting onto squeezed states, and the squeezing parameter is not fixed: it ranges over an interval fixed by positive semi-definiteness of the excess noise covariance. In the untrusted-noise scenario of CV-QKD, where an adversary controls the measurement noise, the Holevo information therefore depends on this squeezing parameter and must be maximized over it. A sympathetic reader would care because fixing the squeezing parameter to zero, i.e., using coherent-state projectors, may underestimate Eve's information and overestimate the secure key rate.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Q symbols of the POVMs — Gaussian probability distributions giving overlap with coherent states — and the additive-noise (classical mixing) channel Φ_N that converts ideal projectors into noisy POVMs by convolving with Gaussian excess noise. For double homodyne, the key step is identifying the ideal measurement states as squeezed states |z, r, ϕ⟩ = R(ϕ)D(z)S(r)|0⟩, with covariance diag(e^{2r}, e^{−2r}); the allowed squeezing interval is set by the inequalities e^{2r} ≤ δ1 and e^{−2r} ≤ δ2, which follow from positive semi-definiteness of the excess noise covariance. The free parameter r is what carries the security result, because it changes the effective channel t

What would settle it

For the asymmetric parameters used in Figs. 6, 8, and 9 — for example η1 = 1, η2 = 0.5, |α| > 1, |α_L| = 5 — compute the exact Skellam-based photocount distribution and the resulting POVM, then recompute the secret fraction; if the difference from the Gaussian-based curve is larger than the plotted margins, or if the ranking of homodyne versus double-homodyne key rates reverses, the quantitative security conclusions fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the Gaussian approximation, the noisy homodyne POVM is obtained by applying an additive-noise channel to quadrature-eigenstate projectors, with excess noise variance σ_N = σ_x − 1 ≥ 0. For the eight-port double-homodyne scheme, the Q symbol has a covariance matrix with principal variances δ1 and δ2; the noiseless measurements should be projectors onto displaced squeezed states with covariance diag(e^{2r}, e^{−2r}), and the excess noise covariance matrix is positive semi-definite only when r lies in the interval [r2, r1] = [−(1/2)ln δ2, (1/2)ln δ1]. This representation is non-unique, and in the untrusted-noise scenario the Holevo information χ_EB(r) must be maximized over r. The cohere

Load-bearing premise

Every POVM and every key-rate curve is built on approximating Poisson/Skellam photocount statistics by a Gaussian, and Appendix A shows the statistical distance can exceed 0.1 for asymmetric detectors and moderate signal amplitudes, yet the security figures do not propagate this approximation error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Asymmetric detector imperfections can be modeled as extra additive noise before an ideal squeezed-state measurement, allowing security analyses to stay within Gaussian-state formulas rather than full photocount models.
  • If the squeezing parameter is incorrectly fixed to zero in the untrusted-noise scenario, the Holevo information may be underestimated and the secure key rate overestimated.
  • Both mutual information, Holevo information, and asymptotic secret fraction degrade with detector asymmetry, and the maximum secure channel length shrinks; the effect is more pronounced for double-homodyne detection than for homodyne detection.
  • The non-uniqueness of the double-homodyne POVM representation is a general feature of imperfect heterodyne detection, not an artifact of a particular parameter regime.
  • For ideal double-homodyne detection, imbalance of the input beam splitter can reduce the Holevo information, but in the presence of detector noise the Holevo information increases and the secret key rate drops below that of homodyne detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Gaussian approximation is not accurate in the asymmetric regimes studied — and the paper's own Appendix A shows statistical distances exceeding 0.1 for |α|>1 with efficiency mismatch — the quantitative key-rate curves may shift; the qualitative direction of degradation, however, is likely to survive.
  • The free-r maximization suggests a concrete adversarial strategy: Eve can choose the POVM representation that maximizes her information, and implementations that calibrate only the coherent-state parameters may miss this added leakage.
  • A natural experimental test would be to measure the two quadrature variances under controlled detector asymmetry and check whether the observed POVM matches the squeezed-state representation with the predicted r interval; such a test would also provide a calibration constraint for secure implementations.
  • The representation ambiguity likely extends to finite-size and composable security proofs, where the optimization over r would need to be incorporated rather than fixed by an idealized coherent-state model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives POVMs for asymmetric homodyne and eight-port double-homodyne (heterodyne) detection in the Gaussian approximation of difference-photon-count statistics. The noisy POVMs are represented as additive Gaussian noise channels acting on ideal projective POVMs; for double homodyne, the ideal POVMs are projectors onto squeezed states with squeezing parameter r lying in an interval fixed by positive semidefiniteness of the excess-noise covariance matrix, so the operator representation is non-unique. These POVMs are then used in an asymptotic security analysis of the Gaussian-modulated coherent-state CV-QKD protocol in the untrusted-noise scenario. For double homodyne, the Holevo information is maximized over r, and the authors find that beam-splitter imbalance and detector-efficiency mismatch degrade mutual information, Holevo information, and secret fraction.

Significance. The POVM construction is a useful systematic treatment: it connects the asymmetric receiver to the squeezed-state representation, recovers the known ideal-detector result of Ref. [70], and provides closed-form mutual information and entropy expressions. Appendix A attempts a validity check of the central Gaussian approximation, Appendix B shows that a competing Bessel-based approximation can lead to an ill-posed POVM, and Appendix C supplies the PM-EB equivalence. The derivations in Secs. II-III are internally consistent and I see no circularity in the POVM computation itself. However, two load-bearing points are not settled: (i) the security optimization over r is justified only by POVM non-uniqueness, without an explicit physical dilation showing Eve can realize every r; (ii) the Gaussian approximation error is shown by the authors' own Appendix A to grow in the asymmetric regimes used in the security figures, yet no error propagation is given. If these points are resolved, the paper would be a solid contribution to practical CV-QKD security analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (78), (87)-(88)] The optimization of the Holevo information over r is not justified by POVM non-uniqueness alone. In the untrusted-noise scenario, Eve controls the measurement noise channel, but the physical receiver fixes the noiseless part: for ideal detectors and input beam-splitter imbalance q, Eq. (74) gives r = rho, and detector inefficiencies then add a unique noise covariance Sigma_N(rho) in Eq. (69). A different r corresponds to a different split between the trusted noiseless measurement and the untrusted noise; the paper gives no Naimark-style dilation showing that Eve can realize that split while preserving the same physical POVM. Consequently, the central conclusion that fixing r=0 underestimates Eve (Figs. 7 and 8) is a modeling assumption rather than a derived security bound. Please provide an explicit dilation argument, or compute security at the physically fixed decomposition and maximize
  2. [Appendix A, Figs. 6, 8, 9] The key-rate figures use parameters where the paper's own validity check fails. Fig. 10a shows D_P > 0.1 for |alpha| > 1 under efficiency mismatch, and Fig. 11 shows D_P near or above 0.1 for eta_2 = 0.5 at |alpha| = 1. The security plots use V_A = 1 (typical |alpha| around sqrt(2V_A) ~ 1.4), T = 0.95, and asymmetric efficiencies, so the Gaussian approximation underlying every POVM and every key-rate curve is not controlled in those regimes. No error bars or restricted parameter ranges are given. The qualitative direction of degradation may survive, but the quantitative values in Figs. 6, 8 and 9 — in particular the double-homodyne degradation in Fig. 9b — are unsupported. Please either restrict the analysis to parameters where D_P is demonstrably small or provide a propagated error bound.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (89)] The Holevo information is evaluated by assuming the covariance matrix (88) with Sigma_N(r) is the state purified by Eve. This is valid only if the corresponding additive channel is the physical channel under Eve's control. The paper uses the same symbol Sigma_N(r) both as a mathematical decomposition parameter and as a physically meaningful noise covariance. At minimum, the authors should state explicitly which noise sources are trusted and which are untrusted in the receiver, and prove that the interval (73) enumerates exactly those decompositions compatible with the trusted part of the device. Without this, the maximization over r can overestimate Eve's information.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV B, text after Eq. (81)] The phrase 'see Eqs. (81) and (81)' should read 'Eqs. (81) and (82)'.
  2. [Fig. 9] The vertical-axis labels contain corrupted symbols '10□3' and '10□2'; these should be 10^-3 and 10^-2.
  3. [Eq. (49)] There is a typo 'P_G^{(DH)}(x1,x2) ≡=' with a double equality sign; also the normalization factor is not fully explained in the text.
  4. [Sec. III, caption of Fig. 4 and text after Eq. (53)] There is a typo 'η(1)_1 + η(2)_1' in the sentence about anisotropy; the second term should be η(2)_2. Also, Fig. 2 caption says 'for for'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: POVMs are derived from the Gaussian photocount approximation and device parameters, and the squeezing parameter r is an optimization variable over equivalent POVM decompositions, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Q symbols of the POVMs are obtained from the Gaussian approximation of photocount statistics (Eqs. (10), (15), (49)); the covariance matrices are then read off from those Q symbols (Eqs. (33), (54)); and the operator representations are obtained by applying the standard self-dual additive-noise Gaussian channel (Eq. (22)) with excess noise covariance Σ_N = Σ_m − Σ_id. For double homodyne detection, the squeezed-state representation (Eqs. (69)–(78)) is an exact one-parameter family of decompositions of the same Gaussian POVM, and the parameter r is not fitted to any security curve: it is varied over the interval (73) and the Holevo information is maximized. The mutual information and Holevo formulas (Eqs. (81)–(97)) are standard Gaussian CV-QKD expressions applied to the derived covariance matrices. No target result is assumed as an input, and no load-bearing self-citation is used (the one cited prior result, Eq. (74), is attributed to an external reference, Ref. [70]). The possible modeling concern that Eve may not be able to realize every r-decomposition of the POVM is a correctness/threat-model issue, not a circular reduction. Appendix A's documented departure of the Gaussian approximation from the exact Skellam statistics is an accuracy limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. Its central objects are POVMs and channels from standard Gaussian quantum information; the squeezing parameter r parametrizes equivalent mathematical decompositions, not a new physical degree of freedom. The main assumptions are the Gaussian photocount approximation, the additive-noise channel representation, and the untrusted-noise security model.

free parameters (1)
  • Squeezing parameter r (double-homodyne POVM representation) = r_opt in [r2, r1], maximizing chi_EB^(DH); not a data fit
    The double-homodyne POVM has a one-parameter family of decompositions; in the security analysis r is an optimization variable under Eve's control, not fitted to data. The central novelty depends on this variable.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian (normal) approximation of Poisson photocount statistics in the strong-LO limit (Eq. (10)).
    Used to derive all POVMs and key-rate formulas; Appendix A validates numerically for moderate parameters but shows accuracy degrades with asymmetry; no rigorous error bound is given.
  • standard math Noisy Gaussian POVMs are obtained by applying the self-dual additive-noise channel to projective Gaussian POVMs (Eq. (22)).
    Standard Gaussian quantum information result (Serafini [18]); used to split noisy POVMs into ideal measurement plus excess noise.
  • domain assumption Untrusted-noise scenario: detector noise is a channel before an ideal measurement, with the noise source and its purification fully controlled by Eve (Eqs. (87)-(88)).
    Security model assumption; the paper restricts to this scenario and explicitly excludes the trusted-noise case.
  • standard math Gaussian extremality and Gaussian de Finetti reduction bound the asymptotic Holevo information via covariance matrices.
    Invoked for the key-rate formula; standard CV-QKD results [74,75,69].
  • standard math Partial measurement formula for conditional covariance after Gaussian measurements (Eq. (94)).
    Used to compute S(A|B) in the Holevo information; standard result from Serafini [18].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetry effects in homodyne and heterodyne measurements: Positive operator-valued measures and asymptotic security of Gaussian-continuous-variable quantum key distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OM2HXLWZ

@misc{pith2026251222591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetry effects in homodyne and heterodyne measurements: Positive operator-valued measures and asymptotic security of Gaussian-continuous-variable quantum key distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OM2HXLWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.22591}
}
abstract

We use the Gaussian approximation describing photocount statistics for both the homodyne and the double homodyne (heterodyne) measurements to study asymmetry effects arising from imbalance of the beam splitters and variations in quantum efficiencies of the photodetectors. After computing the $Q$ symbols of the positive operator-valued measures (POVMs) of noisy measurements that take into account the asymmetry effects, the operator representations for the POVMs are obtained in the form that assumes applying the additive noise quantum channel to the POVMs of noiseless (ideal) measurements. For double homodyne detection, it was found that the noiseless measurements should generally be expressed in terms of the projectors onto squeezed-states and the corresponding squeezed-state operator representation of POVM along with the measurement noise channel depend on the squeezing parameter that lies in the interval dictated by the condition for the excess noise covariance matrix to be positive semi-definite. The analytical results are used to perform analysis of the asymptotic security of the Gaussian-modulated continuous variable quantum key distribution (CV-QKD) protocol in the untrusted-noise scenario where the measurement noise is assumed to be accessible to an adversary. The inherent non-uniqueness of the operator representation for the double-homodyne POVM manifests itself in the squeezing dependent Holevo information that needs to be additionally optimized. For both types of the measurements, the mutual information, the Holevo information and the asymptotic secret fraction are sensitive to asymmetry effects leading to degraded performance of the protocol.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22591 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of a homodyne receiver: S is the source of the signal mode with the annihilation operator aˆ, LO is the source of the reference mode (local oscillator) with the annihilation operator aˆL, and BS is the beam splitter with the amplitude transmission and reflection coefficients t = cos θ and r = sin θ, respectively; photodetectors D1 and D2 have quantum efficiencies η1 and η2, and µ ≡ m1 − m2 is the photon count… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exact (circle dots) and approximate (solid lines with markers) statistical distributions of photon count [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scheme of an eight port double homodyne receiver. S is the source of the signal mode aˆ; LO is the source of the reference mode aˆL; BSS (BSL) is the signal mode (local oscillator) beam splitter; π 2 is the quarter wave phase shifter; BSi is the beam splitter of ith homodyne; D (i) 1,2 are the photodetectors of the ith homodyne; and µi = m (i) 1 − m (i) 2 is the photon count difference registered by the detectors of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Double homodyne statistical distribution of photocount differences computed from Eq. (43) for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Geometry in the δ-r (principal variance-squeezing parameter) plane. Noise variances (70) are positive when the principal variance δ1 (δ2) is above e 2r (e −2r ), so that the squeezing parameter r is ranged between r1 and r2. Solid grey lines represent the graphs of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Mutual information, I (H) AB , (b) Holevo information, χ (H) EB and (c) asymptotic secret fraction, K(H), as a function of the beam splitter transmission, C 2 , of the homodyne receiver (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Joint entropy, S (DH) AB , as a function of the squeezing parameter r (see Eq. (73)) at different values of the quadrature variances σ (i) x (53) for (a) the balanced input beam splitter with the imbalance ratio (72), q, equal to unity and (b) the unbalanced input beam…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Mutual information, I (DH) AB , (b) Holevo information, χ (DH) EB and (c) asymptotic secret fraction, K(DH) , as a function of the signal beam splitter transmission, C 2 S , of the double homodyne receiver (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Asymptotic secret fraction as a function of channel length computed for (a) homodyne detection and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Statistical distance DP = D(P, PG) as a function of (a) signal amplitude and (b) LO amplitude at different detector efficiencies. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 η2 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 Statistical distance δθ = 0◦ δθ = 10◦ δθ = −10◦ (a) η1 = 1 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 η1…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Statistical distance DP = D(P, PG) as a function of photodetector efficiency (a) η2 at η1 = 1 and (b) η1 at η2 = 1 for different values of the beam splitter imbalance angle δθ (see eq. (A9)). The amplitudes are |α| = 1 and |αL| = 5. (|αL|) at different values of the p…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Statistical distance DP = D(P, PG) as a function of the beam splitter imbalance angle, δθ, for the signal mode prepared in (a) the coherent state and in (b) the single photon Fock state at different efficiencies with |αL| = 5. of DP can be estimated to be slightly abo…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distances, DP = D(P, PG) and DS = D(P, P (s) G ), between the Skellam distribution, P, and two Gaussian approximations, PG (see Eq. (10)) and P (s) G (see Eq. (B5)), as a function of |αL| the beam splitter imbalance angle at δθ = 15◦ α = 1, and η1 = η2 = 1. Assuming t…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distances, DP = D(P, PG) and DS = D(P, P (s) G ), between the Skellam distribution, P, and two Gaussian approximations, PG (see Eq. (10)) and P (s) G (see Eq. (B5)), as a function of the beam splitter imbalance angle δθ at α = 1, αL = 10 and η1 = η2 = 1. Note that, in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    Leverrier, Security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution via a gaussian de finetti reduction, Phys

    A. Leverrier, Security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution via a gaussian de finetti reduction, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 200501 (2017)

    2017

  2. [1]

    renormalization point

    It is illustrated that the noise variances are positive provided the squeezing parameterris ranged between the endpoints of the interval given by r∈[r 2, r1], r1 = lnδ 1/2 1 , r2 = lnδ −1/2 2 (73) An important point is that the value of the squeezing parameter is generally not uniquely determined by the conditions (70). Referring to Fig. 5, the sole excep...

  3. [2]

    Vogel and D.-G

    W. Vogel and D.-G. Welsch,Quantum Optics, 3rd ed. (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2006) p. 508

    2006

  4. [3]

    Yuen and J

    H. Yuen and J. Shapiro, Optical communication with two-photon coherent states–Part I: Quantum-state prop- agation and quantum-noise, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory24, 657 (1978)

    1978

  5. [4]

    Shapiro, H

    J. Shapiro, H. Yuen, and A. Mata, Optical communica- tionwithtwo-photoncoherentstates–PartII:Photoemis- sive detection and structured receiver performance, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory25, 179 (1979)

    1979

  6. [5]

    Yuen and J

    H. Yuen and J. Shapiro, Optical communication with two-photon coherent states–Part III: Quantum measure- ments realizable with photoemissive detectors, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory26, 78 (1980)

    1980

  7. [6]

    H. P. Yuen and V. W. S. Chan, Noise in homodyne and heterodyne detection, Opt. Lett.8, 177 (1983)

    1983

  8. [7]

    N. G. Walker, Quantum theory of multiport optical ho- modyning, Journal of Modern Optics34, 15 (1987)

    1987

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    M. J. Collett, R. Loudon, and C. W. Gardiner, Quantum theory of optical homodyne and heterodyne detection, Journal of Modern Optics34, 881 (1987)

    1987

  2. [9]

    S. L. Braunstein, Homodyne statistics, Phys. Rev. A42, 474 (1990)

    1990

  3. [10]

    Vogel and J

    W. Vogel and J. Grabow, Statistics of difference events in homodyne detection, Phys. Rev. A47, 4227 (1993)

    1993

  4. [11]

    Leonhardt and H

    U. Leonhardt and H. Paul, Realistic optical homodyne measurements and quasiprobability distributions, Phys. Rev. A48, 4598 (1993)

    1993

  5. [12]

    Ban, Quantum theory of the homodyne-direct re- ceiver, Journal of Modern Optics44, 1175 (1997)

    M. Ban, Quantum theory of the homodyne-direct re- ceiver, Journal of Modern Optics44, 1175 (1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Banaszek and K

    K. Banaszek and K. Wódkiewicz, Operational theory of homodyne detection, Phys. Rev. A55, 3117 (1997)

    1997

  7. [14]

    Kuzmich, D

    A. Kuzmich, D. Branning, L. Mandel, and I. A. Walm- sley, Multiphoton interference effects at a beam splitter, Journal of Modern Optics45, 2233 (1998)

    1998

  8. [15]

    S. Feng, D. He, and B. Xie, Quantum theory of phase- sensitive heterodyne detection, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B33, 1365 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Welsch, W

    D.-G. Welsch, W. Vogel, and T. Opatrný, II Homo- dyne Detection and Quantum-State Reconstruction, in Progress in Optics, Vol. 39, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999) Chap. 2, pp. 63–211

    1999

  10. [17]

    Giedke and J

    G. Giedke and J. Ignacio Cirac, Characterization of Gaussian operations and distillation of Gaussian states, Phys. Rev. A66, 032316 (2002)

    2002

  11. [18]

    Fiurášek and L

    J. Fiurášek and L. Mišta, Gaussian localizable entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A75, 060302 (2007)

    2007

  12. [19]

    Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 2nd ed

    A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2023) p. 362

    2023

  13. [20]

    Vogel, Homodyne correlation measurements with weak local oscillators, Phys

    W. Vogel, Homodyne correlation measurements with weak local oscillators, Phys. Rev. A51, 4160 (1995)

    1995

  14. [21]

    Cives-Esclop, A

    A. Cives-Esclop, A. Luis, and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, An eight-port detector with a local oscillator of finite inten- sity, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics2, 526 (2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    Auyuanet, E

    A. Auyuanet, E. Benech, H. Failache, and A. Lezama, Full statistics of ideal homodyne detection using real (noisy) local oscillator, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B36, 140 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Olivares, A

    S. Olivares, A. Allevi, and M. Bondani, On the role of the local oscillator intensity in optical homodyne-like to- mography, Physics Letters A384, 126354 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    G. S. Thekkadath, D. S. Phillips, J. F. F. Bulmer, W. R. Clements, A. Eckstein, B. A. Bell, J. Lugani, T. A. W. Wolterink, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, T. Gerrits, C. G. Wade, and I. A. Walmsley, Tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements with weak-field homodyne de- tect...

    2020

  18. [25]

    Leonhardt,Measuring the Quantum State of Light, Cambridge Studies in Modern Optics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1997) p

    U. Leonhardt,Measuring the Quantum State of Light, Cambridge Studies in Modern Optics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1997) p. 193

    1997

  19. [26]

    D. T. Smithey, M. Beck, M. G. Raymer, and A. Faridani, Measurement of the Wigner distribution and the density matrix of a light mode using optical homodyne tomog- raphy: Application to squeezed states and the vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1244 (1993)

    1993

  20. [27]

    Kühn, D.-G

    H. Kühn, D.-G. Welsch, and W. Vogel, Reconstruction of the quantum state of multimode light, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4240 (1995)

    1995

  21. [28]

    D’Auria, S

    V. D’Auria, S. Fornaro, A. Porzio, S. Solimeno, S. Oli- vares, and M. G. A. Paris, Full characterization of gaus- 20 sian bipartite entangled states by a single homodyne de- tector, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 020502 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 299 (2009)

    2009

  23. [30]

    Buono, G

    D. Buono, G. Nocerino, V. D’Auria, A. Porzio, S. Oli- vares, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum characterization of bipartite Gaussian states, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B27, A110 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    Y. S. Teo, C. R. Müller, H. Jeong, Z. Hradil, J. Řeháček, and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Superiority of heterodyning over homodyning: An assessment with quadrature moments, Phys. Rev. A95, 042322 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    E. S. Tiunov, V. V. T. (Vyborova), A. E. Ulanov, A. I. Lvovsky, and A. K. Fedorov, Experimental quantum ho- modyne tomography via machine learning, Optica7, 448 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Olivares, A

    S. Olivares, A. Allevi, G. Caiazzo, M. G. A. Paris, and M. Bondani, Quantum tomography of light states by photon-number-resolving detectors, New Journal of Physics21, 103045 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    B. Qi, P. Lougovski, and B. P. Williams, Characterizing photon number statistics using conjugate optical homo- dyne detection, Opt. Express28, 2276 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Kumar and Arvind, Estimation of the Wigner distri- bution of single-mode Gaussian states: A comparative study, Phys

    C. Kumar and Arvind, Estimation of the Wigner distri- bution of single-mode Gaussian states: A comparative study, Phys. Rev. A105, 042419 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    C. Oh, C. Lee, C. Rockstuhl, H. Jeong, J. Kim, H. Nha, and S.-Y. Lee, Optimal Gaussian measurements for phase estimation in single-mode Gaussian metrology, npj Quantum Information5, 10 (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Quantum informa- tion with continuous variables, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  31. [38]

    A. A. Semenov, F. Töppel, D. Y. Vasylyev, H. V. Gomonay, and W. Vogel, Homodyne detection for atmo- sphere channels, Phys. Rev. A85, 013826 (2012)

    2012

  32. [39]

    Furusawa, J

    A. Furusawa, J. L. Sorensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Unconditional quantum teleportation, Science282, 706 (1998)

    1998

  33. [40]

    S. Shi, Y. Wang, L. Tian, W. Li, Y. Wu, Q. Wang, Y. Zheng, and K. Peng, Continuous variable quantum teleportation network, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2200508 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  35. [44]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Bian, Z. Li, S. Yu, and H. Guo, Continuous- variable quantum key distribution system: Past, present, and future, Applied Physics Reviews11, 011318 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Scarani, H

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

    2009

  37. [46]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Se- curequantumkeydistributionwithrealisticdevices,Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    Y.-M. Chi, B. Qi, W. Zhu, L. Qian, H.-K. Lo, S.-H. Youn, A. I. Lvovsky, and L. Tian, A balanced homodyne de- tector for high-rate Gaussian-modulated coherent-state quantum key distribution, New Journal of Physics13, 013003 (2011)

    2011

  39. [48]

    Jouguet, S

    P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, E. Diamanti, and A. Lev- errier, Analysis of imperfections in practical continuous- variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A86, 032309 (2012)

    2012

  40. [49]

    S. Wang, P. Huang, T. Wang, and G. Zeng, Feasibility of all-day quantum communication with coherent detection, Phys. Rev. Applied12, 024041 (2019)

    2019

  41. [50]

    Lupo and Y

    C. Lupo and Y. Ouyang, Quantum key distribution with nonideal heterodyne detection: Composable security of discrete-modulation continuous-variable protocols, PRX Quantum3, 010341 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    A. A. Semenov, J. Samelin, C. Boldt, M. Schüne- mann, C. Reiher, W. Vogel, and B. Hage, Photocount- ing measurements with dead time and afterpulses in the continuous-wave regime, Phys. Rev. A109, 013701 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    A. A. Hajomer, A. N. Oruganti, I. Derkach, U. L. An- dersen, V. C. Usenko, and T. Gehring, Finite-size se- curity of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with imperfect heterodyne measurement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10278 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  44. [53]

    A. n. Oruganti, I. Derkach, R. Filip, and V. C. Usenko, Continuous-variable quantum key distribution with noisy squeezed states, Quantum Science and Technology10, 025023 (2025)

    2025

  45. [54]

    Huang, Z.-Q

    J.-Z. Huang, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, H.-W. Li, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Wavelength attack scheme on continuous-variable quantum key distribution sys- tem using heterodyne detection protocol, arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6550 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Huang, S

    J.-Z. Huang, S. Kunz-Jacques, P. Jouguet, C. Weed- brook, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Quantum hacking on quantum key distribu- tion using homodyne detection, Physical Review A89, 032304 (2014)

    2014

  47. [56]

    H. Qin, R. Kumar, V. Makarov, and R. Alléaume, Homodyne-detector-blinding attack in continuous- variable quantum key distribution, Physical Review A 98, 012312 (2018)

    2018

  48. [57]

    H. Qin, R. Kumar, and R. Alléaume, Quantum hack- ing: Saturation attack on practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Physical Review A94, 012325 (2016)

    2016

  49. [58]

    M. Zou, Y. Mao, and T.-Y. Chen, Rigorous calibra- tion of homodyne detection efficiency for continuous- variable quantum key distribution, Opt. Express30, 22788 (2022)

    2022

  50. [59]

    Wang, X.-B

    X.-Y. Wang, X.-B. Guo, Y.-X. Jia, Y. Zhang, Z.-G. Lu, J.-Q. Liu, and Y.-M. Li, Accurate shot-noise-limited calibration of a time-domain balanced homodyne detec- tor for continuous-variable quantum key distribution, J. Lightwave Technol.41, 5518 (2023)

    2023

  51. [60]

    S. Pan, D. Monokandylos, and B. Qi, Detector noise in continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Physical Review A112, 10.1103/4h84-5tsg (2025)

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    Barchielli and A

    A. Barchielli and A. Santamato, Eight-port homo- dyne detector: The effect of imperfections on quantum random-number generation and on detection of quadra- tures, Phys. Rev. A106, 022620 (2022)

    2022

  53. [62]

    Ruiz-Chamorro, D

    A. Ruiz-Chamorro, D. Cano, A. Garcia-Callejo, and 21 V. Fernandez, Effects of experimental impairments on the security of continuous-variable quantum key distri- bution, Heliyon9, e16670 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    J. O. Bartlett, A. J. M. Wilson, C. J. Chunni- lall, and R. Kumar, Detector asymmetry in continu- ous variable quantum key distribution, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17419 (2025)

    2025

  55. [64]

    P. L. Kelley and W. H. Kleiner, Theory of electro- magnetic field measurement and photoelectron counting, Phys. Rev.136, A316 (1964)

    1964

  56. [65]

    J. G. Skellam, The frequency distribution of the differ- ence between two Poisson variates belonging to different populations, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Se- ries A: Statistics in Society109, 296 (1946)

    1946

  57. [66]

    F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, eds.,NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions (NIST & Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010) p. 951

    2010

  58. [67]

    Lahti, J.-P

    P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and J. Schultz, Realistic eight- port homodyne detection and covariant phase space ob- servables, Journal of Modern Optics57, 1171 (2010)

    2010

  59. [68]

    Richter, Double homodyne detection and quantum state determination, inEuropean Quantum Electronics Conference(Optica Publishing Group, 1998) p

    T. Richter, Double homodyne detection and quantum state determination, inEuropean Quantum Electronics Conference(Optica Publishing Group, 1998) p. QTuG38

    1998

  60. [69]

    Weedbrook, A

    C. Weedbrook, A. M. Lance, W. P. Bowen, T. Symul, T. C. Ralph, and P. K. Lam, Quantum cryptography without switching, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 170504 (2004)

    2004

  61. [71]

    M. G. Genoni, S. Mancini, and A. Serafini, General-dyne unravelling of a thermal master equation, Russian Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics21, 329 (2014)

    2014

  62. [72]

    Grosshans and P

    F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Continuous variable quan- tum cryptography using coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057902 (2002)

    2002

  63. [73]

    Laudenbach, C

    F. Laudenbach, C. Pacher, C.-H. F. Fung, A. Poppe, M. Peev, B. Schrenk, M. Hentschel, P. Walther, and H. Hübel, Continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion with Gaussian modulation—the theory of practi- calimplementations,AdvancedQuantumTechnologies1, 1800011 (2018)

    2018

  64. [74]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences461, 207 (2005)

    2005

  65. [75]

    Navascués, F

    M. Navascués, F. Grosshans, and A. Acín, Optimality of Gaussian attacks in continuous-variable quantum cryp- tography, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 190502 (2006)

    2006

  66. [76]

    García-Patrón and N

    R. García-Patrón and N. J. Cerf, Unconditional optimal- ity of Gaussian attacks against continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 190503 (2006)

    2006

  67. [77]

    Ruiz-Chamorro, D

    A. Ruiz-Chamorro, D. Cano, A. Garcia-Callejo, and V. Fernandez, Effects of experimental impairments on the security of continuous-variable quantum key distri- bution, Heliyon9(2023)

    2023

  68. [78]

    Lodewyck, M

    J. Lodewyck, M. Bloch, R. García-Patrón, S. Fossier, E. Karpov, E. Diamanti, T. Debuisschert, N. J. Cerf, R. Tualle-Brouri, S. W. McLaughlin, and P. Grangier, Quantum key distribution over25 kmwith an all-fiber continuous-variable system, Phys. Rev. A76, 042305 (2007)

    2007

  69. [79]

    V. C. Usenko and R. Filip, Trusted noise in continuous- variable quantum key distribution: A threat and a de- fense, Entropy18, 10.3390/e18010020 (2016)

    2016 doi

  70. [80]

    Laudenbach and C

    F. Laudenbach and C. Pacher, Analysis of the trusted- device scenario in continuous-variable quantum key dis- tribution, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 1900055 (2019)

    2019

  71. [81]

    Freyberger, K

    M. Freyberger, K. Vogel, and W. P. Schleich, From pho- ton counts to quantum phase, Physics Letters A176, 41 (1993)

    1993

  72. [82]

    Sochet al., Statproofbook/statproofbook.github.io: The book of statistical proofs (version 2023),https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4305949(2024), accessed: 2025-07-15

    J. Sochet al., Statproofbook/statproofbook.github.io: The book of statistical proofs (version 2023),https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4305949(2024), accessed: 2025-07-15

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.