Experimental secure entanglement-free quantum remote sensing over 50 km of optical fiber

Chunfeng Huang; Kejin Wei; Rui Guan; Wenjie He; Ye Chen; Zhenrong Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Experimental secure entanglement-free quantum remote sensing over 50 km of optical fiber

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Entanglement-free secure quantum sensing works over 50 km of fiber.

desk verdict A real 50-km single-qubit phase-sensing demonstration whose 'secure' claim is only supported against a classical ratio-only attack, not a full quantum eavesdropper. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18837 v1 pith:Q23W6SWE submitted 2024-12-25 quant-ph

Wenjie He , Chunfeng Huang , Rui Guan , Ye Chen , Zhenrong Zhang , Kejin Wei This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P9481P50 PACS 03.67.Dd03.67.-a

keywords securequantumremotesensingentanglement-freeprotocolphaseestimationBB84Fisherinformationsingle-photonpolarizationstatesopticalfiberCramér-Raobound

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 reports a 50 km fiber demonstration of secure quantum remote sensing that does not use entanglement: Alice transmits polarization states chosen from the $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ eigenstates, Bob splits each incoming photon-level pulse between a sensing arm that encodes an unknown phase and a BB84-style arm that checks channel security, and Alice estimates the phase by maximizing a likelihood built from the eight possible detection outcomes. The measured phases track the nine preset values from $0$ to $2\pi$, with deviations close to the Cramér-Rao bound. Security is quantified by a classical Fisher information asymmetry: at two representative phases Alice's total information is about four while an eavesdropper who intercepts Bob's classical readout gets roughly two orders of magnitude less. The authors argue this makes single-qubit states, which are easier to prepare than entangled pairs, a practical route to long-distance secure sensing.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the entanglement-free SQRS protocol itself: Alice randomly sends one of the four polarization eigenstates of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$; Bob directs each pulse through a beam splitter into a sensing arm, where the unknown phase $\phi$ is encoded and the state is measured in the $\sigma_y$ basis, and a security arm, where the pulse is measured in the $\sigma_x$ or $\sigma_y$ basis as in BB84. Phase estimation uses the eight outcome probabilities of Table I to build a likelihood function $L(\varphi)$ whose maximum is the phase estimate; the same probabilities give the classical Fisher information that separates Alice's information from Eve's. The paper's pre-calibration technique measures eight nonzero error probabilities using known phases $\{0,\pi/2,\pi,3\pi/2\}$ and subtracts them from the likelihood, ensuring a single maximum despite real-world imperfections.

What would settle it

Measure the mean photon number $\mu$ per pulse of the phase-randomized laser and compute the multi-photon fraction $1-e^{-\mu}(1+\mu)$. If that fraction is large enough for a photon-number-splitting attack to give Eve a classical Fisher information comparable to Alice's, the claimed security asymmetry would not hold; the paper reports no $\mu$ or decoy-state analysis, so this check is open.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that entanglement is not needed for secure remote sensing of a phase. A random sequence of four single-qubit polarization states, split between a sensing measurement and a BB84 verification measurement, is sufficient for Alice to estimate an unknown phase at Bob's location while keeping Eve's accessible information far below her own. Over 50 km of optical fiber, the experiment estimates nine phases with errors near the Cramér-Rao bound, and for the two phases examined in detail Alice's classical Fisher information is about 4 while Eve's is about 0.008 and 0.011. A pre-calibration step, in which Alice sends known phases and subtracts the resulting error probabilities from the likelihood, removes the ambiguity that dark counts and optical misalignment otherwise create at phases such as $\pi$.

Load-bearing premise

The security conclusion assumes the transmitted pulses behave as single photons; the experiment uses a phase-randomized laser with an attenuator, which can emit multi-photon pulses, and reports no mean photon number or decoy-state analysis ruling out their exploitation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Secure remote phase sensing is achievable over metropolitan fiber distances without entangled sources.
The sensing path and the BB84 path share the same transmitted states, so a single sequence supports both sensing and channel security.
Pre-calibration removes the likelihood degeneracy caused by dark counts and misalignment, and because it runs in post-processing it does not change the hardware or the security analysis.
At the phases tested, Alice's Fisher information is near its ideal value of four while Eve's is about two orders of magnitude lower, giving Alice a far tighter phase estimate.
The measured estimation deviations are close to the Cramér-Rao bound, so the security filtering does not destroy metrological precision.

Reading between the lines

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

If the four-state encoding already provides a BB84 check, any deployed QKD link could in principle double as a secure sensing channel without extra state preparation.
Because the source is a phase-randomized laser with an attenuator, the multi-photon fraction, not the fiber loss, is the next quantity that would bound the achievable security; a decoy-state version is the natural extension.
The experiment evaluates Eve's Fisher information at only two phases; mapping the full phase circle would show where the security margin is thinnest.
With phase stabilization, the same setup could be read as a distributed fiber sensor tracking environmental phase drift, not just a discrete sensor at Bob's site.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the sensing experiment is real, but the security claim is not backed by the evidence. If you treat the paper as a demonstration of entanglement-free phase estimation over 50 km of fiber, it is a solid, useful result. If you read the title literally, the protocol is not yet proven secure.

What is new: this is the first experimental implementation of Moore and Dunningham's entanglement-free SQRS protocol, and the pre-calibration technique for handling dark counts and misalignment is a reasonable practical step. The data in Figs. 4 and 6 are internally consistent; the estimated phases track the ideal values, and the deviations roughly follow the Cramér–Rao bound. The QBER below 6% also meets the protocol's stated requirement. That part of the work is done well.

The soft spot is the security analysis. The source is a phase-randomized weak coherent laser with an attenuator, but no mean photon number is reported and no decoy-state or finite-key analysis is given. Appendix A computes Eve's classical Fisher information from the ratio (n1+n3+n5+n7)/Σn_i, which only models an eavesdropper who sees Bob's publicly announced detector clicks. That is not a full adversary. A quantum Eve can perform a photon-number-splitting attack on multi-photon pulses: split off and store one photon, then measure it later after the basis is revealed. That compromises the BB84 sub-protocol in Path 2 and also gives Eve extra copies of the phase-encoded states in Path 1, increasing her Fisher information beyond the quoted ratio-only bound. Until μ is shown to be negligibly small or a decoy-state analysis is added, the word "secure" is not supported.

The pre-calibration subtraction in Eq. (3) is a post-processing correction, and the paper asserts it introduces no security risk without giving an argument. That is a minor omission relative to the PNS gap, but worth addressing.

I also would have liked error bars on the phase and CFI plots, and ideally a data release, but that is a minor point. The citation pattern looks fine; the authors clearly build on [55] and related SQRS work.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee. The experimental demonstration is valuable, and the security gap is potentially fixable by embedding decoy-state BB84, reporting μ, or softening the claim to "classical-information-limited." A referee should ask for one of those.

I would bring it to a reading group if the focus were experimental quantum sensing, and I would cite it as an experimental milestone if I worked in that niche. I would not cite its security claims as established.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental implementation of an entanglement-free secure quantum remote sensing (SQRS) protocol over 50 km of optical fiber. Alice encodes weak coherent pulses, attenuated to approximate single photons, into the eigenstates of sigma_x and sigma_y and transmits them to Bob. Bob randomly routes each pulse either to a phase-sensing arm, where a known phase is imprinted and the state is measured in the sigma_y basis, or to a BB84-type measurement arm. The authors introduce a pre-calibration step that subtracts measured error probabilities from the likelihood function to remove the phase-ambiguity problem, report a QBER below 6%, estimate nine phases between 0 and 2pi, and compare Alice's and Eve's classical Fisher information for two selected phases. The phase estimates agree with the set values and their deviations are close to the Cramér-Rao bound.

Significance. If the security claim were fully supported, this would be a useful practical step: it would show that entanglement-free single-photon polarization states can support SQRS over metropolitan fiber lengths with near-Cramér-Rao-limited phase precision, avoiding the harder task of entanglement generation. The phase-estimation component is convincing and well matched to the ideal model. However, the security claim is not established by the current data, because the weak coherent source is not accompanied by a mean-photon-number measurement or a decoy-state analysis, and because Eve's information is evaluated only against a restricted classical-ratio attack. The experimental contribution is therefore better characterized as a phase-estimation demonstration with a protocol-level security argument inherited from Ref. [55] rather than a complete experimental validation of secure SQRS.

major comments (4)

[Section III and Section IV] The central 'secure' claim rests on the transmitted pulses being single photons, but the source is described as a phase-randomized laser and attenuator with no reported mean photon number mu and no decoy-state analysis. For a weak coherent source with non-negligible mu, a fraction of pulses contain multiple photons, and in the BB84 arm these multi-photon events enable photon-number-splitting attacks that the reported QBER<6% does not bound. The manuscript must either report mu and demonstrate that it is negligibly small, add a decoy-state or loss-tolerant security analysis, or explicitly restrict the security claim to an idealized single-photon model.
[Section IV and Appendix A] Eve's Fisher information is computed exclusively from the classical ratio (n1+n3+n5+n7)/sum_i n_i, with the assertion in Section IV that this is 'the only information Eve can steal for phase estimation.' This assertion is not derived from a well-defined attack model. Eve could attack the quantum channel in ways not captured by this classical ratio, and in the presence of multi-photon pulses her accessible information is not bounded by this statistic. A security claim requires either a full security proof connecting the implemented measurement statistics to Eve's accessible Fisher information under general attacks, or an explicit adversary model and evidence that the implemented source satisfies it.
[Section IV] The security validation is performed for only two phases, phi8=5.515 and phi9=6.013. The statement that the ratio is almost constant 'for each phase' is not a substitute for a Fisher-information analysis at all tested phases, and a phase-dependent leakage channel is not excluded by the two selected points. Reporting Eve's and Alice's CFI for all nine phases, or providing a worst-case bound over phi, would properly support the claimed information-asymmetry advantage.
[Section II.B] The statement that the pre-calibration technique 'does not introduce any security vulnerabilities' is asserted without proof. Because pre-calibration involves Bob announcing known-phase measurement data over the public classical channel, the effect of these auxiliary data on Eve's knowledge should be analyzed, and the protocol's security proof should be extended to cover this additional classical communication.

minor comments (5)

[Section III] The phrase 'probabilistically generate single-photon states' is not accurate for an attenuated coherent source; the output is a weak coherent state with a Poisson photon-number distribution, which is precisely why the missing mu value is important.
[Figure 5] The vertical axis is labeled 'Fisher Information (arb. units)', but the CFI defined in Eq. (4) is dimensionless; the label should be reconciled with the definition.
[Appendix A] The derivative used to compute CFI is approximated with only two neighboring points, but no statistical uncertainty for the resulting Fisher information is reported; error bars or a bootstrap estimate would make the comparison with the Cramér-Rao bound more robust.
[Figure 1 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'whitout' should be 'without'.
[References] Several references contain typographical errors, including 'Nat. Commum.' in Ref. [41] and inconsistent journal-name formatting for AVS Quantum Science; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: phase estimates come from independent unknown-phase data, and the security analysis rests on an external protocol rather than on the paper's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The pre-calibration technique in Section II.B estimates eight error-floor probabilities from separate runs with known phases θ ∈ {0, π/2, π, 3π/2}, and then subtracts them from the likelihood used for unknown-phase estimation via pϕ′i = pϕi − pθi. These calibration parameters are not fitted to the unknown-phase data, and the maximum-likelihood estimate ˆϕ = argmax L(φ) is evaluated on the independent measurement counts reported in Section IV; the ground-truth preset phases are used only for validation, not as inputs to the estimator. The Fisher-information security analysis is likewise computed from the measured counts and from the classical ratio (n1+n3+n5+n7)/Σni, which is the information available to Eve under the external protocol of Ref. [55] by Moore and Dunningham; Ref. [55] is not authored by the present authors, so the safety conclusion is imported from an independent theoretical framework rather than from a self-citation chain. The self-citations that do appear, e.g. Ref. [57] for the polarization-modulation module, are technical component references and are not load-bearing for the phase-estimation or security claims. The paper does contain a potentially unsupported assertion that pre-calibration 'does not introduce any security vulnerabilities,' and the weak coherent source without reported mean photon number leaves a photon-number-splitting correctness risk, but these are experimental-security concerns, not circularity: they do not make any predicted quantity equivalent by construction to its own input. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

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

The central experimental claim (phase estimation over 50 km) rests on standard quantum measurements and a set of calibration probabilities. The 'secure' claim additionally rests on the single-photon assumption and the trusted-Bob model inherited from Ref. [55].

free parameters (1)

Pre-calibration background probabilities p^{θ}_i (8 values) = See Section IV (eight values, e.g., p^{3π/2}_1=0.0229)
Estimated from 2.1e4 calibration pulses with known phases and subtracted from unknown-phase likelihood via Eq. (3). These fitted values are central to restoring a single-peak likelihood.

assumptions (5)

standard math Born rule measurement probabilities for polarization states (Table I)
The likelihood function Eq. (1) assumes ideal projective measurements on single-photon polarization states.
domain assumption Weak coherent source approximates single-photon states
Section III: 'weak coherent source... used to probabilistically generate single-photon states'; no decoy-state analysis or mean photon number is reported, and the security argument depends on single-photon statistics.
domain assumption Bob is trusted and follows Alice's instructions
Section II A: Bob is 'a trusted participant committed to maintaining the confidentiality'; security model assumes Bob does not collude with Eve.
domain assumption Pre-calibration parameters remain stable between calibration and measurement
Eq. (3) subtracts calibration probabilities from later data, requiring no drift in dark counts or misalignment; no stability test is reported.
domain assumption Security definition of SQRS from Ref. [55]
The paper adopts secrecy capacity and asymmetric Fisher information as the security metric, relying on the earlier theory rather than deriving it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental secure entanglement-free quantum remote sensing over 50 km of optical fiber." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q23W6SWE

@misc{pith2026241218837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental secure entanglement-free quantum remote sensing over 50 km of optical fiber},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q23W6SWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18837}
}

read the original abstract

Secure quantum remote sensing (SQRS) uses quantum states to gather information about distant objects or environments while ensuring secure data transmission against eavesdropping. It has potential applications in various fields, including environmental monitoring, military surveillance, and disaster response, where both data accuracy and transmission security are critical. Recent experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of SQRS using entanglement states. Here, we experimentally demonstrate an SQRS that can estimate a phase without requiring entanglement, offering the practical advantage that single-qubit states are easier to prepare. We successfully estimate the preset phase information at a remote site over a fiber distance of 50 km, which serves as a key step toward long-distance applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18837 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The relationship between the likelihood function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Schematic diagram of experimental device. LD: 1550 nm commercial laser source; CPM: customized polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of probabilities on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Fisher information of two selected phases is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Measurement of CFI at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[55]

S. W. Moore and J. A. Dunningham, A VS Quantum Sci. 5, 014406 (2023)

work page 2023
[1]

C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, J. Cryptol. 5, 3 (1992)

work page 1992
[2]

Scarani, H

V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duˇ sek, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and M. Peev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)

2009
[3]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theor. Comput. Sci.560, 7 (2014)

2014
[4]

H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Nat. Photon. 8, 595 (2014)

work page 2014
[5]

Pirandola, U

S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Sham- sul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Adv. Opt. Photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

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

2020
[7]

L.-C. Kwek, L. Cao, W. Luo, Y. Wang, S. Sun, X. Wang, and A. Q. Liu, AAPPS Bull. 31, 15 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 56 references

[8]

Zapatero, T

V. Zapatero, T. van Leent, R. Arnon-Friedman, W.-Z. Liu, Q. Zhang, H. Weinfurter, and M. Curty, npj Quan- tum Inf. 9, 10 (2023)

2023
[9]

Korzh, C

B. Korzh, C. C. W. Lim, R. Houlmann, N. Gisin, M. J. Li, D. Nolan, B. Sanguinetti, R. Thew, and H. Zbinden, Nat. Photon. 9, 163 (2015)

2015
[10]

Boaron, G

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

2018
[11]

Pittaluga, M

M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, M. Lucamarini, M. Sanzaro, R. I. Woodward, M.-J. Li, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Nat. Photon. 15, 530 (2021)

2021
[12]

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, W. Chen, Y.-G. Zhu, P. V. Morozov, A. V. Divochiy, Z. Zhou, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Nat. Photon. 16, 154 (2022)

2022
[13]

L. Zhou, J. Lin, Y.-M. Xie, Y.-S. Lu, Y. Jing, H.-L. Yin, and Z. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 250801 (2023)

2023
[14]

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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 210801 (2023)

2023
[15]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[16]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

2006
[17]

Nagata, R

T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O’Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science 316, 726 (2007)

2007
[18]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon. 5, 222 (2011)

2011
[19]

T´ oth and I

G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014)

2014
[20]

G. Chen, N. Aharon, Y.-N. Sun, Z.-H. Zhang, W.-H. Zhang, D.-Y. He, J.-S. Tang, X.-Y. Xu, Y. Kedem, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nat. Commun. 9, 93 (2018)

2018
[21]

G. Chen, L. Zhang, W.-H. Zhang, X.-X. Peng, L. Xu, Z.-D. Liu, X.-Y. Xu, J.-S. Tang, Y.-N. Sun, D.-Y. He, J.-S. Xu, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 060506 (2018)

2018
[22]

S. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Preskill, and L. Jiang, Nat. Com- mun. 9, 78 (2018)

2018
[23]

Polino, M

E. Polino, M. Valeri, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, A VS Quantum Sci. 2, 024703 (2020)

2020
[24]

R. Liu, Y. Chen, M. Jiang, X. Yang, Z. Wu, Y. Li, H. Yuan, X. Peng, and J. Du, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 170 (2021)

2021
[26]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin,...

2019
[27]

J. M. Arrazola, V. Bergholm, K. Br´ adler, T. R. Brom- ley, M. J. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. G. Helt, J. Hundal, T. Isacsson, R. B. Israel, J. Izaac, S. Jahangiri, R. Janik, N. Killoran, S. P. Kumar, J. Lavoie, A. E. Lita, D. H. Mahler, M. Meno...

2021
[28]

Bluvstein, S

D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

2024
[29]

Hillery, V

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

1999
[30]

Gottesman and I

D. Gottesman and I. Chuang, arXiv preprint quant- ph/0105032 (2001)

2001
[31]

K. Wei, H. Ma, and J. Yang, Opt. Express 21, 16663 (2013)

2013
[32]

R. Qi, Z. Sun, Z. Lin, P. Niu, W. Hao, L. Song, Q. Huang, J. Gao, L. Yin, and G.-L. Long, Light: Sci. Appl. 8, 22 (2019)

2019
[33]

Cao, B.-H

X.-Y. Cao, B.-H. Li, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Sci. Adv. 10, eadk3258 (2024)

2024
[34]

Du, B.-H

Y. Du, B.-H. Li, X. Hua, X.-Y. Cao, Z. Zhao, F. Xie, Z. Zhang, H.-L. Yin, X. Xiao, and K. Wei, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07513 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[35]

Xiao, Z.-Y

Y.-R. Xiao, Z.-Y. Jia, Y.-C. Song, Y. Bao, Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Opt. Lett. 49, 4210 (2024)

2024
[36]

Wang, X.-R

Y.-Z. Wang, X.-R. Sun, X.-Y. Cao, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 044018 (2024)

2024
[37]

Hayashi and Y

M. Hayashi and Y. Ouyang, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 111 (2024)

2024
[38]

Hotter, H

C. Hotter, H. Ritsch, and K. Gietka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 060801 (2024)

2024
[39]

X. Yang, X. Long, R. Liu, K. Tang, Y. Zhai, X. Nie, T. Xin, J. Li, and D. Lu, Commun. Phys. 7, 282 (2024)

2024
[40]

Dunjko, E

V. Dunjko, E. Kashefi, and A. Leverrier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 200502 (2012)

2012
[41]

Morimae and K

T. Morimae and K. Fujii, Nat. Commum. 3, 1036 (2012)

2012
[42]

Mantri, C

A. Mantri, C. A. P´ erez-Delgado, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230502 (2013)

2013
[43]

Sheng and L

Y.-B. Sheng and L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052343 (2018)

2018
[44]

S. Barz, E. Kashefi, A. Broadbent, J. F. Fitzsimons, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, Science 335, 303 (2012)

2012
[45]

Jiang, K

Y.-F. Jiang, K. Wei, L. Huang, K. Xu, Q.-C. Sun, Y.-Z. Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, H.-K. Lo, F. Xu, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100503 (2019)

2019
[46]

Polacchi, D

B. Polacchi, D. Leichtle, L. Limongi, G. Carvacho, G. Milani, N. Spagnolo, M. Kaplan, F. Sciarrino, and E. Kashefi, Nat. Commum. 14, 7743 (2023)

2023
[47]

Huang, T

C. Huang, T. Huang, Q. Lin, and K. Wei, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012614 (2021)

2021
[48]

Takeuchi, Y

Y. Takeuchi, Y. Matsuzaki, K. Miyanishi, T. Sugiyama, and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022325 (2019)

2019
[49]

Huang, C

Z. Huang, C. Macchiavello, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022314 (2019)

2019
[50]

Liu, Y.-B

Y.-C. Liu, Y.-B. Cheng, X.-B. Pan, Z.-Z. Sun, D. Pan, and G.-L. Long, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 034051 (2024)

2024
[51]

S. W. Moore and J. A. Dunningham, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19285 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[52]

Peng, W.-H

X.-X. Peng, W.-H. Zhang, P. Yin, G.-C. Li, L. Chen, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032615 (2022)

2022
[53]

Shettell, E

N. Shettell, E. Kashefi, and D. Markham, Phys. Rev. A 105, L010401 (2022)

2022
[54]

P. Yin, Y. Takeuchi, W.-H. Zhang, Z.-Q. Yin, Y. Mat- suzaki, X.-X. Peng, X.-Y. Xu, J.-S. Xu, J.-S. Tang, Z.-Q. Zhou, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014065 (2020)

2020
[56]

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, Opt. Lett. 44, 5262 (2019)

2019
[57]

D. Ma, X. Liu, C. Huang, H. Chen, H. Lin, and K. Wei, Opt. Lett. 46, 2152 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [55]

S. W. Moore and J. A. Dunningham, A VS Quantum Sci. 5, 014406 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [1]

C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, J. Cryptol. 5, 3 (1992)

work page 1992

[3] [2]

Scarani, H

V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Duˇ sek, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and M. Peev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)

2009

[4] [3]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theor. Comput. Sci.560, 7 (2014)

2014

[5] [4]

H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Nat. Photon. 8, 595 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [5]

Pirandola, U

S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Sham- sul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and P. Wallden, Adv. Opt. Photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [6]

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

2020

[8] [7]

L.-C. Kwek, L. Cao, W. Luo, Y. Wang, S. Sun, X. Wang, and A. Q. Liu, AAPPS Bull. 31, 15 (2021)

work page 2021