Tools for the Performance Optimization of Single-Photon Quantum Key Distribution

Andr\'e Strittmatter; Jan-Hindrik Schulze; Lucas Rickert; Manuel Gschrey; Martin v. Helversen; Stephan Reitzenstein; Sven Rodt; Timm Kupko; Tobias Heindel

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Tools for the Performance Optimization of Single-Photon Quantum Key Distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Temporal filtering of single-photon pulses can maximize QKD key rate or extend its reach.

desk verdict A careful experimental study of temporal filtering for single-photon QKD; the qualitative optimization is solid, but the headline key-rate numbers depend on model parameters the paper never reports. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02672 v2 pith:QVHVQMDH submitted 2019-08-07 quant-ph

Timm Kupko , Martin v. Helversen , Lucas Rickert , Jan-Hindrik Schulze , André Strittmatter , Manuel Gschrey , Sven Rodt , Stephan Reitzenstein

show 1 more author

Tobias Heindel

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords single-photonsourcesquantumkeydistributiontemporalfilteringBB84g(2)(0)dotsecureratephoton-number-splittingattack

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

Single-photon sources can outperform attenuated lasers in quantum key distribution, but only if the receiver uses the photons efficiently. This paper shows that temporally filtering the detected single-photon pulses, keeping only clicks inside a carefully chosen acceptance window, changes the trade-off between error rate and sifted key. A careful setting can either maximize the secure key rate for a given channel loss or push the maximum tolerable loss further out, extending the achievable distance. It also demonstrates real-time monitoring of the two-photon emission probability $g^{(2)}(0)$ inside the quantum channel during key generation, which is needed to certify security. The result is a practical optimization tool for QKD with realistic quantum light sources.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional temporal acceptance filter $(\Delta t, t_c)$ applied to Bob's time-tagged detection events: it selects which photon clicks enter the sifted key, changing both the error rate and the key fraction. The performance estimate is carried by the secret-key expression $S = \frac{p_{\mathrm{click}}}{2}(\beta\tau(e) - f(e)h(e))$ together with the multi-photon bound $p_m \le \mu^2 g^{(2)}(0)/2$ from the security model underlying the paper. Here $g^{(2)}(0)$ is the two-photon emission probability, a measure of single-photon purity. The filter's effect is quantified through the QBER, the sifted fraction, and the $g^{(2)}(0)$ evaluated from the same time-tags, and the paper searches the $(\Delta t, t_c)$ plane for the optimum; in simulations the same machinery is used with synthetic pulse shapes to predict performance for different source lifetimes and noise levels.

What would settle it

Run a full QKD exchange with active gating at Alice and a finite-key analysis: if, after the gating's added loss and timing overhead, the maximum tolerable channel loss does not reach the predicted 35 dB for a source with $g^{(2)}(0)\approx0.09$, the optimization claim is falsified. Alternatively, a simulation that lets an eavesdropper intercept the photons outside Bob's acceptance window and checks whether the filtered key remains secret would settle the security question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optimal QKD performance for a given triggered single-photon source is achieved not by changing the source, but by carefully choosing Bob's acceptance time windows, the width $\Delta t$ and center $t_c$ of the temporal filter applied to the recorded click times. Narrowing the window improves the signal-to-noise ratio and lowers the quantum bit error rate, but discards part of the sifted key; the paper maps this trade-off in a two-dimensional parameter space and shows that the best operating point either maximizes the back-to-back secret key rate or extends the maximum tolerable channel loss. With their quantum-dot source and four-state BB84 receiver, the optimized filter raises the tolerable loss from 28.28 dB to 35.15 dB (about a 23% range extension), and to 37.98 dB with a very narrow window at the cost of a much smaller sifted fraction. The paper additionally shows that narrowing the acceptance window improves the measured $g^{(2)}(0)$ of the emitted pulses, from $0.104\pm0.017$ at full width to $0.032\pm0.007$ at 2.5 ns, and that this filtered value can only be used for security if Alice actively gates her source to prevent photon-number-splitting attacks outside the window; their quoted rates therefore use the unfiltered $g^{(2)}(0)$. Real-time monitoring of $g^{(2)}(0)$ from the receiver's four ports is demonstrated over 90 minutes, with 60-second blocks giving $g^{(2)}(0)$ to about 16% uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The rate and range figures depend on the assumption that the two-photon emission probability measured over the whole pulse period still bounds the information an eavesdropper can obtain about the temporally filtered key, even though the experiment lacks the active gating at Alice's side that would prevent attacks using the photons discarded by the filter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With an optimized acceptance window, a quantum-dot source with $g^{(2)}(0)=0.089$ can tolerate 35.15 dB of channel loss instead of 28.28 dB, a range extension of about 23% for the tested receiver.
At fiber attenuations of 0.31 dB/km (1310 nm) and 0.17 dB/km (1550 nm), the same optimization would extend secure communication distance by roughly 22 km and 40 km, to about 113 km and 207 km, respectively.
The improvement is largest in the high-noise, high-loss regime: simulations with synthetic pulses show secret-key gains of 184.5% and 148.3% when detector noise is high.
Real-time $g^{(2)}(0)$ monitoring inside the quantum channel makes it possible to detect an eavesdropper who injects light with different photon statistics or performs a photon-number-splitting attack, by comparing the statistics seen by Bob with those seen by Alice.
The optimization routine transfers to measurement-device-independent QKD and quantum repeater architectures based on sub-Poissonian sources, where the same temporal-filter trade-off applies.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, if Alice-side active gating is added so the filtered $g^{(2)}(0)$ can be used in security, the same data predict a further increase in tolerable loss beyond 38 dB, since the narrow-window data in the supplement show both lower $g^{(2)}(0)$ and lower QBER.
The authors do not discuss it, but the optimal window width should shrink as detector timing jitter improves; with superconducting detectors, the high-noise regime where filtering matters most is replaced by a low-noise regime, shifting the optimum toward wider windows.
An implicit testable extension is to run the same 2D optimization for decoy-state weak-coherent-pulse systems; the paper's framework would predict a much smaller gain there, because Poissonian light has no antibunching to improve.
Beyond the paper's asymptotic analysis, narrowing the window cuts the sifted block size, so finite-key effects become more severe at the optimized operating points; a practical implementation would need to choose the window with block-size constraints in mind.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a solid experimental study of temporal filtering for single-photon QKD. What's genuinely new is the systematic 2D (Δt, tc) optimization applied to a real QD-based testbed, and the demonstration of g(2)(0) monitoring from Bob's detection stream during key generation. The qualitative conclusion—that narrowing Bob's acceptance window improves QBER and can extend the tolerable loss—holds up well. The measured QBER and sifted-fraction curves support it, and the simulations usefully generalize the trade-off to other pulse shapes and noise levels.

The authors deserve credit for being honest about the main caveat: the filtered g(2)(0) improvement only helps if Alice actively gates her output, otherwise a photon-number-splitting backdoor opens. They flag this in both the main text and the supplement, and they clearly state that the experiment is a testbed, not a full QKD implementation.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The headline range-extension numbers (35.15 dB, 37.98 dB, 24% extension) come from Eq. (3), the Waks security model, but the paper never reports the single-photon fraction β or the privacy-amplification function τ(e) used. Without those, the specific figures are not reproducible from the manuscript. The stress-test's apparent inconsistency between 33.24 dB and 28.28 dB is actually explainable—one is for the unity-efficiency limit, the other for the actual μ—but the text doesn't make that distinction clear enough. Also, the main text says the other channels show "similar behavior" to H, but the supplement's D-channel clearly does not: its QBER rises again for very narrow windows. That's a minor overstatement, and the supplement does disclose it.

No circularity: they apply an external security model to measured data. The data-availability statement is the weak "on reasonable request" standard, and no code is released, which makes it harder to check the model-dependent numbers.

Who is this for? Experimentalists working on QKD with single-photon sources, especially those interested in source certification and practical receiver optimization. It is not a protocol paper. I would send it to peer review and ask for revision: report β and τ(e), clarify the 33.24 dB vs 28.28 dB distinction, and note the D-channel behavior in the main text. The core contribution is worth adding to the literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental BB84-type QKD testbed built around a triggered quantum-dot single-photon source and a four-state polarization receiver. The authors record photon arrival-time distributions at Bob's four detectors and study how the choice of acceptance time window (width Δt and center tc) affects QBER, sifted-key fraction, and g(2)(0). Using Eq. (3) from the Waks security model, they translate these measured quantities into expected secret-key rates as a function of channel loss, and claim that temporal filtering optimizes back-to-back key rate or extends the maximally tolerable channel loss by about 23-24%. They also demonstrate real-time g(2)(0) monitoring from Bob's time-tags, and extend the study with simulations for synthetic pulse shapes and noise levels.

Significance. The qualitative core of the paper—that temporal filtering trades QBER against sifted fraction and has an optimum that depends on pulse shape and noise—is convincingly supported by the time-resolved data and is a useful practical design rule for single-photon QKD. The channel-side, real-time g(2)(0) monitoring using the four receiver ports is a genuinely useful certification tool, and the authors are explicit that exploiting the improved filtered g(2)(0) requires Alice-side gating, which is not implemented. The strengths are therefore real, but the headline quantitative figures (maximally tolerable loss and range extension) are computed from an incompletely specified model and contain an internal numerical inconsistency; these need to be fixed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (3) and Methods, 'Estimation of expected secret key rates'] The rate-loss curves in Fig. 3 are computed from Eq. (3), which contains β, the fraction of detection events caused by single photons, and τ(e), the privacy-amplification compression function. The Methods paragraph on secret-key estimation gives μ=0.0043, pclick, and pdc=1.22e-6 but never states the value or estimation procedure for β and τ(e). Because β = p_single/p_click is loss-dependent and becomes small when dark counts dominate at high loss, the tolerable-loss values (35.15 dB and 37.98 dB) and the associated 23-24% range extension cannot be reproduced or audited from the reported information. Please report β and τ(e) explicitly, specify whether β was held constant or recalculated at each loss value, and provide a sensitivity analysis showing how the tolerable-loss curves depend on these assumptions.
[Results, 'Performance optimization via temporal filtering' (paragraph on μ_c and Tmin)] The text states that for the maximal acceptance window the critical photon number μc=0.0053 corresponds to Tmin=33.24 dB and refers to Fig. 3, but Fig. 3 shows a maximal tolerable loss of only 28.28 dB for the same window (Δt=12.50 ns, tc=0.00 ns). The text goes on to say that the actual μ=0.0043 leads to a 'slightly reduced maximal tolerable loss (cf. Fig. 3)', which is difficult to reconcile with a 5 dB gap between 33.24 dB and 28.28 dB. This inconsistency undermines confidence in the quantitative range-extension numbers; please clarify which model convention produces Tmin=33.24 dB and correct either the text or the figure accordingly.
[Results, 'Real-time photon statistics monitoring'] The claim that a 60 s accumulation block 'should already be enough to allow for a secret key distillation incorporating finite-key size effects' is presented without any finite-key calculation or block-size analysis, and the experiment is an off-line post-processing of recorded time-tags rather than live key distillation. Please either provide the finite-key estimate or rephrase the statement as an asymptotic-parameter indication; otherwise the 'real-time security monitoring' claim exceeds what is demonstrated.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 2 caption and axis labels] There are typos in the text and figures: 'ﬁexd' should be 'fixed' in the Fig. 2 caption, and the horizontal axis label 'Accpetance window Δt (ns)' should read 'Acceptance window Δt (ns)'.
[Methods, 'Estimation of expected secret key rates'] Please clarify the conversion from the cumulative dark-count rate (<100 Hz) to the per-pulse probability pdc=1.22e-6 for Δt=12.5 ns; state explicitly whether pdc is per pulse and how the 80 MHz repetition rate enters the calculation.
[Methods, 'Comparison of Device Performance', Eq. (4)] In Eq. (4), the symbol f_rep is not defined, and the expression changes units relative to Eq. (3) (bits/pulse versus bits per second); please define f_rep and state the relationship between the two rate conventions.
[Results, 'Real-time photon statistics monitoring'] In the sentence describing over- and underestimation of g(2)(0), the second occurrence of 'overestimation' is apparently meant to be 'underestimation', since only underestimation can lead to information leakage; please correct this.
[Results, 'Performance optimization via temporal filtering'] The paper quotes the range extension as both '23%' in the Results section and '24%' in the same section and abstract-level discussion; please use one value consistently or state the rounding convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the key-rate and range-extension claims follow from an external security model applied to measured QBER, sifted fraction, and unfiltered g(2)(0); the temporal-filter optimization is a trade-off within that model, not a self-derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are not circular. The key-rate formula in Eq. (3), S = (p_click/2)(βτ(e) − f(e)h(e)), and the multi-photon bound in Eq. (2), p_m ≤ μ²g(2)(0)/2, are taken from the independent security analysis of Waks et al. (Ref. [27]), not derived from the authors' own data or prior work. The optimization of Bob's acceptance time window is presented as a trade-off between the measured QBER and the measured sifted-key fraction F(Δt,tc), evaluated inside that external model; the reported tolerable-loss values (28.28 dB, 35.15 dB, 37.98 dB) are consequences of the measured error curves, not artifacts of normalization or of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Importantly, the paper explicitly does not use the improved, temporally filtered g(2)(0) in its security analysis: it states that benefiting from the filtered g(2)(0) would require active gating at Alice's side to avoid photon-number-splitting attacks, and that the unfiltered value from the full repetition period is used. This removes the one place where a quantity derived from the same data could have been fed back into the claimed performance. Self-citations to the authors' earlier work on quantum-dot sources and QKD testbeds appear in the experimental setup and contextual review, but they are not load-bearing for the optimization claim, which is anchored to measured data and an external security model. Concerns about unreported parameters such as β and τ(e), and the apparent inconsistency between T_min = 33.24 dB and the 28.28 dB value in Fig. 3, are reproducibility or correctness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on the Waks et al. security model, the unfiltered g(2)(0) bound, and asymptotic analysis assumptions. The only hand-chosen parameters are in the simulations, which are clearly labeled as representative regimes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Simulation noise offset (low/high) = 0.01 and 0.3 counts per bin
Chosen in Methods to set signal-to-noise ratios of 392 and 13; representative regimes, not fit to the experimental data.
Simulated pulse lifetimes = 0.5 ns and 1.5 ns
Represent short and long pulses relative to the 80 MHz clock; chosen values, not measured for the specific device.
Simulated wrong-channel fraction = 1%
Models optical imperfections in the second detection channel; a chosen constant in the simulation.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Waks et al. security model for sub-Poissonian sources, including Eq. (3) and the multi-photon bound pm <= mu^2 g(2)(0)/2.
Invoked in the Results section for secret key rate and in Methods for rate-loss calculations; taken from Ref. [27].
domain assumption The unfiltered g(2)(0) measured at Bob over the full repetition period bounds the multi-photon probability relevant for the sifted, filtered key.
Used for security in Figs. 2(d) and 3; the paper itself states Alice-side gating would be required to benefit from reduced g(2)(0) under PNS attacks.
domain assumption Asymptotic security analysis neglecting finite-key effects and side channels.
The paper computes key rates via Eq. (3) without finite-key corrections; the Discussion explicitly states finite-key effects are important.
domain assumption Ideal error correction efficiency f(e) as in Ref. [27].
Used in Eq. (3); not measured in the experiment.
domain assumption Detection efficiency mismatch across Bob's channels is treated via the reduced tolerable QBER bound from Lydersen and Skaar [29].
Mentioned in Results; the paper does not apply a direct correction for the mismatch in the rate-loss calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tools for the Performance Optimization of Single-Photon Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVHVQMDH

@misc{pith2026190802672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tools for the Performance Optimization of Single-Photon Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVHVQMDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02672}
}

abstract

Quantum light sources emitting triggered single photons or entangled photon pairs have the potential to boost the performance of quantum key distribution (QKD) systems. Proof-of-principle experiments affirmed these prospects, but further efforts are necessary to push this field beyond its current status. In this work, we show that temporal filtering of single-photon pulses enables a performance optimization of QKD systems implemented with realistic quantum light sources, both in experiment and simulations. To this end, we analyze the influence of temporal filtering of sub-Poissonian single-photon pulses on the expected secret key fraction, the quantum bit error ratio, and the tolerable channel losses. For this purpose, we developed a basic QKD testbed comprising a triggered solid-state single-photon source and a receiver module designed for four-state polarization coding via the BB84 protocol. Furthermore, we demonstrate real-time security monitoring by analyzing the photon statistics, in terms of $g^{(2)}(0)$, inside the quantum channel by correlating the photon flux recorded at the four ports of our receiver. Our findings are useful for the certification of QKD and can be applied and further extended for the optimization of various implementations of quantum communication based on sub-Poissonian quantum light sources, including measurement-device-independent schemes of QKD as well as quantum repeaters. Our work represents an important contribution towards the development of QKD-secured communication networks based on quantum light sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02672 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. BB84-QKD testbed using a triggered solid-state single-photon source (SPS) and polarization coding. (a) The trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The effect of temporal filtering on key parameters of QKD (exemplary shown for H input polarization). (a) Photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Optimization of single-photon QKD exploiting tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Real-time security monitoring for single-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated back-to-back secret key rates achievable via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

Ac´ ın, I

A. Ac´ ın, I. Bloch, H. Buhrman, T. Calarco, C. Eichler, J. Eisert, D. Esteve, N. Gisin, S. J. Glaser, F. Jelezko, S. Kuhr, M. Lewenstein, M. F. Riedel, P. O. Schmidt, R. Thew, A. Wallraﬀ, I. Walmsley, and F. K. Wilhelm, New J. Phys. 20, 080201 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Gisin, G

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

2002
[3]

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

2014
[4]

Diamanti, H.-K

E. Diamanti, H.-K. Lo, B. Qi, and Z. Yuan, npj Quan- tum Inf. 2, 16025 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE In- ternational Conference on Computers, Systems and Sig- nal Processing, Bangalore, India , 175 (1984)

work page 1984
[6]

A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

1991
[7]

Wang, Phys

X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230503 (2005)

2005
[8]

The upper bound for the multi-photon emission probability from [27] yields P (n = 1) ≥ µ−µ2g(2)(0)

have an even lower value of P (n = 1) ≃ 0.3. The upper bound for the multi-photon emission probability from [27] yields P (n = 1) ≥ µ−µ2g(2)(0). Therefore, to surpass the performance of a WCP-based QKD sys- tem at same ηsifting and frep, Alice using an ideal SPS (g(2)(0) = 0) must achieve µ = 0.3 into the quantum channel. This eﬃciency is within reach usi...

work page

Show all 50 references

[9]

H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230504 (2005)

2005
[10]

Schlehahn, M

A. Schlehahn, M. Gaafar, M. Vaupel, M. Gschrey, P. Schnauber, J.-H. Schulze, S. Rodt, A. Strittmatter, W. Stolz, A. Rahimi-Iman, T. Heindel, M. Koch, and S. Reitzenstein, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 041105 (2015)

2015
[11]

Hargart, C

F. Hargart, C. A. Kessler, T. Schwarzb¨ ack, E. Koroknay, S. Weidenfeld, M. Jetter, and P. Michler, App. Phys. Lett. 102, 011126 (2013)

2013
[12]

Schlehahn, A

A. Schlehahn, A. Thoma, P. Munnelly, M. Kamp, S. H¨ oﬂing, T. Heindel, C. Schneider, and S. Reitzen- stein, APL Photonics 1, 011301 (2016)

2016
[13]

Somaschi, V

N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Ant´ on, J. Demory, C. G´ omez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lema´ ıtre, A. Auﬀeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Nat. Photon. (2016)

2016
[14]

Wang, Z.-C

H. Wang, Z.-C. Duan, Y.-H. Li, S. Chen, J.-P. Li, Y.-M. He, M.-C. Chen, Y. He, X. Ding, C.-Z. Peng, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016)

2016
[15]

Heindel, C

T. Heindel, C. Schneider, M. Lermer, S. H. Kwon, T. Braun, S. Reitzenstein, S. H¨ oﬂing, M. Kamp, and A. Forchel, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 011107 (2010)

2010
[16]

H. Wang, H. Hu, T.-H. Chung, J. Qin, X. Yang, J.-P. Li, R.-Z. Liu, H.-S. Zhong, Y.-M. He, X. Ding, Y.-H. Deng, Q. Dai, Y.-H. Huo, S. H¨ oﬂing, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019)

2019
[17]

Schweickert, K

L. Schweickert, K. D. J¨ ons, K. D. Zeuner, S. F. Covre da Silva, H. Huang, T. Lettner, M. Reindl, J. Zichi, R. Trotta, A. Rastelli, and V. Zwiller, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 093106 (2018)

2018
[18]

Hanschke, K

L. Hanschke, K. A. Fischer, S. Appel, D. Lukin, J. Wierzbowski, S. Sun, R. Trivedi, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, J. J. Finley, and K. M¨ uller, npj Quantum Inf. 4 (2018)

2018
[19]

S. Rodt, S. Reitzenstein, and T. Heindel, J. Phys. Con- dens. Matter 32, 153003 (2020)

2020
[20]

E. Waks, K. Inoue, C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuckovic, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature 420, 762 (2002)

2002
[21]

Beveratos, R

A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, A. Villing, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 187901 (2002)

2002
[22]

Allaume, F

R. Allaume, F. Treussart, G. Messin, Y. Dumeige, J.-F. Roch, A. Beveratos, R. Brouri-Tualle, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, New J. Phys. 6, 92 (2004)

2004
[23]

P. M. Intallura, M. B. Ward, O. Z. Karimov, Z. L. Yuan, P. See, A. J. Shields, P. Atkinson, and D. A. Ritchie, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 161103 (2007)

2007
[24]

R. J. Collins, P. J. Clarke, V. Fern´ andez, K. J. Gordon, M. N. Makhonin, J. A. Timpson, A. Tahraoui, M. Hop- kinson, A. M. Fox, M. S. Skolnick, and G. S. Buller, J. Appl. Phys 107, 073102 (2010)

2010
[25]

Takemoto, Y

K. Takemoto, Y. Nambu, T. Miyazawa, K. Wakui, S. Hi- rose, T. Usuki, M. Takatsu, N. Yokoyama, K. Yoshino, A. Tomita, S. Yorozu, Y. Sakuma, and Y. Arakawa, App. Phys. Express 3, 092802 (2010)

2010
[26]

Heindel, C

T. Heindel, C. A. Kessler, M. Rau, C. Schneider, M. F¨ urst, F. Hargart, W.-M. Schulz, M. Eichfelder, R. Robach, S. Nauerth, M. Lermer, H. Weier, M. Jet- ter, M. Kamp, S. Reitzenstein, S. H¨ oﬂing, P. Michler, H. Weinfurter, and A. Forchel, New J. Phys. 14, 083001 (2012)

2012
[27]

M. Rau, T. Heindel, S. Unsleber, T. Braun, J. Fischer, S. Frick, S. Nauerth, C. Schneider, G. Vest, S. Reitzen- stein, M. Kamp, A. Forchel, S. H¨ oﬂing, and H. Wein- furter, New J. Phys. 16, 043003 (2014)

2014
[28]

E. Waks, C. Santori, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042315 (2002)

2002
[29]

Gschrey, A

M. Gschrey, A. Thoma, P. Schnauber, M. Seifried, R. Schmidt, B. Wohlfeil, L. Kr¨ uger, J. H. Schulze, T. Heindel, S. Burger, F. Schmidt, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, and S. Reitzenstein, Nat. Commun. 6, 7662 (2015)

2015
[30]

Lydersen and J

L. Lydersen and J. Skaar, Quantum Inf. Comput. 10, 60 (2010)

2010
[31]

C. Gao, D. Jiang, Y. Guo, and L. Chen, Opt. Express 27, 14545 (2019)

2019
[32]

Ko, K.-J

H. Ko, K.-J. Kim, J.-S. Choe, B.-S. Choi, J.-H. Kim, Y. Baek, and C. J. Youn, Sci. Rep. 8 (2018)

2018
[33]

Sch¨ oll, L

E. Sch¨ oll, L. Hanschke, L. Schweickert, K. D. Zeuner, M. Reindl, S. F. C. da Silva, T. Lettner, R. Trotta, J. J. Finley, K. Mller, A. Rastelli, V. Zwiller, and K. D. J¨ ons, Nano Lett. 19, 2404 (2019)

2019
[34]

Takemoto, Y

K. Takemoto, Y. Nambu, T. Miyazawa, Y. Sakuma, T. Yamamoto, S. Yorozu, and Y. Arakawa, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015)

2015
[35]

Wang, Y.-M

H. Wang, Y.-M. He, T.-H. Chung, H. Hu, Y. Yu, S. Chen, X. Ding, M.-C. Chen, J. Qin, X. Yang, R.-Z. Liu, Z.-C. Duan, J.-P. Li, S. Gerhardt, K. Winkler, J. Jurkat, L.-J. Wang, N. Gregersen, Y.-H. Huo, Q. Dai, S. Yu, S. Hﬂing, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Photon. 13, 770 (2019)

2019
[36]

H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012)

2012
[37]

V. V. Kuzmin, D. V. Vasilyev, N. Sangouard, W. Dr, and C. A. Muschik, npj Quantum Inf. 5 (2019)

2019
[38]

Tomamichel, C

M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Nat. Commun. 3 (2012)

2012
[39]

J. F. Dynes, M. Lucamarini, K. A. Patel, A. W. Sharpe, M. B. Ward, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Opt. Express 26, 22733 (2018). 11

2018
[40]

Kumazawa, T

M. Kumazawa, T. Sasaki, and M. Koashi, Opt. Express 27, 5297 (2019)

2019
[41]

I. E. Zadeh, J. W. N. Los, R. B. M. Gourgues, V. Stein- metz, G. Bulgarini, S. M. Dobrovolskiy, V. Zwiller, and S. N. Dorenbos, APL Photonics 2, 111301 (2017)

2017
[42]

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 (2018)

2018
[43]

Tomita, Adv

A. Tomita, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1900005 (2019)

2019
[44]

Sajeed, P

S. Sajeed, P. Chaiwongkhot, J.-P. Bourgoin, T. Jen- newein, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and V. Makarov, Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015)

2015
[45]

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
[46]

Curty, F

M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C. C. W. Lim, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Nat. Commun. 5, 3732 (2014)

2014
[47]

Zhang, Q

Z. Zhang, Q. Zhao, M. Razavi, and X. Ma, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012333 (2017)

2017
[48]

Single- photon sources based on deterministic quantum-dot mi- crolenses,

T. Heindel, S. Rodt, and S. Reitzenstein, “Single- photon sources based on deterministic quantum-dot mi- crolenses,” in Quantum Dots for Quantum Information Technologies, edited by P. Michler (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 199–232

2017
[49]

X.-X. Xia, Z. Zhang, H.-B. Xie, X. Yuan, J. Lin, S.-K. Liao, Y. Liu, C.-Z. Peng, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Photon. Res. 7, 1169 (2019)

2019
[50]

H.-K. Lo, H. Chau, and M. Ardehali, J. Cryptol. 18, 133 (2004). S1 SUPPLEMENT Note 1: Measurement data for QBER and signal fraction for each polarization Fig. S1 shows the sifted key fraction and the QBER extracted from the data in Fig. 1(d) of the main article for all four de...

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ac´ ın, I

A. Ac´ ın, I. Bloch, H. Buhrman, T. Calarco, C. Eichler, J. Eisert, D. Esteve, N. Gisin, S. J. Glaser, F. Jelezko, S. Kuhr, M. Lewenstein, M. F. Riedel, P. O. Schmidt, R. Thew, A. Wallraﬀ, I. Walmsley, and F. K. Wilhelm, New J. Phys. 20, 080201 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Gisin, G

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

2002

[3] [3]

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

2014

[4] [4]

Diamanti, H.-K

E. Diamanti, H.-K. Lo, B. Qi, and Z. Yuan, npj Quan- tum Inf. 2, 16025 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE In- ternational Conference on Computers, Systems and Sig- nal Processing, Bangalore, India , 175 (1984)

work page 1984

[6] [6]

A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

1991

[7] [7]

Wang, Phys

X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230503 (2005)

2005

[8] [8]

The upper bound for the multi-photon emission probability from [27] yields P (n = 1) ≥ µ−µ2g(2)(0)

have an even lower value of P (n = 1) ≃ 0.3. The upper bound for the multi-photon emission probability from [27] yields P (n = 1) ≥ µ−µ2g(2)(0). Therefore, to surpass the performance of a WCP-based QKD sys- tem at same ηsifting and frep, Alice using an ideal SPS (g(2)(0) = 0) must achieve µ = 0.3 into the quantum channel. This eﬃciency is within reach usi...

work page