Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Secure quantum key distribution against correlated leakage source

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper gives the first finite-key security analysis for quantum key distribution with correlated leakage sources, reducing the correlated protocol to an independent equivalent and bounding the key rate by phase-error estimation plus…

desk verdict A genuinely new finite-key framework for correlated QKD sources, but the proof's source model is narrower than the stated assumptions, so the strongest claims are not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11251 v1 pith:T5CACCPQ submitted 2025-07-15 quant-ph

Jia-Xuan Li , Yang-Guang Shan , Rong Wang , Feng-Yu Lu , Zhen-Qiang Yin , Shuang Wang , Wei Chen , De-Yong He
show 2 more authors
Guang-Can Guo Zheng-Fu Han
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributioncorrelatedsourcefinite-keysecuritysmoothmin-entropyside-channel-secureQKDsending-or-not-sendingphaseerrorestimationloophole
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 aims to show that quantum key distribution remains secure even when source imperfections are correlated across pulses, and it provides the first proof of security that works with a finite number of transmitted pulses under such correlations. The key move is to split the correlated rounds into independent groups, use the generalized chain rule for smooth min-entropy, and construct an equivalent uncorrelated protocol whose phase errors can be estimated. For a two-state SNS protocol with a correlated leakage source, the only required device knowledge is an upper bound on the correlation range and a lower bound on the vacuum component of each prepared state. If this security argument holds, practical QKD systems no longer need detailed models of side channels or correlation magnitudes, closing a recognized source loophole.

What carries the argument

The round-rearrangement reduction (Definition 1 in the paper) is the machinery that carries the proof. The original $N$-round protocol is repeated $\xi+1$ times; in each repetition only rounds with one fixed residue modulo $\xi+1$ are used as key-generation rounds and all other rounds are publicly disclosed as leakage rounds. Because correlations reach back at most $\xi$ rounds, the key components become independent; the generalized chain rule converts the entropy of the correlated key into a sum of entropies of these components minus penalties. A unitary mapping on the disclosed systems then turns the protocol into an i.i.d. equivalent with $e^{-\mu_{\mathrm{eq}}} = \left(\sqrt{V^{A,\xi}_0 V^{A,\xi}_1} - \sqrt{(1-V^{A,\xi}_0)(1-V^{A,\xi}_1)}\right)^2$, where $V^{A,\xi}_{r_i} = V_{r_i}(p_0\sqrt{V_0}+p_1\sqrt{V_1})^{2\xi}$, so the correlated source's security is inherited from an uncorrelated two-state SNS protocol.

What would settle it

Measure the prepared state in round $i$ while flipping only the setting chosen in round $i-\xi-1$; any detectable change in the emitted state shows the correlation range exceeds the declared $\xi$, so Eq. (3) is not a valid security bound for that source. Alternatively, tomographically verify the vacuum overlap $\langle 0|\rho_{r_i}|0\rangle$ for every history; if it falls below $V^{A,\xi}_{r_i}$, the unitary-equivalence step fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that a source with maximum correlation range $\xi$ can be reduced, for security purposes, to an independent and identically distributed protocol. The paper proves the bound $H^\epsilon_{\min}(Z_A|E') \ge n(1-h(e^U)) - \xi f - (\xi+1)f'$, where the phase-error upper bound $e^U$ is taken from the equivalent i.i.d. protocol, and $f, f'$ are smooth-entropy chain-rule penalties. For the concrete two-state SNS protocol, the equivalent protocol uses coherent states $|0\rangle$ and $|\mu_{\mathrm{eq}}\rangle$ whose overlap is fixed by the vacuum lower bounds, so security follows from the phase-error estimation of the equivalent protocol. This gives the first finite-key security proof for QKD with correlated sources and covers simultaneous state-preparation flaws, side channels, and correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 1, that the source's correlations reach back at most $\xi$ rounds; if a pulse depends on settings more than $\xi$ rounds earlier, the decoupling into independent subsets breaks and the entropy bound no longer applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Finite-length key rates can now be computed for QKD with correlated sources, something previous correlation analyses did not provide.
  • A QKD provider only needs to certify the correlation range $\xi$ and the vacuum lower bounds $V_0,V_1$; no model of the correlation mechanism or side-channel structure is required.
  • The round-rearrangement framework is protocol-independent, so other QKD schemes facing correlated sources can adopt the same reduction.
  • Simulations indicate that with $N=2\times10^{15}$ pulses, key can still be generated at correlation range $\xi=1000$, well beyond the largest measured range of about 6.
  • For $\xi=5$ the maximum attenuation falls by roughly 10 dB compared with $\xi=0$, showing a moderate practical cost for correlation robustness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if an experiment can certify a small $\xi$, the same framework could retrofit a security proof to existing deployed QKD sources without changing hardware, by re-analyzing recorded settings and outcomes.
  • Beyond the paper: the formula for $V^{\xi}_{r_i}$ suggests a quantitative trade-off---longer correlation memory exponentially shrinks the effective vacuum overlap, so a device with poorer vacuum quality will tolerate much smaller $\xi$; this could be tested by measuring vacuum bounds and checking whether predicted key rates match observed QBER.
  • Beyond the paper: because the equivalent protocol is ordinary two-state SNS, the reduction may compose with measurement-device-independent and twin-field variants, carrying correlation security into longer-distance network settings.
  • Beyond the paper: a concrete experimental check is to flip only the setting of round $i-\xi-1$ and observe whether the state in round $i$ changes; if it does, the declared correlation range is too small and the key-rate formula overestimates security.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a finite-key security framework for QKD with correlated sources, based on splitting the raw key into subsets modulo a correlation range ξ, applying a generalized chain rule, and constructing a 'new protocol' with interleaved leakage rounds. It then applies this framework to a two-state sending-or-not-sending (SNS) protocol, assuming only a bounded correlation range and lower bounds on the vacuum components of the prepared states. The authors claim that the correlated source can be mapped by local unitaries to an i.i.d. equivalent protocol with renormalized coherent states, yielding the finite-key bound of Eq. (3) and key-rate simulations for ξ up to 1000. The main technical content is the entropy decomposition, the unitary equivalence construction (Eqs. (7)-(9) and Supplementary Eqs. (47)-(69)), and the phase-error estimation in Eqs. (11)-(16).

Significance. If the central equivalence were valid, the result would be an important step: a finite-key security proof for SNS QKD under source correlations with minimal characterization (correlation range and vacuum lower bound), extending side-channel-secure QKD. The chain-rule decomposition idea and the rearrangement into a leakage-round protocol are interesting and potentially useful. The simulation results also demonstrate impressive tolerance to large ξ. However, the advertised scope is not supported: the proof assumes a product structure of the source ancillas that is not implied by Assumptions 1 and 4, and this gap invalidates the key reduction. The framework may be salvageable under a stronger, explicitly stated independence assumption, but that would be a substantial narrowing of the claimed result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (7)/(47), Assumptions 1 and 4; also Lemma 2 and Proposition 2] The source model in Eq. (7) writes Alice's entanglement-equivalent state with independent per-round ancillas, using product probabilities q_{a_i}. This product structure is not implied by Assumption 1 (correlation range ξ) and Assumption 4 (vacuum lower bound). For example, a source with a single common static hidden variable—say a global optical phase θ chosen once and applied to every pulse—has a per-round vacuum overlap that is independent of θ, so it satisfies the vacuum lower bound; it also has influence range ξ=0 under the paper's definition, since no previous round's setting enters the preparation. Yet the joint state is not a product over rounds and its purification requires a correlated ancilla shared by all rounds, not independent q_{a_i}. Therefore the factorization of the new protocol into independent subcomponents in Eq. (8) and the unitary equivalence to the i.i.d. protocol in Eq. (9) do not follow from the stated assumptions. This gap is load-bearing: it invalidates the reduction behind Eq. (3) and the claimed security proof for correlated leakage sources.
  2. [Lemma 2 proof in Methods; also Supplementary Eqs. (49)-(53)] Lemma 2 asserts that in the new protocol 'there exists an attack by Eve such that the joint density matrix ... satisfies ⊗_{i=1}^{ξ+1} ρ''_i'. No proof of this factorization is given, and the assertion relies on the same unjustified product-ancilla assumption as Eq. (7). The correlation-range assumption only limits dependence on previous settings; it does not limit correlations mediated by a shared hidden variable or by a common purification ancilla. Consequently, the claimed decoupling of the new protocol into independent components is not established, and the subsequent unitary construction leading to Eqs. (9) and (69) does not apply to sources that satisfy Assumptions 1 and 4 but have long-range hidden-variable correlations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods, proof of Lemma 2 (paragraph after Eq. (19))] The displayed inequality H^{ε̃_i}_min(Z'_{Ai}|D'_{Ai}E') ≥ H^{ε̃_i}_min(Z'_{Ai}|E') has the wrong direction: conditioning on the public data D'_{Ai} can only reduce the smooth min-entropy. The final bound in Eq. (20) requires the opposite inequality, so the text should be corrected to H^{ε̃_i}_min(Z'_{Ai}|E') ≥ H^{ε̃_i}_min(Z'_{Ai}|D'_{Ai}E').
  2. [Main text and Supplementary notation] Assumptions 3 and 4 are referenced in the main text (e.g., Fig. 2 and the protocol description) but are only defined in the Supplementary Material; they should be defined or explicitly labeled in the main text for consistency.
  3. [Results and Methods] The numbering of propositions is inconsistent: the Results section states Proposition 1 (Eq. (3)), while the Methods and Supplementary refer to Proposition 2 for the same result. Please unify the numbering.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'PVOM' should be 'POVM', 'prof' should be 'proof', 'si' should be 'is', and 'rearrangement them' should be 'rearrange them'. These do not affect the technical content but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the key-rate bound is derived from the stated correlation-range and vacuum-bound assumptions plus prior independent SCS-QKD analyses, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

All load-bearing reductions in this paper are non-circular. Lemma 1 and Proposition 1/2 use the generalized chain rule of Vitanov et al. [43] and data-processing inequalities to convert the smooth min-entropy of the correlated protocol into sums of min-entropies of subcomponents, then into a bound involving the phase-error rate of a rearranged protocol. The final inequality, Eq. (3), contains an information-theoretic term n(1-h(e_U)) plus explicit penalty terms; none of these is defined as the target key rate, and the phase-error upper bound in Eq. (11) is taken from prior postselection security analyses [28-31,52], whose stated assumptions concern i.i.d. SNS-QKD and do not include the correlated-source result claimed here. The reduction from the correlated source to the equivalent i.i.d. protocol in Eqs. (53)-(69) is also constructive: the equivalent coherent-state parameter mu_equ is computed from the assumed vacuum lower bounds V_0, V_1 by an overlap argument, not fitted to the simulated key rate. The simulations optimize protocol parameters such as sending probability and intensity, then evaluate Eq. (16); they do not invert data to force the claimed rate. The paper does rely on self-citations ([31], [41], [46-48]), but the load-bearing one, [31], is a parameter-free prior security analysis with stated assumptions independent of this paper's target result, so it counts as independent support under the review rules and does not raise the circularity score. One genuine concern, noted for correctness rather than circularity, is that the factorization in Lemma 2/Definition 1 is asserted from Assumption 1 without a fully explicit derivation, and Eq. (7) postulates independent ancilla probabilities q_{a_i}; a common static hidden variable could violate that product structure while satisfying the letter of Assumption 1. That is an internal proof gap, not a definitional equivalence or a fitted-input reduction, so it does not constitute circularity.

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

The central claim rests on two device characterizations (correlation range and vacuum lower bounds) and on several previously published mathematical tools. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The correlation between transmitted pulses is limited to a maximum range ξ (Assumption 1).
    The security framework splits rounds into subsets separated by more than ξ rounds; if the real correlation memory is longer than ξ, the subsets are not independent and the bound fails. This is a device characterization, not a mathematical consequence.
  • domain assumption The vacuum component of each transmitted state is lower-bounded by V_r for both sending settings, even when conditioned on the previous ξ rounds (Assumption 2/4).
    The equivalent i.i.d. protocol is defined with coherent states whose intensity is derived from these bounds. If the actual vacuum fractions are smaller, the equivalent protocol is too optimistic and the security guarantee breaks.
  • standard math The generalized chain rule for smooth min- and max-entropies (Vitanov et al. [43]) is valid.
    Used to decompose the smooth min-entropy of the correlated key into sums over independent sub-blocks with penalty terms.
  • standard math The improved postselection phase error estimation (Shan et al. [31]) and the de Finetti reduction with fixed marginal (Nahar et al. [55]) are valid.
    These prior results are used to convert the phase error estimate in the i.i.d. equivalent protocol into a finite-key bound under coherent attacks.
  • standard math The two-state SNS-QKD protocol described by Eq. (10) is secure under collective attacks when its phase error is bounded via Eq. (11), following the SCS-QKD framework [28-31].
    The security of the equivalent protocol is inherited from this prior framework; the paper extends it to the correlated setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure quantum key distribution against correlated leakage source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5CACCPQ

@misc{pith2026250711251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure quantum key distribution against correlated leakage source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5CACCPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11251}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum key distribution (QKD) provides information theoretic security based on quantum mechanics, however, its practical deployment is challenged by imperfections of source devices. Among various source loopholes, correlations between transmitted pulses pose a significant yet underexplored security risk, potentially compromising QKD's theoretical guarantees. In this work, we propose a security analysis framework for QKD under correlations, enabling finite-key analysis for the first time by extending and rearranging QKD rounds and leveraging the generalized chain rule. Based on this framework, and inspired by the idea of side-channel-secure QKD, we develop a secure QKD against correlated leakage source only need the characterization of correlation range and the lower bound on the vacuum component of the prepared states. Additionally, our framework can be extended to other QKD protocols, offering a general approach to consider correlation induced security vulnerabilities. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of our protocol and its significantly superior tolerance to imperfect parameters compared to existing protocols. This work provides a crucial step toward closing security loopholes in QKD, enhancing its practicality, and ensuring long-distance,high-performance secure communication under real-world constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagrams of the original and new protocols. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The schematic diagram of the protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The simulation result of the performance of our protocol. We set the the misalignment error rate to 1%, detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The simulation result of the performance of our protocol when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tighter Asymptotic Key Rates for Intensity-Correlated Decoy-State QKD via Nonlinear Programming

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using IPOPT solutions of the full nonlinear CS-constrained problems as linearization points yields tighter, still-valid asymptotic key-rate bounds for decoy-state QKD with intensity correlations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948)

    work page 1948

  2. [2]

    Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp

    P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    Stevens, E

    M. Stevens, E. Bursztein, P. Karpman, A. Albertini, and Y. Markov, The first collision for full SHA-1, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2017/190 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing, in Conf. on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing(Bangalore, 1984) p. 175

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Lo and H

    H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Unconditional security of quantum key distribution over arbitrarily long distances, Science 283, 2050 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 441 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Scarani, H

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

    2009

  8. [8]

    Renner, Security of quantum key distribution, International Journal of Quantum Information 06, 1 (2008)

    R. Renner, Security of quantum key distribution, International Journal of Quantum Information 06, 1 (2008)

    2008

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

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

    2012

  2. [10]

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

    2012

  3. [11]

    Curty, F

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

    2014

  4. [12]

    Lucamarini, Z

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

    2018

  5. [13]

    X. Ma, P. Zeng, and H. Zhou, Phase-matching quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031043 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Wang, Z.-W

    X.-B. Wang, Z.-W. Yu, and X.-L. Hu, Twin-field quantum key distribution with large misalignment error, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062323 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Cui, Z.-Q

    C. Cui, Z.-Q. Yin, R. Wang, W. Chen, S. Wang, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Twin-field quantum key distribution without phase postselection, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 034053 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

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

    2022

  9. [17]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Kato, A. Mizutani, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with correlated sources, Science Advances 6, eaaz4487 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4487

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Tamaki, M

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

    2014

  11. [19]

    Yin, C.-H

    Z.-Q. Yin, C.-H. F. Fung, X. Ma, C.-M. Zhang, H.-W. Li, W. Chen, S. Wang, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Mismatched-basis statistics enable quantum key distribution with uncharacterized qubit sources, Phys. Rev. A 90, 052319 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Gottesman, H.-K

    D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. Lutkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect devices, in International Symposium onInformation Theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings.(2004) pp. 136–

    2004

  13. [21]

    Lo and J

    H.-K. Lo and J. Preskill, Security of quantum key distribution using weak coherent states with nonrandom phases, Quantum Info. Comput. 7, 431–458 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Koashi, Simple security proof of quantum key distribution based on complementarity, New Journal of Physics 11, 045018 (2009)

    M. Koashi, Simple security proof of quantum key distribution based on complementarity, New Journal of Physics 11, 045018 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    P. J. Coles, E. M. Metodiev, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Numerical approach for unstructured quantum key distribution, Nature Communications 7, 11712 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Y. Wang, I. W. Primaatmaja, E. Lavie, A. Varvitsiotis, and C. C. W. Lim, Characterising the correlations of prepare-and- measure quantum networks, npj Quantum Information 5, 17 (2019). 18

    2019

  17. [25]

    Winick, N

    A. Winick, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and P. J. Coles, Reliable numerical key rates for quantum key distribution, Quantum 2, 77 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Pereira, M

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

    2019

  19. [27]

    Sixto, ´Alvaro Navarrete, M

    X. Sixto, ´Alvaro Navarrete, M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Quantum key distribution with imperfectly isolated devices (2025), arXiv:2411.13948 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang, X.-L

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

    2019

  21. [29]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    C. Jiang, Z.-W. Yu, X.-L. Hu, and X.-B. Wang, Side-channel-secure quantum key distribution with imperfect vacuum sources, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064003 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Jiang, X.-L

    C. Jiang, X.-L. Hu, Z.-W. Yu, and X.-B. Wang, Side-channel security of practical quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013266 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Shan, Z.-Q

    Y.-G. Shan, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Improved postselection security analysis of phase error estimation in quantum key distribution (2024), arXiv:2409.19538 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ac ´ ın, N

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

    2007

  25. [33]

    Zhang, X.-L

    C. Zhang, X.-L. Hu, C. Jiang, J.-P. Chen, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, Z.-W. Yu, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental side-channel-secure quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 190503 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Nagamatsu, A

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

    2016

  27. [35]

    Mizutani, G

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

    2019

  28. [36]

    Yoshino, M

    K.-i. Yoshino, M. Fujiwara, K. Nakata, T. Sumiya, T. Sasaki, M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, A. Tajima, M. Koashi, and A. Tomita, Quantum key distribution with an efficient countermeasure against correlated intensity fluctuations in optical pulses, npj Quantum Information 4, 8 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Zapatero, ´A

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

    2021

  30. [38]

    Sixto, V

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

    2022

  31. [39]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Navarrete, A. Mizutani, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Modified bb84 quantum key distribution protocol robust to source imperfections, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023065 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S. Nahar, N. L¨ utkenhaus, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect phase randomisation, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 015025 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Li, F.-Y

    J.-X. Li, F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, V. Zapatero, M. Curty, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Quantum key distribution overcoming practical correlated intensity fluctuations (2025), arXiv:2501.13482 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, A security framework for quantum key distribution implementations (2024), arXiv:2305.05930 [quant-ph]

    2024

  35. [43]

    Vitanov, F

    A. Vitanov, F. Dupuis, M. Tomamichel, and R. Renner, Chain rules for smooth min- and max-entropies, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 59, 2603 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Trefilov, X

    D. Trefilov, X. Sixto, V. Zapatero, A. Huang, M. Curty, and V. Makarov, Intensity correlations in decoy-state bb84 quantum key distribution systems (2024), arXiv:2411.00709 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. L. Roberts, M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Patterning-effect mitigating intensity modulator for secure decoy-state quantum key distribution, Opt. Lett. 43, 5110 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

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

    2021

  39. [47]

    Lu, Z.-H

    F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, J.-L. Chen, X. Kang, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Intensity tomography method for secure and high-performance quantum key distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology 41, 4895 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Kang, F.-Y

    X. Kang, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, J.-L. Chen, Z.-H. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Patterning-effect calibration algorithm for secure decoy-state quantum key distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology 41, 75 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Marcomini, G

    A. Marcomini, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, D. Rusca, A. Valle, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Characterising higher-order phase correlations in gain-switched laser sources with application to quantum key distribution (2024), arXiv:2412.03738 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tomamichel, C

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

    2012

  43. [51]

    Shan, Z.-Q

    Y.-G. Shan, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Practical phase-coding side-channel-secure quantum key distribution (2023), arXiv:2305.13861 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Matsuura, S

    T. Matsuura, S. Yamano, Y. Kuramochi, T. Sasaki, and M. Koashi, Tight concentration inequalities for quantum adversarial setups exploiting permutation symmetry, Quantum 8, 1540 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

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

    H. Chernoff, A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 23, 493 (1952). 19

    1952

  46. [54]

    Mitzenmacher and E

    M. Mitzenmacher and E. Upfal, Probability and computing: Randomization and probabilistic techniques in algorithms and data analysis (Cambridge university press, 2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Nahar, D

    S. Nahar, D. Tupkary, Y. Zhao, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and E. Y.-Z. Tan, Postselection technique for optical quantum key distribution with improved de finetti reductions, PRX Quantum 5, 040315 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Tomamichel, C

    M. Tomamichel, C. Schaffner, A. Smith, and R. Renner, Leftover hashing against quantum side information, IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory 57, 5524 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Tomamichel, C

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

    2012

  50. [58]

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

    2019

  51. [59]

    Huang, A

    A. Huang, A. Mizutani, H.-K. Lo, V. Makarov, and K. Tamaki, Characterization of state-preparation uncertainty in quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 014048 (2023). Supplementary Materials In this supplementary material, we will prove that for more general values of ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.