Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution with squeezed light

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first practical fiber-based continuous-variable quantum key distribution system using quadrature-squeezed states, and shows it outperforms coherent-state systems in finite-size secret key rate and excess-noise…

desk verdict First genuine fiber-based squeezed-state CV-QKD demonstration with LLO/DSP, but the quantitative advantage over coherent states rests on treating ~3 SNU of anti-squeezed preparation noise as trusted, which the paper never quantifies in the untrusted case. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19438 v3 pith:TTGOZPSN submitted 2025-06-24 quant-ph

Huy Q. Nguyen , Ivan Derkach , Akash nag Oruganti , Adnan A.E. Hajomer , Hou-Man Chin , Radim Filip , Ulrik L. Andersen , Vladyslav C. Usenko
show 1 more author
Tobias Gehring
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords continuous-variablequantumkeydistributionsqueezedstatesfinite-sizesecuritylocaloscillatordigitalsignalprocessingheterodynedetectionexcessnoisereconciliationefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum key distribution with continuous variables has practical appeal because it uses standard telecom equipment, but most systems encode information in coherent states. This paper reports the first practical fiber-based implementation that instead uses quadrature-squeezed states, with a locally generated local oscillator and a digital-signal-processing chain that removes the need for optical phase locking. Over a 50 km fiber link, the squeezed-state protocol achieves finite-size secret key fractions several times higher than a coherent-state system under identical conditions, and it keeps producing keys at reconciliation efficiencies and excess-noise levels where the coherent-state system stops. A sympathetic reader would take away that squeezed states have moved from a theoretical advantage to a working resource for real QKD deployments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian squeezed-state protocol with heterodyne detection and public announcement of the anti-squeezed quadrature. In this protocol, Alice and Bob keep only the squeezed quadrature for key generation, while the anti-squeezed quadrature is used for parameter estimation; this is captured in the three-mode entanglement-based purification model, with the Holevo bound conditioned on the announced anti-squeezed measurement. Two additions carry the work: a DSP chain that uses a frequency-multiplexed pilot tone and an unscented Kalman filter to recover the carrier phase without optical locking, and a parameter-estimation extension that explicitly includes detector efficiency, giving the estimators in the paper's Eqs. (3)-(5) and the finite-size key fraction in Eq. (6).

What would settle it

Take the same 50 km fiber setup but, instead of estimating the noise floor from a back-to-back measurement, verify it with an independent direct measurement while Eve is free to vary channel loss, and re-compute the finite-size key rate; if the key fraction drops to zero under the corrected noise floor, the claimed advantage over coherent states fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quadrature-squeezed states can serve as the signal states in a practical, fiber-based CV-QKD protocol, and that they outperform coherent states when both are analysed with finite-size security against collective attacks over the same channel. The authors demonstrate this with a prepare-and-measure setup in which Alice generates squeezed vacuum at 1550 nm, displaces it with Gaussian modulation in both quadratures, and sends it over 50 km of ultra-low-loss fiber; Bob uses a free-running laser as local oscillator and RF heterodyne detection, and a DSP chain recovers the carrier phase and re-aligns the measured quadratures. Only the squeezed quadrature is used for the key; the anti-squeezed quadrature is publicly announced for parameter estimation. With all parameters estimated from $10^{8}$ quantum symbols, the squeezed-state protocol yields up to 0.0105 bits/symbol, roughly six times the coherent-state rate at high reconciliation efficiency, and it remains positive at efficiencies and excess noises where the coherent-state protocol yields zero key.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme relies on Alice's anti-squeezed preparation noise being trusted and faithfully monitored; if an eavesdropper can influence or mimic that noise, the finite-size key rates claimed here would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fiber-based CV-QKD can now be built with squeezed states as a modular replacement: the squeezed-light source is added to a coherent-state transmitter, and the receiver needs only a free-running local oscillator and DSP.
  • Squeezed-state systems can maintain positive key rates with lower reconciliation efficiencies, reducing the computational load of error correction; the reported GPU-based reconciliation yields 30.19 kbit/s for squeezed states versus 1.57 kbit/s for coherent states.
  • Squeezed states tolerate higher excess noise, which suggests they can operate alongside high-power classical channels in a shared fiber, a regime where coherent-state CV-QKD fails.
  • The same DSP-based approach is directly applicable to free-space and satellite channels, where the paper notes squeezed states are predicted to be even more advantageous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trusted-noise assumption for the anti-squeezed quadrature is accepted, the security analysis could be extended to discrete-modulated squeezed states; the paper notes the theory for this is lacking, but the experimental toolkit here is ready.
  • The reported advantage depends on using the squeezed quadrature alone for keys; a system that tries to use both quadratures would likely lose much of the benefit, since heterodyne detection adds trusted vacuum noise that effectively counteracts channel noise.
  • A direct measurement of the channel noise floor (rather than a back-to-back estimate) could test how much of the claimed margin survives realistic channel drift, especially over long deployment times.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental demonstration of a continuous-variable quantum key distribution (CV-QKD) system using quadrature-squeezed states over optical fiber, with a local local-oscillator (LLO) and a digital-signal-processing (DSP) chain for carrier recovery. Alice prepares Gaussian-modulated squeezed vacuum states, Bob performs RF heterodyne detection and publicly announces the anti-squeezed quadrature, and the squeezed quadrature is used for key generation. The authors estimate channel parameters from about 10^8 quantum symbols, compute finite-size secret key fractions against collective attacks using a security framework from their own earlier work (Refs. [26,27]), and compare the squeezed-state protocol with a coherent-state protocol under the same conditions. They report higher key fractions at lower reconciliation efficiencies and a higher tolerance to excess noise for the squeezed-state protocol, and conclude that this is the first practical fiber-based squeezed-state CV-QKD demonstration.

Significance. If the security analysis withstands scrutiny, this is a significant experimental step: it moves squeezed-state CV-QKD from tabletop proof-of-principle setups to a fiber-compatible, LLO-based implementation, and it provides a quantitative finite-size comparison with coherent states. The detailed parameter tables, the reconciliation-efficiency study, and the excess-noise tolerance comparison are valuable contributions. The main caveat is that the claimed advantage depends on modeling the large anti-squeezed preparation noise as trusted noise under Alice's control, which is not yet justified by a demonstrated continuous-monitoring procedure. This issue is load-bearing for the central claim and needs to be addressed explicitly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B and Table I] The central advantage claim relies on treating the anti-squeezed preparation noise ΔV_AN = 3.029 SNU (Table I) as trusted noise under Alice's control, via the three-squeezer purification of Fig. S1. The text states in Sec. II.B that continuous monitoring of squeezing and purity would justify this treatment, but no such monitoring is demonstrated during the 10^8-symbol run, and Supp. S.II only describes a back-to-back (B2B) calibration. Because the estimated channel excess noise is only ~0.04 SNU, even a small error in attributing ΔV_AN would substantially change the upper bound on excess noise and hence the finite-size key rates in Figs. 2 and 3. Please quantify the reduction in key rate if ΔV_AN is instead treated as untrusted noise (with the purification held by Eve), or provide a monitoring protocol with proven security that justifies the trusted-noise assumption.
  2. [Supp. S.II and Sec. III.B] The noise floor for the squeezed-state protocol is estimated, not directly measured: Eq. (S8) subtracts V^Rx_sqz and V^Rx_anti-sqz + (τη/2)ΔV_AN, where V^Rx_sqz and V^Rx_anti-sqz are derived from the B2B calibration and the estimated channel efficiency. As Supp. S.II concedes, the channel is under Eve's control, so this floor cannot be validated through the channel. Any drift in the squeezing source or in detection efficiency between the B2B measurement and the transmission would bias the excess-noise estimates; given the small excess-noise values (~0.04 SNU at channel input), the resulting relative error in the finite-size key rate could be large. The authors should provide a stability analysis of the B2B calibration (e.g., repeated measurements over time) or a sensitivity analysis showing how much key-rate error would result from a specified drift.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 3] The theory curves in Fig. 3 are described as a 'fitted theory model,' but the fitting parameters and procedure are not specified. It is therefore unclear whether the agreement between the data points and the curves is a genuine test of the model or a consequence of adjustable parameters. Please state which quantities were fitted, their fitted values, and the residuals, or else present the comparison as parameter-free predictions based on the independently estimated parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4)] In Eq. (4), 'quaratures' should be 'quadratures'.
  2. [Sec. III.A] In Sec. III.A, 'with an total loss of of 7.25 dB' should read 'with a total loss of 7.25 dB' (duplicate 'of').
  3. [Sec. III.A] In Sec. III.A, 'at β≈0.89%' should be 'at β≈0.89' (without the percent sign).
  4. [Supp. Tables S3 and S4] The captions for Tables S3 and S4 state 'estimated from 108 quantum symbols'; please correct this to 10^8 quantum symbols.
  5. [Supp. Table S3] In Table S3, the entry 'blue0' in the SKF column for the coherent-state row at excess noise 0.084 appears to be a formatting artifact; please replace it with the numerical value or a dash.
  6. [Sec. II.B] In Sec. II.B, 'Details analysis' should be 'Detailed analysis'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed advantage is an application of prior theory to independently measured parameters, with a same-setup coherent-state benchmark; no equation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The central squeezed-state advantage is obtained by inserting independently measured parameters (Vsqz, ΔVAN, VM, εx, εp, η, VD; Table I and Tables S3–S4) into the finite-size key-rate framework of Eqs. (1)–(8). That framework is imported from Refs. [26,27], whose author lists overlap with the present paper, but those are prior theoretical derivations with explicit assumptions (collective attacks, trusted anti-squeezed preparation noise, heterodyne detection) and do not contain the present experiment's measured values, so they constitute independent support rather than a self-citation loop. No parameter is fitted to force the squeezed-state advantage; the paper instead adopts conservative choices, including symmetrization of excess noise to the higher quadrature value and 6.5σ worst-case estimators (Eqs. 3–6). The acknowledged limitations—the B2B noise-floor estimation in Supp. S.II and the trusted-ΔVAN assumption in Sec. II.B—are security caveats that could alter the numerical rates if violated, but they are not an input-output equivalence: the theory does not define the advantage in terms of the measured key rate, and the experiments are not reduced to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The phrase 'fitted theory model' in Sec. III.B refers to simulations built from the same estimator equations and measured parameters, which is a consistency check rather than a construction of the result. The coherent-state comparison is a same-setup external benchmark, and the measured FER and mutual information enter independently of the Holevo-bound calculation. Hence no circular step is exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the security model of Ref. [27] (same group) for the key-rate formula, on the trusted-noise assumption for the anti-squeezed quadrature, on the B2B noise-floor calibration, and on the DSP alignment. These are load-bearing assumptions the reader must accept from prior work or from the calibration procedure; they are not independently re-derived here.

free parameters (1)
  • Modulation variance V_M = 1.372 SNU (50 km); 1.067/1.461 SNU (20/30 km runs, Tables S3/S4)
    Chosen by the operator per experimental run; the quantitative SKF results and the claimed advantage depend on V_M, and the text notes the 30 km V_M is closer to its optimal value, indicating V_M is tuned per scenario.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian attacks are optimal for collective attacks in the finite-size regime
    The key-rate formula (Eqs. 1-6) and finite-size bounds from Ref. [27] rely on the standard CV-QKD extremality result that Gaussian states and Gaussian attacks are optimal for collective attacks.
  • domain assumption All source impurity is treated as trusted preparation noise in the anti-squeezed quadrature (ΔV_AN)
    Sec. II.B states: 'all preparation noise can be attributed to the anti-squeezed quadrature, represented as ΔV_AN.' If this noise were untrusted and under Eve's control, the finite-size key rate would be lower.
  • domain assumption Back-to-back noise-floor measurement remains valid during the channel transmission
    Supplementary S.II estimates the squeezed-state noise floor via B2B measurement and the channel efficiency; the protocol assumes this floor does not change during the session, otherwise excess noise is misestimated.
  • domain assumption DSP recovery and quadrature remapping perfectly align Alice's and Bob's quadratures
    Sec. II.A uses squeezing-angle estimation and quadrature remapping to align the measured quadratures; any residual misalignment would reduce correlations and bias parameter estimation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution with squeezed light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TTGOZPSN

@misc{pith2026250619438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution with squeezed light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TTGOZPSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19438}
}
read the original abstract

Continuous-variable quantum key distribution (CV-QKD) has gathered significant interest for its potential to achieve high secret key rates and seamless integration with existing optical communication infrastructure. State-of-the-art CV-QKD systems primarily use coherent states for simplicity. However, squeezed states of light have been theoretically shown to offer significant advantages, including higher secret key rates, greater resilience to excess noise, and reduced requirements on information reconciliation efficiency. In this work, we experimentally verify these theoretical predictions and propose and demonstrate a practical squeezed-state CV-QKD system based on modern local-local oscillator and digital-signal-processing techniques. Operating over fibre channels and considering finite-size security against collective attacks we show the advantages of our system over its coherent state counterpart. Our work paves the way for squeezed states to become practical resources for quantum key distribution and other quantum information protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Key generation after 50 km fiber when varying reconciliation efficiency (a) Secret key fraction in bits per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Secret key fraction (SKF) after 20 km and 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    A. n. Oruganti, I. Derkach, R. Filip, and V. C. Usenko, Quantum Science and Technology10, 025023 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    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. Photon.12, 1012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    V. C. Usenko, A. Ac´ ın, R. All´ eaume, U. L. An- dersen, E. Diamanti, T. Gehring, A. A. E. Ha- jomer, F. Kanitschar, C. Pacher, S. Pirandola, and V. Pruneri, Continuous-variable quantum communication (2025), arXiv:2501.12801 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Jain, H.-M

    N. Jain, H.-M. Chin, H. Mani, C. Lupo, D. S. Nikolic, A. Kordts, S. Pirandola, T. B. Pedersen, M. Kolb, B. ¨Omer, C. Pacher, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Nat Commun13, 4740 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    A. A. E. Hajomer, I. Derkach, N. Jain, H.-M. Chin, U. L. Andersen, and T. Gehring, Sci. Adv.10, eadi9474 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Chen, S. Pirandola, X. Wang, C. Zhou, B. Chu, Y. Zhao, B. Xu, S. Yu, and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 010502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    A. A. E. Hajomer, C. Bruynsteen, I. Derkach, N. Jain, A. Bomhals, S. Bastiaens, U. L. Andersen, X. Yin, and T. Gehring, Optica11, 1197 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Morimae, Phys

    T. Morimae, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 230502 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    N. C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 110501 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    Z.-H. Liu, R. Brunel, E. E. B. Østergaard, O. Cordero, S. Chen, Y. Wong, J. A. H. Nielsen, A. B. Bregnsbo, S. Zhou, H.-Y. Huang, C. Oh, L. Jiang, J. Preskill, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Science389, 1332 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    J. A. H. Nielsen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 123603 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Nat. Phys.16, 281 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Furrer, T

    F. Furrer, T. Gehring, C. Schaffner, C. Pacher, R. Schn- abel, and S. Wehner, Nat Commun9, 1450 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    L. S. Madsen, V. C. Usenko, M. Lassen, R. Filip, and U. L. Andersen, Nat Commun3, 1083 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Gehring, V

    T. Gehring, V. H¨ andchen, J. Duhme, F. Furrer, T. Franz, C. Pacher, R. F. Werner, and R. Schnabel, Nat Commun 6, 8795 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    C. S. Jacobsen, L. S. Madsen, V. C. Usenko, R. Filip, and U. L. Andersen, npj Quantum Inf4, 32 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Chesi, S

    G. Chesi, S. Olivares, and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032315 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Walsh, L

    A. Walsh, L. Conlon, B. Shajilal, O. Erkilic, J. Janousek, S. Assad, J. Zhao, and P. K. Lam, All-gaussian state dis- crimination beyond the coherent helstrom bound (2025), arXiv:2510.20096 [quant-ph]

    2025

  11. [18]

    R. E. S. Polkinghorne and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2095 (1999)

    1999

  12. [19]

    Furusawa, J

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

    1998

  13. [20]

    Grosshans and P

    F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 057902 (2002)

    2002

  14. [21]

    Weedbrook, A

    C. Weedbrook, A. M. Lance, W. P. Bowen, T. Symul, T. C. Ralph, and P. K. Lam, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 170504 (2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    N. J. Cerf, M. L´ evy, and G. V. Assche, Phys. Rev. A63, 052311 (2001)

    2001

  16. [23]

    M. S. Winnel, N. Hosseinidehaj, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A104, 012411 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Derkach, V

    I. Derkach, V. C. Usenko, and R. Filip, New Journal of Physics22, 053006 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Hosseinidehaj, M

    N. Hosseinidehaj, M. S. Winnel, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A105, 032602 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    V. C. Usenko and R. Filip, New J. Phys.13, 113007 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Arnbak, C

    J. Arnbak, C. S. Jacobsen, R. B. Andrade, X. Guo, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, U. L. Andersen, and T. Gehring, Opt. Express27, 37877 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Zhang, M

    Y. Zhang, M. Menotti, K. Tan, V. D. Vaidya, D. H. Mahler, L. G. Helt, L. Zatti, M. Liscidini, B. Morrison, and Z. Vernon, Nat Commun12, 2233 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Science377, 1333 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    T. Park, H. Stokowski, V. Ansari, S. Gyger, K. K. S. Multani, O. T. Celik, A. Y. Hwang, D. J. Dean, F. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, M. M. Fejer, and A. Safavi-Naeini, Sci. Adv.10, eadl1814 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    T. N. Arge, S. Jo, H. Q. Nguyen, F. Lenzini, E. Lomonte, J. A. H. Nielsen, R. R. Domeneguetti, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, W. Pernice, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Op- tica Quantum3, 467 (2025). 9

    2025

  25. [33]

    Huang, C

    J.-Z. Huang, C. Weedbrook, Z.-Q. Yin, S. Wang, H.-W. Li, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Phys. Rev. A87, 062329 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Jouguet, S

    P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, and E. Diamanti, Phys. Rev. A87, 062313 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Suleiman, J

    I. Suleiman, J. A. H. Nielsen, X. Guo, N. Jain, J. Neergaard-Nielsen, T. Gehring, and U. L. Andersen, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 045003 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Suleiman,Long-Distance Continuous Variable Quan- tum Communication, Ph.D

    I. Suleiman,Long-Distance Continuous Variable Quan- tum Communication, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Denmark (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    H.-M. Chin, N. Jain, U. L. Andersen, D. Zibar, and T. Gehring, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 045006 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    H.-M. Chin, N. Jain, D. Zibar, U. L. Andersen, and T. Gehring, npj Quantum Inf7, 20 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Zhang, W.-Q

    Z.-K. Zhang, W.-Q. Liu, J. Qi, C. He, and P. Huang, Phys. Rev. A107, 062614 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Erkılı¸ c, B

    ¨O. Erkılı¸ c, B. Shajilal, L. O. Conlon, A. Walsh, A. Das, S. Kish, T. Symul, P. K. Lam, S. M. Assad, and J. Zhao, Commun Phys8, 406 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    H. Q. Nguyen, I. Derkach, A. A. E. Hajomer, H.-M. Chin, A. nag Oruganti, U. L. Andersen, V. Usenko, and T. Gehring, npj Quantum Information11, 71 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Leverrier, Phys

    A. Leverrier, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 070501 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    A. A. E. Hajomer, N. Jain, H. Mani, H.-M. Chin, U. L. Andersen, and T. Gehring, npj Quantum Inf8, 136 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Z. Chen, X. Wang, S. Yu, Z. Li, and H. Guo, npj Quan- tum Inf9, 28 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    B. Qi, P. Lougovski, R. Pooser, W. Grice, and M. Bobrek, Phys. Rev. X5, 041009 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    T. C. Ralph, Physical Review A61, 010303 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    N. J. Cerf, M. Levy, and G. Van Assche, Physical Review A63, 052311 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on and N

    R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on and N. J. Cerf, Physical Review Letters 102, 130501 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Quantum Security Networks Partnership

    which yields a code efficiency ofβ=R punc/I(A:B), whereI(A:B) is the mutual information (MI) of the classical information held by Alice and Bob after the quantum phase of the protocol. The parameters used for error correction are shown in Table S1 and Table S2 in Supplementary...

    2020

  42. [50]

    H. Mani, T. Gehring, P. Grabenweger, B. ¨Omer, C. Pacher, and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. A103, 062419 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Liu, C.-L

    W.-B. Liu, C.-L. Li, Y.-M. Xie, C.-X. Weng, J. Gu, X.-Y. Cao, Y.-S. Lu, B.-H. Li, H.-L. Yin, and Z.-B. Chen, PRX Quantum2, 040334 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    A. A. E. Hajomer, C. Bruynsteen, I. Derkach, N. Jain, A. Bomhals, S. Bastiaens, U. L. Andersen, X. Yin, and T. Gehring, Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribu- tion at 10 GBaud using an Integrated Photonic-Electronic Receiver (2023), arXiv:2305.19642 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    S. Q. Ng, F. Kanitschar, G. Zhang, and C. Wang, Gigabit-rate quantum key distribution on integrated pho- tonic chips (2025), arXiv:2504.08298 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. Yin, P. Huang, Z. Zhou, T. Wang, X. Jiang, and G. Zeng, npj Quantum Inf11, 134 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Zheng, Q.-F

    X.-T. Zheng, Q.-F. Zhang, J. Ling, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, npj Quantum Inf11, 52 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Liao, W.-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.- G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, F.-Z. Li, X.- W. Chen, L.-H. Sun, J.-J. Jia, J.-C. Wu, X.-J. Jiang, J.- F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, Q. Wang, Y.-L. Zhou, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, Q. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, X...

    2017

  49. [57]

    Li, W.-Q

    Y. Li, W.-Q. Cai, J.-G. Ren, C.-Z. Wang, M. Yang, L. Zhang, H.-Y. Wu, L. Chang, J.-C. Wu, B. Jin, H.-J. Xue, X.-J. Li, H. Liu, G.-W. Yu, X.-Y. Tao, T. Chen, C.-F. Liu, W.-B. Luo, J. Zhou, H.-L. Yong, Y.-H. Li, F.- Z. Li, C. Jiang, H.-Z. Chen, C. Wu, X.-H. Tong, S.-J. Xie, F. Z...

    2025

  50. [58]

    Peuntinger, B

    C. Peuntinger, B. Heim, C. R. M¨ uller, C. Gabriel, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 060502 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Hillery, V

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

    1999

  52. [60]

    Cleve, D

    R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H.-K. Lo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 648 (1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    Schmid, P

    C. Schmid, P. Trojek, M. Bourennane, C. Kurtsiefer, M. ˙Zukowski, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 230505 (2005)

    2005

  54. [62]

    Chen, A.-N

    Y.-A. Chen, A.-N. Zhang, Z. Zhao, X.-Q. Zhou, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, T. Yang, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 200502 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    Xiao, H.-L

    Y.-R. Xiao, H.-L. Yin, W.-J. Hua, X.-Y. Cao, and Z.-B. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 150801 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    A. M. Lance, T. Symul, W. P. Bowen, B. C. Sanders, and P. K. Lam, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 177903 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    S. Liu, Z. Lu, P. Wang, Y. Tian, X. Wang, and Y. Li, npj Quantum Inf9, 92 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Q. Liao, Z. Fei, L. Huang, and X. Fu, Commun Phys8, 138 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    1 Supplementary Material: Practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution with squeezed light S

    DTU Computing Center resources, DTU Computing Center (2024). 1 Supplementary Material: Practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution with squeezed light S. I: Security model Alice 0.5 0.5 V1 V2 V3 VD η,ε Channel p xτ 0.5 FIG. S1: Equivalent entanglement based protocol...

    2024

  60. [109]

    Squeezed states continue to show superior performance even at longer distances

    The squeezing level was set to a realistic 3 dB with 3 SNU of anti-squeezed noise. Squeezed states continue to show superior performance even at longer distances. With a reconciliation efficiency ofβ= 0.95, the squeezed-state 5 (b)(a) β=0.95 β=0.98 FIG. S3: Difference in the s...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.