Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Security Analysis of Mode-Pairing Quantum Key Distribution with Flexible Pairing Strategy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A flexible pairing strategy is proven secure and lifts MP-QKD key rates by over 65 percent.

desk verdict A solid, incremental MP-QKD improvement with a plausible but sketched security proof; worth peer review with requests for formal lemmas and a fairer abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10868 v1 pith:V43QP4DP submitted 2025-05-16 quant-ph

Yi-Fei Lu , Yang Wang , Yan-Yang Zhou , Yu Zhou , Xiao-Lei Jiang , Xin-Hang Li , Hai-Tao Wang , Jia-Ji Li
show 5 more authors
Chun Zhou Hong-Wei Li Yu-Yao Guo Lin-Jie Zhou Wan-Su Bao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords mode-pairingquantumkeydistributiondecoy-statemethodentanglementmodelflexiblepairingstrategysecretratefinite-sizeanalysissecurityproof
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

Mode-pairing quantum key distribution (MP-QKD) forms key-carrying pairs from detection rounds chosen after Charlie's announcement, easing the photon-coincidence demand and giving a secret key rate that scales as $O(\sqrt{\eta})$ with channel transmission. This paper proposes a flexible pairing strategy in which effective rounds are kept or discarded according to a tunable save probability $p_{\rm save}$ that depends on the round's label, increasing the fraction of Z-basis pairs used for key generation while reserving enough X-basis pairs for parameter estimation. The authors prove the security of the decoy-state version by constructing an entanglement model for MP-QKD and showing its equivalence to the actual prepare-and-measure protocol. Their simulations report that the secret key rate is improved at all distances, by more than 65% within 375 km in the asymptotic case and by more than 50% within 400 km in the finite-size case, with an extended achievable distance when block lengths are small. The entanglement model is offered as a general framework for future security and performance analysis of decoy-state MP-QKD.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the entanglement model for decoy-state MP-QKD together with the save probability $p_{\rm save}$. In Box 3, Alice and Bob attach a virtual ancillary system to each phase-randomized coherent state, so the intensity choice is purified; after Charlie's announced detection they measure the ancillas collectively with the projectors $M_0,\dots,M_3$ to reproduce the protocol's round labels. In the Z basis, a phase gate $U_\delta=|01\rangle\langle01|+e^{i\delta}|10\rangle\langle10|$ aligns the encoded phases, turning the single-photon component into the entangled state $(|01\rangle|01\rangle+e^{i\delta}|10\rangle|10\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, from which key bits can be tagged. The argument then commutes, combines, and moves these ancillary operations earlier in the protocol (Boxes 4–7) until the scheme coincides with the prepare-and-measure protocol. The filter probability $p_{\rm save}$ is the second mechanism: by replacing the effective-round label $C_i$ with a filtered $C'_i$, it removes rounds that would form useless pairs and probabilistically keeps others, which shifts the balance toward Z-basis pairs.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to re-derive the protocol's single-photon yield and phase-error bounds by simulating the prepare-and-measure protocol directly, without using the entanglement-model reductions, and compare them with the bounds obtained from Box 3; a systematic mismatch would show the claimed equivalence does not hold. An operator-level proof that the ancillary measurement commutes with Eve's evolution in the Box 5-to-Box 6 step would also settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, in the paper's own framing, is that deliberately filtering effective rounds before pairing improves the efficiency of Z-basis pairs and thereby raises the secret key rate without weakening security. In the labeling of Box 1, rounds with label $L_i=2$ are always discarded, label-$0$ rounds are always kept, and labels $1$ and $3$ are kept with probability $p_{\rm save}$; optimizing $p_{\rm save}$ balances the number of key-generation pairs against the number of parameter-estimation pairs. Security is argued through an entanglement model (Box 3) in which each coherent state is purified by a virtual ancillary system, the ancillas are measured collectively with operators $M_0,\dots,M_3$, and a phase gate $U_\delta$ is applied in Z-basis pairs; the authors prove that this virtual scheme reduces step by step to the prepare-and-measure protocol of Box 1. On that basis the decoy-state parameter estimation gives lower bounds on the single-photon yield $n^z_{11}$ and upper bounds on the phase error rate $e^x_{11}$, and the simulated secret key rate exceeds that of the original pairing strategy at every distance considered.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the virtual entanglement version of the protocol is exactly equivalent to the real prepare-and-measure version, so a security proof on the virtual version transfers to the implemented one; the paper argues this equivalence through a chain of simplifications described in prose rather than formal derivation, and if any simplification fails the proof does not cover the actual protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the asymptotic limit, the flexible pairing strategy yields a secret key rate more than 65% higher than the original MP-QKD strategy within 375 km of standard fiber.
  • In the finite-size regime, the improvement is greater than 50% within 400 km, and the achievable distance is extended, particularly at small block lengths.
  • The secret key rate is improved at all simulated distances under the stated detector, dark-count, and fiber-loss parameters, with the largest relative gains at close range.
  • The optimal save probability $p_{\rm save}$ decreases toward zero as the asymptotic limit is approached, while finite-size statistics require larger $p_{\rm save}$ to keep enough X-basis pairs.
  • The entanglement model provides a reusable route for analyzing the security and performance of other decoy-state MP-QKD variants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implementation could tune $p_{\rm save}$ online from the observed channel loss and pair counts, rather than fixing it from a precomputed distance, to keep the protocol near its optimum under fluctuating conditions.
  • If the Box 3–7 equivalence is formalized as a full operator-level proof, the same entanglement construction may transfer to other post-measurement pairing protocols, including asynchronous measurement-device-independent variants with different label filters.
  • The reported gains are computed against the adjacent-round strategy of the original protocol; combining the flexible filter with X-basis re-pairing or wavelength-division multiplexing could be tested to see whether the improvements add.
  • A direct next test would be to run the same simulations with asymmetric Alice–Bob channel losses, since the paper assumes symmetric links, to see how the optimal $p_{\rm save}$ shifts.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a flexible pairing strategy for decoy-state mode-pairing QKD. Compared with the original adjacent-round pairing of Ref. [43], the new strategy first discards rounds that cannot contribute to Z-basis key pairs and retains rounds useful for parameter estimation with probability p_save, then pairs adjacent kept rounds within a maximum interval. The authors claim a security proof via an entanglement-based virtual protocol and an equivalence chain reducing that protocol to the prepare-and-measure scheme. They estimate key rates with decoy-state formulas adapted to the new pairing probabilities, and their simulations report improvements over the original scheme: greater than 65% within 375 km in the asymptotic case and greater than 50% within 400 km in the finite-size case, together with extended achievable distance for small block lengths. The simulation method in Appendix A is explicit, the comparison baseline is clearly identified, and p_save is optimized rather than fitted to data.

Significance. If the security reduction is made rigorous, the contribution is a useful practical improvement: the flexible pairing strategy is simple to implement, introduces no new hardware requirements, and the reported gains are substantial across a wide range of distances and block lengths. The paper also offers a virtual entanglement framework for decoy-state MP-QKD that could support future security analyses. The strengths of the work are the explicit simulation equations in Appendix A, the internally consistent decoy-state parameter estimation, and the clearly specified comparison with Ref. [43]. The main weakness is that the security proof is presented as a prose equivalence chain rather than as formal operator identities or a theorem; this is the load-bearing point that currently prevents the central claim from being fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, transition from Box 6 to Box 7] The equivalence between Box 6 and Box 7 is the critical step connecting the entanglement scheme to the prepare-and-measure scheme. The text asserts that the measurement of the ancillary system A'_k in step (iii''') can be commuted with Eve's evolution because it is 'not based on Charlie's operators.' In Box 3, however, that measurement is performed only on effective rounds, i.e., after post-selection on Charlie's announced detection result L_k⊕R_k=1. Moving the measurement to the state-preparation step turns a post-selected measurement into an unconditional measurement followed by post-selection. These two procedures do not commute in general. Please provide an explicit operator identity showing that measuring the ancilla before the channel and Charlie's announcement yields the same joint state and the same final statistics as measuring it after post-selection. Without this identity, the proof does not cover the actual protocol in Box 1.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Box 3(v) to Box 4] The phase gate U_delta in Eq. (7) is dropped on the grounds that it 'has no physical observability' on the subsequent measurement in the basis {|xy>}. Because U_delta is diagonal in the computational basis on the two-ancilla subspace, its effect on the raw key bit statistics is indeed trivial, but the claim that it does not affect the phase-error estimate requires a formal argument. The X-basis pairs in Box 3 are the pairs with label 2 in step (iii), on which U_delta is not applied, while the Z-basis pairs are measured in the computational basis; the manuscript should show explicitly that the definition of the phase-error events in step (v), the sifting conditions, and the estimate of e^x_11 are invariant under the removal of U_delta. As written, the proof skips this verification.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (24)-(33)] The parameter-estimation formulas are the second load-bearing part of the security claim. The bounds for n^z_11 and m_11 are introduced with the statement 'as [54]' and the finite-size analysis is also delegated to cited Chernoff and random-sampling results. Since the flexible pairing changes the probabilities p[τa,τb] through p_save, the reader needs a self-contained derivation of Eqs. (24)-(33), or at minimum an explicit statement of which theorem in Ref. [54] remains valid after replacing the pairing probabilities. In particular, the two-case split of [νa,νb] in Eq. (23) and the linear combinations n_ν and m_2ν in Eqs. (25) and (30) should be justified under the new pairing rule, so that it is clear the bounds are not merely adapted by analogy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Box 2] The code comment 'Keeping this round with practicality psave' should read 'with probability psave'.
  2. [Eq. (23)] The expressions for p[νa,νb]' and p[νa,νb]'' are written without explicit multiplication symbols, which makes them hard to read; for example, '2 ps psavepνapoapνbpob' should use parentheses or product signs.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (32)] The sentence 'Since the lower bound of n11;[2νa,2νb] can be obtained based on Eq. (26)' is misleading: Eq. (26) directly gives the lower bound for n11;[µa,µb], and Eq. (32) is a separate scaling relation. Please rephrase to avoid implying that Eq. (26) itself bounds the [2νa,2νb] term.
  4. [Fig. 8] The vertical axis of Fig. 8 is labeled only with numbers (0, 50, 100, 150, 200); add units or a percent sign so the improvement axis is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement-model proof and key-rate simulation do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The claimed secret-key-rate improvements are simulated outputs, not fitted constants. The flexible pairing strategy's parameter p_save is optimized as a protocol design choice, and the comparison baseline is the external original MP-QKD scheme (Ref. [43]). The security argument is an entanglement-based purification: Box 3 is constructed from the actual prepare-and-measure mixed states, with the ancilla label operators M0-M3 chosen to reproduce the Box 1 labels from (a_k,b_k); this is a by-design equivalence, not a hidden importation of the conclusion. The reductions through Boxes 4-7 use commutation of Alice's and Bob's private ancilla measurements with channel (Eve) evolution, plus the fact that the U_delta phase gate is diagonal in the subsequent {|xy>} measurement basis; these are structural arguments rather than outputs of the simulation. Parameter estimation invokes the external decoy-state bounds of Ref. [54] and random-sampling results of Refs. [66,67]; neither imports the claimed improvement. The only caveat is a rigor gap: the Box 3-to-Box 1 equivalence is presented in prose and would benefit from formal operator identities, and the finite-size treatment is cited rather than re-derived. That is a correctness/rigor risk, not circularity. No step was found in which a 'prediction' is equivalent by definition to an input, or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard QKD physical modeling plus two protocol-level parameters (psave, l). The most fragile input is the unproven equivalence argument in the security proof.

free parameters (2)
  • psave = 0 to 1, optimized per distance, block length, and pairing interval (Fig. 6)
    The save probability for label-1 and label-3 rounds controls the balance between Z-basis key pairs and X-basis estimation pairs; the claimed improvement depends on its optimization.
  • pairing interval l = 2e2, 2e4, 2e5 in simulations
    The maximal allowed distance between paired rounds; larger l improves improvement at long distance but increases error rate under misalignment.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The detection model in App. A (Poisson statistics, threshold detectors with efficiencies eta_d and dark counts p_d) accurately describes the physical channel.
    All simulated key rates are computed from Eqs. (38)-(49) under this model.
  • domain assumption The decoy-state linear-combination bounds in Eqs. (24)-(35), inherited from Ref. [54], remain valid for the flexible pairing probabilities p[tau_a,tau_b].
    The parameter estimation section adapts the method of [54] without re-deriving its validity.
  • ad hoc to paper The equivalence chain Boxes 3-7 in Sec. 3.1 holds: measurements on the virtual ancillary systems can be commuted with Eve's operation, combined, and moved to the state-preparation step.
    The security proof rests on this chain, which is argued in prose rather than proven.
  • domain assumption The local random variables s_i used to save rounds with probability psave are independent of the quantum emissions and of Eve's information.
    This independence justifies the pairing probabilities in Eqs. (2) and (21).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Security Analysis of Mode-Pairing Quantum Key Distribution with Flexible Pairing Strategy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V43QP4DP

@misc{pith2026250510868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Security Analysis of Mode-Pairing Quantum Key Distribution with Flexible Pairing Strategy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V43QP4DP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10868}
}
read the original abstract

Mode-pairing quantum key distribution (MP-QKD) is advantageous for long-distance secure communication, leveraging its simple implementation and quadratic scaling capacity. The post-measurement pairing in MP-QKD alleviates the photon-coincidence demands, which is essential for surpassing the fundamental limit to the key-rate transmission. In this work, we propose an improved decoy-state MP-QKD protocol featuring a flexible and efficient pairing strategy. We prove the security of the proposed scheme by presenting an entanglement model for decoy-state MP-QKD. The simulation results show that the secret key rate (SKR) can be enhanced among all distances. Notably, compared with the original scheme [Nature Communication 13, 3903 (2022)], the improvement of SKR is greater than 65\% within 375 km in the asymptotic case and greater than 50\% within 400 km in the finite case. And the achievable distance can be extended in the finite case, especially with a small block length. The simulation results demonstrate the high efficiency of the proposed scheme, which is expected to promote the practical applicability of MP-QKD. Furthermore, the entanglement model could provide a theoretical framework for further security and performance analysis of decoy-state MP-QKD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematics of MP-QKD protocol and pairing strategies. (a) Sketch of MP-QKD protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Secret key rate (per pulse) in logarithmic scale versus the transmission distance between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The improvement of the SKR with the flexible pairing strategy in this work compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Secret key rate (per pulse) in logarithmic scale versus the transmission distance between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The improvement of the SKR with the flexible pairing strategy in this work compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The optimal psave under various maximal block length N and pairing interval l. We first analyze the situation in a single round. Suppose Alice and Bob’s intensities are τ a k and τ b k and the phase difference is δ in the k-th round, the effective intensities after tra…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Secret key rate (per pulse) in logarithmic scale versus the transmission distance between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The improvement of the SKR with the flexible pairing strategy in this work compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Xie, J.L

    Y.M. Xie, J.L. Bai, Y.S. Lu, C.X. Weng, H.L. Yin, Z.B. Chen, Physical Review Applied 19(5), 054070 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [43]

    P. Zeng, H. Zhou, W. Wu, X. Ma, Nature Communications 13(1), 3903 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Bennett, G

    C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, Theoretical Computer Science 560, 7 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [2]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.K. Lo, J.W. Pan, Reviews of Modern Physics 92(2), 025002 (2020) 21

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Pirandola, U.L

    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. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V.C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, P. Wallden, Advances in Optics and Photonics 12(4), 1012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [4]

    Yin, T.Y

    H.L. Yin, T.Y. Chen, Z.W. Yu, H. Liu, L.X. You, Y.H. Zhou, S.J. Chen, Y. Mao, M.Q. Huang, W.J. Zhang, H. Chen, M.J. Li, D. Nolan, F. Zhou, X. Jiang, Z. Wang, Q. Zhang, X.B. Wang, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 117(19), 190501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [5]

    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, H. Zbinden, Physical Review Letters121(19), 190502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    Liao, W.Q

    S.K. Liao, W.Q. Cai, J. Handsteiner, B. Liu, J. Yin, L. Zhang, D. Rauch, M. Fink, J.G. Ren, W.Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, F.Z. Li, J.F. Wang, Y.M. Huang, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, L. Li, N.L. Liu, F. Koidl, P. Wang, Y.A. Chen, X.B. Wang, M. Steindorfer, G. Kirchner, C.Y. Lu, R. Shu, R. Ursin, T. Scheidl, C.Z. Peng, J.Y. Wang, A. Zeilinger, J.W. Pa...

    work page 2018

Show all 67 references
  1. [7]

    Pittaluga, M

    M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, M. Lucamarini, M. Sanzaro, R.I. Woodward, M.J. Li, Z. Yuan, A.J. Shields, Nature Photonics 15(7), 530 (2021)

    2021

  2. [8]

    Wang, Z.Q

    S. Wang, Z.Q. Yin, D.Y. He, W. Chen, R.Q. Wang, P. Ye, Y. Zhou, G.J. Fan-Yuan, F.X. Wang, W. Chen, Y.G. Zhu, P.V. Morozov, A.V. Divochiy, Z. Zhou, G.C. Guo, Z.F. Han, Nature Photonics 16(2), 154 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    J.P. Chen, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Jiang, D.F. Zhao, W.J. Zhang, F.X. Chen, H. Li, L.X. You, Z. Wang, Y. Chen, X.B. Wang, Q. Zhang, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 128(18), 180502 (2022)

    2022

  4. [10]

    Liu, W.J

    Y. Liu, W.J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J.P. Chen, C. Zhang, W.X. Pan, D. Ma, H. Dong, J.M. Xiong, C.J. Zhang, H. Li, R.C. Wang, J. Wu, T.Y. Chen, L. You, X.B. Wang, Q. Zhang, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 130(21), 210801 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Z. Yuan, A. Plews, R. Takahashi, K. Doi, W. Tam, A.W. Sharpe, A.R. Dixon, E. Lavelle, J.F. Dynes, A. Murakami, M. Kujiraoka, M. Lucamarini, Y. Tanizawa, H. Sato, A.J. Shields, Journal of Lightwave Technology 36(16), 3427 (2018)

    2018

  6. [12]

    Gr¨ unenfelder, A

    F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, G.V. Resta, M. Perrenoud, D. Rusca, C. Barreiro, R. Houlmann, R. Sax, L. Stasi, S. El-Khoury, E. H¨ anggi, N. Bosshard, F. Bussi` eres, H. Zbinden, Nature Pho- tonics 17(5), 422 (2023)

    2023

  7. [13]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, S.K. Liao, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, H.K. Mao, B. Yan, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, C.Z. Peng, L. You, F. Xu, J.W. Pan, Nature Photonics 17(5), 416 (2023) 22

    2023

  8. [14]

    C. Ma, W.D. Sacher, Z. Tang, J.C. Mikkelsen, Y. Yang, F. Xu, T. Thiessen, H.K. Lo, J.K.S. Poon, Optica 3(11), 1274 (2016)

    2016

  9. [15]

    Sibson, C

    P. Sibson, C. Erven, M. Godfrey, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, H. Terai, M.G. Tanner, C.M. Natarajan, R.H. Hadfield, J.L. O’Brien, M.G. Thompson, Nature Communications 8(1), 13984 (2017)

    2017

  10. [16]

    Bunandar, A

    D. Bunandar, A. Lentine, C. Lee, H. Cai, C.M. Long, N. Boynton, N. Martinez, C. DeRose, C. Chen, M. Grein, D. Trotter, A. Starbuck, A. Pomerene, S. Hamilton, F.N.C. Wong, R. Cama- cho, P. Davids, J. Urayama, D. Englund, Physical Review X 8(2), 021009 (2018)

    2018

  11. [17]

    Zhang, J.Y

    G. Zhang, J.Y. Haw, H. Cai, F. Xu, S.M. Assad, J.F. Fitzsimons, X. Zhou, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, J. Wu, W. Ser, L.C. Kwek, A.Q. Liu, Nature Photonics 13(12), 839 (2019)

    2019

  12. [18]

    K. Wei, W. Li, H. Tan, Y. Li, H. Min, W.J. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, X. Jiang, T.Y. Chen, S.K. Liao, C.Z. Peng, F. Xu, J.W. Pan, Physical Review X 10(3), 031030 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Semenenko, P

    H. Semenenko, P. Sibson, A. Hart, M.G. Thompson, J.G. Rarity, C. Erven, Optica 7(3), 238 (2020)

    2020

  14. [20]

    F.X. Wang, W. Wang, R. Niu, X. Wang, C.L. Zou, C.H. Dong, B.E. Little, S.T. Chu, H. Liu, P. Hao, S. Liu, S. Wang, Z.Q. Yin, D.Y. He, W. Zhang, W. Zhao, Z.F. Han, G.C. Guo, W. Chen, Laser and Photonics Reviews 14(2), 1900190 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    Elliott, A

    C. Elliott, A. Colvin, D. Pearson, O. Pikalo, J. Schlafer, H. Yeh, Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering (2005)

    2005

  16. [22]

    Stucki, M

    D. Stucki, M. Legr´ e, F. Buntschu, B. Clausen, N. Felber, N. Gisin, L. Henzen, P. Junod, G. Litzis- torf, P. Monbaron, L. Monat, J.B. Page, D. Perroud, G. Ribordy, A. Rochas, S. Robyr, J. Tavares, R. Thew, P. Trinkler, S. Ventura, R. Voirol, N. Walenta, H. Zbinden, New Journa...

    2011

  17. [23]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwara, H. Ishizuka, W. Klaus, K. Wakui, M. Takeoka, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, A. Tanaka, K. Yoshino, Y. Nambu, S. Takahashi, A. Tajima, A. Tomita, T. Domeki, T. Hasegawa, Y. Sakai, H. Kobayashi, T. Asai, K. Shimizu, T. Tokura, T. Tsurumaru, M. Matsui, T....

    2011

  18. [24]

    S. Wang, W. Chen, Z.Q. Yin, H.W. Li, D.Y. He, Y.H. Li, Z. Zhou, X.T. Song, F.Y. Li, D. Wang, H. Chen, Y.G. Han, J.Z. Huang, J.F. Guo, P.L. Hao, M. Li, C.M. Zhang, D. Liu, W.Y. Liang, C.H. Miao, P. Wu, G.C. Guo, Z.F. Han, Optics Express 22(18), 21739 (2014)

    2014

  19. [25]

    Y.A. Chen, Q. Zhang, T.Y. Chen, W.Q. Cai, S.K. Liao, J. Zhang, K. Chen, J. Yin, J.G. Ren, Z. Chen, S.L. Han, Q. Yu, K. Liang, F. Zhou, X. Yuan, M.S. Zhao, T.Y. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Zhang, 23 W.Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, C.Y. Lu, R. Shu, J.Y. Wang, L. Li, N.L. Liu, F. Xu, X....

    2021

  20. [26]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, S.L. Braunstein, S. Lloyd, Physical Review Letters102(5), 050503 (2009)

    2009

  21. [27]

    Takeoka, S

    M. Takeoka, S. Guha, M.M. Wilde, Nature Communications 5(1), 5235 (2014)

    2014

  22. [28]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, L. Banchi, Nature Communications 8(1), 15043 (2017)

    2017

  23. [29]

    S. Das, S. B¨ auml, M. Winczewski, K. Horodecki, Physical Review X 11(4), 041016 (2021)

    2021

  24. [30]

    Lucamarini, Z.L

    M. Lucamarini, Z.L. Yuan, J.F. Dynes, A.J. Shields, Nature 557(7705), 400 (2018)

    2018

  25. [31]

    X. Ma, P. Zeng, H. Zhou, Physical Review X 8(3), 031043 (2018)

    2018

  26. [32]

    Wang, Z.W

    X.B. Wang, Z.W. Yu, X.L. Hu, Physical Review A 98(6), 062323 (2018)

    2018

  27. [33]

    Curty, K

    M. Curty, K. Azuma, H.K. Lo, npj Quantum Information 5(1), 64 (2019)

    2019

  28. [34]

    Maeda, T

    K. Maeda, T. Sasaki, M. Koashi, Nature Communications 10(1), 3140 (2019)

    2019

  29. [35]

    Cui, Z.Q

    C. Cui, Z.Q. Yin, R. Wang, W. Chen, S. Wang, G.C. Guo, Z.F. Han, Physical Review Applied 11(3), 034053 (2019)

    2019

  30. [36]

    Zhong, J

    X. Zhong, J. Hu, M. Curty, L. Qian, H.K. Lo, Physical Review Letters 123(10), 100506 (2019)

    2019

  31. [37]

    X.T. Fang, P. Zeng, H. Liu, M. Zou, W. Wu, Y.L. Tang, Y.J. Sheng, Y. Xiang, W. Zhang, H. Li, Z. Wang, L. You, M.J. Li, H. Chen, Y.A. Chen, Q. Zhang, C.Z. Peng, X. Ma, T.Y. Chen, J.W. Pan, Nature Photonics 14(7), 422 (2020)

    2020

  32. [38]

    J.P. Chen, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Jiang, W.J. Zhang, Z.Y. Han, S.Z. Ma, X.L. Hu, Y.H. Li, H. Liu, F. Zhou, H.F. Jiang, T.Y. Chen, H. Li, L.X. You, Z. Wang, X.B. Wang, Q. Zhang, J.W. Pan, Nature Photonics 15(8), 570 (2021)

    2021

  33. [39]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, Y. Lu, Z.P. Li, C. Jiang, Y. Liu, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, X.B. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. You, F. Xu, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 130(25), 250802 (2023)

    2023

  34. [40]

    L. Zhou, J. Lin, Y. Jing, Z. Yuan, Nature Communications 14(1), 928 (2023)

    2023

  35. [41]

    J.P. Chen, F. Zhou, C. Zhang, C. Jiang, F.X. Chen, J. Huang, H. Li, L.X. You, X.B. Wang, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 132(26), 260802 (2024)

    2024

  36. [42]

    L. Zhou, J. Lin, C. Ge, Y. Fan, Z. Yuan, H. Dong, Y. Liu, D. Ma, J.P. Chen, C. Jiang, X.B. Wang, L.X. You, Q. Zhang, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Applied 22(6), 064057 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Xie, Y.S

    Y.M. Xie, Y.S. Lu, C.X. Weng, X.Y. Cao, Z.Y. Jia, Y. Bao, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, H.L. Yin, Z.B. Chen, PRX Quantum 3(2), 020315 (2022) 24

    2022

  38. [45]

    H.K. Lo, M. Curty, B. Qi, Physical Review Letters 108(13), 130503 (2012)

    2012

  39. [46]

    Braunstein, S

    S.L. Braunstein, S. Pirandola, Physical Review Letters 108(13), 130502 (2012)

    2012

  40. [47]

    X. Ma, M. Razavi, Physical Review A 86(6), 062319 (2012)

    2012

  41. [48]

    Y.F. Lu, Y. Wang, H.W. Li, M.S. Jiang, X.X. Zhang, Y.Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, X.L. Jiang, H.T. Wang, Y.M. Zhao, C. Zhou, W.S. Bao, Physical Review Research 7(2), 023102 (2025)

    2025

  42. [49]

    H.T. Zhu, Y. Huang, H. Liu, P. Zeng, M. Zou, Y. Dai, S. Tang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, Y.A. Chen, X. Ma, T.Y. Chen, J.W. Pan, Physical Review Letters 130(3), 030801 (2023)

    2023

  43. [50]

    L. Zhou, J. Lin, Y.M. Xie, Y.S. Lu, Y. Jing, H.L. Yin, Z. Yuan, Physical Review Letters 130(25), 250801 (2023)

    2023

  44. [51]

    H.T. Zhu, Y. Huang, W.X. Pan, C.W. Zhou, J. Tang, H. He, M. Cheng, X. Jin, M. Zou, S. Tang, X. Ma, T.Y. Chen, J.W. Pan, Optica 11(6), 883 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    C. Ge, L. Zhou, J. Lin, H.L. Yin, Q. Zeng, Z. Yuan, Quantum Science and Technology 10(1), 015046 (2025)

    2025

  46. [53]

    Zhou, J.R

    X.Y. Zhou, J.R. Hu, C.H. Zhang, Q. Wang, Optics Letters 50(2), 249 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Zhou, J.R

    X.Y. Zhou, J.R. Hu, C.H. Zhang, Q. Wang, Quantum Information Processing 24(3), 98 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Z.H. Wang, R. Wang, Z.Q. Yin, S. Wang, F.Y. Lu, W. Chen, D.Y. He, G.C. Guo, Z.F. Han, Communications Physics 6(1), 265 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Z. Lu, G. Wang, C. Li, Z. Cao, Physical Review A 109(1), 012401 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Z. Li, T. Dou, Y. Xie, W. Kong, Y. Liu, H. Ma, J. Tang, arXiv:2412.12593v2 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Z. Li, T. Dou, M. Cheng, Y. Liu, J. Tang, Optics Letters 49(23), 6609 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    X. Liu, D. Luo, Z. Zhang, K. Wei, Physical Review A 107(6), 062613 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Zhou, J.R

    X.Y. Zhou, J.R. Hu, J.J. Wang, Y. Cao, C.H. Zhang, Q. Wang, Optics Express 32(10), 18366 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Z. Cao, Z. Zhang, H.K. Lo, X. Ma, New Journal of Physics 17(5), 053014 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Zhang, Z

    C.M. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y.D. Wu, J.R. Zhu, R. Wang, H.W. Li, Physical Review A 109(5), 052432 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Gottesman, H.K

    D. Gottesman, H.K. Lo, N. L¨ utkenhaus, J. Preskill, Quantum Information and Computation4(5), 325 (2004) 25

    2004

  57. [65]

    Zhang, Q

    Z. Zhang, Q. Zhao, M. Razavi, X. Ma, Physical Review A 95(1), 012333 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Curty, F

    M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C.C. Lim, K. Tamaki, H.K. Lo, Nature Communications 5(1), 3732 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    C.C.W. Lim, M. Curty, N. Walenta, F. Xu, H. Zbinden, Physical Review A 89(2), 022307 (2014) 26

    2014

Pith tools

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