Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

High-dimensional quantum key distribution with resource-efficient detection

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-dimensional time-phase BB84 key distribution can be done with one single-photon detector per basis by using the temporal Talbot effect to decode the control basis, with positive key rates measured for d=2 and d=4 over fiber.

desk verdict An honest proof-of-principle of Talbot-effect detection for HD QKD, but the positive rates are not secure and the proposed fix rests on a simulation with unstated transmitter changes. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16782 v2 pith:VNY5IJ3N submitted 2024-12-21 quant-ph

Maciej Ogrodnik , Adam Widomski , Dagmar Bru{ss} , Giovanni Chesi , Federico Grasselli , Hermann Kampermann , Chiara Macchiavello , Nathan Walk
show 2 more authors
Nikolai Wyderka Micha{l} Karpiński
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords high-dimensionalquantumkeydistributiontemporalTalboteffecttime-phaseencodingsingle-photondetectionbasis-dependentefficiencytunablebeamsplitterdecoy-statemethodurbanfibernetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a proof-of-principle high-dimensional time-phase BB84 quantum key distribution experiment that needs only one single-photon detector per measurement basis. The control basis is read out through the temporal Talbot effect: a dispersive medium stretches phase superpositions into time-of-arrival patterns whose peak positions encode the phase, so no interferometer tree or active switching is required. For two-dimensional and four-dimensional encoding, positive simplistic key rates are demonstrated in the lab and over an urban dark-fiber link. The paper then applies a stricter security proof that accounts for basis-dependent detection efficiency; with the present setup that proof yields negative key rates, and the paper shows that inserting a matched attenuator and a tunable beam splitter would restore positive rates. If correct, this establishes the Talbot effect as a resource-efficient detection method while quantifying the security cost of the efficiency asymmetry it introduces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temporal Talbot effect: a dispersive medium with group delay dispersion $\beta_2$ chosen so that pulse separation $\tau = \sqrt{2\pi\beta_2/s}$ maps each Fourier-basis superposition to a time-of-arrival distribution whose peak location is determined by the relative phases of the time-bin components. It turns the conjugate-basis measurement into a single time-of-arrival readout, so one detector per basis suffices; the trade-off is overlapping probability densities that scale the X-basis detection error with dimension and jitter, plus the wavelength-dependent delays that cause the basis-efficiency mismatch at the center of the security discussion. The tunable beam splitter plus attenuator is the proposed remedy that the stricter proof of [48] requires.

What would settle it

Quantum detector tomography of Bob's control-basis line (dispersion module, filters, and time tagger) would settle the claim: if the reconstructed measurement does not match the ideal Fourier-basis projectors, or if the measured X-basis error rate departs from the Talbot model by more than the stated 11 ps RMS jitter at several attenuations, then the key-rate analyses are evaluating a different measurement than the protocol assumes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the temporal Talbot effect, realized by a single dispersive module and a time-correlated single-photon counter, constitutes a viable resource-efficient receiver for high-dimensional time-phase BB84 QKD: the same receiver architecture works for any dimension, and for d=2 and d=4 it yields positive asymptotic key rates when assessed with the standard qudit BB84 security proof, even though X-basis QBERs are high (about 22% for d=2 and 36% for d=4). The flip side is that the dispersive detection creates a basis-dependent and mode-dependent detection efficiency that violates the standard proof's assumptions; applying the security analysis of [48] for the actual parameters gives negative key rates for the unmodified setup, and the paper argues that equalizing the efficiencies with an attenuator and introducing a tunable beam splitter would make the rates positive again.

Load-bearing premise

Everything stands on the assumption that the dispersive line in the receiver really turns each sent phase state into the arrival-time pattern that the calculation assumes; if the Talbot model is wrong for these pulse widths and spacings, the measured error rates cannot be plugged into either security proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Qubit encoding is outperformed by ququart encoding in both laboratory and urban-fiber tests despite the higher X-basis QBER of the ququarts, indicating a real advantage for high-dimensional encoding in this detector scheme.
  • The temporal Talbot receiver is passive, dimension-agnostic, and uses one detector per basis, so increasing the alphabet does not multiply the number of interferometers or detectors, and the same architecture can be scaled to higher dimensions.
  • According to the stricter proof, the current setup would deliver negative key rates; a matched attenuator in the Z basis plus a tunable beam splitter would restore positive rates, meaning the scheme's viability is conditional on closing the efficiency-mismatch loophole.
  • The simulation of key rate vs channel loss shows an optimal dimension that is not the maximum allowed by source and timing constraints, because detection error grows with dimension and jitter; for the measured parameters, d=4 and d=8 give the best rates.
  • Because the basis-efficiency mismatch arises from any spectro-temporal decoding with dispersive elements, the security issue is not specific to this setup but generic to time-frequency QKD implementations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops at simulating the tunable-beam-splitter fix; actually building the attenuator-balanced receiver and running the same urban-fiber tests would verify that positive rates survive in practice.
  • Because the key-rate optimum shifts with jitter, a modest detector upgrade (below a few ps RMS) would likely make d=8 or d=16 the preferred alphabet, which the current hardware does not explore.
  • The same dispersive receiver could serve other prepare-and-measure protocols, since the Talbot condition only fixes the relation between pulse spacing and dispersion, not the choice of encoded states.
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 a proof-of-principle high-dimensional time-phase BB84 QKD experiment that uses one single-photon detector per basis, with the temporal Talbot effect serving as the control-basis measurement. The authors demonstrate two- and four-dimensional encoding over laboratory and urban dark-fiber links, report measured QBERs and positive 'simplistic' key rates obtained from the standard decoy-BB84 formula, and compare these with a newer security proof [48] that accounts for basis-dependent detection efficiency. They argue that the rigorous proof gives negative rates for their current parameters and that adding a tunable beam splitter and attenuators would restore positive key rates. The experimental sections are supported by histograms, QBER tables, and intensity tables in the Supplement.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a useful, resource-efficient receiver architecture for high-dimensional QKD and a concrete demonstration that basis-detection-efficiency asymmetry can be security-relevant. The paper is commendably transparent: it explicitly labels the standard-proof rates as 'simplistic', acknowledges the security gap, and provides the measured decoy intensities and QBER values. However, the quantitative case for the proposed remedy (TBS plus attenuator) is built on a simulation whose decoy intensities differ from the demonstrated source by 50–60 dB, so the paper's concluding recommendation is not yet supported for the actual setup. This is a load-bearing gap rather than a mere presentation issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Fig. 8 and Supplement 1, Sec. 2] The positive key rates in Fig. 8 are computed with fixed decoy intensities μ2 = 2×10⁻⁶ and μ3 = 1×10⁻⁶, whereas the measured decoy intensities in Tables 3 and 4 are μ2 ≈ (0.45–7.0)×10⁻³ and μ3 ≈ (0.03–1.1)×10⁻³ for signal intensities μ1 ≈ 0.06–0.46. The simulated decoy ratios are thus 50–60 dB below the signal, while the source provides only about 10–30 dB separation, and for the 0.1 dB imbalance case the optimized μ1 = 28.58×10⁻³ is also below the measured signal level. Therefore, Fig. 8 does not demonstrate that the Bob-side attenuator/TBS modification alone rescues the setup; it requires an unstated transmitter upgrade to much deeper decoys. The conclusion that the rigorous proof 'will produce positive key rates with appropriate modifications' is not supported for the demonstrated configuration.
  2. [Section 6] The statement 'For our set of experimental parameters the resulting key rate would be negative' is not backed by any quantitative result in the main text or the Supplement. Fig. 8 shows only positive curves for the idealized parameters. The paper should either provide the actual negative-rate calculation for the measured intensities and decoy ratios, or state explicitly which of the experimental parameters (e.g., the measured μ ratios rather than the idealized ones) lead to negative rates. Without this, the comparison between the standard and the TBS-based proof is incomplete.
  3. [Sections 2, 4, and 5] The security analysis, including the application of the proof in [48], assumes that the temporal Talbot effect implements the conjugate (Fourier) basis measurement, with Eq. (3) as the Talbot condition. The paper does not provide an experimental validation of the implemented POVM against the ideal MUB, and the measured X-basis QBERs (21–37%) deviate noticeably from the simulated detection-error values in Supplement 1 (e.g., 21.97% vs. measured 21.83% for d=2, and the d=4 values differ as well). Since the phase-error estimate in the security proof depends on the measurement being the intended MUB, the manuscript should quantify how close the realized measurement is to the ideal basis (e.g., via a fidelity or a direct tomographic estimate) and discuss how residual mode-dependent deviations affect the validity of the key-rate calculation. This is a correctness-risk concern, not an accusation of error.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) as printed appears garbled: 'τ = r / (2πβ2 s)' is not a clear relation. For the experimental values β2 = 12900 ps² and s = 1, the condition should give τ ≈ 284.6 ps, suggesting the intended expression is τ = √(2πβ2/s). Please correct the equation.
  2. [Supplement 1, Section 1] In the paragraph listing simulated X-basis detection error rates, the text reads 'ERROR X = 21.97% for d = 2, and ERROR X = 34.56% for d = 2'; the second dimension should presumably be d = 4.
  3. [Section 6, final paragraph] The sentence 'This shows that the more rigorous proof [48] will produce positive key rates with the appropriate modifications of the setup' is duplicated verbatim; one occurrence should be removed.
  4. [Section 4 vs. Section 2] The pulse parameters are stated as 46 ps wide with 284 ps separation in Section 2, but Section 4 reports 70 ps wide and 279 ps separation. This should be clarified, for example by specifying that the former are the programmed electrical/optical values and the latter are the measured values.
  5. [Section 5] The statement that 'the attenuation was applied in post-processing' for the data in Fig. 6 should be expanded: explain exactly how the Z-basis detection events were reweighted to match the X-basis efficiency, and how the different detector efficiencies (84% vs. 81%) and dark-count rates enter the effective gains used in Eq. (4).
  6. [Section 6] The claim that the key rate is negative for the experimental parameters should be accompanied by a figure or table; as written, the reader cannot verify or reproduce the negative result from the information given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: key rates are evaluated from measured data using cited external formulas, and the Talbot-effect detection model is an independently published result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental feasibility of Talbot-effect-based high-dimensional QKD and a security comparison. The 'simplistic' key rates are computed with Eq. (4), explicitly cited to [48], using experimentally measured gains, QBERs, and intensities (Tables 1-4 and Supplement 1); they are evaluations, not derivations from the claimed conclusion. The Talbot-effect detection model is imported from [31], and the temporal self-imaging condition Eq. (3) is a standard external result [46,47]; the paper does not define the target quantity in terms of itself. The negative-rate result under basis-dependent efficiency and the positive-rate TBS curves are simulations using the security proof of [48]; although [31] and [48] share authors with the present work, both are published, independently stated results with their own experimental or theoretical content, so per the review rules they count as real evidence and do not raise the circularity score. The TBS-positive-rate simulation uses idealized decoy intensities (µ2 = 2e-6, µ3 = 1e-6) rather than the measured source values; this is a parameter-matching concern for extrapolating to the demonstrated setup, but it is not a circular reduction because the output is not set equal to an input by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-smuggling step can be exhibited with a specific equation-to-equation reduction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for its main experimental claim, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its theoretical inputs are the temporal Talbot detection model [31] and the basis-dependent security proof [48], both by overlapping groups. The free parameters are the decoy-protocol intensities and the assumed jitter; they are not fitted to force the reported key rates.

free parameters (3)
  • Signal intensity µ1 = d=2: 0.65; d=4: 0.77; d=8: 0.76; d=16: 0.62; d=32: 0.39 (simulations); lab: 0.064 (d=2), 0.0617 (d=4)
    Optimized to maximize the asymptotic key rate in the decoy-state protocol. Standard practice in QKD analysis, but it is a chosen parameter that affects the reported key rates.
  • Detection jitter (RMS) = 15 ps for main simulations; 11 ps measured
    Used to simulate X-basis detection error rates, which strongly influence the key rate. The measured value is reported, but the simulations use an assumed 15 ps.
  • Weak decoy intensities µ2, µ3 = µ2 = 2e-6, µ3 = 1e-6 in simulations
    Chosen to be low for effective decoy-state analysis; consistent with the experimental extinction ratio but not directly measured in the simulations.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Asymptotic decoy-state BB84 key rate formula (Eq. 4) from [48] is valid for the standard HD BB84 protocol, including the assumption of basis-independent detection efficiency.
    Used in Section 4 to compute 'simplistic' key rates. The paper explicitly notes that the basis-independence assumption is violated in the experiment, so this is an acknowledged but violated assumption.
  • domain assumption Temporal Talbot effect model from [31] correctly predicts the relationship between pulse separation, GDD, and X-basis error rates.
    The experiment's X-basis detection relies on this model; simulations of QBER and key rates in Fig. 5 and 8 use it.
  • domain assumption Security proof of [48] for the tunable beam splitter protocol correctly bounds the key rate under asymmetric detection efficiencies.
    Section 6 uses this proof to compute negative key rates for the current setup and positive rates after balancing. This is a cited theoretical result by overlapping authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-dimensional quantum key distribution with resource-efficient detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNY5IJ3N

@misc{pith2026241216782,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-dimensional quantum key distribution with resource-efficient detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNY5IJ3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16782}
}
read the original abstract

While quantum key distribution (QKD) based on two-dimensional (qubit) encoding is a mature, field-tested technology, its performance is lacking for many cryptographic applications. High-dimensional encoding for QKD enables increased achievable key rates and robustness as compared to the standard qubit-based systems. However, experimental implementations of such systems are more complicated, expensive, and require careful security analysis as they are less common. In this work we present a proof of principle high-dimensional time-phase BB84 QKD experiment using only one single-photon detector per measurement basis. We employ the temporal Talbot effect to detect QKD symbols in the control basis, and show experimentally-obtained simplistic key rates for the two-dimensional and four-dimensional case, including in an urban fiber network. We present a comparison of a simplistic secret key rate obtained from a standard security proof with the one derived from a recently devised proof using a tunable beam splitter to display security issues stemming from asymmetric detection efficiencies in the two bases. Our results contribute to the discussion of the benefits of high-dimensional encoding and highlight the impact of security analysis on the achievable QKD performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16782 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. State preparation. a) Generating high-dimensional states. The symbols were approximately rectangular opti￾cal pulses attenuated to single-photon level, 46 ps wide, and separated by 284 ps. Electrical signals used to impose phase modulation were 150 ps wide, and their amplitude was ad￾justed with respect to the half-wave voltage of the employed phase modulator, cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the key components of the experimen￾tal setup. A continuous wave (CW) laser is modulated with a Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) and phase modulator (EOPM) to generate optical pulses forming superpositions used as signals and decoy states. The optical signals are at￾tenuated to a single photon level with a variable attenuator (EVOA). Attenuation of the quantum channel is controlled with another EVOA. Two sp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Locations of the nodes of the dark fiber network of the University of Warsaw, overlaid on an Open Street Map of central Warsaw. Due to the network’s architecture the signals were routed over a 13-km-long fiber link via the University’s southern campus from node 2 to 3. Node 4 is located at a His￾toric Site of the European Physical Society (EPS). voltage signals consisting of approximately 150-ps-wide rectan￾gular pu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of two and four-dimensional quantum states used in the QKD experiment measured for the infras￾tructure node no. 4 at ul. Hoza 69. The states were generated ˙ in the pseudo-random order, and the resultant sequence was transmitted for a minute. a) Z-basis symb…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detection error rate of the temporal Talbot effect based method is the main ingredient of the X-basis QBER. It de￾pends on the dimension and the detector timing jitter [31]. It affects the simplistic key rates obtained with the standard high-dimensional BB84 proof. Hen…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimentally obtained simplistic key rates per pulse for two and four-dimensional encoding a) In-laboratory mea￾surements including the two optional fiber spools. b) Measure￾ments over dark fiber infrastructure with and without the two fiber spools. The fluctuations …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated key rate per pulse values considering 0.1 dB and 0.01 dB efficiency mismatch obtained according to the se￾curity proof provided in [48]. Key rate values were optimized over intensity µ1 with fixed µ2 = 2 × 10−6 , µ3 = 1 × 10−6 (optimal values of µ1 are provid…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tunable beam splitter (TBS). a) Schematic of a tunable beam splitter used on Bob’s side. The incoming signal is split and detected either in the X or the Z basis. b) Transmission of the TBS is set to a value ηi inside the window where the prepared symbol is expected, a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Z-basis detection error scaling with modulator’s extinction ratio. Extinction ratios higher than 20 dB result in detection error rate values lower than 1%. The typical extinction ratio of MZMs is 40 dB. Even if full dynamic range is not used during modulation, the resu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Quantum key distribution with basis-dependent detection probability,

    F . Grasselli, G. Chesi, N. Walk,et al., “Quantum key distribution with basis-dependent detection probability,” Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 044011 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Aaronson, P ?= NP (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016), pp

    S. Aaronson, P ?= NP (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016), pp. 1–122

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Quantum cryptography in algorithmica,

    W. Kretschmer, L. Qian, M. Sinha, and A. Tal, “Quantum cryptography in algorithmica,” in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, (Association for Computing Machinery, New Y ork, NY , USA, 2023), STOC 2023, p. 1589–1602

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Attacks on practical quantum key distribution systems (and how to prevent them),

    N. Jain, B. Stiller, I. Khan, et al., “Attacks on practical quantum key distribution systems (and how to prevent them),” Contemp. Phys.57, 366–387 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    An approach for security evaluation and certification of a complete quantum communication system,

    S. Sajeed, P . Chaiwongkhot, A. Huang,et al., “An approach for security evaluation and certification of a complete quantum communication system,” Sci. Reports 11, 5110 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices,

    F . Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang,et al., “Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices,” Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Advances in quantum cryptography,

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, et al., “Advances in quantum cryptography,” Adv. Opt. Photon.12, 1012–1236 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Fast single-photon detectors and real-time key distillation enable high secret-key-rate quantum key distribution systems,

    F . Grünenfelder, A. Boaron, G. V. Resta, et al. , “Fast single-photon detectors and real-time key distillation enable high secret-key-rate quantum key distribution systems,” Nat. Photonics 17, 422–426 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 mb s–1,

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, et al. , “High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 mb s–1,” Nat. Photonics17, 416–421 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    10-mb/s quantum key distribu- tion,

    Z. Yuan, A. Plews, R. Takahashi,et al., “10-mb/s quantum key distribu- tion,” J. Light. Technol.36, 3427–3433 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    The secoqc quantum key distribution network in vienna,

    M. Peev, C. Pacher, R. Alléaume, et al. , “The secoqc quantum key distribution network in vienna,” New J. Phys.11, 075001 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    Efficient time-bin encoding for practical high-dimensional quantum key distribution,

    I. Vagniluca, B. Da Lio, D. Rusca, et al., “Efficient time-bin encoding for practical high-dimensional quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014051 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Quantum key distribution imple- mented with d-level time-bin entangled photons,

    H. Yu, S. Sciara, M. Chemnitz, et al., “Quantum key distribution imple- mented with d-level time-bin entangled photons,” Nat. Commun. 16, 171 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Security of quantum key distribution using d-level systems,

    N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, “Security of quantum key distribution using d-level systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 127902 (2002)

    2002

  7. [14]

    Security proof for quantum key distribution using qudit systems,

    L. Sheridan and V. Scarani, “Security proof for quantum key distribution using qudit systems,” Phys. Rev. A82, 030301 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Provably secure and high-rate quantum key distribution with time-bin qudits,

    N. T. Islam, C. C. W. Lim, C. Cahall, et al. , “Provably secure and high-rate quantum key distribution with time-bin qudits,” Sci. Adv. 3, e1701491 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    High- dimensional quantum communication: Benefits, progress, and future challenges,

    D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxenløwe, “High- dimensional quantum communication: Benefits, progress, and future challenges,” Adv. Quantum Technol.2, 1900038 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    High-dimensional intracity quantum cryptography with structured photons,

    A. Sit, F . Bouchard, R. Fickler, et al. , “High-dimensional intracity quantum cryptography with structured photons,” Optica 4, 1006–1010 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    Experimental investiga- tion of high-dimensional quantum key distribution protocols with twisted photons,

    F . Bouchard, K. Heshami, D. England,et al., “Experimental investiga- tion of high-dimensional quantum key distribution protocols with twisted photons,” Quantum 2, 111 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    High- dimensional quantum cryptography with twisted light,

    M. Mirhosseini, O. S. Magaña-Loaiza, M. N. O’Sullivan, et al., “High- dimensional quantum cryptography with twisted light,” New J. Phys.17, 033033 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Orbital angular momentum states enabling fiber-based high-dimensional quantum communication,

    D. Cozzolino, D. Bacco, B. Da Lio,et al., “Orbital angular momentum states enabling fiber-based high-dimensional quantum communication,” Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 064058 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Characterizing high-quality high-dimensional quantum key distribution by state mapping between different degrees of freedom,

    F .-X. Wang, W. Chen, Z.-Q. Yin, et al. , “Characterizing high-quality high-dimensional quantum key distribution by state mapping between different degrees of freedom,” Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 024070 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Photon-efficient quantum key distribution using time–energy entanglement with high-dimensional encoding,

    T. Zhong, H. Zhou, R. D. Horansky,et al., “Photon-efficient quantum key distribution using time–energy entanglement with high-dimensional encoding,” New J. Phys.17, 022002 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    On-chip generation of high- dimensional entangled quantum states and their coherent control,

    M. Kues, C. Reimer, P . Roztocki,et al., “On-chip generation of high- dimensional entangled quantum states and their coherent control,” Nature 546, 622–626 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    Large-alphabet encoding for higher-rate quantum key distribution,

    C. Lee, D. Bunandar, Z. Zhang, et al., “Large-alphabet encoding for higher-rate quantum key distribution,” Opt. Express27, 17539–17549 (2019)

    2019

  18. [25]

    Distribution of high- Research Article 9 dimensional entanglement via an intra-city free-space link,

    F . Steinlechner, S. Ecker, M. Fink, et al. , “Distribution of high- Research Article 9 dimensional entanglement via an intra-city free-space link,” Nat. com- munications 8, 1–7 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Secure quantum key distribution over 421 km of optical fiber,

    A. Boaron, G. Boso, D. Rusca, et al., “Secure quantum key distribution over 421 km of optical fiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 190502 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Genuine time-bin-encoded quantum key distribution over a turbulent depolarizing free-space chan- nel,

    J. Jin, J.-P . Bourgoin, R. Tannous,et al., “Genuine time-bin-encoded quantum key distribution over a turbulent depolarizing free-space chan- nel,” Opt. Express 27, 37214–37223 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Bell inequality for position and time,

    J. D. Franson, “Bell inequality for position and time,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205 (1989)

    1989

  22. [29]

    Robust and stable delay interferometers with application to d-dimensional time-frequency quantum key distribution,

    N. T. Islam, C. Cahall, A. Aragoneses, et al. , “Robust and stable delay interferometers with application to d-dimensional time-frequency quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. Appl.7, 044010 (2017)

    2017

  23. [30]

    Security of high- dimensional quantum key distribution protocols using Franson interfer- ometers,

    T. Brougham, S. M. Barnett, K. T. McCusker,et al., “Security of high- dimensional quantum key distribution protocols using Franson interfer- ometers,” J. Phys. B46, 104010 (2013)

    2013

  24. [31]

    Efficient detection of multidimensional single-photon time-bin superpositions,

    A. Widomski, M. Ogrodnik, and M. Karpi ´nski, “Efficient detection of multidimensional single-photon time-bin superpositions,” Optica 11, 926–931 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Postselection-loophole-free bell violation with genuine time-bin entanglement,

    F . Vedovato, C. Agnesi, M. Tomasin,et al., “Postselection-loophole-free bell violation with genuine time-bin entanglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 190401 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    Proof-of-principle experimental realization of a qubit-like qudit-based quantum key distribution scheme,

    H. F . Chau, W. Chen, C. Wang,et al., “Proof-of-principle experimental realization of a qubit-like qudit-based quantum key distribution scheme,” Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 025006 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    A quantum pulse gate based on spectrally engineered sum frequency generation,

    A. Eckstein, B. Brecht, and C. Silberhorn, “A quantum pulse gate based on spectrally engineered sum frequency generation,” Opt. Express 19, 13770–13778 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    High-selectivity quantum pulse gating of photonic temporal modes using all-optical Ramsey interferometry,

    D. V. Reddy and M. G. Raymer, “High-selectivity quantum pulse gating of photonic temporal modes using all-optical Ramsey interferometry,” Optica 5, 423–428 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Realization of a multi-output quantum pulse gate for decoding high-dimensional temporal modes of single-photon states,

    L. Serino, J. Gil-Lopez, M. Stefszky,et al., “Realization of a multi-output quantum pulse gate for decoding high-dimensional temporal modes of single-photon states,” PRX Quantum 4, 020306 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Temporal mode transformations by sequential time and frequency phase modulation for applications in quantum information science,

    J. Ashby, V. Thiel, M. Allgaier,et al., “Temporal mode transformations by sequential time and frequency phase modulation for applications in quantum information science,” Opt. Express 28, 38376–38389 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    Picosecond-resolution single- photon time lens for temporal mode quantum processing,

    C. Joshi, B. M. Sparkes, A. Farsi, et al., “Picosecond-resolution single- photon time lens for temporal mode quantum processing,” Optica 9, 364–373 (2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    Control and measure- ment of quantum light pulses for quantum information science and technology,

    M. Karpi ´nski, A. O. C. Davis, F . So´snicki, et al., “Control and measure- ment of quantum light pulses for quantum information science and technology,” Adv. Quantum Technol.4, 2000150 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    Security of quantum key dis- tribution with detection-efficiency mismatch in the single-photon case: Tight bounds,

    M. K. Bochkov and A. S. Trushechkin, “Security of quantum key dis- tribution with detection-efficiency mismatch in the single-photon case: Tight bounds,” Phys. Rev. A99, 032308 (2019)

    2019

  34. [41]

    Security of quantum key distribution with detection- efficiency mismatch in the multiphoton case,

    A. Trushechkin, “Security of quantum key distribution with detection- efficiency mismatch in the multiphoton case,” Quantum 6, 771 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    Entanglement verification with detection- efficiency mismatch,

    Y . Zhang and N. Lütkenhaus, “Entanglement verification with detection- efficiency mismatch,” Phys. Rev. A95, 042319 (2017)

    2017

  36. [43]

    Security proof of quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch,

    C.-H. F . Fung, K. Tamaki, B. Qi,et al., “Security proof of quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch,” Quantum Info. Comput. 9, 131–165 (2009)

    2009

  37. [44]

    Security of quantum key distribution with bit and basis dependent detector flaws,

    L. Lydersen and J. Skaar, “Security of quantum key distribution with bit and basis dependent detector flaws,” Quantum Info. Comput. 10, 60–76 (2010)

    2010

  38. [45]

    Operational interpretation of coherence in quantum key distribution,

    J. Ma, Y . Zhou, X. Yuan, and X. Ma, “Operational interpretation of coherence in quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 062325 (2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    Facts relating to optical science. No. IV,

    H. F . Talbot, “Facts relating to optical science. No. IV,” Philos. Mag.9, 401–407 (1836)

  40. [47]

    Temporal self-imaging effect in single- mode fibers,

    T. Jannson and J. Jannson, “Temporal self-imaging effect in single- mode fibers,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.71, 1373–1376 (1981)

    1981

  41. [49]

    Barnett, Quantum information , vol

    S. Barnett, Quantum information , vol. 16 (Oxford University Press, 2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Grasselli, Quantum Cryptography (SpringerCham, 2021)

    F . Grasselli, Quantum Cryptography (SpringerCham, 2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography,

    X.-B. Wang, “Beating the photon-number-splitting attack in practical quantum cryptography,” Phys. review letters94, 230503 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Finite-key analysis for the 1-decoy state qkd protocol,

    D. Rusca, A. Boaron, F . Grünenfelder,et al., “Finite-key analysis for the 1-decoy state qkd protocol,” Appl. Phys. Lett.112 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Practical implementation and evaluation of a quantum-key-distribution scheme based on the time-frequency uncertainty,

    M. Leifgen, R. Elschner, N. Perlot, et al. , “Practical implementation and evaluation of a quantum-key-distribution scheme based on the time-frequency uncertainty,” Phys. Rev. A92, 042311 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Detector decoy quantum key distribution,

    T. Moroder, M. Curty, and N. Lütkenhaus, “Detector decoy quantum key distribution,” New J. Phys.11, 045008 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Chip-based quantum key distribution,

    P . Sibson, C. Erven, M. Godfrey, et al. , “Chip-based quantum key distribution,” Nat. Commun. 8, 13984 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Precise on-chip spectral and temporal control of single-photon-level optical pulses,

    A. Widomski, S. Stopi ´nski, K. Anders, et al., “Precise on-chip spectral and temporal control of single-photon-level optical pulses,” J. Light. Technol. pp. 1–8 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Temporal self-imaging effects for periodic optical pulse sequences of finite duration,

    J. Azaña, “Temporal self-imaging effects for periodic optical pulse sequences of finite duration,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B20, 83–90 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Integrated femtosecond pulse generator on thin-film lithium niobate,

    M. Yu, D. Barton, III, R. Cheng, et al., “Integrated femtosecond pulse generator on thin-film lithium niobate,” Nature 612, 252–258 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    On-chip quantum communi- cation devices,

    A. Trenti, M. Achleitner, F . Prawits, et al., “On-chip quantum communi- cation devices,” J. Light. Technol.40, 7485–7497 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    A photonic integrated quantum secure communication system,

    T. K. Paraïso, T. Roger, D. G. Marangon,et al., “A photonic integrated quantum secure communication system,” Nat. Photonics 15, 850–856 (2021). Research Article 10 SUPPLEMENT 1

    2021

  53. [61]

    Low-error encoder for time-bin and decoy states for quantum key distribution,

    ERRORS IN DETECTION The Z-basis detection error rate is dependent on the extinction ratio of the Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM). It is given by 1: ERROR Z = 1 1 + 10 ER 10 , (9) where extinction ratio ER is expressed in dB. The detection error values corresponding to a range of ...

    2025

  54. [62]

    PULSE INTENSITIES Table 3. In-laboratory measurements of the mean photon number for two and four-dimensional symbols Attenuation (dB) Dimension 2 Dimension 4 µ1 µ2 µ3 µ1 µ2 µ3 7.24 0.0635 0.503 × 10−3 48.1 × 10−6 0.0602 0.510 × 10−3 42.8 × 10−6 8.00 0.0672 0.639 × 10−3 42.4 × ...

Pith tools

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