Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Modulator-free transmitter for quantum key distribution in metropolitan area networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a modulator-free, digitally driven two-laser transmitter that prepares time-bin quantum states by pulsed optical injection, and argues that the resulting decoy-free three-state protocol secures key distribution over…

desk verdict A plausible, clearly demonstrated transmitter concept whose quantitative secure-range claim depends on an unproved security-proof extension. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00625 v1 pith:Z5QUDRSR submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph

Roman Shakhovoy , Evgeniy Dedkov , Igor Kudryashov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords quantumkeydistributiontime-binencodingpulsedopticalinjectionmodulator-freetransmitterdecoy-freeprotocolthree-stateBB84gain-switchedlasermetropolitanareanetwork
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 is trying to establish that quantum key distribution over metropolitan-area distances can be done with a radically simpler transmitter: two gain-switched lasers, a circulator, and a WDM filter, driven only by digital pulses, with no electro-optic modulators and no decoy states. It proposes time-bin encoding in which the master laser's short pulses define early/late Z-basis states and a long pulse prepares the single X-basis state by locking the slave laser's phase. The accompanying security analysis of the decoy-free three-state protocol predicts secure key generation up to about 40 km with standard parameters, which would cover typical city-network node separations of 5–20 km. An experiment confirms that the filtering, time-bin formation, and X-basis constructive interference work as modeled.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is pulsed optical injection: a master-laser pulse temporarily forces the slave laser's emission wavelength to lock to the master's, so only injected slave pulses pass the WDM filter. A long master pulse covers two adjacent slave pulses and fixes their phase difference through the master field's phase, which is how the X basis is encoded without an external phase modulator. The security argument is carried by the projection $P_{\rm sec} = P_0 + P_1$ onto the vacuum and single-photon subspaces of the two temporal modes: applying it to the phase-randomized coherent states produces an effective qutrit state (vacuum plus photon in early mode, late mode, or both), and the paper assumes the published three-state security proof's rate formula applies to these truncated states. The formula then yields the decoy-free key rate from gain and error-rate bounds on combined zero- and single-photon events.

What would settle it

Interference-measure the phase of each slave-laser pulse pair emitted under long-master-pulse injection and compare the distribution to uniform; if adjacent-pulse phases are correlated with the preceding bit pattern or with each other, the security proof's phase-randomization premise fails and the computed key rates no longer hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes a time-bin encoding method in which a master laser and a slave laser, both gain-switched by rectangular electrical pulses, are joined through a circulator and a WDM filter. When the master injects a short pulse, the slave's corresponding pulse locks to the master wavelength and passes the filter, placing a pulse in the early or late time bin; that is the Z basis. When the master injects a long pulse covering two slave pulses, both pass and the phase difference between them is set by the master field's phase evolution, giving the single X-basis state. Since only three states are produced, the paper analyzes a three-state BB84-family protocol without decoy states and, using worst-case bounds on vacuum-plus-single-photon events, concludes that secure key distribution is possible over up to 40 km of standard fiber with typical detector parameters, and at more than $10^{4}$ bit/s up to 30 km at a 100 MHz preparation rate.

Load-bearing premise

The whole 40 km secure-range claim rests on the assumption that the published three-state security proof, including its phase-error formula, still applies to the transmitter's truncated vacuum-plus-single-photon states, and that every emitted pulse has a uniformly random phase; neither point is directly proved in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Metropolitan QKD terminals could be reduced to two laser diodes and a filter, with all modulation done digitally, which lowers cost and hardware complexity.
  • The single-X-state, no-decoy protocol turns vacuum events and single-photon events into useful key material, so the usual decoy-state intensity control is unnecessary for city distances.
  • At a 100 MHz state-preparation rate the predicted key rate exceeds 10^4 bit/s up to 30 km, and secure operation extends to about 40 km under typical assumptions.
  • Because there is no modulator, the transmitter presents no modulator-based Trojan-horse side channel to an eavesdropper.
  • Intersymbol interference, seen at 625 MHz, is managed by a short inter-state delay and does not noticeably affect Z-basis error levels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the phase-randomization premise survives at higher clock rates, the demonstrated 312.5 MHz state rate is likely not the ceiling; improving the laser-driver impedance match could remove the intersymbol interference that currently forces the extra delay and lower rate.
  • The projector-truncation technique used here is a general recipe: any three-state protocol can be made decoy-free by counting vacuum and single-photon events together, and the same construction could be applied to four-state or measurement-device-independent protocols.
  • A direct measurement of the emitted phase distribution under long-pulse injection, not reported for this transmitter, would test the security analysis's key assumption and is a natural next experiment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a compact, modulator-free time-bin QKD transmitter based on pulsed optical injection between master and slave gain-switched lasers, with the master laser generating digital rectangular current pulses of two durations to prepare the Z-basis states and the single X-basis state. The authors validate the encoding principle with rate-equation simulations and an experimental demonstration using DFB lasers, a WDM filter, and an integrated Mach-Zehnder interferometer. They then analyze the security of a three-state BB84-type protocol without decoy states, projecting the phase-randomized coherent states onto the vacuum-plus-single-photon subspace (P0+P1) and using the Fung-Lo rate formula to obtain Eq. (30). From this formula they simulate secure key rates and claim secure key distribution over distances up to 40 km in metropolitan networks, with a key rate above 10^4 bit/s at 100 MHz state-preparation rate over up to 30 km.

Significance. If the security analysis were fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to low-cost QKD for metropolitan networks: the transmitter avoids external modulators, uses only digital drive signals, and the experimental data appear consistent with the proposed encoding principle. The paper is honest in labeling the security treatment as brief, and the explicit identification of the P0+P1 truncation as the step requiring justification is a strength. However, the central quantitative claim rests on two load-bearing points that are not established: the validity of the Fung-Lo bound for the mixed qutrit ensemble in Eq. (27), and the correctness of the error-rate estimate in Eq. (29). Until these are resolved, the 40 km claim and the key-rate curves in Fig. 6 are not supported by the manuscript as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (30)] The claimed secure range of up to 40 km follows from Eq. (30), which is obtained by asserting that the Fung-Lo rate formula r(omega,theta) of Eqs. (24)-(25) remains valid for the mixed qutrit states in Eq. (27). The paper states only that 'one can show' this, without a derivation or a precise reference. This is a load-bearing step: the states in Eq. (27) are classical mixtures of vacuum and single-photon components, and the vacuum fraction should normally be treated as a tagged state in GLLP-type analyses, so replacing the single-photon gain Q1 by Q0+1 in the privacy-amplification term is not automatically conservative. Please provide a complete proof (or a citation to a theorem covering exactly this P0+P1-truncated ensemble, including the non-uniform state probabilities in Eq. (28)) before the numerical results in Fig. 6 can be accepted.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (29)] Equation (29) defines the upper-bound error rate as E_{0+1}^{Z,U} = E_mu Q_mu / Q_{0+1}^{Z,U}. An upper bound on the error rate of the zero-plus-single-photon events should be obtained by dividing the total error count by a lower bound on the gain, i.e., by Q_{0+1}^{Z,L}, not by an upper bound. With the formula as written, the denominator can only decrease the error estimate, which would artificially increase the key rate computed in Eq. (30). Please correct the formula (or define the notation precisely) and recompute the affected numerical results.
  3. [Sec. V.A and Sec. IV] The security analysis assumes uniform phase randomization of every emitted pulse, citing the earlier study [24]. However, no phase-randomness measurement is reported for the present master-slave injection transmitter, and the X-basis phase relation is set by the master laser pulse. Since the protocol proof requires uniform phase randomization, the practical claim of secure key distribution is conditional on an unverified property of this specific implementation. The paper should either report a phase-randomness characterization for the transmitter described here or explicitly state that the security claim is conditional on this assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, figure reference] The sentence 'In the middle of Fig. 3, the slave laser signal after the WDM filter is shown' appears to refer to the middle panel of Fig. 5, not Fig. 3; please correct the reference.
  2. [Sec. V.C, X-basis error formula] The explicit X-basis counterparts of the estimates in Eq. (29) are not written out; please provide them so that the reader can verify the denominator convention and the resulting X-basis error bound used in Eq. (30).
  3. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 5, interference panels] The interference traces are presented qualitatively; reporting a quantitative visibility or extinction ratio for the X0 states would strengthen the experimental evidence and allow comparison with simulation.
  4. [Sec. V.C, finite-size effects] The key-rate curves in Fig. 6 are asymptotic; the paper should state clearly that finite-size effects, which can be significant for low-gain decoy-free protocols, are not included in the claimed rates and distances.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central key-rate result is assembled from an external security proof [29] and standard channel/decoy formulas [22], with self-citations [21,24] used only as independent supporting results.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the central claim (Eq. (30), Fig. 6, and the 40 km range) is: (i) model the emitted states as phase-randomized coherent states (Eq. (10)), using the standard gain-switching phase-randomization result [24]; (ii) formally reduce to finite-dimensional states by projecting onto the P0+P1 subspace, obtaining the mixed qutrit states of Eq. (27); (iii) import the three-state secret-key-rate reduction factor r(omega,theta) from the external Fung-Lo proof [29]; and (iv) feed the gain and error-rate bounds derived from the standard loss/dark-count model (Eq. (31)) with parameters from Table II. No parameter is fitted to the paper's own experimental data in order to produce the key-rate curve; the non-decoy bound Q_{0+1}^L = Q_mu - [1 - (1+mu)e^{-mu}] is a worst-case inequality, not a fit. The self-citations [21,24] are load-bearing for the encoding model and for the uniform-phase assumption, but they are published, externally testable results about gain-switched laser dynamics, not outputs of the present paper, so they do not make Eq. (30) circular. The main weakness is instead an unproved adaptation: the paper states 'one can show that Eqs. (24)-(25) remain valid' for the mixed P0+P1 states of Eq. (27), and it does not experimentally validate phase randomness in this exact transmitter; the conclusion itself describes the secrecy analysis as 'briefly analyzed'. These are correctness and completeness gaps, not circular reductions, and belong in a security/correctness review rather than in the circularity score.

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

The central claim depends mainly on assumed laser and detection parameters, an unmeasured phase-randomness assumption, and an unproved adaptation of an existing security proof. No new physical entities are introduced; the projectors Psec and Pnon are mathematical tools.

free parameters (5)
  • Signal intensities mu and nu=2*mu (decoy-free case) = mu=0.024, nu=0.048
    Chosen for the key-rate simulation; not measured or derived from first principles in the paper.
  • Decoy-state intensities used for the comparison curve = mu0=0.657, mu1=0.033, mu2=0.0, nu0=1.314, nu1=0.066
    Standard three-intensity decoy values in the simulation, used only for the with-decoy baseline.
  • Detector and error-correction parameters = efficiency=0.15, dark count=1e-6, Ed=0.01, fec=1.22
    Assumed typical values in the key-rate simulation; not tied to the demonstrated transmitter.
  • Laser parameters in Table I = e.g. tau_ph=1 ps, tau_e=1 ns, alpha=5, kappa_inj=200 GHz, detuning -100 GHz
    Selected to model the master-slave system; only some are standard literature values, and the central simulation depends on them.
  • Inter-state delay = 1.6 ns
    Added empirically to reduce intersymbol interference and lower the state preparation rate to 312.5 MHz.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Semiconductor laser rate equations with optical injection are valid for this gain-switched master-slave system.
    Invoked in Section III; a standard model, but the specific parameter values and locking behavior are not fully verified against experiment.
  • domain assumption The optical phase phi is uniformly random for each emitted pulse.
    Assumed after Eq. (7) and cited to [24], but not measured in this transmitter. High bias current is acknowledged to risk phase correlations that would affect security.
  • domain assumption Vacuum and single-photon events can be treated as secret events in the decoy-free analysis, with multi-photon events bounded by worst-case assumptions.
    Used in Section V C to justify estimating Q_{0+1} rather than Q_1; physically reasonable but not a formal security proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The Fung-Lo security proof and its secret-key rate formulas remain valid for the P0+P1 truncated qutrit states in Eq. (27).
    Asserted without proof after Eq. (27): the paper states that 'one can show' Eqs. (24)-(25) remain valid, while acknowledging that the qutrit states prevent direct application of [29].
  • domain assumption The WDM filter blocks un-injected slave pulses with negligible leakage relevant to security.
    Supported only qualitatively from the displayed pulses; no extinction ratio or side-channel analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modulator-free transmitter for quantum key distribution in metropolitan area networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5QUDRSR

@misc{pith2026250700625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modulator-free transmitter for quantum key distribution in metropolitan area networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5QUDRSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00625}
}
read the original abstract

A positive economic effect from the implementation of quantum key distribution (QKD) technology can be achieved only with significant scaling, which involves the deployment of branched metropolitan area networks. The creation of QKD systems suitable for such networks is an important task for the coming years. This paper considers a method for preparing quantum states using pulsed optical injection, which can be used as a basis for a compact modulator-free transmitter ideally suited for QKD at typical distances within a city. Considering the relative proximity between nodes of a MAN, we suggest to abandon the decoy states, which, together with the proposed method of quantum state preparation, allows making the transmitter extremely simple. We report here the results of an experiment confirming the operating principle and provide a security analysis of the three-state decoy-free QKD protocol that can be implemented using such a device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A simplified fiber-optic schematic of the transmitter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two distributed feedback laser diodes optically 2,0 18 2,0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Optical spectra and pulses of the master and slave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental results demonstrating the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Theoretical dependences of the secret key rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    W. Wang, R. Wang, C. Hu, V. Zapatero, L. Qian, B. Qi, M. Curty, and H.-K. Lo, Fully passive quantum key dis- tribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 220801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    The characters ‘0’ and ‘1’ are cho- sen with the probabilitypA Z /2, and the character ‘+’ is chosen with the probabilitypA X

    Alice generates a random string⃗ sof length N, where si ∈ S = {0, 1, +}. The characters ‘0’ and ‘1’ are cho- sen with the probabilitypA Z /2, and the character ‘+’ is chosen with the probabilitypA X. Here, pA Z corresponds to the Alice’s probability of choosing theZ-basis, and pA X is the probability of choosing theX-basis. Based on ⃗ s, Alice preparesN q...

    work page

  3. [2]

    According to ⃗b Bob selects measure- ment bases for the incoming states

    Bob generates a random string⃗b of length N, where a character bi ∈ {Z, X}is chosen with probabilitypB Z for Z or pB X for X. According to ⃗b Bob selects measure- ment bases for the incoming states. (When measuring in the X-basis, the outcome will be either the state |ψ+⟩ sent by Alice or an orthogonal state|ψ−⟩, which Alice does not send.)

    work page

  4. [3]

    To do this, Alice announces the result⃗ aof a mapping ai = ( Z, s i ∈ {0, 1}, X, s i = +, and Bob reveals ⃗b

    Alice and Bob publicly compare the chosen bases. To do this, Alice announces the result⃗ aof a mapping ai = ( Z, s i ∈ {0, 1}, X, s i = +, and Bob reveals ⃗b. All events satisfying ai ̸= bi, for which the bases do not match, are discarded. For events that satisfyai = bi = Z, Alice writes the corre- sponding value si ∈ {0, 1} into the bit string⃗ α′, and B...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Asa result, they obtain identical bit strings⃗ α= ⃗β of length M ≤ N with high probability

    Alice and Bob evaluate the error rate in their sifted keys ⃗ α′ and ⃗β′, andthenperformerrorcorrection. Asa result, they obtain identical bit strings⃗ α= ⃗β of length M ≤ N with high probability

    work page

  6. [5]

    The error rate in theX- basis is determined

    Bob publicly announcesβ′′ i . The error rate in theX- basis is determined

    work page

  7. [6]

    sec” and “non

    Alice and Bob perform privacy amplification on the siftedandcorrectedkeys ⃗ α= ⃗β andobtainanidentical secret key ⃗ r. When using time-bin encoding, Alice prepares three states (|ψ0⟩, |ψ1⟩, and |ψ+⟩) “living” in the extended Hilbert space of two temporal modes, which we will call the early and late modes, or the Z0- and Z1-modes, re- spectively. Each stat...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Agence nationale de la s´ ecurit´ e des syst` emes d’information (ANSSI), Should quan- tum key distribution be used for secure communications?, Official ANSSI website: https://cyber.gouv.fr/en/publications/should-quantum- key-distribution-be-used-secure-communications (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Elliott, D

    C. Elliott, D. Pearson, and G. Troxel, Quantum cryptog- raphy in practice, inProceedings of the 2003 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Pro- tocols for Computer Communications, SIGCOMM ’03 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2003)...

    2003

  2. [9]

    M. Peev, C. Pacher, R. All´ eaume,et al., The SECOQC quantum key distribution network in Vienna, New J. Phys. 11, 075001 (2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    Sasaki, M

    M. Sasaki, M. Fujiwra, H. Ishizuka,et al., Tokyo QKD Network and the evolution to Secure Photonic Network, in CLEO:2011 – Laser Applications to Photonic Appli- cations (Optica Publishing Group, 2011) p. JTuC1

    2011

  4. [11]

    Zhang, F

    Q. Zhang, F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Large scale quantum key distribution: challenges and solutions, Opt. Express26, 24260 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    National Security Agency (NSA), Quan- tum key distribution (QKD) and quantum cryptography (QC), Official NSA website: https://www.nsa.gov/Cybersecurity/Quantum-Key- Distribution-QKD-and-Quantum-Cryptography-QC/ (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    National Cyber Security Center (NCSC), Quan- tum security technologies, Official NCSC website: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/whitepaper/quantum- security-technologies (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    All´ eaume,Quantum cryptography and its application frontiers, PhD thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e (2021)

    R. All´ eaume,Quantum cryptography and its application frontiers, PhD thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Renner and R

    R. Renner and R. Wolf, The debate over QKD: A rebut- tal to the NSA’s objections, arXiv:2307.15116 [quant-ph] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    ADVA, BT, ID Quantique, KETS, Quantum Com- munications Hub, M Squared Lasers, Senetas, Thales, and Toshiba Europe Limited, Community response to the NCSC 2020 quantum security technolo- gies white paper, Quantum Communications Hub: 11 https://www.quantumcommshub.net/news/commu...

    2023

  10. [17]

    T. C. Ralph, Continuous variable quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. A61, 010303 (1999)

    1999

  11. [18]

    Diamanti and A

    E. Diamanti and A. Leverrier, Distributing secret keys with quantum continuous variables: Principle, security and implementations, Entropy17, 6072 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    H. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Pi, Y. Pan, Y. Shao, L. Ma, Y. Zhang, J. Yang, T. Zhang, W. Huang, and B. Xu, Sub-Gbps key rate four-state continuous-variable quantum key distri- bution within metropolitan area, Commun. Phys.5, 162 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Y. Pan, H. Wang, Y. Shao, Y. Pi, Y. Li, B. Liu, W. Huang, and B. Xu, Experimental demonstration of high-rate discrete-modulated continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution system, Opt. Lett.47, 3307 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Shakhovoy, M

    R. Shakhovoy, M. Puplauskis, V. Sharoglazova, A. Du- plinskiy, V. Zavodilenko, A. Losev, and Y. Kurochkin, Direct phase modulation via optical injection: theoreti- cal study, Opt. Express29, 9574 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Curty, X

    M. Curty, X. Ma, H.-K. Lo, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Passive sources for the Bennett – Brassard 1984 quantum-key- distribution protocol with practical signals, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052325 (2010)

    2010

  16. [23]

    mas- ter+slave

    — such a pulse passes through the optical filter. If the pulse of the slave laser appears in the absence of op- tical injection, it will be blocked by the filter. Thus, by generating short pulses by the master at the right mo- ments in time, one can create a sequence of bits i...

  17. [25]

    Z. L. Yuan, B. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Lucamarini, G. L. Roberts, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, Directly phase-modulated light source, Phys. Rev. X6, 031044 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    G. L. Roberts, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, S. J. Savory, Z.L.Yuan,andA.J.Shields,AdirectGHz-clockedphase and intensity modulated transmitter applied to quan- tum key distribution, Quantum Sci. Technol.3, 045010 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    T. K. Para¨ ıso, I. D. Marco, T. Roger, D. G. Marangon, J. F. Dynes, M. Lucamarini, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, A modulator-free quantum key distribution transmitter chip, npj Quantum Inf.5, 42 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Y. S. Lo, R. I. Woodward, N. Walk, M. Lucamarini, I. De Marco, T. K. Para¨ ıso, M. Pittaluga, T. Roger, M. Sanzaro, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Sim- plified intensity- and phase-modulated transmitter for modulator-free decoy-state quantum key distribution, APL Photonics 8, ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H.-K. Lo, Practical decoy state for quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012326 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    R. A. Shakhovoy, Dynamics of semiconductor lasers [Динамика полупроводниковых лазеров] (in Russian) (Lan’, Saint Petersburg, 2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Shakhovoy, M

    R. Shakhovoy, M. Puplauskis, V. Sharoglazova, A. Du- plinskiy, D. Sych, E. Maksimova, S. Hydyrova, A. Tu- machek, Y. Mironov, V. Kovalyuk, A. Prokhodtsov, G. Goltsman, and Y. Kurochkin, Phase randomness in a semiconductor laser: Issue of quantum random-number generation, Phys....

    2023

  24. [32]

    Petermann, Laser Diode Modulation and Noise (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1988)

    K. Petermann, Laser Diode Modulation and Noise (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    Kobayashi, A

    T. Kobayashi, A. Tomita, and A. Okamoto, Evaluation of the phase randomness of a light source in quantum- key-distribution systems with an attenuated laser, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032320 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 7 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Gottesman, H.-K

    D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect de- vices, Quant. Inf. Comput.5, 325 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    C.-H. F. Fung and H.-K. Lo, Security proof of a three- state quantum-key-distribution protocol without rota- tional symmetry, Phys. Rev. A74, 042342 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Huttner, N

    B. Huttner, N. Imoto, N. Gisin, and T. Mor, Quantum cryptographywithcoherentstates,Phys.Rev.A 51,1863 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    L¨ utkenhaus and M

    N. L¨ utkenhaus and M. Jahma, Quantum key distribu- tion with realistic states: photon-number statistics in the photon-number splitting attack, New J. Phys.4, 44 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

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