Single photon continuous variable quantum key distribution based on energy-time uncertainty relation

Bing Qi

REVIEW

Single photon continuous variable quantum key distribution based on energy-time uncertainty relation

Bing Qi

Quantum Physics · Submitted 20 Feb 2006 · 23 references

Pith's verdict: A creative single-photon frequency/time QKD proposal whose security claim outruns the analysis.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDquant-ph/0602158 (version 1)

Pith IDF6VQYRLG, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationBing Qi. "Single photon continuous variable quantum key distribution based on energy-time uncertainty relation." arXiv:quant-ph/0602158 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/F6VQYRLG

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this is a proposal paper, not a security proof. The protocol—encoding continuous variables on the frequency or time of a single photon—is genuinely new as far as I can tell, and the asymptotic density-matrix equivalence is a nice observation. But the central claim, that energy-time uncertainty guarantees security, is asserted rather than derived.

What it does well: the protocol is clearly specified, and the error-probability calculation for the slice method, both with and without a buffer zone, is self-contained and correct. The practical motivation (immunity to polarization and phase fluctuations) is argued sensibly, and the author correctly places the work relative to earlier frequency-coding schemes and quadrature CV-QKD.

The soft spots are real. Equation (3) shows that in the limit σω1→0, the two ensembles have the same density matrix. But for any finite σω1—any real implementation—they do not. The claim that the difference is 'negligible' is not backed by a trace-distance or Holevo bound. More seriously, even exact equality of the ensembles does not imply security. Eve could fix a measurement, say frequency on every round; that reveals the key element on frequency-coding rounds and produces a finite error rate on time-coding rounds. Whether a key can still be distilled against that attack depends on a key-rate calculation, and the paper offers none. It cites sliced reconciliation and privacy amplification but does not derive Eve's information. The energy-time uncertainty relation is used heuristically: it constrains joint measurement precision, but it does not directly bound Eve's accessible information under an arbitrary attack. Finite-size statistics are also absent, and the feasibility numbers are optimistic, but those are secondary.

Who gets value: someone exploring new QKD encodings, or a student learning what a security proof requires. I would not cite it as evidence of security, but the idea is worth knowing.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The protocol deserves referee time, and a clear report would help the author see the key gap. If published, it belongs as a proposal with the security caveat explicit.

Referee report

Significance

If the security claim were established, the protocol would represent a genuinely new class of single-photon continuous-variable QKD, with plausible practical advantages in robustness against polarization and phase fluctuations and the possibility of large-alphabet encoding. The buffer-zone error analysis is a concrete quantitative contribution, and the density-matrix calculation in footnote [19] is a useful explicit computation. However, the manuscript establishes a protocol concept and an error model rather than a secure QKD scheme: no security proof, no key-rate calculation, and no quantitative bound on Eve's information under general attacks are provided. The idea is interesting and worth further development, but the central claim is not yet supported.

Major objections (3)

[Security discussion following Eq. (3)] The central security claim is asserted rather than derived. The text states that 'the security of this protocol is based on' Eve's inability to distinguish frequency-coding from time-coding photons and on the energy-time uncertainty relation, but no quantitative bound on Eve's information is given. Equation (3) is an asymptotic statement for σω1→0, while the protocol operates at finite σω1; the claim that the density-matrix difference is 'negligible' is not supported by any trace-distance, fidelity, or Holevo calculation. This is load-bearing because any residual distinguishability of the two ensembles leaks basis information to Eve, and the manuscript provides no argument that this leakage is compensated by the subsequent reconciliation and privacy-amplification steps.
[Protocol steps 5-6] Even in the exact limit ρ1=ρ2, ensemble indistinguishability alone does not establish security, and Steps 5-6 do not supply the required key-rate analysis. The paper invokes 'sliced reconciliation' [18] and 'standard privacy amplification' without deriving a key rate or an upper bound on Eve's accessible information under collective or coherent attacks. As a concrete missing case, Eve could perform a frequency measurement on every pulse: this reveals the key value on frequency-coding rounds and induces a finite error rate on time-coding rounds. Whether such an attack is tolerable depends on exactly the reconciliation and privacy-amplification analysis that is absent from the manuscript.
[Parameter conditions after Eq. (6) and buffer-zone discussion] The security-related parameter conditions are asserted without derivation. The text states that to guarantee security the bin sizes must satisfy ΔωΔt<1 and that the apparatus requirement is δtδω<0.01, or δtδω<0.1 with the buffer zone, but no calculation connects these inequalities to an information-theoretic bound on Eve's knowledge. Equation (2) is used heuristically rather than as a quantitative constraint on Eve's accessible information, so the reader cannot verify that these conditions are sufficient for security.

Minor objections (4)

[Title and text] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'distributio n' in the title, 'Compareing', 'freqnency', and 'density matrixes'; these should be corrected before publication.
[Footnote [19]] The limiting procedure in footnote [19] should be stated more carefully: the time-delay distribution f2(b) becomes extremely broad as σω1→0, so Eq. (3) should be presented as a weak limit of the corresponding density matrices rather than as an equality of normalized states obtained by a pointwise limit.
[Notation in footnote [19]] The notation in footnote [19] mixes ω1 as a random variable and as an integration variable; using distinct symbols for the central frequency, the spectral integration variable, and the time-delay variable would make the derivation much easier to follow.
[Section on buffer zone] In the buffer-zone discussion, the protocol should specify more explicitly what happens when Alice's raw value falls in the buffer zone: the text mentions dropping those results, but the description in Step 4 and the probability calculation are interleaved in a way that is easy to misread.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A single-photon quantum key distribution protocol encodes data in continuous frequency or time variables, with security argued from the energy-time uncertainty relation.

The reading

Alice and Bob want to share a secret key. In this protocol, Alice sends a single photon, a tiny particle of light. She encodes a random number in one of two ways: she either tunes the photon's frequency, its color, to a random value, or she delays the photon's arrival time by a random amount. Bob does not know which way Alice encoded, so he randomly chooses to measure either the photon's frequency or its arrival time.

Because light pulses obey the energy-time uncertainty relation, a pulse that has a very well-defined frequency must be spread out in time, and a pulse that has a very well-defined arrival time must have a broad range of frequencies. An eavesdropper cannot measure both properties precisely at once. Alice and Bob keep only the cases where Bob's measurement matches the encoding method, and they turn their correlated random numbers into bits using a protocol called sliced reconciliation. A buffer zone is added between bins to reduce errors.

The paper is a proposal, not a demonstration. It gives formulas for the expected error rates and for how much Bob's detectors must resolve. It also argues that, in an idealized limit, the two types of pulses look exactly the same to an outsider, so Eve cannot tell which encoding was used. However, the paper does not provide a full mathematical proof that no attack can break the protocol. It is an early theoretical step toward a practical QKD system that is insensitive to fiber polarization and phase noise.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a secure QKD protocol can be built by encoding continuous variables on a single photon, with security resting on the energy-time uncertainty relation. The text states: "The security of this protocol rests on the energy-time uncertainty relation, which prevents Eve from simultaneously determining both frequency and time information with arbitrarily high resolution." It also asserts that in the asymptotic limit σω1→0, the density matrices of frequency-coding and time-coding photons become identical, so Eve cannot distinguish the two encoding ensembles. If correct, this establishes a new class of single-photon continuous-variable QKD that is insensitive to polarization and phase fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol's security depends on the assumption that the asymptotic equality of the two encoding ensembles, combined with the energy-time uncertainty relation, is enough to bound Eve's information in the real finite-σω1 case. The paper states that "as long as σω1 << σω2, the difference between the two density matrixes is negligible" but never quantifies how this residual difference bounds a general attack. If Eve can distinguish the frequency-coding ensemble from the time-coding ensemble, the basis information leaks. This is an unproven step, structurally distinct from the central claim that the protocol is secure.

Original abstract

In previous quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols, information is encoded on either the discrete-variable of single-photon signal or continuous-variables of multi-photon signal. Here, we propose a new QKD protocol by encoding information on continuous-variables of a single photon. In this protocol, Alice randomly encodes her information on either the central frequency of a narrow-band single photon pulse or the time-delay of a broadband single photon pulse, while Bob randomly chooses to do either frequency measurement or time measurement. The security of this protocol rests on the energy-time uncertainty relation, which prevents Eve from simultaneously determining both frequency and time information with arbitrarily high resolution. In practice, this scheme may be more robust against various channel noises, such as polarization and phase fluctuations.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,270 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.16 · states limitation 0.50 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.83 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.78 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In previous quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols, information is encoded on either the discrete-variable of single-photon signal or continuous-variables of multi-photon signal. Here, we propose a new QKD protocol by encoding information on continuous-variables of a single photon. In this protocol, Alice randomly encodes her information on either the central frequency of a narrow-band single photon pulse or the time-delay of a broadband single photon pulse, while Bob randomly chooses to do either frequency measurement or time measurement. The security of this protocol rests on the energy-time uncertainty relation, which prevents Eve from simultaneously determining both frequency and time information with arbitrarily high resolution. In practice, this scheme may be more robust against various channel noises, such as polarization and phase fluctuations.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In previous quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols, information is encoded on either the discrete-variable of single-photon signal or continuous-variables of multi-photon signal.	background 1.00	0.03	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	Here, we propose a new QKD protocol by encoding information on continuous-variables of a single photon.	contribution 1.00	0.67	0.44	asserted 0.92
s2	In this protocol, Alice randomly encodes her information on either the central frequency of a narrow-band single photon pulse or the time-delay of a broadband single photon pulse, while Bob randomly chooses to do either frequency measurement or time measurement.	method 0.93	0.36	0.09	asserted 1.00
s3	The security of this protocol rests on the energy-time uncertainty relation, which prevents Eve from simultaneously determining both frequency and time information with arbitrarily high resolution.	interpretation 0.49	0.28	0.37	asserted 1.00
s4	In practice, this scheme may be more robust against various channel noises, such as polarization and phase fluctuations.	interpretation 0.94	0.16	0.09	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.99 · evidence from argument 0.94.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of the proposed QKD system:

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (a) Slice method without ”buffer zone” (for time

Showing 2 of the paper's 3 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:quant-ph/0602158 by the authors.

References

Works cited (23)

[19]

The continuous-mode photon wave-packet creation operator can be deﬁned as ˆ a+ ξ = ∫ dωξ (ω )ˆa+(ω ). Here, ξ(ω ) is the spectral amplitude. For a Gaussian pulse with a central frequency of ω 0, ξ(ω ) = ( πσ 2 ω )− 1/ 4exp[−i(ω 0 − ω )t0 − (ω − ω 0)2/ 2σ 2 ω ], where t0 is the time when the peak of the pulse passes the coordinate origin. For S1, t0 = 0 an...

View on Pith
[18]

G. V. Assche, J. Cardinal, N. J. Cerf, IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, 50, 394 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[1]

C. H. Bennett, G.Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE Inter- national Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, (IEEE, 1984), pp. 175-179

View on Pith 1984
[2]

A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 661 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[3]

N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 145 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[4]

D. Mayers, J. of ACM 48, 351 (2001); H.-K. Lo, H. F. Chau, Science, 283, 2050 (1999); E. Biham et al. Pro- ceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’00) (ACM Press, New York, 2000), pp. 715-724; P. W. Shor, J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 441, (2000)

View on Pith 2001
[5]

M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 61 022309 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[6]

R. J. Hughes, J. E. Nordholt, D. Derkacs, C. G. Pe- terson,New J. Phys. 4 43 (2002); C. Marand, P. D. Townsend, Opt. Lett. 20 1695 (1995); R. J. Hughes, G. L. Morgan, C. G. Peterson, J. Mod. Opt. 47 533 (2000); C. Gobby, Z. L. Yuan, A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 3762 (2004)

View on Pith 2002
[7]

W. K. Wootters, W. H. Zurek, Nature 299 802 (2000); D. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A 92 271 (1982)

View on Pith 2000
[8]

T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 61 010303R (1999); F. Grosshans, G. V. Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, P. Grangier, Nature 421 238 (2003); J. Lodewyck, T. Debuisschert, R. Tualle-Brouri, P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 72 050303R (2005)

View on Pith 1999
[9]

A. Muller, T. Herzog, B. Huttner, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 70 793 (1997); M. Legre, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0511113

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[10]

N. Gisin, S. Fasel, B. Kraus, H. Zbinden, G. Ribordy, Phys. Rev. A 73 022320 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[11]

S. N. Molotkov, S. S. Nazin, JETP Lett., 63 924 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[12]

S. N. Molotkov, JETP, 87 288 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[13]

B.-S. Shi, Y.-K. Jiang, G.-C. Guo, Appl. Phys. B , 70, 415 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[14]

The density matrix of the signal states is ˆ ρs = |ω 0⟩⟨ω 0| + |ω 1⟩⟨ω 1|. The control state can be descried by |ω 0⟩ + exp[i(ω 1 − ω 0)t]|ω 1⟩ with a density matrix ˆρc = |ω 0⟩⟨ω 0| + |ω 1⟩⟨ω 1| + exp[−i(ω 1 − ω 0)t]|ω 0⟩⟨ω 1| + exp[i(ω 1 − ω 0)t]|ω 1⟩⟨ω 0|. In general, ˆρs ⁄= ˆρc

View on Pith
[15]

Eve could employ a high speed switch which is opened at tmin(when the amplitude of control state is expected to be zero) for a time-duration of ∆ T ≪ 1/ (ω 1 − ω 0). The signal states can pass through this switch with a much higher probability than the control state

View on Pith
[16]

In practice, for time-coding, the information can be en - coded on the time interval between the signal pulse and a synchronization pulse

View on Pith
[17]

T. D. Donnelly, C. Grossman, Am. J. Phys. , 66, 677 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[20]

In practice, the resolutions of Alice’s devices for sta te preparetion are much higher than the resolutions of Bob’s measurement devices

View on Pith
[21]

Today’s SPD has a time resolution in the order of δt ∼ 10− 10S, while the spectral resolution of a F-P interfer- ometer can be 10 7Hz . This give us δtδω ∼ 0. 001

View on Pith
[22]

Z. Jiang, S.-D. Yang, D. E. Leaird, and A. M. Weiner, Opt. Lett. , 30, 1449 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[23]

W.-Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett . 91, 057901 (2003); H.- K. Lo, in Proceedings of IEEE ISIT 2004 , p. 137; H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, K. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 230504 (2005); X. -B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 230503 (2005); X. - B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 72 012322 (2005); X. Ma et al. Phys. Rev. A 72 012326 (2005); Y.Zhao et al. accepted for publication in PRL, Preprint...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it

Cites it as background 1 paper

Protocols for quantum key distribution (QKD) involving the energy/time variables have previously been proposed, implemented, and analyzed [ref] .

Entropic Energy-Time Uncertainty Relation · Quantum key distribution · 0.96

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [19]

The continuous-mode photon wave-packet creation operator can be deﬁned as ˆ a+ ξ = ∫ dωξ (ω )ˆa+(ω ). Here, ξ(ω ) is the spectral amplitude. For a Gaussian pulse with a central frequency of ω 0, ξ(ω ) = ( πσ 2 ω )− 1/ 4exp[−i(ω 0 − ω )t0 − (ω − ω 0)2/ 2σ 2 ω ], where t0 is the time when the peak of the pulse passes the coordinate origin. For S1, t0 = 0 an...

View on Pith

[2] [18]

G. V. Assche, J. Cardinal, N. J. Cerf, IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, 50, 394 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[3] [1]

C. H. Bennett, G.Brassard, Proceedings of IEEE Inter- national Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, (IEEE, 1984), pp. 175-179

View on Pith 1984

[4] [2]

A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 661 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[5] [3]

N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 145 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[6] [4]

D. Mayers, J. of ACM 48, 351 (2001); H.-K. Lo, H. F. Chau, Science, 283, 2050 (1999); E. Biham et al. Pro- ceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’00) (ACM Press, New York, 2000), pp. 715-724; P. W. Shor, J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 441, (2000)

View on Pith 2001

[7] [5]

M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A 61 022309 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[8] [6]

R. J. Hughes, J. E. Nordholt, D. Derkacs, C. G. Pe- terson,New J. Phys. 4 43 (2002); C. Marand, P. D. Townsend, Opt. Lett. 20 1695 (1995); R. J. Hughes, G. L. Morgan, C. G. Peterson, J. Mod. Opt. 47 533 (2000); C. Gobby, Z. L. Yuan, A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 3762 (2004)

View on Pith 2002

[9] [7]

W. K. Wootters, W. H. Zurek, Nature 299 802 (2000); D. Dieks, Phys. Lett. A 92 271 (1982)

View on Pith 2000

[10] [8]

T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 61 010303R (1999); F. Grosshans, G. V. Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, P. Grangier, Nature 421 238 (2003); J. Lodewyck, T. Debuisschert, R. Tualle-Brouri, P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 72 050303R (2005)

View on Pith 1999

[11] [9]

A. Muller, T. Herzog, B. Huttner, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, Appl. Phys. Lett. , 70 793 (1997); M. Legre, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0511113

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[12] [10]

N. Gisin, S. Fasel, B. Kraus, H. Zbinden, G. Ribordy, Phys. Rev. A 73 022320 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[13] [11]

S. N. Molotkov, S. S. Nazin, JETP Lett., 63 924 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[14] [12]

S. N. Molotkov, JETP, 87 288 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[15] [13]

B.-S. Shi, Y.-K. Jiang, G.-C. Guo, Appl. Phys. B , 70, 415 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[16] [14]

The density matrix of the signal states is ˆ ρs = |ω 0⟩⟨ω 0| + |ω 1⟩⟨ω 1|. The control state can be descried by |ω 0⟩ + exp[i(ω 1 − ω 0)t]|ω 1⟩ with a density matrix ˆρc = |ω 0⟩⟨ω 0| + |ω 1⟩⟨ω 1| + exp[−i(ω 1 − ω 0)t]|ω 0⟩⟨ω 1| + exp[i(ω 1 − ω 0)t]|ω 1⟩⟨ω 0|. In general, ˆρs ⁄= ˆρc

View on Pith

[17] [15]

Eve could employ a high speed switch which is opened at tmin(when the amplitude of control state is expected to be zero) for a time-duration of ∆ T ≪ 1/ (ω 1 − ω 0). The signal states can pass through this switch with a much higher probability than the control state

View on Pith

[18] [16]

In practice, for time-coding, the information can be en - coded on the time interval between the signal pulse and a synchronization pulse

View on Pith

[19] [17]

T. D. Donnelly, C. Grossman, Am. J. Phys. , 66, 677 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[20] [20]

In practice, the resolutions of Alice’s devices for sta te preparetion are much higher than the resolutions of Bob’s measurement devices

View on Pith

[21] [21]

Today’s SPD has a time resolution in the order of δt ∼ 10− 10S, while the spectral resolution of a F-P interfer- ometer can be 10 7Hz . This give us δtδω ∼ 0. 001

View on Pith

[22] [22]

Z. Jiang, S.-D. Yang, D. E. Leaird, and A. M. Weiner, Opt. Lett. , 30, 1449 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[23] [23]

W.-Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett . 91, 057901 (2003); H.- K. Lo, in Proceedings of IEEE ISIT 2004 , p. 137; H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, K. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 230504 (2005); X. -B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 230503 (2005); X. - B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 72 012322 (2005); X. Ma et al. Phys. Rev. A 72 012326 (2005); Y.Zhao et al. accepted for publication in PRL, Preprint...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003