pith. sign in

arxiv: 2311.07451 · v4 · submitted 2023-11-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

"Nonlocality-of-a-single-photon" based Quantum Key Distribution and Random Number Generation schemes and their device-independent security analysis

Konrad Schlichtholz , Bianka Woloncewicz , Tamoghna Das , Marcin Markiewicz , Marek \.Zukowski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 05:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords device-independent quantum key distributionsingle-photon nonlocalityClauser-Horne inequalityno-signaling eavesdropperweak homodyne detectionquantum random number generationbeam splitter randomness
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single-photon interferometric scheme yields device-independent QKD secure against any no-signaling eavesdropper.

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

The paper shows that the single-photon nonlocality realized through weak homodyne measurements, with local oscillators switched on or off and unbalanced homodyning, supports a device-independent quantum key distribution protocol. Key bits are generated from the off-off measurement outcomes on the split photon, while security against eavesdroppers limited only by no-signaling is certified by observing a violation of a specific Clauser-Horne inequality in runs that include the on settings. Security is quantified by decomposing the observed correlations into the extreme points of the no-signaling polytope, which identifies the worst-case eavesdropping strategy and ties the extractable key rate directly to the amount of Bell violation. The same structure is adapted to produce a self-testing quantum random number generator that certifies randomness from the beam-splitter events.

Core claim

We present a single-photon based device-independent quantum key distribution scheme secure even against no-signaling eavesdropping. In our protocol the random bits of the cryptographic key are obtained by measurements on the single photon, that is for off settings at both Alice and Bob sides, while the security is positively tested if for eavesdropping testing runs one observes a violation of a specific Bell inequality involving the on and off weak homodyne measurements as alternative local settings. The security analysis presented here is based on a decomposition of the correlations into extreme points of a no-signaling polytope, which allows for identification of the optimal strategy for任何

What carries the argument

Decomposition of observed correlations into extreme points of the no-signaling polytope to bound the key rate by the violation of a Clauser-Horne inequality arising from on/off weak-homodyne settings.

If this is right

  • The secret key rate is a direct function of the observed Clauser-Horne violation.
  • Randomness for the key is extracted only from the off-off outcomes once the test runs certify the violation.
  • The protocol remains secure even when the eavesdropper is constrained solely by the no-signaling principle.
  • The same correlation decomposition yields a self-testing QRNG whose output randomness is certified by the same Bell test.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could simplify device-independent protocols by replacing entangled-pair sources with a single-photon interferometer.
  • Practical realization would require verifying that weak local oscillators can be toggled without introducing signaling between stations.
  • The polytope decomposition method may extend to other single-particle or few-mode Bell tests for bounding extractable randomness.

Load-bearing premise

The local weak-homodyne measurements can be performed with the precise on/off and unbalanced settings needed to produce the required Clauser-Horne violation while the two stations remain no-signaling.

What would settle it

An experiment that records the four-setting correlation table with on/off weak homodynes and obtains a Clauser-Horne value no larger than the no-signaling bound, or that yields a zero or negative key rate despite a positive violation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2311.07451 by Bianka Woloncewicz, Konrad Schlichtholz, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek \.Zukowski, Tamoghna Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic diagram of an all-optical setup for quantum key distribution protocol with a single photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plot of the optimal violation of the right hand side of the Clauser-Horne inequality, given in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic representation of eavesdropper preparing no-signaling correlations mimicking correlations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The question of ``non-locality of a single photon'', which started with a paper by Tan, Walls and Collett (TWC, 1991) stirred a thirty years long debate. This hampered attempts to use the TWC interferometric scheme in quantum cryptography. The scheme involves a single photon 50-50 beam-split into two modes propagating to two spatially separated observation stations at which weak homodyne measurements are made. The physics and non-classicality of such an arrangement has been understood only recently, and points out that an unquestionable Bell non-classicality, as was suggested by Hardy (1994), can be observed when the local measurement settings differ by the weak local oscillator being on or off, and additionally the homodyning for the on case is not balanced. Based on that, we present a single-photon based device-independent quantum key distribution scheme secure even against no-signaling eavesdropping. In our protocol the random bits of the cryptographic key are obtained by measurements on the single photon, that is for off settings at both Alice and Bob sides, while the security is positively tested if for eavesdropping testing runs one observes a violation of a specific Bell inequality involving the on and off weak homodyne measurements as alternative local settings. The security analysis presented here is based on a decomposition of the correlations into extreme points of a no-signaling polytope, which allows for identification of the optimal strategy for any eavesdropping constrained only by the no-signaling principle. For this strategy, the key rate is calculated, which is then connected with the violation of a specific Clauser-Horne inequality. We also adapt this analysis to propose a self-testing quantum random number generator based on the old idea that employs the randomness of reflection and transmission events of a quantum light impinged on a 50-50 beamsplitter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a device-independent QKD protocol and self-testing QRNG based on the single-photon interferometric scheme of Tan-Walls-Collett, where a photon is split 50-50 and weak homodyne measurements (with on/off local oscillator and unbalanced homodyning) are performed at distant stations. Key bits are generated from the off-off settings, while security against no-signaling eavesdroppers is certified by violation of a specific Clauser-Horne inequality over the four on/off combinations; the key rate is obtained by decomposing the observed correlations into extreme points of the no-signaling polytope and bounding Eve's information accordingly.

Significance. If the claimed no-signaling property of the weak-homodyne settings holds, the work supplies an explicit, falsifiable bound relating secret key rate to Clauser-Horne violation in a single-photon platform, which is a concrete strength. It also offers a route to DI cryptography that avoids multi-photon entanglement sources.

major comments (2)
  1. [Protocol definition and security analysis] Protocol definition and security analysis: the manuscript asserts that the four combinations of on/off weak-homodyne settings produce a joint distribution whose marginals are independent of the distant party's choice, yet provides no derivation of this property from the single-photon state, beam-splitter unitary, and local-oscillator dynamics. Because the polytope decomposition and resulting key-rate formula rest on this assumption, any physical deviation that induces signaling would invalidate the security bound.
  2. [Security analysis] Security analysis: the optimal eavesdropping strategy is identified via enumeration of extreme points of the no-signaling polytope, but the manuscript does not exhibit the explicit list of vertices, the resulting bound on Eve's information, or the algebraic steps connecting the Clauser-Horne value to the key rate. Without these steps the claimed functional dependence cannot be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. The precise form of the Clauser-Horne inequality (including the coefficients for the four setting combinations) is referenced but not written out; adding the explicit expression would improve readability.
  2. Notation for the four measurement settings (off-off, on-off, etc.) would benefit from a compact table listing the local-oscillator state and homodyne balance parameter for each party.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the two major comments below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and derivations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Protocol definition and security analysis] Protocol definition and security analysis: the manuscript asserts that the four combinations of on/off weak-homodyne settings produce a joint distribution whose marginals are independent of the distant party's choice, yet provides no derivation of this property from the single-photon state, beam-splitter unitary, and local-oscillator dynamics. Because the polytope decomposition and resulting key-rate formula rest on this assumption, any physical deviation that induces signaling would invalidate the security bound.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain an explicit derivation of the no-signaling property from the underlying quantum-optical model. Although the TWC single-photon interferometric setup with weak homodyne detection is expected to satisfy no-signaling (local marginals independent of the remote setting choice), this step was omitted. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated derivation starting from the single-photon state, 50-50 beam-splitter unitary, and the on/off local-oscillator dynamics, showing that the four joint distributions obey the no-signaling conditions required for the polytope analysis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Security analysis] Security analysis: the optimal eavesdropping strategy is identified via enumeration of extreme points of the no-signaling polytope, but the manuscript does not exhibit the explicit list of vertices, the resulting bound on Eve's information, or the algebraic steps connecting the Clauser-Horne value to the key rate. Without these steps the claimed functional dependence cannot be verified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the explicit list of polytope vertices, the computation of Eve's information for each, and the algebraic mapping from the Clauser-Horne value to the key rate were not displayed. In the revision we will supply the complete enumeration of the relevant no-signaling polytope vertices (restricted to the four on/off settings), the resulting upper bound on Eve's information, and the intermediate algebraic steps that relate the observed Clauser-Horne violation to the secret-key-rate expression. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation uses external no-signaling polytope bounds

full rationale

The paper derives the key rate by decomposing observed correlations into extreme points of the no-signaling polytope and linking the resulting bound to Clauser-Horne violation from on/off weak-homodyne settings. This is a standard external constraint applied to the measured statistics; the polytope analysis does not reduce any quantity to a self-defined parameter, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. No equations or steps in the provided derivation chain exhibit self-definitional equivalence or ansatz smuggling. The protocol assumptions (no-signaling preservation under the described measurements) are stated as modeling choices rather than derived outputs, leaving the central security claim self-contained against the no-signaling benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The security proof relies on the no-signaling principle and the assumption that the described weak-homodyne measurements are implementable; no new particles or forces are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption No-signaling principle between Alice and Bob
    Invoked throughout the security analysis to bound eavesdropper information via the no-signaling polytope.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5893 in / 1231 out tokens · 28164 ms · 2026-05-24T05:40:46.837715+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unquestionable Bell theorem for interwoven frustrated down conversion processes

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0

    Demonstrates Bell nonclassicality for path-identity-based interference in PDC processes by violating Clauser-Horne inequality via on-off switching of local processes, unlike phase-shift settings which admit a local re...

  2. Multipartite Bell-GHZ nonclassicality from interwoven frustrated down-conversion

    quant-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A multi-observer configuration of interwoven frustrated down-conversion produces interference from multi-pair emissions that violates a lifted Clauser-Horne Bell inequality when local pump powers are treated as contro...

  3. Multipartite Bell-GHZ nonclassicality from interwoven frustrated down-conversion

    quant-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A network of N parametric down-conversion sources with local crystals at each observer produces 2N-photon interference that vanishes when any local pump is blocked, enabling violation of a lifted Clauser-Horne inequal...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Nonlocality of a single photon

    S. M. Tan, D. F. Walls, and M. J. Collett. “Nonlocality of a single photon”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 252–255 (1991)

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    Comment on “Nonlocality of a single photon

    Emilio Santos. “Comment on “Nonlocality of a single photon””. Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 894– 894 (1992)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Nonlocality of a Single Photon Revisited

    Lucien Hardy. “Nonlocality of a Single Photon Revisited”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2279– 2283 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Testing Quantum Nonlocality in Phase Space

    Konrad Banaszek and Krzysztof Wódkiewicz. “Testing Quantum Nonlocality in Phase Space”. Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2009–2013 (1999)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Nonlocality of a single photon in cavity QED

    Christopher C. Gerry. “Nonlocality of a single photon in cavity QED”. Phys. Rev. A53, 4583–4586 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Single-photon nonlocality in quantum networks

    Paolo Abiuso, Tamás Kriváchy, Emanuel-Cristian Boghiu, Marc-Olivier Renou, Alejandro Pozas-Kerstjens, and Antonio Acín. “Single-photon nonlocality in quantum networks”. Phys. Rev. Research 4, L012041 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Heralded Distribution of Single- Photon Path Entanglement

    P. Caspar, E. Verbanis, E. Oudot, N. Maring, F. Samara, M. Caloz, M. Perrenoud, P. Sekatski, A. Martin, N. Sangouard, H. Zbinden, and R. T. Thew. “Heralded Distribution of Single- Photon Path Entanglement”. Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 110506 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Optimal states for Bell-inequality violations using quadrature-phase homodyne measurements

    W. J. Munro. “Optimal states for Bell-inequality violations using quadrature-phase homodyne measurements”. Phys. Rev. A59, 4197–4201 (1999)

    work page 1999

  9. [9]

    Single-particle entanglement

    S. J. van Enk. “Single-particle entanglement”. Phys. Rev. A72, 064306 (2005)

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Demonstration of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steer- ing Using Single-Photon Path Entanglement and Displacement-Based Detection

    T. Guerreiro, F. Monteiro, A. Martin, J. B. Brask, T. Vértesi, B. Korzh, M. Caloz, F. Bus- sières, V. B. Verma, A. E. Lita, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, F. Marsilli, M. D. Shaw, N. Gisin, N. Brunner, H. Zbinden, and R. T. Thew. “Demonstration of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Steer- ing Using Single-Photon Path Entanglement and Displacement-Based Detection”. Phys. Re...

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Wave–particle complementarity: detecting violation of local realism with photon-number resolving weak-field homodyne measurements

    Tamoghna Das, Marcin Karczewski, Antonio Mandarino, Marcin Markiewicz, Bianka Wolon- cewicz, and Marek Żukowski. “Wave–particle complementarity: detecting violation of local realism with photon-number resolving weak-field homodyne measurements”. New Journal of Physics 24, 033017 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Can single photon excitation of two spatially separated modes lead to a violation of Bell inequality via weak-field homodyne measurements?

    Tamoghna Das, Marcin Karczewski, Antonio Mandarino, Marcin Markiewicz, Bianka Wolon- cewicz, and Marek Żukowski. “Can single photon excitation of two spatially separated modes lead to a violation of Bell inequality via weak-field homodyne measurements?”. New Journal of Physics 23, 073042 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    OptimalInterferometryforBellNonclassicalityInducedbyaVacuum–One-Photon Qubit

    Tamoghna Das, Marcin Karczewski, Antonio Mandarino, Marcin Markiewicz, and Marek Żukowski. “OptimalInterferometryforBellNonclassicalityInducedbyaVacuum–One-Photon Qubit”. Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034074 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Generalization of Gisin’s theorem to quantum fields

    Konrad Schlichtholz and Marcin Markiewicz. “Generalization of Gisin’s theorem to quantum fields”. New Journal of Physics26, 023048 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem

    Artur K. Ekert. “Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem”. Physical Review Letters 67, 661–663 (1991)

    work page 1991

  16. [16]

    Bell nonlocality

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. “Bell nonlocality”. Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419–478 (2014)

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Self testing quantum apparatus

    D. Mayers and A. Yao. “Self testing quantum apparatus”. Quantum Inf. Comp.4, 273 (2004). arXiv:quant-ph/0307205

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks

    A. Acin, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani. “Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks”. Physical Review Letters98, 230501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Secure device-independent quantum key distribution with causally independent measurement devices

    L. Masanes, S. Pironio, and A. Acín. “Secure device-independent quantum key distribution with causally independent measurement devices”. Nat. Commun.2 (2011)

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    Simple and tight device-independent security proofs

    R. Arnon-Friedman, R. Renner, and T. Vidick. “Simple and tight device-independent security proofs”. SIAM Journal on Computing48, 181–225 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    No signaling and quantum key distribution

    J. Barrett, L. Hardy, and A. Kent. “No signaling and quantum key distribution”. Phys. Rev. Lett 95, 010503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    From Bell’s Theorem to Secure Quantum Key Distribu- tion

    A. Acín, N. Gisin, and L. Masanes. “From Bell’s Theorem to Secure Quantum Key Distribu- tion”. Phys. Rev. Lett97, 120405 (2006). 18

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Full Security of Quantum Key Distribution From No-Signaling Constraints

    Lluis Masanes, Renato Renner, Matthias Christandl, Andreas Winter, and Jonathan Bar- rett. “Full Security of Quantum Key Distribution From No-Signaling Constraints”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60, 4973–4986 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Efficient quantum key distribution secure against no- signaling eavesdroppers

    A. Acín, S. Massar, and S. Pironio. “Efficient quantum key distribution secure against no- signaling eavesdroppers”. New J. Phys.8, 126 (2006)

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Efficient device-independent quantum key distribution

    Esther Hänggi, Renato Renner, and Stefan Wolf. “Efficient device-independent quantum key distribution”. In Henri Gilbert, editor, Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2010. Pages 216–234. Berlin, Heidelberg (2010). Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing

    Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard. “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing”. Theoretical Computer Science560, 7–11 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Stable transmission of high-dimensional quantum states over a 2-km multicore fiber

    BeatriceDaLio, DavideBacco, DanieleCozzolino, NicolaBiagi, TummasNapoleonArge, Emil Larsen, Karsten Rottwitt, Yunhong Ding, Alessandro Zavatta, and Leif Katsuo Oxenløwe. “Stable transmission of high-dimensional quantum states over a 2-km multicore fiber”. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics26, 1–8 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Interference due to coherence swapping

    Arun Kumar Pati and Marek Zukowski. “Interference due to coherence swapping”. Pramana 56, 393–401 (2001)

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Complete extension: the non- signaling analog of quantum purification

    Marek Winczewski, Tamoghna Das, John H. Selby, Karol Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Łukasz Pankowski, Marco Piani, and Ravishankar Ramanathan. “Complete extension: the non- signaling analog of quantum purification”. Quantum7, 1159 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Über den Variabilitätsbereich der Fourier’schen Konstanten von positiven harmonischen Funktionen

    Constantin Carathéodory. “Über den Variabilitätsbereich der Fourier’schen Konstanten von positiven harmonischen Funktionen”. Rendiconti Del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-

    work page

  31. [31]

    Convex analysis

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar. “Convex analysis”. Volume 11. Princeton University Press. (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Strong Data-Processing Inequalities for Channels and Bayesian Networks

    Yury Polyanskiy and Yihong Wu. “Strong Data-Processing Inequalities for Channels and Bayesian Networks”. In Eric Carlen, Mokshay Madiman, and Elisabeth M. Werner, editors, Convexity and Concentration. Pages 211–249. New York, NY (2017). Springer New York

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Broadcast channels with confidential messages

    Imre Csiszár and János Körner. “Broadcast channels with confidential messages”. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 24, 339–348 (1978)

    work page 1978

  34. [34]

    A Comprehensive Review of Quantum Random Number Generators: Concepts, Classification and the Origin of Random- ness

    Vaisakh Mannalatha, Sandeep Mishra, and Anirban Pathak. “A Comprehensive Review of Quantum Random Number Generators: Concepts, Classification and the Origin of Random- ness”. Quantum Information Processing22, 439 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    The Operational Meaning of Min- and Max-Entropy

    Robert Konig, Renato Renner, and Christian Schaffner. “The Operational Meaning of Min- and Max-Entropy”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory55, 4337–4347 (2009)

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Security of Quantum Key Distribution

    Renato Renner. “Security of quantum key distribution” (2006). arXiv:quant-ph/0512258

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    Certifiable Quantum Dice - Or, testable exponential randomness expansion

    Umesh V. Vazirani and Thomas Vidick. “Certifiable quantum dice - or, testable exponential randomness expansion” (2011). arXiv:1111.6054

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Trevisan’s Ex- tractor in the Presence of Quantum Side Information

    Anindya De, Christopher Portmann, Thomas Vidick, and Renato Renner. “Trevisan’s Ex- tractor in the Presence of Quantum Side Information”. SIAM Journal on Computing41, 915–940 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Quantum to classical randomness extrac- tors

    Mario Berta, Omar Fawzi, and Stephanie Wehner. “Quantum to classical randomness extrac- tors”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60, 1168–1192 (2014)

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    Tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements with weak-field homodyne detection

    G. S. Thekkadath, D. S. Phillips, J. F. F. Bulmer, W. R. Clements, A. Eckstein, B. A. Bell, J. Lugani, T. A. W. Wolterink, A. Lita, S. W. Nam, T. Gerrits, C. G. Wade, and I. A. Walmsley. “Tuning between photon-number and quadrature measurements with weak-field homodyne detection”. Phys. Rev. A101, 031801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics

    Nicolas Sangouard, Christoph Simon, Hugues de Riedmatten, and Nicolas Gisin. “Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics”. Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 33–80 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    “Event-ready-detectors

    M. Żukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert. ““Event-ready-detectors” Bell experiment via entanglement swapping”. Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 4287–4290 (1993)

    work page 1993

  43. [43]

    Nonlocal correlations as an information-theoretic resource

    Jonathan Barrett, Noah Linden, Serge Massar, Stefano Pironio, Sandu Popescu, and David Roberts. “Nonlocal correlations as an information-theoretic resource”. Phys. Rev. A71, 022101 (2005). 19

    work page 2005