Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Certifying semi-device-independent security via wave-particle duality experiments

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 The paper shows that in the symmetric (4,2,2) prepare-and-measure scenario, the semi-device-independent witness equals exactly $S=2(D+V)$, so measuring visibility and input distinguishability certifies non-classicality and secure key rate.

desk verdict The core mapping S=2(D+V) is a clean reformulation with solid experimental backing, but the improved security threshold rests on a false inequality and should not be accepted as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00679 v1 pith:T2SSTUVV submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph

Chithra Raj , Tushita Prasad , Anubhav Chaturvedi , Lucas Pollyceno , Daniel Spegel-Lexne , Santiago Gómez , Joakim Argillander , Alvaro Alarcón
show 3 more authors
Guilherme B. Xavier Marcin Paw{l}owski Pedro R. Dieguez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords semi-device-independentsecuritywave-particledualityentropicuncertaintyrelationsquantumkeydistributionprepare-and-measurescenariointerferometricvisibilityinputdistinguishabilityorbitalangularmomentum
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

This paper aims to make wave-particle duality a practical certification tool for semi-device-independent security, where only the dimension of the quantum system is trusted. It derives a compact identity for the (4,2,2) prepare-and-measure scenario: once symmetry and normalization conditions are imposed, the SDI witness $S$ satisfies $\max_{\phi_x} S_{\phi_x} = 2(D+V)$, with $D$ the input distinguishability and $V$ the interferometric visibility. Because both quantities are extracted from simple photon-counting statistics in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the identity turns raw interference data into a certificate of non-classicality and of positive key rate. The paper also presents a refined security bound, lowering the required threshold to $D+V > 1.332$, and reports a proof-of-principle experiment with orbital-angular-momentum states in a fiber interferometer that tracks the predicted curve. If the derivation holds, complementarity experiments become a direct route to quantum-cryptographic security statements.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the pair $(D,V)$: input distinguishability $D=2p_{\mathrm{guess}}(\text{which-path})-1$ and interferometric visibility $V=2p_{\mathrm{guess}}(\text{output observable})-1$, both defined through optimal guessing probabilities in the spirit of entropic uncertainty. The mechanism is Bob's tunable beam splitter, which interpolates between the particle-like and wave-like measurements $M_0(\phi_s,\phi_x)$ and $M_1(\phi_s,\phi_x)$. That tunability, together with the parity-based encoding $(|0\rangle, |1\rangle, |+\rangle, |-\rangle)$, is what lets every term of the SDI witness be read as a distinguishability or a visibility, culminating in Eq. (21), $\max_{\phi_x} S_{\phi_x}=2(D+V)$.

What would settle it

Take three identical measurement axes; then the geometric quantity inside inequality (27) equals 3, not at most 1, so the improved security threshold $P_B>0.833$ does not follow from the stated argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the SDI witness $S$ of Eq. (3) decomposes into operational wave-particle quantities. Starting from the parity-based encoding of Alice's four states and Bob's tunable beam-splitter measurements, the authors rewrite $S_{\phi_x}$ as a sum of configuration-dependent distinguishabilities and visibilities (Eq. (16)). Imposing the interferometer symmetries (19) and the parity-oblivious normalization conditions (20) reduces that sum to the closed form $\max_{\phi_x} S_{\phi_x} = 2(D+V)$. Since the classical bound is $S \le 2$, non-classicality is certified exactly when $D+V > 1$, and key-rate positivity is certified when the stricter security thresholds are met. The reported experiment scans the tunable beam splitter from particle-like to wave-like measurements and observes that the data agree with $S/2 = D+V$, with the largest violation at $\phi_s = \pi/4$, where $D=V=\sqrt{2}/2$.

Load-bearing premise

The improved security threshold rests on a geometric inequality that the paper applies without stating a constraint under which it actually holds; for arbitrary triples of measurement axes in three dimensions the inequality can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Semi-device-independent non-classicality certification reduces to checking $D+V>1$; neither maximal visibility alone nor maximal distinguishability alone suffices.
  • Positive key rate can be certified from interferometric data whenever $D+V$ exceeds the security threshold, $1.332$ under the paper's improved bound or $1.366$ under the original bound of Ref. [32].
  • A single reconfigurable interferometer can scan the tunable beam splitter across the whole particle-wave range and produce the security certificate without characterizing detectors or sources beyond their dimension.
  • The optimal operating point is balanced complementarity, $D=V=\sqrt{2}/2$, reached at $\phi_s=\pi/4$, rather than an extreme wave or particle setting.
  • The proof-of-principle OAM experiment indicates that the relation survives in a realistic few-mode-fiber platform, so the certificate is obtainable with current technology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to derive analogous $D+V$ decompositions for prepare-and-measure scenarios with more than two inputs; the symmetry-encoding argument suggests the structure may persist, but the paper does not claim it.
  • The refined security threshold should be treated as conditional on the measurement axes satisfying the geometric inequality used in Methods 1; restricting the axes to mutually unbiased directions would make that condition true, and this restriction is implicit rather than stated.
  • Because $D$ and $V$ are estimated from raw count maxima and minima, the criterion offers a practical shortcut for monitoring SDI-QKD devices in real time; that operational convenience is an inference from the paper's mapping, not one of its theorems.
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 connection between wave-particle duality and semi-device-independent (SDI) security by expressing the (4,2,2) prepare-and-measure witness S in terms of input distinguishability D and interferometric visibility V. Under the symmetry relations (19) and normalization conditions (20), the authors derive max_{\phi_x} S_{\phi_x} = 2(D+V), so that measuring D and V is claimed to suffice for certifying non-classicality and key-rate positivity. They report a fiber-optical experiment with orbital-angular-momentum weak coherent states (mean photon number \mu=0.2) that measures D, V, and S as a function of the tunable beam splitter phase, and they claim to validate the theoretical prediction. They also propose an improved security threshold P_B > 0.833 based on an inequality derived in Methods 1.

Significance. If correct, the mapping S=2(D+V) is a clean, operationally meaningful link between complementarity and SDI certification, and it could simplify experimental certification in prepare-and-measure quantum communication. The derivation of the mapping is explicit and internally consistent under the stated assumptions, and the experimental platform is described in detail with error bars, representing a genuine proof-of-principle of the interferometric technique. However, the improved security bound rests on an invalid inequality, and the weak-coherent-state implementation breaks the qubit-dimension premise of the SDI framework, so the certification claims currently outrun what the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods 1, Eqs. (27)-(32)] The improved security condition P_B > 0.833 relies on inequality (27), whose proof is invalid. The step "Since \sum_i m_i \le 1" is false: the m_i are three unit Bloch vectors, and their vector sum can have norm up to 3. A concrete counterexample is n=(1,0,0), m0=(1,0,0), m1=(1/\sqrt2,1/\sqrt2,0), m2=(1/\sqrt2,0,1/\sqrt2), for which \sum_i (n\cdot m_i)^2 = 2 > 1. Equation (29) is also dimensionally inconsistent, as it places a vector sum on the right-hand side where a scalar bound is needed. Consequently, Eqs. (30)-(32) and the threshold P_B>0.833 are unsupported as stated. The core mapping S=2(D+V) and the original threshold D+V>1.366 from Ref. [32] are not affected by this flaw, but the advertised enlargement of the secure parameter region does not follow from the presented argument.
  2. [Methods 3 / Experimental assessment] The experiment uses weak coherent states with average photon number \mu=0.2 per pulse, so the physical Hilbert space is infinite-dimensional and the emitted states are coherent states rather than qubits. The SDI framework certifies security under the assumption that the system dimension is bounded by 2. Multi-photon components violate this premise, and the manuscript provides no squash model, post-selection argument, or other justification that would map the experiment onto a qubit prepare-and-measure scenario. Therefore the data in Fig. 3 cannot, on their own, certify non-classicality or key-rate positivity in the SDI sense; at most they demonstrate the interferometric mapping under an additional, unproven assumption.
  3. [Results B, Eqs. (16) and (21)] The central identity max_{\phi_x} S_{\phi_x} = 2(D+V) is derived by algebraic rearrangement of the same detection probabilities that define D, V, and S under the symmetry and normalization conditions (19)-(20). The agreement between the measured S and 2(D+V) in Fig. 3 is therefore a consistency check of the interferometric model and of the symmetry constraints, rather than a test against an independent prediction. The abstract's phrase "validating our theoretical predictions" overstates the evidential value; the paper should explicitly state that the experimental results confirm the internal consistency of the derivation under the assumed symmetries, not independently validate the SDI relation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods 1, Eq. (27)] There is a bracket typo in the third term: "[(E(a0\oplus a1)]2" should read "[E(a0\oplus a1)]2".
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The dotted black line is described as marking "the classical bound D+V>1"; it would be clearer to write "D+V=1", since violation occurs for D+V>1.
  3. [Results D, Fig. 2] The abbreviations "Bias", "IM", and "ATT" in Fig. 2 are not defined in the caption or the main text; defining them would help readability.
  4. [Methods 1, Eq. (22)-(26)] The assumption that P_{B,E}(a0)=P_{B,E}(a1) is introduced without discussion; while it may follow from uniformity of a0 and a1 plus a symmetry argument, the manuscript should state the justification explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Core mapping S=2(D+V) is an algebraic identity obtained by substituting the definitions of D and V into the SDI witness under the stated symmetries, so its experimental 'validation' is a consistency check; the improved security threshold rests on an invalid inequality, which is a correctness gap rather than circularity.

  1. self definitional [Results B, Eqs. (10)-(16) and (21); Fig. 3]
    "Comparing (4), (10) and (14), the SDI witness Sφx can be rewritten as ... (15). Maximizing over the phase shift φx (which tunes the interference visibility), and using the definition of visibility in Eq. (11), we finally obtain the core result ... (16). ... Particularizing on the states and measurements discussed means exploiting the symmetries Vb0,1,y = Vb1,0,y = V and Db0,0,y = Db1,1,y = D, which leads to the final compact expression maxφx Sφx = 2(D +V). (21)"

    Equations (10) and (11) define D and V as 2p−1 for exactly the same conditional probabilities P(b|a0,a1,y) that are collected into the correlators of S in Eq. (3). Inserting these definitions into (3) and applying the symmetry relations (19) and normalizations (20) yields, by pure algebra, S = 4(e0+f0−1) = 2[(2e0−1)+(2f0−1)] = 2(D+V), with e0≡E00,0=E00,1 and f0≡E01,0=E10,1. No parameter is fitted and no physical law beyond the already-posited symmetries is invoked. Hence Eq. (21) is not a prediction from a separate theory but a rewriting of the witness in terms of the same probabilities; the experimental 'validation' in Fig. 3 is a consistency check between blocking/phase-scan data and correlator bookkeeping, not a test of an independently derived relation.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim, max_φx S_φx = 2(D+V), is obtained by inserting the operational definitions (10)-(13) into the witness (3) and applying symmetries (19) and normalizations (20). Since D and V are defined as 2P−1 for the same conditional probabilities that form the correlators in S, the relation is an algebraic identity: under the symmetries, S = 4(e0+f0−1) = 2[(2e0−1)+(2f0−1)] = 2(D+V). No parameter is fitted and no independent physical law beyond the chosen encoding and interferometric model enters. Consequently, the experimental agreement in Fig. 3 is a consistency check between blocking/phase-scan data and the correlator bookkeeping; it does not test an independent prediction. This partial circularity is significant because the certification and security-region claims in the abstract are based on this identity. Separately, Methods 1's derivation of the improved threshold PB>0.833 contains the invalid step 'Since sum_i m_i ≤ 1' applied to unit Bloch vectors; the correct bound would require additional measurement constraints (e.g., mutually unbiased directions). This is a correctness gap, not a circularity, but it removes the only non-tautological element distinguishing the improved threshold from the earlier bound. Self-citations to Ref. [32] and the authors' prior experimental work [25] are used as background and platform, but the load-bearing algebraic relation is not supported by those citations. Overall, the circularity score reflects the self-definitional nature of the main mapping, not the independent QRAC/SDI framework or the (flawed) security improvement.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical mapping rests on the four-state encoding, the symmetry relations (19), the parity-oblivious/blocking normalizations (20), and, for the improved bound, the unproven inequality (27). No new physical entities are postulated, and the only hand-chosen experimental parameter is the mean photon number.

free parameters (1)
  • Mean photon number per pulse mu = 0.2
    Chosen for the proof-of-principle experiment; not fitted to the central relation, but it determines multi-photon contamination that weakens the dimension-2 SDI assumptions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The four-state encoding in Eq. (9), with even parity for particle-like and odd parity for wave-like preparations, is representative of all MZI-based encodings.
    The paper states that any alternate bit-to-state assignment can be mapped by relabeling, but this assumes the MZI structure is the relevant one for the SDI task.
  • domain assumption Symmetry relations E00,0=E00,1, E11,0=E11,1, E01,0=E10,1, E10,0=E01,1 hold for the tunable beam splitter.
    Used to reduce Eq. (16) to S=2(D+V); holds in the ideal qubit model but can be affected by experimental asymmetries and losses.
  • domain assumption Parity-obliviousness and path-blocking imply E00,0+E11,0=1 and E01,0+E10,0=1.
    These normalizations ensure that marginal path information is independent of interference; they are assumed to hold under the experimental blocking procedure.
  • ad hoc to paper The inequality [E(a0)]^2+[E(a1)]^2+[E(a0 XOR a1)]^2 <= 1 holds for the relevant expectation values.
    Stated without proof; the supporting step 'sum_i m_i <= 1' is false for arbitrary unit vectors unless extra structure such as mutually unbiased measurements is assumed.
  • domain assumption The SDI security framework of Ref. [32] remains valid for weak coherent states with mean photon number mu=0.2.
    Multi-photon components are not bounded by the dimension-2 assumption; the paper does not provide a decoy or tagging analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Certifying semi-device-independent security via wave-particle duality experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2SSTUVV

@misc{pith2026250700679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Certifying semi-device-independent security via wave-particle duality experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2SSTUVV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00679}
}
read the original abstract

Wave-particle duality is known to be equivalent to an entropic uncertainty relation based on the min- and max-entropies, which have a clear operational meaning in quantum cryptography. Here, we derive a connection between wave-particle relations and the semi-device-independent (SDI) security framework. In particular, we express an SDI witness entirely in terms of two complementary interferometric quantities: visibility and input distinguishability. Applying a symmetry condition to the interferometric quantities, we identify a scenario in which the classical bound is violated and the security condition is met in wave-particle experiments with a tunable beam splitter. This enables the certification of non-classicality and the positivity of the key rate directly from complementary interferometric quantities. Moreover, we perform a proof-of-principle experiment using orbital-angular-momentum encoded quantum states of light in a tunable interferometer, validating our theoretical predictions. Finally, we analyze an improved bound on the SDI security condition, effectively enlarging the parameter region where secure communication can be certified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Trade-off between predictability and quantum coherence for multi-path interferometry and its operational interpretation

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Predictability defined via Bures distance is exactly complementary to Kirkwood–Dirac coherence for pure states and gives a min-entropy bound for classically-labelled sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [32]

    Ac ´ın, N

    A. Ac ´ın, N. Gisin, and L. Masanes, From bell’s theorem to secure quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 120405 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [1]

    [32] establishes that in a 2- to-1 QRAC scenario, security is guaranteed if PB > 0.8415, where PB denotes the probability that Bob correctly infers the bit sent by Alice

    Improving the security bound in the SDI scenario The security framework of Ref. [32] establishes that in a 2- to-1 QRAC scenario, security is guaranteed if PB > 0.8415, where PB denotes the probability that Bob correctly infers the bit sent by Alice. In this section, we derive a tighter secu- rity bound on PB refining the condition for secure SDI-QKD. Con...

    work page

  3. [2]

    This witness is related to a quantum random access code (QRAC) task [32], where Bob attempts to guess one of Alice’s bits ay: PB = 1 8 X a0,a1,y p(b = ay| a0, a1, y) = S + 4 8 . (4) Ref. [32] shows that secure key distribution is guaranteed when PB > PE, where PE is the eavesdropper’s optimal guessing probability. Using results from guessing probability g...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Interferometric model The interferometric setup under analysis is illustrated in Fig. 2. Each optical component is modeled by its correspond- ing matrix operator BS 1 = 1√ 2 1 i i 1 ! , BS 2 = 1√ 2 i −1 −1 i ! , (33) PM1 = 1 0 0 eiϕx ! , PM2 = 1 0 0 eiϕs ! . (34) 7 By applying these transformations, the output state becomes |ψ⟩ = 1 2 √ 2 h i (1 + eiϕs ) +...

    work page

  5. [4]

    The FMF employed is a 3-mode fiber from OFS, supporting the fundamental Gaus- sian|LP01⟩ mode, as well as|LP11a⟩ and|LP11b⟩

    Experiment The experimental setup resorts to a fiber-optical Mach- Zehnder interferometer where the input beamsplitter is com- posed of a photonic lantern, which takes a few-mode fiber (FMF) as an input, and splits the corresponding linearly polar- ized (LP) modes supported by the FMF. The FMF employed is a 3-mode fiber from OFS, supporting the fundamenta...

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    P. R. Dieguez, J. R. Guimar ˜aes, J. P. Peterson, R. M. Angelo, and R. M. Serra, Experimental assessment of physical realism in a quantum-controlled device, Commun. Phys. 5, 82 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Saunders, Complementarity and scientific rationality, Found

    S. Saunders, Complementarity and scientific rationality, Found. Phys. 35, 417 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Young, The bakerian lecture

    T. Young, The bakerian lecture. experiments and calculations relative to physical optics, Phil. Trans. R. Soc.94, 1–16 (1804)

    work page

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    B. King, A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, A matterless double slit, Nature Photonics 4, 92 (2010)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Tirole, S

    R. Tirole, S. Vezzoli, E. Galiffi, I. Robertson, D. Maurice, B. Tilmann, S. A. Maier, J. B. Pendry, and R. Sapienza, Double- slit time diffraction at optical frequencies, Nature Physics 19, 999 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    THOMSON and A

    G. THOMSON and A. REID, Diffraction of cathode rays by a thin film, Nature 119, 890 (1927)

    1927

  4. [11]

    Zimmermann, D

    B. Zimmermann, D. Rolles, B. Langer, R. Hentges, M. Braune, S. Cvejanovic, O. Geßner, F. Heiser, S. Korica, T. Lischke, et al., Localization and loss of coherence in molecular double- slit experiments, Nature Physics 4, 649 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    X.-J. Liu, Q. Miao, F. Gel’Mukhanov, M. Patanen, O. Travnikova, C. Nicolas, H. gren, K. Ueda, and C. Miron, Einstein–bohr recoiling double-slit gedanken experiment per- formed at the molecular level, Nature Photonics 9, 120 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Quantum theory and measurement, V ol. 15 (Princeton Univer- sity Press, 2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    Peres and D

    A. Peres and D. R. Terno, Quantum information and relativity theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 93 (2004)

    2004

  8. [15]

    Kaiser, T

    F. Kaiser, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, D. B. Ostrowsky, and S. Tanzilli, Entanglement-enabled delayed-choice experiment, Science 338, 637 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Auccaise, R

    R. Auccaise, R. M. Serra, J. G. Filgueiras, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and L. C. C ´eleri, Experimental analysis of the quantum complementarity principle, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032121 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    P. R. Dieguez and R. M. Angelo, Information-reality comple- mentarity: The role of measurements and quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022107 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    F. R. Lustosa, P. R. Dieguez, and I. G. da Paz, Irrealism from fringe visibility in matter-wave double-slit interference with ini- tial contractive states, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052205 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Lustosa, D

    F. Lustosa, D. G. Barreto, E. C. Lima, L. S. Cruz, P. R. Dieguez, and B. Marques, Emergence of realism through quantum dis- cord suppression in photonic weak measurements, New Journal of Physics 10.1088/1367-2630/add205 (2025)

    2025 doi

  13. [20]

    Jaeger, A

    G. Jaeger, A. Shimony, and L. Vaidman, Two interferometric complementarities, Phys. Rev. A 51, 54 (1995)

    1995

  14. [21]

    Englert, Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality, Phys

    B.-G. Englert, Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2154 (1996)

    1996

  15. [22]

    P. J. Coles, J. Kaniewski, and S. Wehner, Equivalence of wave- particle duality to entropic uncertainty, Nat. Commun. 5, 5814 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    P. J. Coles, Entropic framework for wave-particle duality in multipath interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062111 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015002 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Scarani, H

    V . Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Du ˇsek, N. L¨utkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Reviews of modern physics 81, 1301 (2009)

    2009

  19. [26]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Ren- ner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum mem- ory, Nature Physics 6, 659 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Mizutani, T

    A. Mizutani, T. Sasaki, G. Kato, Y . Takeuchi, and K. Tamaki, Information-theoretic security proof of differential-phase-shift quantum key distribution protocol based on complementarity, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 014003 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    Zhang, P

    X. Zhang, P. Zeng, T. Ye, H.-K. Lo, and X. Ma, Quantum com- plementarity approach to device-independent security, Physical Review Letters 131, 140801 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Spegel-Lexne, S

    D. Spegel-Lexne, S. G ´omez, J. Argillander, M. Pawłowski, P. R. Dieguez, A. Alarc ´on, and G. B. Xavier, Experimental demonstration of the equivalence of entropic uncertainty with wave-particle duality, Science Advances 10, eadr2007 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Koashi, Simple security proof of quantum key distribution based on complementarity, New Journal of Physics 11, 045018 (2009)

    M. Koashi, Simple security proof of quantum key distribution based on complementarity, New Journal of Physics 11, 045018 (2009)

    2009

  24. [31]

    Ardehali, Quantum cryptography based on wheeler’s de- layed choice experiment, Physics Letters A 217, 301 (1996)

    M. Ardehali, Quantum cryptography based on wheeler’s de- layed choice experiment, Physics Letters A 217, 301 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Scarani, N

    V . Scarani, N. Gisin, N. Brunner, L. Masanes, S. Pino, and A. Ac ´ın, Secrecy extraction from no-signaling correlations, Phys. Rev. A 74, 042339 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    I. W. Primaatmaja, K. T. Goh, E. Y .-Z. Tan, J. T.-F. Khoo, S. Ghorai, and C. C.-W. Lim, Security of device-independent quantum key distribution protocols: a review, Quantum 7, 932 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    D. Saha, M. Oszmaniec, L. Czekaj, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Operational foundations for complementarity and uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052104 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Pawłowski and N

    M. Pawłowski and N. Brunner, Semi-device-independent se- curity of one-way quantum key distribution, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 84, 010302 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    T. A. Birks, I. Gris-S ´anchez, S. Yerolatsitis, S. G. Leon-Saval, and R. R. Thomson, The photonic lantern, Adv. Opt. Photon.7, 107 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Alarc ´on, J

    A. Alarc ´on, J. Argillander, G. Lima, and G. Xavier, Few-mode- fiber technology fine-tunes losses in quantum communication systems, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 034018 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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