Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 98 references

Finite-key security analysis of decoy-state QKD with source and detector imperfections

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A finite-key security proof for decoy-state QKD now incorporates state-preparation flaws, side-channel leakage, intensity fluctuations and detection-efficiency mismatches in one analytical bound.

desk verdict This paper gives an analytical finite-key proof bundling several QKD device imperfections at once, but the completeness of that list is the load-bearing assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.29943 v1 pith:BXWETQY3 submitted 2026-06-29 quant-ph

Xoel Sixto , Guillermo Currás-Lorenzo , Margarida Pereira , Víctor Zapatero , Álvaro Navarrete , Marcos Curty This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributiondecoy-stateprotocolfinite-keyanalysisdeviceimperfectionssecurityproofside-channelleakagedetectionefficiencymismatch
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 work derives an analytical expression for the length of the secure key that can be extracted from a finite number of pulses when the source and detector deviate from ideal behavior in several ways at once. It combines recent proof techniques to remove the common assumption that signals are independent and identically distributed. A reader should care because high-speed QKD systems always exhibit these imperfections, and earlier proofs either ignored them or required experimental conditions that are hard to verify. If the bound holds, one can calculate concrete key rates directly from measured device parameters without additional idealizing assumptions.

What carries the argument

The extended finite-key security bound constructed by merging recent advances on imperfect sources and detectors into a single analytical expression.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures the listed imperfections, computes the bound, and then extracts a longer key than the formula permits would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We obtain a tight finite-key length formula for decoy-state QKD that simultaneously accounts for state-preparation flaws, bit and basis side-channel leakage and correlations, setting-independent intensity fluctuations, and detection-efficiency mismatches.

Load-bearing premise

The listed imperfections are treated as the complete set of relevant deviations from ideal behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Key rates can be evaluated without assuming signals are independent and identically distributed.
  • The same proof framework applies to both transmitter and receiver imperfections at once.
  • Experimenters obtain explicit dependence of the key length on each measured flaw parameter.
  • High-speed implementations can use the bound without additional assumptions that are difficult to justify.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The modular structure of the proof may allow similar combinations for other QKD variants such as measurement-device-independent schemes.
  • One could test the bound by feeding it real calibration data from a deployed QKD link and checking whether the predicted key rate matches observed performance.
  • If additional unmodeled imperfections appear in practice, the current formula would need an extra term rather than a complete rewrite.
  • The approach suggests that future security analyses can be assembled from reusable sub-proofs for individual device flaws.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims to combine and extend recent theoretical advances to deliver an analytical finite-key security proof for decoy-state QKD that simultaneously accounts for state-preparation flaws, bit and basis side-channel leakage and correlations, setting-independent intensity fluctuations, and detection-efficiency mismatches.

Significance. If the derivation is sound and the model is complete, the result would supply a more realistic finite-key bound for practical high-speed QKD systems than proofs that omit these imperfections, directly improving the accuracy of extractable key lengths under realistic device conditions.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract (and implied model definition): the central claim requires that the enumerated imperfections constitute a closed, sufficient set; no bounding argument or completeness proof is supplied showing why other realistic deviations (e.g., residual phase correlations across pulses or detection timing jitter) are either negligible or absorbed into the listed terms. This assumption is load-bearing for the validity of the extracted key-length formula, exactly as the weakest-assumption note indicates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and the positive assessment of the work's potential significance. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract (and implied model definition): the central claim requires that the enumerated imperfections constitute a closed, sufficient set; no bounding argument or completeness proof is supplied showing why other realistic deviations (e.g., residual phase correlations across pulses or detection timing jitter) are either negligible or absorbed into the listed terms. This assumption is load-bearing for the validity of the extracted key-length formula, exactly as the weakest-assumption note indicates.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply a formal completeness proof or explicit bounding argument establishing that the listed imperfections form a closed set. The analysis extends recent finite-key techniques to simultaneously treat the four classes of imperfections that are most frequently cited as dominant in high-speed implementations. Effects such as residual phase correlations are typically mitigated by hardware stabilization and can be partially absorbed into the side-channel leakage parameters already included; timing jitter is usually small enough to be bounded within the detection-efficiency mismatch model under standard assumptions. Nevertheless, an explicit discussion of scope and limitations would strengthen the presentation. In the revised version we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) in the model section that states the imperfections under which the key-length formula is derived, notes that additional deviations are assumed either negligible or mitigable by other means, and references the relevant experimental literature. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; derivation claims external advances without self-referential reduction in visible text

full rationale

The provided abstract states that the work 'combine[s] and extend[s] several recent theoretical advances' to produce a finite-key security proof incorporating listed imperfections, but supplies no equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations that would allow any prediction or bound to reduce by construction to its own inputs. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling are exhibited. The central claim therefore remains a composite of external results whose independence cannot be contradicted from the given text; this matches the default expectation that most papers are non-circular when no explicit reduction is quotable.

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

Review based solely on abstract; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are stated in the provided text. Typical QKD domain assumptions (e.g., quantum mechanics, standard probability bounds) are presumed but not enumerated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-key security analysis of decoy-state QKD with source and detector imperfections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXWETQY3

@misc{pith2026260629943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-key security analysis of decoy-state QKD with source and detector imperfections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXWETQY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.29943}
}
read the original abstract

Decoy-state quantum key distribution (QKD) is the most widely adopted approach for overcoming the limitations of imperfect single-photon sources. However, existing security proofs typically either neglect important device imperfections or rely on assumptions that are difficult to justify in realistic high-speed implementations, such as the independent and identically distributed nature of the emitted signals. In this work, we combine and extend several recent theoretical advances to provide a comprehensive analytical finite-key security proof for decoy-state QKD that simultaneously incorporates multiple practically relevant transmitter and receiver imperfections, including state-preparation flaws, bit and basis side-channel leakage and correlations, setting-independent intensity fluctuations, and detection-efficiency mismatches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Finite secret-key rate of a decoy-state BB84 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical simulations of the finite secret-key rate of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Protocol description and security framework We start by reviewing the different steps of the actual protocol a nd its equivalent source-replaced description. For generality, the following description is given for generic prepare-an d-measure protocols rather than for the specific BB84 implementation of the main text, so that the results also apply f or inst...

  2. [2]

    For the BB84 protocol, this state corresponds to Eq

    State preparation: For each round k ∈ { 1,...,N }, Alice randomly selects a certain encoding setting jk with probability pjk and an intensity setting µ k with probability pµ k , and then prepares a quantum state ρµ k,j k|jk− 1 1 . For the BB84 protocol, this state corresponds to Eq. ( 1) in the main text. She sends this state to Bob through the quantum channel

  3. [3]

    Eve’s action: Eve applies an arbitrary quantum operation on all the transmitted s tates and re-sends some output systems BN 1 to Bob, while keeping some ancillary system E

  4. [4]

    Bob records his measurement outcomes

    Bob’s measurements: For each roundk, Bob choosesξk ∈ { key, test} with probabilitypξk and performs the corresponding POVM; ⃗Γ key ifξk = key, or ⃗Γ test ifξk = test. Bob records his measurement outcomes

  5. [5]

    For the detected rounds, Alice announces the intensity se tting µ k

    Sifting: Bob announces which rounds resulted in a detection, along with his ch oice ofξk for each detected round. For the detected rounds, Alice announces the intensity se tting µ k. Also, for the detected rounds with ξk = test, and for the detected rounds with ξk = key and jk /∈ { 0, 1}, Alice announces jk. For the detected rounds with ξk = key and jk ∈ ...

  6. [6]

    They announce which rounds belong to this subset

    Bit-error-rate estimation: Alice and Bob choose a random subset, denoted by Dkey, of the detected rounds in which ˜Bk =ξk = key, which will be used to generate the sifted key [ 72]. They announce which rounds belong to this subset. For the remaining rounds with ˜Bk = ξk = key, Alice and Bob announce their bit values to estimate the bit-error rate

  7. [7]

    Sifted key formation: For each round k ∈ D key , Alice’s sifted key bit is jk and Bob’s sifted key bit is his measurement outcome, which we denote by bk

  8. [8]

    V ariable-length decision: Let ⃗ ndenote all the data announced by Alice and Bob in the previous steps. Using this data, Alice and Bob compute the number of bits λ EC to be revealed for one-way error correction and the length of the final key ℓ, which includes the estimation of all relevant parameters required to determine ℓ. Aborting corresponds to ℓ = 0. 11

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Error correction and verification: They perform one-way error correction revealing λ EC bits, and verify correctness using a randomly chosen hash function from a t wo-universal family with output length log2(2/ε corr), with one party announcing the hash value for comparison

  2. [10]

    The security of the above protocol is analyzed using the source-r eplacement technique

    Privacy amplification: Given that error verification succeeds, they apply a randomly selec ted two- universal hash function to the sifted key to obtain a final key of len gth ℓ. The security of the above protocol is analyzed using the source-r eplacement technique. In this pictur...

  3. [11]

    ( A1) and sends the photonic systems T N 1 through the quantum channel to Bob, while retaining the registers AN 1 ,I N 1 and M N 1

    State preparation: Alice prepares the global entangled state |Ψ N ⟩AN 1 I N 1 M N 1 T N 1 given by Eq. ( A1) and sends the photonic systems T N 1 through the quantum channel to Bob, while retaining the registers AN 1 ,I N 1 and M N 1

  4. [12]

    Eve’s action: Eve applies an arbitrary quantum operation on all the transmitted s tatesT N 1 , and sends the output systems BN 1 to Bob, possibly retaining an ancillary system E

  5. [13]

    If ξk = key, he applies the filter operation {F, I − F } to determine whether a detection occurs

    Detection and test: For each round, Bob selects ξk ∈ { key, test} with probability pξk . If ξk = key, he applies the filter operation {F, I − F } to determine whether a detection occurs. If ξk = test, he performs the measurement ⃗Γ test (a POVM with an arbitrary number of outco...

  6. [14]

    She measures her sys temIk in the basis |µ k⟩Ik and announces her results

    Key/test determining, setting announcement and photon num ber measurement: For the detected rounds, Alice proceeds as follows. She measures her sys temIk in the basis |µ k⟩Ik and announces her results. Also, if ξk = test, Alice measures her system Ak in the { |jk⟩Ak } jk∈J bas...

  7. [15]

    Bit-error-rate estimation: Alice and Bob choose a random subset Dkey from the set of detected rounds in which ˜Bk = ξk = key, which will be used to generate the sifted key, and announce t his information. For the remaining rounds in which ˜Bk =ξk = key, Alice measures Ak in {|...

  8. [16]

    The sifted key is defined by their respective bit outcomes in these rounds

    Sifted-key measurements: For each round k ∈ D key , Alice measures Ak in {|0⟩Ak, |1⟩Ak } and Bob measures his filtered system using {G0,G 1}. The sifted key is defined by their respective bit outcomes in these rounds. 7–9. Same as in the Actual protocol. 12 Finally, before stati...

  9. [17]

    We denote the single-photon phase-error rate eph, 1 as the fraction of events in which their outcomes differ among the rounds in which mk = 1

    Single-photon phase-error measurement: For each round k ∈ D key , Alice measures Ak in {|+⟩Ak, |−⟩Ak }, where |±⟩Ak = ( |0⟩Ak ± |1⟩Ak )/ √ 2, and Bob measures his filtered system using {G+,G − }. We denote the single-photon phase-error rate eph, 1 as the fraction of events in w...

  10. [18]

    For that, we partition the protocol rounds into ( lc + 1) groups, where rounds within each group are separated by at least lc positions and thus uncorrelated

    Technical results Having established that suitable bounds on the number of single-pho ton key rounds and the single-photon phase- error rate suffice to guarantee security, we now show how to boun d the latter in the presence of bit and basis correlations of range lc. For that, w...

  11. [19]

    (a) Bit measurements for rounds in P ¯w : For each round k ∈ D key ∩ P ¯w, Alice measures Ak in {|0⟩Ak, |1⟩Ak } and Bob measures his filtered system using {G0,G 1}

    Measurements in sifted-key rounds: Define the set of rounds Pw = {k :k ≡ w (modlc + 1)} and its complementP ¯w = {k :k ̸≡ w (modlc + 1)}. (a) Bit measurements for rounds in P ¯w : For each round k ∈ D key ∩ P ¯w, Alice measures Ak in {|0⟩Ak, |1⟩Ak } and Bob measures his filtered...

  12. [20]

    Then: (a) Phase-error measurements for rounds in Pw : For each round k ∈ D key ∩ Pw, Alice measures Ak 16 in {|+⟩Ak, |−⟩Ak } and Bob measures the filtered system using {G+,G − }

    Measurements in sifted-key rounds: Partition the rounds k ∈ { 1,...,N } into the sets Pw = {k : k ≡ w (modlc + 1)}. Then: (a) Phase-error measurements for rounds in Pw : For each round k ∈ D key ∩ Pw, Alice measures Ak 16 in {|+⟩Ak, |−⟩Ak } and Bob measures the filtered system ...

  13. [21]

    (D17) Applying the triangle inequality to Eqs

    guarantees that the actual emitted states with fixed past sett ings are close to the ideal reference state, which in trace distance reads T ( |φ 1 jk ⟩, |ψ 1 ˆjk− 1 k− lc ,j k ⟩ ) ≤ √ ǫside. (D17) Applying the triangle inequality to Eqs. ( D16)–(D17) and converting back to fidel...

  14. [22]

    (D20) The future-pulse subsystem involves lc such steps

    guarantees that, for each pulse separation l we have that, ⏐ ⏐ ⏐⟨Ψ jk− l− 1 k− lc+1,γ,j k k− l+1 |Ψ jk k− lc+1 ⟩ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ 2 ≥ 1 − ǫWCP l . (D20) The future-pulse subsystem involves lc such steps. Their combined effect satisfies ǫcorrelations ≤ 1 − lc∏ l=1 (1 − ǫWCP l ) ≤ lc∑ l=1 ǫW...

  15. [23]

    Secure quan- tum key distribution,

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, “Secure quan- tum key distribution,” Nature Photonics , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 595–604, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Advances in quan- tum cryptography,

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, et al. , “Advances in quan- tum cryptography,” Advances in Optics and Photonics , vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1012, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Se- cure quantum key distribution with realistic devices,

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, “Se- cure quantum key distribution with realistic devices,” Re- views of Modern Physics , vol. 92, p. 025002, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, pp. 802–803, 1982

    1982

  19. [27]

    Implemen- tation security in quantum key distribution,

    V. Zapatero, ´A. Navarrete, and M. Curty, “Implemen- tation security in quantum key distribution,” Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 7, p. 2300380, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    A study on implementa- tion attacks against qkd systems

    BSI, “A study on implementa- tion attacks against qkd systems.” https://www.bsi.bund.de/EN/Service-Navi/Publikationen/Studien/QKD-Systems/Implementation_Attacks_QKD_Systems_node.htm Accessed: 2026-05-05

    2026

  21. [29]

    Quantum key distribution with correlated sources,

    M. Pereira, G. Kato, A. Mizutani, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, “Quantum key distribution with correlated sources,” Science Advances, vol. 6, p. eaaz4487, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Security framework for quantum key distri- bution with imperfect sources,

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, “Security framework for quantum key distri- bution with imperfect sources,” Optica Quantum , vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 525–534, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Quantum cryptography with coherent states,

    B. Huttner, N. Imoto, N. Gisin, and T. Mor, “Quantum cryptography with coherent states,” Physical Review A , vol. 51, pp. 1863–1869, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    Limitations on practical quantum cryptography,

    G. Brassard, N. L¨ utkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, “Limitations on practical quantum cryptography,” Phys- ical Review Letters , vol. 85, pp. 1330–1333, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Quantum key distribution with high loss: Toward global secure communication,

    W.-Y. Hwang, “Quantum key distribution with high loss: Toward global secure communication,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 91, p. 057901, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Decoy state quan- tum key distribution,

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, “Decoy state quan- tum key distribution,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 94, p. 230504, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Beating the photon-number-splitting at- tack in practical quantum cryptography,

    X.-B. Wang, “Beating the photon-number-splitting at- tack in practical quantum cryptography,” Physical Re- view Letters, vol. 94, p. 230503, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Concise security bounds for practical decoy- state quantum key distribution,

    C. C. W. Lim, M. Curty, N. Walenta, F. Xu, and H. Zbinden, “Concise security bounds for practical decoy- state quantum key distribution,” Physical Review A , vol. 89, p. 022307, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution,

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, “Measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 108, no. 13, p. 130503, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quan- tum key distribution without quantum repeaters,

    M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, “Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quan- tum key distribution without quantum repeaters,” Na- ture, vol. 557, no. 7705, pp. 400–403, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Ex- perimental quantum key distribution with decoy states,

    Y. Zhao, B. Qi, X. Ma, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, “Ex- perimental quantum key distribution with decoy states,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 96, p. 70502, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Experimental demon- stration of free-space decoy-state quantum key distri- bution over 144 km,

    T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, M. F¨ urst, R. Ursin, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Scheidl, J. Perdigues, Z. Sodnik, C. Kurtsiefer, J. G. Rarity, et al. , “Experimental demon- stration of free-space decoy-state quantum key distri- bution over 144 km,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 98...

    2007

  33. [41]

    Long-distance quantum key distri- bution secure against coherent attacks,

    B. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, L. C. Coman- dar, W. W.-S. Tam, A. Plews, A. W. Sharpe, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, “Long-distance quantum key distri- bution secure against coherent attacks,” Optica, vol. 4, pp. 163–167, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    10-Mb/s quantum key dis- tribution,

    Z. Yuan, A. Murakami, M. Kujiraoka, M. Lucamarini, Y. Tanizawa, H. Sato, A. J. Shields, A. Plews, R. Taka- hashi, K. Doi, et al. , “10-Mb/s quantum key dis- tribution,” Journal of Lightwave Technology , vol. 36, pp. 3427–3433, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Secure quantum key distribution over 421 km of optical fiber,

    A. Boaron, G. Boso, D. Rusca, C. Vulliez, C. Autebert, M. Caloz, M. Perrenoud, G. Gras, F. Bussi` eres, M.-J. Li, D. Nolan, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, “Secure quantum key distribution over 421 km of optical fiber,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 121, p. 190502, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

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

    F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, G. V. Resta, M. Perrenoud, D. Rusca, C. Barreiro, R. Houlmann, R. Sax, L. Stasi, S. El-Khoury, E. H¨ anggi, N. Bosshard, F. Bussi` eres, and H. Zbinden, “Fast single-photon detectors and real-time key distillation enable high secret-key-rate quant...

    2023

  37. [45]

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

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, S.-K. Liao, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, H.-K. Mao, B. Yan, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, L. You, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, “High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 Mb s–1 ,” Nature Photonics , vol. 17, no. 5, p. 416–421, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Satellite- to-ground quantum key distribution,

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, et al. , “Satellite- to-ground quantum key distribution,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7670, pp. 43–47, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution,

    Y. Li, W.-Q. Cai, J.-G. Ren, C.-Z. Wang, M. Yang, L. Zhang, H.-Y. Wu, L. Chang, J.-C. Wu, B. Jin, H.- J. Xue, X.-J. Li, H. Liu, G.-W. Yu, X.-Y. Tao, T. Chen, C.-F. Liu, W.-B. Luo, J. Zhou, H.-L. Yong, Y.-H. Li, F.-Z. Li, C. Jiang, H.-Z. Chen, C. Wu, X.-H. Tong, S.- J. Xie, F. ...

    2025

  40. [48]

    Large-scale quantum communication net- works with integrated photonics,

    Y. Zheng, H. Wang, X. Jia, J. Huang, H. Yuan, C. Zhai, J. Dai, J. Shi, L. Zhang, X. Zhang, M. Zhuang, J. Liu, J. Mao, T. Dai, Z. Fu, Y. Jiao, Y. Shi, D. Dai, X. Wang, and J. Wang, “Large-scale quantum communication net- works with integrated photonics,” Nature, vol. 651, no. 8...

    2026

  41. [49]

    Toshiba Europe Limited

    “Toshiba Europe Limited.” https://www.global.toshiba/ww/products-solutions/security-ict

  42. [50]

    Thinkquantum S.R.L

    “Thinkquantum S.R.L.” https://www.thinkquantum.com

  43. [51]

    Id quantique SA

    “Id quantique SA.” https://www.idquantique.com/

  44. [52]

    Quantum Telecommunications Italy S.R.L

    “Quantum Telecommunications Italy S.R.L.” https://www.qticompany.com

  45. [53]

    Quantumctek Co., Ltd

    “Quantumctek Co., Ltd.” http://www.quantum-info.com/English/

  46. [54]

    Loss-tolerant quantum cryptography with imperfect sources,

    K. Tamaki, M. Curty, G. Kato, H.-K. Lo, and K. Azuma, “Loss-tolerant quantum cryptography with imperfect sources,” Physical Review A , vol. 90, p. 052314, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    Finite-key security analysis of quantum key distribution with imperfect light sources,

    A. Mizutani, M. Curty, C. C. W. Lim, N. Imoto, and 31 K. Tamaki, “Finite-key security analysis of quantum key distribution with imperfect light sources,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 17, no. 9, p. 093011, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Quantum key dis- tribution with flawed and leaky sources,

    M. Pereira, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, “Quantum key dis- tribution with flawed and leaky sources,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 5, p. 62, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Loss-tolerant quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch,

    A. Marcomini, A. Mizutani, F. Gr¨ unenfelder, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, “Loss-tolerant quantum key distribution with detection efficiency mismatch,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 035002, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    Improved finite-key secu- rity analysis of quantum key distribution against Trojan- horse attacks,

    ´A. Navarrete and M. Curty, “Improved finite-key secu- rity analysis of quantum key distribution against Trojan- horse attacks,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 7, no. 3, p. 035021, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Decoy-state quantum key distribution with a leaky source,

    K. Tamaki, M. Curty, and M. Lucamarini, “Decoy-state quantum key distribution with a leaky source,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 18, no. 6, p. 065008, 2016

    2016

  52. [60]

    Practical security bounds against the Trojan-horse attack in quantum key distri- bution,

    M. Lucamarini, I. Choi, M. B. Ward, J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, “Practical security bounds against the Trojan-horse attack in quantum key distri- bution,” Physical Review X , vol. 5, p. 031030, 2015

    2015

  53. [61]

    Versatile security analysis of measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion,

    I. W. Primaatmaja, E. Lavie, K. T. Goh, C. Wang, and C. C. W. Lim, “Versatile security analysis of measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion,” Physical Review A , vol. 99, p. 062332, 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    Quantum key distribution with imperfectly isolated devices,

    X. Sixto, ´A. Navarrete, M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, “Quantum key distribution with imperfectly isolated devices,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 035034, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    Phase error rate estimation in QKD with imperfect de- tectors,

    D. Tupkary, S. Nahar, P. Sinha, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, “Phase error rate estimation in QKD with imperfect de- tectors,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1937, 2025

    1937

  56. [64]

    Security of quantum key distribution with source and detector imperfections through phase-error estima- tion,

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, S. Nahar, and D. Tup- kary, “Security of quantum key distribution with source and detector imperfections through phase-error estima- tion,” npj Quantum Information , 2026

    2026

  57. [65]

    Performance and security of 5 GHz repeti- tion rate polarization-based quantum key distribution,

    F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, D. Rusca, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, “Performance and security of 5 GHz repeti- tion rate polarization-based quantum key distribution,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 117, no. 14, p. 144003, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Intensity correlations in decoy-state BB84 quantum key distribution systems,

    D. Trefilov, X. Sixto, V. Zapatero, A. Huang, M. Curty, and V. Makarov, “Intensity correlations in decoy-state BB84 quantum key distribution systems,” Optica Quan- tum, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 417–431, 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    Characterising higher-order phase correlations in gain-switched laser sources with ap- plication to quantum key distribution,

    A. Marcomini, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, D. Rusca, A. Valle, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, “Characterising higher-order phase correlations in gain-switched laser sources with ap- plication to quantum key distribution,” EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 38, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    Mod- eling and characterization of arbitrary order pulse correlations for quantum key distribution,

    A. Agulleiro, F. Gr¨ unenfelder, M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as- Lorenzo, H. Zbinden, M. Curty, and D. Rusca, “Mod- eling and characterization of arbitrary order pulse correlations for quantum key distribution,” preprint arXiv:2506.18684, 2025

    2025

  61. [69]

    Security of quantum key distribution with intensity cor- relations,

    V. Zapatero, ´A. Navarrete, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, “Security of quantum key distribution with intensity cor- relations,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 602, 2021

    2021

  62. [70]

    Security of decoy-state quantum key distribution with correlated in- tensity fluctuations,

    X. Sixto, V. Zapatero, and M. Curty, “Security of decoy-state quantum key distribution with correlated in- tensity fluctuations,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 18, p. 044069, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect phase randomisation,

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S. Nahar, N. L¨ utkenhaus, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, “Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect phase randomisation,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 015025, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Rigorous phase-error-estimation security framework for QKD with correlated sources,

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, “Rigorous phase-error-estimation security framework for QKD with correlated sources,” preprint arXiv:2601.08417, 2026

    2026

  65. [73]

    Quantum key distribution with unbounded pulse correlations,

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Mizutani, D. Rusca, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, “Quantum key distribution with unbounded pulse correlations,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 015001, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Uncertainty relation for smooth entropies,

    M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, “Uncertainty relation for smooth entropies,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 106, p. 110506, 2011

    2011

  67. [75]

    Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptogra- phy,

    M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Ren- ner, “Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptogra- phy,” Nature Communications, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 634, 2012

    2012

  68. [76]

    A largely self- contained and complete security proof for quantum key distribution,

    M. Tomamichel and A. Leverrier, “A largely self- contained and complete security proof for quantum key distribution,” Quantum, vol. 1, p. 14, 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    Leftover hashing from quantum error correction: Unifying the two approaches to the security proof of quantum key distribution,

    T. Tsurumaru, “Leftover hashing from quantum error correction: Unifying the two approaches to the security proof of quantum key distribution,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 3465–3484, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    From now on, lower scripts in number of counts like in N det,Z Z, 1 denote Alice selection and the super script denotes Bob’s selection, while underlines represent lower bounds and overlines denote upper bounds

  71. [79]

    Finite-key feasibility of geostationary quantum key distribution,

    V. Mannalath, V. Zapatero, and M. Curty, “Finite-key feasibility of geostationary quantum key distribution,” preprint arXiv:2605.29706 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Op- timizing the decoy-state BB84 QKD protocol parame- ters,

    T. Attema, J. W. Bosman, and N. M. P. Neumann, “Op- timizing the decoy-state BB84 QKD protocol parame- ters,” Quantum Information Processing , vol. 20, no. 4, p. 154, 2021

    2021

  73. [81]

    Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect de- vices,

    D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and J. Preskill, “Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect de- vices,” Quantum Information and Computation , vol. 4, pp. 325–360, 2004

    2004

  74. [82]

    Finite-key analysis of loss-tolerant quan- tum key distribution based on random sampling theory,

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Navarrete, M. Pereira, and K. Tamaki, “Finite-key analysis of loss-tolerant quan- tum key distribution based on random sampling theory,” Physical Review A , vol. 104, p. 012406, 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Weighted sums of certain dependent ran- dom variables,

    K. Azuma, “Weighted sums of certain dependent ran- dom variables,” Tohoku Mathematical Journal , vol. 19, no. 357, pp. 357–367, 1967

    1967

  76. [84]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,

    W. Hoeffding, “Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 58, no. 301, pp. 13–30, 1963

    1963

  77. [85]

    For that we consider that N det 1 := N det,Z Z, 1 + N det,X 1

    Here, we require an upper bound on the number of de- tected single-photon signals. For that we consider that N det 1 := N det,Z Z, 1 + N det,X 1 . An upper bound on N det,Z Z, 1 can be obtained with the decoy-state analysis in Section III A while to obtain an upper bound on N ...

  78. [86]

    Experimental quan- tum key distribution with source flaws,

    F. Xu, K. Wei, S. Sajeed, S. Kaiser, S. Sun, Z. Tang, L. Qian, V. Makarov, and H.-K. Lo, “Experimental quan- tum key distribution with source flaws,” Physical Review A, vol. 92, p. 032305, 2015

    2015

  79. [87]

    Characterization of state-preparation un- certainty in quantum key distribution,

    A. Huang, A. Mizutani, H.-K. Lo, V. Makarov, and K. Tamaki, “Characterization of state-preparation un- certainty in quantum key distribution,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 19, p. 014048, 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    600-km repeater-like quantum communications with dual-band stabilization,

    M. Pittaluga, M. Minder, M. Lucamarini, M. San- zaro, R. I. Woodward, M.-J. Li, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, “600-km repeater-like quantum communications with dual-band stabilization,” Nature Photonics, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 530–535, 2021

    2021

  81. [89]

    How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states,

    I. Ivanovic, “How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states,” Physics Letters A , vol. 123, no. 6, pp. 257–259, 1987

    1987

  82. [90]

    Unambiguous state discrimination in quantum cryptography with weak coherent states,

    M. Duˇ sek, M. Jahma, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, “Unambiguous state discrimination in quantum cryptography with weak coherent states,” Physical Review A , vol. 62, p. 022306, 2000

    2000

  83. [91]

    Numerical security analysis for practical quantum key distribution,

    ´Alvaro Navarrete, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, and M. Curty, “Numerical security analysis for practical quantum key distribution,” preprint arXiv:2605.12984 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Unconditional Se- curity of a Three State Quantum Key Distribution Protocol,

    J.-C. Boileau, K. Tamaki, J. Batuwantudawe, R. Laflamme, and J. M. Renes, “Unconditional Se- curity of a Three State Quantum Key Distribution Protocol,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 94, no. 4, p. 040503, 2005

    2005

  85. [94]

    Note that in the protocol considered in the main text, Alice and Bob extract key from all detected rounds in which they select the Z basis. For the sake of general- ity, in this protocol description we consider the possibil- ity that only a random subset of the detected rounds...

  86. [95]

    Simple security proof of quantum key dis- tribution based on complementarity,

    M. Koashi, “Simple security proof of quantum key dis- tribution based on complementarity,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 045018, 2009

    2009

  87. [96]

    Security of decoy-state quantum key distribution with correlated bit-and-basis encoders,

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, A. Marcomini, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, “Security of decoy-state quantum key distribution with correlated bit-and-basis encoders,” preprint arXiv:2605.11767 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Here, for simplicity of notation, we remove the boundary conditions

  89. [98]

    Equivalence (1) follows from the monotonicity of the bi- nomial tail in its lower summation limit, together with the fact that, for integer k⋆ = n GU n,ε 2 (δ), the condition ⌊n(δ + x)⌋ ≥ k⋆ is equivalent to n(δ + x) ≥ k⋆

  90. [99]

    As it is shown in [ 42], this is the case if the concentration inequalities used in the security proof converge sublin- early

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.