Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Robust One-Sided Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution via High-Dimensional Steering

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Higher dimensions boost one-sided quantum key distribution robustness

desk verdict Solid theory of HD 1sDI-QKD with dimensional advantage; experiment is genuinely proof-of-principle under fair-sampling, far from the security threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08709 v1 pith:T6GWG2MM submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph

Monika Mothsara , Suraj Goel , Bohnishikha Ghosh , Vatshal Srivastav , Will McCutcheon , Mehul Malik , Gláucia Murta This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumkeydistributionsteeringhigh-dimensionalentanglementone-sideddevice-independentreversereconciliationmulti-planelightconverterspatialmodessecretrate
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

Quantum key distribution promises information-theoretically secure communication, but real implementations suffer from noise, photon loss, and the risk that measurement devices have been tampered with. This paper attacks both problems at once by combining two ideas: one-sided device independence, where only one party (say, a bank) needs to trust their detector while the other (say, a customer) uses an uncharacterized device; and high-dimensional encoding, where each photon carries one of d possible values rather than just 0 or 1. The bridge between these ideas is quantum steering — a phenomenon where measuring one half of an entangled pair remotely steers the other half into particular states. If these remotely prepared states cannot be mimicked by any classical strategy, the shared correlations are genuinely quantum and can certify a secret key. The authors develop security analyses for three protocol variants: a two-basis protocol using entropic uncertainty relations, and two multi-basis protocols using semidefinite programming to bound an eavesdropper's guessing probability. In all cases, they find that increasing the dimension d lowers the minimum visibility (noise tolerance) required for a positive key rate. For the two-basis protocol, the minimum detection efficiency converges to 50% regardless of dimension — a provably tight bound. In the presence of noise, higher dimensions also improve loss tolerance. Crucially, the authors show that reverse reconciliation — where the untrusted party corrects her key to match the trusted party's — yields substantially higher rates than direct reconciliation, because the steering asymmetry means the trusted party's outcomes are harder for an eavesdropper to predict. They then demonstrate the protocol's building blocks experimentally: a source of high-dimensional entangled photon pairs at telecom wavelength (1550 nm) and programmable multi-outcome measurements using multi-plane light converters, operating in dimensions 2 through 11. Under the fair-sampling assumption (post-selecting on detected events), they obtain positive key rates in all dimensions, with the best performance at d=7. The current experimental detection efficiencies (roughly 1.5% for d=7) remain far below the theoretical thresholds (around 50% for the two-basis protocol), but the authors identify concrete paths — better MPLC designs, detector arrays,泵

What carries the argument

Quantum steering inequality with an extra-outcome strategy for Alice's no-click events; entropic uncertainty relation for the two-basis protocol; semidefinite programs constrained by observed steering violations for the multi-basis protocols; multi-plane light converters (MPLCs) implementing projective mutually unbiased basis measurements in spatial-mode entangled photon pairs

What would settle it

If, for some dimension, the critical visibility or detection efficiency were found to increase rather than decrease with d — or if reverse reconciliation were found to yield lower rates than direct reconciliation in the steering setting — the central dimensional-advantage claim would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that in one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution — where only one party's measurement device is trusted — encoding information in higher-dimensional quantum systems (qudits rather than qubits) systematically improves tolerance to both noise and detection loss. The key mechanism is quantum steering: the untrusted party's measurements remotely prepare states for the trusted party, and the resulting correlations, when they violate a steering inequality, certify security. The authors show that reverse reconciliation (the trusted party's outcomes serve as the reference key) exploits the inherent asymmetry of the steering scenario, yielding secret key rates that:

Load-bearing premise

The experimental key rates are obtained under the fair-sampling assumption, meaning detection failures on Alice's (untrusted) side are simply discarded. The security analysis correctly shows this is invalid when Alice's device may be adversarial — her no-click events must be included as an extra measurement outcome — but the current experimental detection efficiencies are roughly 1.5%, far below the approximately 50% threshold the theory requires for a genuinely secure, looph

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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a systematic security analysis of high-dimensional (HD) one-sided device-independent QKD (1sDI-QKD) protocols based on quantum steering, together with a proof-of-principle experimental implementation using photons entangled in the transverse-spatial degree of freedom. The authors develop three protocol variants (two-basis, spot-checking, and multi-key-basis) and analyze their asymptotic secret key rates under collective attacks using both entropic uncertainty relations (EUR) and SDP-based min-entropy bounds. A key theoretical contribution is the demonstration that reverse reconciliation exploits the asymmetry of the steering scenario, yielding higher key rates than direct reconciliation, and that increasing dimension enhances robustness against noise and loss. The experimental demonstration employs multi-plane light converters (MPLCs) to perform genuine multi-outcome measurements in dimensions up to d=11, achieving positive key rates under the fair-sampling assumption.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important problem at the intersection of high-dimensional quantum communication and semi-device-independent security. The systematic extension of 1sDI-QKD security proofs to arbitrary dimensions, with explicit treatment of Alice's no-click events via an extra-outcome strategy (avoiding the post-selection loophole identified in earlier work), is a solid theoretical contribution. The dimensional scaling results (Tables I-II) provide concrete, falsifiable thresholds. The experimental demonstration of programmable multi-outcome measurements up to d=11 in the spatial degree of freedom is a genuine technical advance over prior binary-outcome or single-outcome schemes. The transparency about the fair-sampling gap between the security model and the experiment is commendable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV.A.1 and Figs. 3-4] The central claim of high-dimensional advantage is well-supported for Protocols Ia and Ib, but the comparison across protocols is complicated by the fact that different security proof techniques are used: tight EUR bounds for Protocol Ia versus non-tight min-entropy SDP bounds for Protocols Ib/Ic. The authors acknowledge this (Section IV.A.1, final paragraph) and conjecture that tighter bounds would reveal multi-basis protocols outperforming the two-basis protocol. However, the current presentation of Tables I-II and Figs. 3-4 invites direct cross-protocol comparison that is not entirely apples-to-apples. The authors should more prominently caveat the dimensional scaling comparisons across protocols, or restrict the main-text figures to within-protocol dimensional comparisons.
  2. [Table III and Section V] The experimental key rates in Table III are computed under the fair-sampling assumption, which the paper's own security analysis (Appendix B) correctly identifies as insufficient for 1sDI security when Alice's device is untrusted. The experimental one-sided detection efficiency (eta_exp ~ 1.5% for d=7, per Appendix F.3.a) is roughly 50x below the critical threshold for Protocol Ia (eta_cr = 0.5) and ~70x below Protocol Ib's threshold (~0.71). While the paper is transparent about this and frames the experiment as 'proof-of-principle,' the abstract's statement that 'we obtain positive key rates for all investigated dimensions' could be misread as a secure demonstration. The authors should qualify this statement in the abstract itself (e.g., 'under the fair-sampling assumption') and more clearly delineate in the main text which results are security-certified versus demonstration-of-building
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'we obtain positive key rates for all investigated dimensions' should explicitly note the fair-sampling caveat, as the security analysis in the paper itself shows this is not a secure demonstration.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The parameter alpha is defined as the maximal overlap between any two of Bob's measurements, stated to equal 1/sqrt(d) for MUBs. This is correct for projective MUBs, but a brief clarification that this refers to overlap between measurement operators from different bases (not within the same basis) would improve readability.
  3. [Section III.1, paragraph 3] The observation that P_guess(B|E,X,Y) < 1 occurs before the steering inequality is violated is interesting but potentially confusing. The authors handle this well in Appendix D, but a forward reference to that appendix at this point would help readers who may otherwise be puzzled.
  4. [Fig. 7] The y-axis label 'Steering functional beta' could benefit from explicit indication of which beta (observed vs. post-selected vs. LHS bound) corresponds to which symbol, perhaps in a small inset legend, for readers who scan figures independently of the main text.
  5. [Appendix F.3.a] The estimated one-sided efficiency of the setup (~0.1067 for d=7) differs significantly from the measured eta_exp (~0.015). The attributed causes (misalignment, local filtering) are plausible but the discrepancy is large enough to warrant a brief discussion of whether this gap is expected to persist or can be fully closed in the current MPLC implementation.
  6. [Table III] The entry for d=11, Protocol Ic is marked '-' due to computational limitations. A brief note on the nature of this limitation (SDP size, memory, time) would help readers assess whether this is a fundamental or practical barrier.
  7. [Reference [49]] The citation to Lobo et al. (arXiv:2605.16151) is described as 'independently noted.' If this work is concurrent rather than prior, a brief clarification of the temporal relationship would be appropriate for accurate attribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found

full rationale

The paper's theoretical derivation chain is self-contained. The key rate formulas (Eqs. 9, 12, 15) are derived from independently established frameworks: the entropic uncertainty relation (Berta et al. [44]) for Protocol Ia, and min-entropy SDPs constrained by steering inequalities (Eqs. 11, 14) for Protocols Ib/Ic. The depolarizing-loss model parameters (visibility ν, detection efficiency η) are independently measured experimental quantities, not fitted to reproduce key rates. The steering inequality bounds (β_LHS) are computed from standard local hidden state models (Eq. 2), not assumed. The central claim that higher dimensions improve robustness against noise and loss emerges from the model equations (Tables I-II, Figs. 3-4), not from an ansatz or self-citation. The experimental section transparently operates under fair-sampling, which the paper's own security analysis (Appendix B) identifies as insufficient for loophole-free security — this is a gap between theory and experiment, not circularity. The min-entropy SDP bounds for multi-basis protocols are acknowledged as non-tight, with the multi-basis advantage framed as a conjecture rather than a proven result. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated particles. The security framework relies on established quantum information concepts (assemblages, LHS models, steering inequalities, conditional min-entropy). The experimental setup uses existing technologies (SPDC, MPLC, SNSPDs). Free parameters are experimentally measured quantities, not fitted constants.

free parameters (3)
  • visibility ν = experimentally measured per dimension (e.g., 0.946 for d=7)
    Characterizes the depolarizing noise in the shared entangled state; measured from experimental correlation matrices, not fitted to key rates.
  • detection efficiency η = experimentally estimated per dimension (e.g., ~0.015 for d=7)
    Alice's overall detection efficiency including channel and detector losses; estimated from experimental singles and coincidence counts.
  • parameter α = 1/√d
    Maximal overlap between Bob's MUB measurements; derived from the mathematical structure of MUBs, not a free fitting parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quantum steering certifies security in the 1sDI setting: violation of a steering inequality rules out LHS models and bounds Eve's information.
    Foundational result from Wiseman et al. (2007) and Branciard et al. (2012); invoked in Section II as the basis for the security framework.
  • standard math The asymptotic secret key rate under collective attacks is given by the Devetak-Winter formula r = H(B|E) - H(B|A).
    Standard QKD result (Devetak & Winter 2005); used in Eq. (5-6) as the key rate expression.
  • domain assumption The distributed state is well-modeled by a d-dimensional isotropic state subjected to depolarizing noise and loss.
    Stated in Section IV; validated experimentally in Appendix F.3.c where the model predictions closely match observed conditional entropies.
  • domain assumption Security analysis is restricted to asymptotic key rates under collective attacks (i.i.d. rounds).
    Stated at the end of Section II; finite-size and coherent-attack security are left for future work via the entropy accumulation theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust One-Sided Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution via High-Dimensional Steering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6GWG2MM

@misc{pith2026260708709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust One-Sided Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution via High-Dimensional Steering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6GWG2MM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08709}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum key distribution (QKD) brings the promise of communication with information-theoretic security but is limited in practice due to its susceptibility to noise, losses, and device imperfections. To address these challenges, we propose a robust high-dimensional (HD) one-sided device-independent QKD (1sDI-QKD) protocol and present a proof-of-principle experimental implementation using photons entangled in the transverse-spatial degree-of-freedom. We develop a systematic security analysis of HD 1sDI-QKD protocols, leveraging quantum steering to certify security, and evaluate achievable secret key rates for different measurement configurations and system dimensions using reverse reconciliation. Our analysis shows that increasing the dimension enhances robustness against both noise and loss. We then demonstrate the key experimental building blocks required for implementing the protocol: (a) a high-quality source of high-dimensional photonic entanglement, and (b) a fully programmable, high-dimensional multi-outcome measurement device operating in up to dimension 11. Using these components, we obtain positive key rates for all investigated dimensions under the fair-sampling assumption, with the highest key rates achieved for dimension d=7. Finally, we discuss the steps required for a practical, loophole-free implementation of 1sDI-QKD in realistic regimes of loss and noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation of a high-dimensional one-sided device-independent QKD (1sDI-QKD) scenario. An untrusted source distributes bipartite entangled states to Alice, who holds an untrusted device, and Bob. Both parties perform high-dimensional multi-outcome measurements, and the resulting correlations enable the demonstration of quan￾tum steering. Higher dimensions are expected to provide im￾proved robustness … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Direct versus reverse reconciliation key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of key rates as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of key rates as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Key-rate advantage of using the full set of MUBs (m = d+ 1) over two MUBs (m = 2) for d + 1-basis spot-checking protocol (Ib). (a) Key rate as a function of visibility ν under depolarizing noise, assuming ideal detection efficiency (η = 1). (b) Key rate as a function o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Schematic representation of the experimental setup. A pair of spatially entangled photons at telecom wave￾length (1550 nm), generated by pumping a periodically poled potassium tri-phosphate (ppKTP) crystal, are distributed between Alice (cyan) and Bob (purple) afte…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Steering functional β vs dimension d up to d = 11. Observed steering functional upon post-selection (yellow asterisks, β ps obs) violates the bound close to the quantum limit (magenta inverted triangles, βQ = d + 1). However, due to poor detection efficiencies owing to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Key rate as a function of detection efficiency for different loss treatments (dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Direct-reconciliation: Guessing probability Pguess(A|E) as a function of observed steering functional βobs 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Reverse-reconciliation: Guessing probability Pguess(B|E) as a function of observed steering functional βobs. 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dimensional scaling of (a) one-sided detection efficiency obtained from the data and (b) one-sided detection efficiency required for the data to exhibit a steering violation, given the experimentally measured visibilities. As seen from Fig. 13b, for d = 7, to violate …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Dimensional scaling of reverse information reconciliation. Solid lines show the information reconciliation obtained from the data using full and suppressed events (Eq. (F6)). Overlapping dashed lines show the afore-mentioned quantities calculated by substituting exper…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: shows measured two-photon correlations in all MUBs in d = 2, 3, 5, 9, 11. For any dimension d, each of the d + 1 plotted matrices represents the normalized two-photon coincidence matrices C˜x a,b (see Eq. (F1)) obtained upon performing MUB measurements. A common color…

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. Detecting high-dimensional entanglement with simple measurements

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A witness method detects high-dimensional Schmidt numbers using only strings of single-qubit Pauli measurements, demonstrated up to 16-dimensional photonic entanglement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (ii) Alice randomly chooses a measurement setting xi ∈ { 0,

    F ori to n: (i) A source (untrusted) distributes a bipartite en- tangled state ρAB to Alice (untrusted devices) and Bob (trusted devices). (ii) Alice randomly chooses a measurement setting xi ∈ { 0, . . . , m− 1} and records an outcome ai ∈ { 0, . . . , d− 1, ∅}, where ∅ denotes a no-click event. (iii) Bob chooses his measurement setting yi ∈ {0, . . . , ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Sifting: Alice and Bob reveal their choice of mea- surement bases publicly and keep the rounds where they match

    work page

  3. [3]

    The remaining rounds are used for key generation

    Parameter estimation & Key generation: Al- ice and Bob compare a small fraction of rounds to estimate their correlations across different mea- surement bases or, when applicable, to evaluate the violation of a steering inequality. The remaining rounds are used for key generation. Based on the observed correlations or steering violation, they de- cide wheth...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Information reconciliation: We employ reverse reconciliation to exploit the asymmetry advantage of the 1sDI setting, and therefore Alice (untrusted) corrects her key string according to Bob’s (trusted)

    work page

  5. [5]

    asymptotic secret key rate r∞, which measures the num- ber of secret bits generated per round in the asymptotic limit of infinitely many rounds

    Privacy amplification: Alice and Bob perform privacy amplification to extract the final key. asymptotic secret key rate r∞, which measures the num- ber of secret bits generated per round in the asymptotic limit of infinitely many rounds. For QKD protocols that use a one-way information reconciliation 1 scheme in Step 1In a one-way information reconciliation s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Reverse reconciliation In QKD, one-way information reconciliation can be performed in two ways: direct reconciliation, where Al- ice’s string is taken as a reference, and Bob corrects his key accordingly, and reverse reconciliation, where Bob’s string is the reference, and Alice corrects her key ac- cordingly. Now, unlike symmetric entanglement-based devi...

    work page

  7. [7]

    3 and Fig

    Noise and loss thresholds In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, we compare the secret key rates as a function of visibility (for η = 1) and detection efficiency (for ν = 1 ), respectively, for all three protocols. The dash-dot lines correspond to the key rates obtained from Eq. ( 9) for Protocol Ia (two-basis protocol). The solid lines correspond to the key rates obtained ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Noise-loss trade-off in higher dimensions In a practical setting, both noise and loss are present simultaneously, and thus it is important to analyze how these two parameters trade off against each other as the system dimension varies. Table I & II show the depen- dence of the critical visibility νcr and critical detection efficiency ηcr on the system dimensi...

    work page 1900

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Observed steering functional upon post-selection ( yellow asterisks, βps obs) violates the bound close to the quantum limit (magenta inverted triangles, βQ = d + 1 ). However, due to poor detection efficiencies owing to losses in the optical system, the observed steering functio...

  2. [10]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theoreti- cal Computer Science 560, 7 (2014) , theoretical Aspects of Quantum Cryptography celebrating 30 years of BB84

    2014

  3. [11]

    Zhang, H

    H. Zhang, H. Zhu, R. He, Y. Zhang, C. Ding, L. Hanzo, and W. Gao, Towards global quantum key distribution, Nat. Rev. Electr. Eng. 2, 806 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Stanley, Y

    M. Stanley, Y. Gui, D. Unnikrishnan, S. Hall, and I. Fa- tadin, Recent progress in quantum key distribution net- work deployments and standards, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2416, 012001 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Malik, M

    M. Malik, M. Kues, T. Ikuta, H. Takesue, D. Bajoni, D. J. Moss, R. Morandotti, A. Forbes, S. Walborn, E. Karimi, et al., High-dimensional quantum photonics: Roadmap, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06528 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 365 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Cozzolino, B

    D. Cozzolino, B. Da Lio, D. Bacco, and L. K. Oxen- løwe, High-dimensional quantum communication: Bene- fits, progress, and future challenges, Advanced Quantum Technologies 2, 1900038 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Ecker, F

    S. Ecker, F. Bouchard, L. Bulla, F. Brandt, O. Kohout, F. Steinlechner, R. Fickler, M. Malik, Y. Guryanova, R. Ursin, and M. Huber, Overcoming noise in entangle- ment distribution, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041042 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    F. Zhu, M. Tyler, N. H. Valencia, M. Malik, and J. Leach, Is high-dimensional photonic entanglement robust to noise?, A VS Quantum Sci. 3, 011401 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Designolle, Robust genuine high-dimensional steering with many measurements, Phys

    S. Designolle, Robust genuine high-dimensional steering with many measurements, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032430 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Vertesi, S

    T. Vertesi, S. Pironio, and N. Brunner, Closing the detec- tion loophole in bell experiments using qudits, Physical Review Letters 104, 060401 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Srivastav, N

    V. Srivastav, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, S. Lee- dumrongwatthanakun, S. Designolle, R. Uola, N. Brun- ner, and M. Malik, Quick quantum steering: Overcom- ing loss and noise with qudits, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041023 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Dekkers, L

    K. Dekkers, L. Serino, N. DAlessandro, A. Bhattachar- jee, B. Brecht, A. Tavakoli, C. Silberhorn, and J. Leach, (2025), arXiv:2506.20796 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sheridan and V

    L. Sheridan and V. Scarani, Security proof for quantum key distribution using qudit systems, Phys. Rev. A 82, 030301(R) (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, Security of quantum key distribution using d -level sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 127902 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    M. Doda, M. Huber, G. Murta, M. Pivoluska, M. Plesch, and C. Vlachou, Quantum key distribution overcoming extreme noise: Simultaneous subspace coding using high- dimensional entanglement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 034003 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Kanitschar and M

    F. Kanitschar and M. Huber, Practical framework for analyzing high-dimensional quantum key distribution se- tups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 010802 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Kanitschar and M

    F. Kanitschar and M. Huber, Composable finite-size se- curity of high-dimensional quantum-key-distribution pro- tocols, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 054028 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    O. Lib, K. Sulimany, M. Araújo, M. Ben-Or, and Y. Bromberg, High-dimensional quantum key distribu- tion using a multi-plane light converter, Optica Quantum 3, 182 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    H. Yu, S. Sciara, M. Chemnitz, N. Montaut, B. Crockett, B. Fischer, R. Helsten, B. Wetzel, T. A. Goebel, R. G. Krämer, et al., Quantum key distribution implemented with d-level time-bin entangled photons, Nature Commu- nications 16, 171 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Bulla, M

    L. Bulla, M. Pivoluska, K. Hjorth, O. Kohout, J. Lang, S. Ecker, S. P. Neumann, J. Bittermann, R. Kindler, M. Huber, et al., Nonlocal temporal interferometry for highly resilient free-space quantum communication, Physical Review X 13, 021001 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Chang, M

    K.-C. Chang, M. C. Sarihan, N. K. H. Li, F. Kanitschar, K. E. Akyuz, Y. Chen, D.-I. Lee, J. H. Kang, A. Ald- hafeeri, A. Mueller, M. D. Shaw, B. Korzh, M. Spiropulu, P. Erker, M. Huber, and C. W. Wong, Unlocking the potential of high-dimensional quantum communica- tion with sc...

    2026 doi

  23. [31]

    Rivera-Dean, A

    J. Rivera-Dean, A. Steffinlongo, N. Parker-Sánchez, A. Acín, and E. Oudot, Device-independent quantum key distribution beyond qubits, New Journal of Physics 27, 054512 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V. Scarani, Device-independent quantum key distri- bution secure against collective attacks, New Journal of Physics 11, 045021 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Woodhead, A

    E. Woodhead, A. Acín, and S. Pironio, Device- independent quantum key distribution with asymmetric CHSH inequalities, Quantum 5, 443 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sekatski, J.-D

    P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, X. Valcarce, E. Y.-Z. Tan, R. Renner, and N. Sangouard, Device-independent quan- tum key distribution from generalized CHSH inequalities, Quantum 5, 444 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Masini, S

    M. Masini, S. Pironio, and E. Woodhead, Simple and practical DIQKD security analysis via BB84-type uncer- tainty relations and Pauli correlation constraints, Quan- tum 6, 843 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    M.-H. Li, X. Zhang, W.-Z. Liu, S.-R. Zhao, B. Bai, Y. Liu, Q. Zhao, Y. Peng, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. J. Munro, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, J. Fan, and J.-W. Pan, Exper- imental realization of device-independent quantum ran- domness expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 050503 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Liu, M.-H

    W.-Z. Liu, M.-H. Li, S. Ragy, S.-R. Zhao, B. Bai, Y. Liu, P. J. Brown, J. Zhang, R. Colbeck, J. Fan, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Device-independent randomness expan- sion against quantum side information, Nat. Phys. 17, 448 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    L. K. Shalm, Y. Zhang, J. C. Bienfang, C. Schlager, M. J. Stevens, M. D. Mazurek, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, M. W. Mitchell, M. A. Alhejji, H. Fu, J. Ornstein, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, and E. Knill, Device-independent random- ness expansion with entangled photons, Nat. Phys. 17, 452 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Branciard, E

    C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, S. P. Walborn, V. Scarani, and H. M. Wiseman, One-sided device- independent quantum key distribution: Security, feasi- bility, and the connection with steering, Phys. Rev. A 14 85, 010301 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Masini and S

    M. Masini and S. Sarkar, One-sided di-qkd secure against coherent attacks over long distances, New Journal of Physics 28, 064503 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    P. Roy, S. Bera, and A. S. Majumdar, Secure one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution under col- lective attacks with enhanced robustness, Quantum Inf. Process. 25 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    Schrödinger, Discussion of probability relations be- tween separated systems, Math

    E. Schrödinger, Discussion of probability relations be- tween separated systems, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 31, 555 (1935)

    1935

  35. [43]

    H. M. Wiseman, S. J. Jones, and A. C. Doherty, Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky- rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Designolle, V

    S. Designolle, V. Srivastav, R. Uola, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, M. Malik, and N. Brunner, Genuine high-dimensional quantum steering, Physical review let- ters 126, 200404 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    S. Goel, B. Ghosh, and M. Malik, Quantum informa- tion processing with spatially structured light, Advanced Photonics 8, 014005 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    Brandt, M

    F. Brandt, M. Hiekkamäki, F. Bouchard, M. Huber, and R. Fickler, High-dimensional quantum gates using full- field spatial modes of photons, Optica 7, 98 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    S. Goel, S. Leedumrongwatthanakun, N. H. Valen- cia, W. McCutcheon, A. Tavakoli, C. Conti, P. W. Pinkse, and M. Malik, Inverse design of high-dimensional quantum optical circuits in a complex medium, Nature Physics 20, 232 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Makowski, M

    A. Makowski, M. Dąbrowski, I. M. Antolovic, C. Brus- chini, H. Defienne, E. Charbon, R. Lapkiewicz, and S. Gi- gan, Large reconfigurable quantum circuits with spad ar- rays and multimode fibers, Optica 11, 340 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite programming, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 024001 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, Quantum steering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Scarani, H

    V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, The security of practical quantum key distribution, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    Skrzypczyk and D

    P. Skrzypczyk and D. Cavalcanti, Loss-tolerant einstein- podolsky-rosen steering for arbitrary-dimensional states: Joint measurability and unbounded violations under losses, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022354 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory, Nat. Phys. 6, 659 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Dupuis, O

    F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, and R. Renner, Entropy accumula- tion, Commun. Math. Phys. 379, 867 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Arnon-Friedman, F

    R. Arnon-Friedman, F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, R. Renner, and T. Vidick, Practical device-independent quantum cryp- tography via entropy accumulation, Nat. Commun. 9, 459 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and engineering sciences 461, 207 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Curty, M

    M. Curty, M. Lewenstein, and N. Lütkenhaus, Entangle- ment as a precondition for secure quantum key distribu- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 217903 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    E. P. Lobo, M. Balanzó-Juandó, and S. Pironio, Gen- eralized measurement incompatibility, arXiv (2026) , 2605.16151 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. J. Bennet, D. A. Evans, D. J. Saunders, C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Ar- bitrarily loss-tolerant einstein-podolsky-rosen steering al- lowing a demonstration over 1 km of optical fiber with no detection loophole, Phys. Rev. X 2, 031003 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Optimal state- determination by mutually unbiased measurements, An- nals of Physics 191, 363 (1989)

    1989

  53. [61]

    Designolle, MUB: Construction of mutually unbiased bases, https://github.com/sebastiendesignolle/MUB (2026), accessed: 2026-06-04

    S. Designolle, MUB: Construction of mutually unbiased bases, https://github.com/sebastiendesignolle/MUB (2026), accessed: 2026-06-04

    2026

  54. [62]

    A. Acín, D. Cavalcanti, E. Passaro, S. Pironio, and P. Skrzypczyk, Necessary detection efficiencies for secure quantum key distribution and bound randomness, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012319 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Brown, H

    P. Brown, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, Computing condi- tional entropies for quantum correlations, Nat. Commun. 12, 575 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Navascués, S

    M. Navascués, S. Pironio, and A. Acín, A convergent hi- erarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations, New Journal of Physics 10, 073013 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    S. Goel, M. Tyler, F. Zhu, S. Leedumrongwatthanakun, M. Malik, and J. Leach, Simultaneously sorting overlap- ping quantum states of light, Physical Review Letters 130, 143602 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Srivastav, N

    V. Srivastav, N. H. Valencia, S. Leedumrong- watthanakun, W. McCutcheon, and M. Malik, Charac- terizing and tailoring spatial correlations in multimode parametric down-conversion, Physical Review Applied 18, 054006 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    N. H. Valencia, V. Srivastav, M. Pivoluska, M. Hu- ber, N. Friis, W. McCutcheon, and M. Malik, High- dimensional pixel entanglement: efficient generation and certification, Quantum 4, 376 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Hashimoto, T

    T. Hashimoto, T. Saida, I. Ogawa, M. Kohtoku, T. Shi- bata, and H. Takahashi, Optical circuit design based on a wavefront-matching method, Optics Letters 30, 2620 (2005)

    2005

  61. [69]

    Sakamaki, T

    Y. Sakamaki, T. Saida, T. Hashimoto, and H. Taka- hashi, New Optical Waveguide Design Based on Wave- front Matching Method, Journal of Lightwave Technol- ogy 25, 3511 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    Kupianskyi, S

    H. Kupianskyi, S. A. R. Horsley, and D. B. Phillips, High- dimensional spatial mode sorting and optical circuit de- sign using multi-plane light conversion, APL Photonics 8, 10.1063/5.0128431 (2023)

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    J. C. A. Rocha, U. G. Btait, J. Carpenter, and D. B. Phillips, Self-configuring high-speed multi-plane light conversion, Nature Communications 17, 10.1038/s41467- 025-66798-2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    N. K. Fontaine, H. Chen, M. Mazur, L. Dallachiesa, K. Kim, R. Ryf, D. Neilson, and J. Carpenter, Hermite- gaussian mode multiplexer supporting 1035 modes, in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (Optica Pub- lishing Group, 2021) pp. M3D–4

    2021

  65. [73]

    J. Fang, J. Bu, J. Li, C. Lin, A. Kong, X. Yin, H. Luo, X. Song, Z. Xie, T. Lei, et al., Performance optimiza- tion of multi-plane light conversion (mplc) mode mul- tiplexer by error tolerance analysis, Optics Express 29, 37852 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Guardiani, H

    A. Guardiani, H. Vlot, L. Locht, A. Fakhree, M. Caldarola, and A. Fognini, Snspd ar- 15 rays for deep space optical communication, in Frontiers in Optics + Laser Science 2024 (FiO, LS) (Optica Publishing Group, 2024) p. FTu6C.5

    2024

  67. [75]

    Fleming, W

    F. Fleming, W. McCutcheon, E. E. Wollman, A. D. Beyer, V. Anant, B. Korzh, J. P. Allmaras, L. Narváez, S. Leedumrongwatthanakun, G. S. Buller, et al., High- efficiency, high-count-rate 2d superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array, Optics Express 33, 27602 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Mothsara, S

    M. Mothsara, S. Goel, B. Ghosh, V. Srivastav, W. Mc- Cutcheon, M. Malik, and G. Murta, Experimental Data for : Robust One-Sided Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution via High-Dimensional Steering, https: //github.com/BBQuantum/Robust_1sDI_QKD_via_HD_St eering (2026)

    2026

  69. [77]

    Crameri, Scientific colour maps (2021)

    F. Crameri, Scientific colour maps (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Boucher, H

    P. Boucher, H. Defienne, and S. Gigan, Engineering spa- tial correlations of entangled photon pairs by pump beam shaping, Optics Letters 46, 4200 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    L. J. Salazar-Serrano, A. Valencia, and J. P. Torres, Tun- able beam displacer, Review of Scientific Instruments 86 (2015). 16 Appendix A: Observed steering functional βobs for the extra-outcome strategy To model Alice’s detector inefficiencies, the measurement operators on her s...

    2015

  72. [80]

    Spot-checking protocol (Protocol Ib) We begin by considering a scenario where Eve performs a measurement on her side information Me with outcomes 0, ..., d − 1 in an attempt to guess Bob’s measurement outcome. The resulting assemblage, conditioned on Alices and Eves measuremen...

  73. [81]

    Here we choose a uniform distribution of all the inputs, i.e., p(x, y) = 1 /m for all x, y ∈ {0,

    Multiple key-generation basis protocol (Protocol Ic) In this protocol, Alice and Bob choose their inputs randomly among d + 1 measurement bases with probability distribution p(x, y). Here we choose a uniform distribution of all the inputs, i.e., p(x, y) = 1 /m for all x, y ∈ {...

  74. [82]

    The Gaussian pump beam is shaped using a telescope to optimize the generation of high-dimensional spatial entanglement

    Details on the experimental setup Telecom-band entangled photon pairs are generated via type-II spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC), pumped by a 775 nm continuous-wave (CW) laser with an average power of 400 mW . The Gaussian pump beam is shaped using a telescope to ...

  75. [83]

    Experimentally, Bob’s singles are observed to be approximately invariant under the change of Alice’s outcome, i.e., Sx a,b ≈ Sx a′,b

    Data Processing Given coincidence matrices C x a,b and Bob’s singles matrices Sx a,b, for measurement setting x, Alice’s outcome a, and Bob’s outcome b, obtained from the experiment, we would like to construct an effective description that allows Bob to perform multi-outcome me...

  76. [84]

    Handling experimental losses In the following sections, we account for losses in our system. a. Accounting for low experimentally measured one-sided detection efficiencies In our data the average experimental one-sided detection efficiency ηexp is ηexp = 1 m ∑ x (N x C/Nx) . (F4) ...

  77. [85]

    15 shows measured two-photon correlations in all MUBs in d = 2, 3, 5, 9, 11

    Correlations in All MUBs Fig. 15 shows measured two-photon correlations in all MUBs in d = 2, 3, 5, 9, 11. For any dimension d, each of the d + 1 plotted matrices represents the normalized two-photon coincidence matrices ˜C x a,b (see Eq. ( F1)) obtained upon performing MUB me...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.