Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Topological State-Aware Simulation Framework for Inter-Satellite Twin-Field QKD Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A public, topology-based post-selection gate for satellite twin-field QKD is simulated, but no certified composable key rate emerges.

desk verdict An honest, reproducible negative-result study: TDA gating doesn't help in their simulated ISL scenario, the authors say so clearly, and the unproven Markov condition keeps the positive candidate rates from being security claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12659 v1 pith:YTKD3PM7 submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph

Sergio Vázquez-Pozo , Juan Manuel Murillo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Twin-FieldQKDInter-SatelliteLinksCellularSheavesQuantumNetworkSimulationFinite-KeySecurityTopologicalDataAnalysisGeneralizedEntropyAccumulationTheoremPost-selection
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 claims that topological post-selection can be made compatible with strict finite-key security accounting for Twin-Field QKD between satellites. It models the satellite constellation as a cellular sheaf and derives a public acceptance event from beacon telemetry alone, so the decision to keep a block never touches private key-basis data. The authors build a modular simulator with stochastic noise injection and an explicit Generalized Entropy Accumulation Theorem (GEAT) ledger to test the idea. In their 2,000–5,000 km orbital scenario, the simulator returns positive conditional candidate rates only at 2,000 km, and the topological gate is active in all windows yet never extends the positive range. Because the protocol-level composable-security proof is incomplete, the certified composable rate is zero at every evaluated distance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the public gate score $g_i = t_{\phi,i}\,t_{\mathrm{sheaf},i}\,t_{\mathrm{TDA},i}$: a phase-consistency factor from a Koopman-EDMD public estimator, a sheaf-consensus factor from the Hodge-decomposed cycle and gradient obstruction energies on the diamond witness sub-complex, and a persistence-landscape trust factor computed from Alpha-complex persistent homology of the IQR-scaled telemetry point cloud. A blind two-cluster KMeans split on the empirical scores turns $g_i$ into the acceptance event $\Omega_i$, and the Security Ledger Layer feeds only the surviving blocks through the GEAT inequality with finite-size confidence intervals and an LP solver. The mechanism's job is to make post-selection a public, auditable transcript so that the ledger's Markov condition can be asserted structurally rather than heuristically.

What would settle it

Run the published simulator's exported transcripts and test whether the acceptance event is statistically independent of the simulated private basis choices and phase-error events after conditioning on the public channel state; for example, estimate P(accept | basis = Z, state) and P(accept | basis = X, state) from the JSON exports. A significant difference in any window would falsify the Markov confidence condition and void the positive candidate rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the constellation, treated as a cellular complex with a sheaf of local telemetry stalks, provides a public synchronization oracle: wrapped phase residuals between the direct link and witness paths, separated by a discrete Hodge decomposition into cycle and gradient energies, plus a persistence-landscape trust score over an IQR-normalized telemetry point cloud, fuse into a single gate score $g_i$ whose blind KMeans threshold defines the acceptance event $\Omega$. Because only reference intensities and beacon phases enter $g_i$, the oracle is claimed to satisfy the Markov condition required by GEAT, allowing a numerical security ledger to bound key length without adaptive-leakage penalties. The simulation comparison, with all other components fixed, gives median conditional candidates of $2.14\times10^{-6}$ and $5.87\times10^{-7}$ bit per emitted pulse at 2,000 km with TDA off and on, and zero at 3,000–5,000 km; the exported status is CONDITIONAL_PROTOCOL_PROOF_INCOMPLETE, so no certified composable rate is claimed.

Load-bearing premise

The entire security accounting rests on the assumption that the public telemetry and the acceptance decision it produces are independent of the private key-basis choices once the channel state is fixed; the paper asserts this is guaranteed by construction but does not prove it for the KMeans-derived acceptance event.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 2,000 km the median conditional candidate is $2.14\times10^{-6}$ bit per emitted pulse without TDA and $5.87\times10^{-7}$ with TDA; both configurations fall to zero at 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 km.
  • TDA is numerically active in all 4,788 evaluated coherence windows, yet it lowers the median candidate by 72.6% and reduces median acceptance from 64.36% to 52.22%, so it provides no range benefit in this configuration.
  • Because the exported status is CONDITIONAL_PROTOCOL_PROOF_INCOMPLETE, the certified composable secret key rate is zero at every evaluated distance even though numerical candidates are positive at 2,000 km.
  • The LP audit reports no infeasible-zero contribution in any sample, so the 3,000–5,000 km zeros reflect ledger arithmetic rather than solver masking.
  • The gating decision is separated from private key-basis clicks by construction, which is the property the GEAT Markov condition requires.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Markov condition were machine-verified, the same public-oracle architecture would transfer to other phase-sensitive protocols, such as measurement-device-independent QKD over dynamic free-space links, where adaptive post-selection is currently difficult to certify.
  • The negative TDA result suggests the persistence-landscape factor may need acceptance-matched calibration: a natural test is to re-run the ablation with $t_{\mathrm{TDA}}$ normalized so that the accepted fraction is equal across arms and ask whether the conditional candidate rate improves.
  • The cliff from positive candidates at 2,000 km to zero at 3,000 km is tied to the fixed pulse budget $N=10^{13}$; increasing the budget or aperture diameter should move the cliff, which is directly testable with the released artifact.
  • One could audit the published transcripts for a statistical correlation between $\Omega$ and simulated phase-error events after conditioning on public telemetry; finding none would be evidence for the independence claim, while finding any would void the candidate rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modular simulation framework for inter-satellite twin-field QKD with a topological post-selection oracle. The constellation is modeled as a cellular sheaf; public beacon telemetry is processed through a Koopman EDMD estimator, a Hodge decomposition of witness phases, and a TDA persistence-landscape trust factor, and the acceptance event Omega is derived by blind KMeans thresholding of the public gate score. The framework couples this gating layer to a GEAT-based finite-key ledger with stochastic count sampling. Simulations at 2,000-5,000 km compare TDA-off and TDA-on configurations on identical channel realizations. The paper reports median conditional candidate rates at 2,000 km of 2.14e-6 (TDA off) and 5.87e-7 (TDA on) bit per emitted pulse, zero at 3,000-5,000 km, and that TDA is active in all 4,788 evaluated windows but does not extend the positive-candidate range. The abstract and Section V-C explicitly label these rates as conditional numerical candidates and state that the certified composable rate is zero throughout because the full protocol-level composable-security proof is incomplete.

Significance. If the framework is correct, its main value is an auditable, reproducible simulation benchmark and an honest negative ablation of TDA in a LEO ISL setting. The paper has real strengths: the codebase and JSON artifacts are released with provenance metadata; the ablation uses identical physical channel realizations for both arms; the finite-key ledger uses stochastic count sampling rather than asymptotic averages; and the authors are explicit that no certified composable rate is claimed. However, the cryptographic significance is currently limited by an unproven Markov condition that underlies Eq. (17). As submitted, the paper supports a software-engineering benchmark claim more securely than a protocol-security claim, and the TDA comparison is quantitatively fragile because it rests on three Monte Carlo repetitions per configuration.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-D and §IV-D(a), Eq. (17)] The Markov confidence condition is asserted rather than proved. The implemented acceptance event is not a fixed per-round map: Omega_i in Eq. (16) is defined by thresholding the gate score g_i at a KMeans-derived threshold theta that is fit on the full empirical sample {g_i}, so Omega_i depends on the entire public transcript, including future blocks. The observation that the inputs are reference-only does not imply the required conditional independence of Omega_i from the private operations X_i, Z_i given the quantum state rho_i; this is a nontrivial statistical property that must be proven for the acceptance event and the post-selected state. Without such a proof, or a causal per-round EAT construction, Eq. (17) is not shown to bound a real protocol, and the positive 2,000-km conditional candidate rates are not established as GEAT finite-key rates. I note that the manuscript itself states that the full composable proof is incomplete; the point here is that the exported conditional rates still inherit this gap.
  2. [§V-A, §V-C, Figs. 4–5] The central quantitative claim—that enabling TDA lowers the 2,000-km median candidate rate by 72.6% and reduces the accepted fraction from 64.36% to 52.22%—rests on only three Monte Carlo repetitions per distance. The q10–q90 whiskers shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are not stable quantile estimates from three samples, and the quantum layer uses explicit binomial count sampling, so the observed difference could be sampling noise. The manuscript should either provide more repetitions with proper confidence intervals, or explicitly downgrade the quantitative comparison to an illustrative observation from a small number of seeds.
  3. [Abstract, §I, §V-C] The paper frames the topological oracle as 'structurally preventing' key leakage and 'preserving the secret key rate', while simultaneously exporting CONDITIONAL_PROTOCOL_PROOF_INCOMPLETE and reporting a certified composable rate of zero. This tension should be resolved. Either prove (or give a precise reduction establishing) that the KMeans gate satisfies the GEAT hypotheses, or re-scope the contribution as a simulation framework with unproven candidate rates and remove the security-preservation language from the abstract and introduction. As written, a reader could take away a security guarantee that the paper explicitly disclaims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-C] The sentence that E_cyc 'can be used to define GEAT side-information states (Sec. IV)' promises a formal object that Section IV never defines; either add the mapping to the Security Ledger Layer or remove the promise.
  2. [§V-A and Fig. 3] With 2e4 blocks and TDA window and stride both equal to 50 blocks, each run has approximately 400 windows and the four distances times three repetitions give approximately 4,800 windows, but the paper reports 4,788 evaluated windows; the discrepancy is not explained.
  3. [§III-D, Eq. (16)] KMeans cluster labels are arbitrary, and the text says the gate 'accepts the high-score cluster' without stating how the high-score label is identified deterministically; specify the implementation rule, such as comparing cluster centroids and selecting the larger mean.
  4. [§IV-D(a)] The notation T_i is introduced for the derived gating decision but is never formally distinguished from Omega_i; align the notation so that Eq. (17) and the Markov condition refer to the same object.
  5. [Eq. (17)] The symbols n, p_obs,i, Delta_GEAT, leak_EC, and epsilon are used without a single consolidated definition; please define all of them in one place near the ledger equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: results are explicitly conditional simulation outputs, and the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

I examined the paper's claimed derivation chain for the seven circularity patterns. The central outputs are conditional candidate rates produced by a modular simulator, and the paper repeatedly labels them as conditional numerical candidates rather than certified protocol results. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction: the KMeans threshold in Eq. (16) is fitted to public gate scores, but the reported secret-key rate is a downstream ledger output, not the threshold itself, and the TDA on/off comparison is an ablation over identical channel realizations and ledger settings. The gate uses only public telemetry, so the acceptance event is not defined in terms of the private key rate, and Eq. (17) is not algebraically identical to any input. The asserted Markov confidence condition in Section IV-D(a) is a stated hypothesis for applying GEAT, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the full composable-security proof is incomplete and the certified rate is zero; this is an unproven correctness condition, not a circular reduction of a prediction to an input. There are no self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems from the authors' prior work, and no known result merely renamed. Accordingly, the derivation is self-contained for what it claims, and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the channel model (AR(1) phase drift, HMM fading), the GEAT ledger instantiation, and an asserted Markov condition linking the public gate to the quantum state. The protocol adds several hand-set constants (Koopman dimension 16, phase gate width 0.15, TDA scale kappa=5, window and stride 50, KMeans threshold) that are not derived from first principles. No new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated; the Cellular Sheaf model is a mathematical representation, not an invented physical entity.

free parameters (8)
  • Koopman embedding dimension d_K = 16
    Hand-selected in Sec III-B to isolate platform vibration modes and orbital harmonics while avoiding overfitting; not derived from theory or data.
  • Phase gate width for t_phi = 0.15 radians
    Appears in Sec III-D as t_phi,i = exp(-(phi_res,i/0.15)^2); hand-chosen tolerance for phase consistency.
  • TDA trust scale kappa = 5
    Sec III-B(d) maps q_TDA to trust via tTDA = exp(-kappa * q_TDA); the constant is hand-set.
  • Lorentzian tolerances tau, tau_cyc, tau_grad = not reported
    Sec III-C uses Lorentzian kernels in t_sheaf; the tolerance values are required to compute the gate but are not specified in the paper.
  • TDA window and stride = 50 blocks, 50 blocks
    Table I lists these values; they define the coherence window for point-cloud construction and are chosen by the authors.
  • DTM neighbor count and persistence landscape discretization = k=15, 3 layers, 100 bins
    Sec III-B sets these algorithmic parameters; they affect q_TDA and are not derived from first principles.
  • KMeans acceptance threshold theta = data-dependent, not reported
    Sec III-D derives Omega via a blind two-cluster KMeans split of gate scores; the threshold is fit to telemetry statistics per run.
  • ISL scenario parameters (Table I) = apertures 0.40 m, 1550 nm, jitter 0.3 urad, eta_sys 0.5, p_d 1e-11, N 1e13
    Hand-set scenario inputs; the paper states in Sec V-D that the zero-rate distances and candidate magnitudes are conditional on this configuration.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Cellular sheaf and persistence homology provide a valid measure of phase-coherence quality for the ISL constellation.
    Sec III-A and III-B map telemetry to a sheaf and to the TDA score q_TDA; the usefulness of the gate depends on this mapping carrying cryptographic-relevant information.
  • domain assumption AR(1) Gauss-Markov phase drift and block-wise HMM fading capture the essential non-IID orbital channel behavior.
    Sec II-E and II-F define the noise model; all numerical results are generated from this model, so conclusions transfer to reality only to the extent the model does.
  • domain assumption GEAT applies to the gated blocks, and the numerical LP min-tradeoff ledger is a valid finite-key bound.
    Sec IV-D uses Eq. (17) and a transcript-symbol LP; the paper explicitly states the full protocol-level proof is incomplete, so this remains an assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Markov condition: public telemetry S_i and gate T_i are conditionally independent of private basis operations given the quantum state rho_i.
    Sec IV-D(a) asserts this as a strict requirement and claims structural enforcement, but no proof is supplied; this is the load-bearing security premise.
  • domain assumption Table I physical parameters define the only evaluated scenario.
    Sec V-A states results apply to this configuration; changing apertures, jitter, or pulse budget could change the rates.
  • ad hoc to paper KMeans two-cluster threshold on gate scores selects good blocks.
    Sec III-D derives Omega via blind two-cluster KMeans; this assumes the high-score cluster corresponds to blocks usable for key distillation.
  • standard math Link budget decomposition Eq. (1) and Gaussian-beam diffraction capture efficiency Eq. (3) are valid for ISLs.
    Sec II-B and II-C use standard free-space optics from Ref. [18]; this is background assumption, not specific to the claimed novelty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological State-Aware Simulation Framework for Inter-Satellite Twin-Field QKD Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTKD3PM7

@misc{pith2026260812659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological State-Aware Simulation Framework for Inter-Satellite Twin-Field QKD Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTKD3PM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12659}
}
abstract

Inter-satellite links (ISLs) are the mandatory backbone for global quantum networks. While Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribution (TF-QKD) successfully surpasses linear rate-loss bounds, its extreme phase sensitivity makes it highly vulnerable to dynamic, non-IID (Independent and Identically Distributed) orbital environments. In composable finite-key analyses governed by the Generalized Entropy Accumulation Theorem (GEAT), traditional adaptive post-selection heuristics either violate strict independence conditions or incur massive second-order penalties that collapse the secret key rate. To overcome this, we introduce a reference-only topological post-selection oracle. By modeling the constellation as a Cellular Sheaf and applying Topological Data Analysis (TDA), our protocol derives a public acceptance event ($\Omega$) exclusively from classical beacon telemetry. To rigorously validate this mechanism, we develop a modular simulation framework equipped with stochastic noise injection and an explicit GEAT security ledger. Simulations across 2,000-5,000 km ISL separations compare the same Hodge-Koopman gate with TDA disabled and enabled. At 2,000 km, the median conditional candidate rates are $2.14 \times 10^{-6}$ and $5.87 \times 10^{-7}$ bit per emitted pulse, respectively; both configurations return zero at 3,000-5,000 km. TDA is active in all 4,788 evaluated windows, but does not extend the positive-candidate range in this scenario. These exported rates are conditional numerical candidates: the full protocol-level composable-security proof remains incomplete and the certified composable rate is therefore zero throughout.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exported public telemetry for the direct link and the two witness paths, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exported TDA diagnostics across the four distances. All 4,788 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Raw transcript-entropy lower bound and GEAT correction for the TDA-off and TDA-on configurations. Bars show medians and whiskers show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Conditional candidate rate and accepted-block fraction for the same Hodge–Koopman gate with TDA disabled or enabled. Bars and points show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,

    S.-K. Liao and et al., “Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,” Nature, vol. 549, pp. 43–47, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres,

    J. Yin and et al., “Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres,”Nature, vol. 582, pp. 501–505, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Limits and security of free-space quantum communications,

    S. Pirandola, “Limits and security of free-space quantum communications,”Physical Review Research, vol. 3, p. 013279,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Satellite constellations for trusted node QKD networks

    T. Vergoossen, S. Loarte, R. Bedington, H. Kuiper, and A. Ling, “Satellite constellations for trusted node qkd networks,”Acta Astronautica, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07845

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, “Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications,”Nature Communica- tions, vol. 8, p. 15043, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

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

    M. Lucamarini, Z. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields, “Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters,”Nature, vol. 557, pp. 400–403, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Twin-field quantum key distribu- tion with large misalignment error,

    X.-B. Wang, Z.-W. Yu, and X.-L. Hu, “Twin-field quantum key distribu- tion with large misalignment error,”Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 6, p. 062323, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Simple security proof of twin-field quantum key distribution protocols,

    M. Curty, K. Azuma, and H.-K. Lo, “Simple security proof of twin-field quantum key distribution protocols,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 64, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Experimental twin-field quantum key distribution over 1000 km fiber distance,

    Y . Liu, W.-J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J.-P. Chen, C. Zhang, W.-X. Pan, D. Ma, H. Dong, J.-M. Xiong, C.-J. Zhang, H. Li, R.-C. Wang, J. Wu, T.-Y . Chen, L. You, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, “Experimental twin-field quantum key distribution over 1000 km fiber distance,” Physic...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Free-space twin-field quantum key distribution,

    Y .-H. Li, T. Zeng, M.-Y . Wang, C. Jiang, J. Lin, H.-B. Fu, X.-Y . Zheng, J.-P. Chen, Z.-S. Lin, C.-L. Li, J.-Y . Guan, Y . Li, Q. Shen, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, F. Zhou, J. Yin, S.-K. Liao, J.-G. Ren, X.-B. Wang, Y . Cao, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, “Free-space twin-...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Long-distance free-space measurement- device-independent quantum key distribution,

    Y . Cao, Y .-H. Li, K.-X. Yang, Y .-F. Jiang, S.-L. Li, X.-L. Hu, M. Abulizi, C.-L. Li, W. Zhang, Q.-C. Sun, W.-Y . Liu, X. Jiang, S.-K. Liao, J.-G. Ren, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, J. Yin, C.-Y . Lu, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, “Long-distance free-space measu...

    2006 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Security of quantum key distribution from generalised entropy accumulation,

    T. Metger and R. Renner, “Security of quantum key distribution from generalised entropy accumulation,” 2022, arXiv:2203.04993. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04993

    2022 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Generalised entropy accumulation,

    T. Metger, O. Fawzi, D. Sutter, and R. Renner, “Generalised entropy accumulation,” 2022, arXiv:2203.04989. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04989

    2022 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Toward a spectral theory of cellular sheaves,

    J. Hansen and R. Ghrist, “Toward a spectral theory of cellular sheaves,”

  7. [16]

    Topology and data,

    G. Carlsson, “Topology and data,”Bulletin of the American Mathemat- ical Society, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 255–308, 2009

    2009

  8. [17]

    Twin-field quantum key distribution over 511 km optical fiber linking two distant metropolitans,

    J.-P. Chen, C. Zhang, Y . Liu, C. Jiang, W.-J. Zhang, Z.-Y . Han, S.-Z. Ma, X.-L. Hu, Y .-H. Li, H. Liu, F. Zhou, H.-F. Jiang, T.-Y . Chen, H. Li, L.-X. You, Z. Wang, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, “Twin-field quantum key distribution over 511 km optical fiber linking tw...

    2021 arXiv

  9. [18]

    L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips,Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media, 2nd ed. SPIE Press, 2005

    2005

  10. [19]

    A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,

    L. R. Rabiner, “A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 257–286, 1989

    1989

  11. [20]

    Precise phase error rate analysis for quantum key distribution with phase postselection,

    Y . Zhou, Z.-Q. Yin, Y .-G. Shan, and Z.-H. Wang, “Precise phase error rate analysis for quantum key distribution with phase postselection,” arXiv:2312.06385, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2312.06385

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Practical device-independent quantum cryptography via entropy accu- mulation,

    R. Arnon-Friedman, F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, R. Renner, and T. Vidick, “Practical device-independent quantum cryptography via entropy accu- mulation,”Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 459, 2018

    2018

  13. [22]

    Finite-size analysis of prepare-and-measure and decoy-state qkd via entropy accumulation,

    L. Kamin, A. Arqand, I. George, N. L”utkenhaus, and E. Y .-Z. Tan, “Finite-size analysis of prepare-and-measure and decoy-state qkd via entropy accumulation,” arXiv:2406.10198, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10198

    2024

  14. [23]

    Sheaves, cosheaves and applications,

    J. M. Curry, “Sheaves, cosheaves and applications,” 2014

    2014

  15. [24]

    A. J. Zomorodian,Topology for Computing. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  16. [25]

    Stability of persis- tence diagrams,

    D. Cohen-Steiner, H. Edelsbrunner, and J. Harer, “Stability of persis- tence diagrams,”Discrete & Computational Geometry, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 103–120, 2007

    2007

  17. [26]

    The Gudhi library: Simplicial complexes and persistent homology,

    C. Maria, J.-D. Boissonnat, M. Glisse, and M. Yvinec, “The Gudhi library: Simplicial complexes and persistent homology,” inMathematical Software – ICMS 2014, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol

    2014

  18. [27]

    Statistical topological data analysis using persistence landscapes,

    P. Bubenik, “Statistical topological data analysis using persistence landscapes,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 77–102, 2015

    2015

  19. [28]

    Statistical ranking and combinatorial hodge theory,

    X. Jiang, L.-H. Lim, Y . Yao, and Y . Ye, “Statistical ranking and combinatorial hodge theory,” 2009. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/0811.1067

    2009 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Decoy state quantum key distribution,

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, “Decoy state quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 94, no. 23, p. 230504, 2005

    2005

  21. [30]

    The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial,

    C. J. Clopper and E. S. Pearson, “The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial,”Biometrika, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 404–413, 1934

    1934

  22. [31]

    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

  23. [32]

    Probability inequalities for the sum in sampling without replacement,

    R. J. Serfling, “Probability inequalities for the sum in sampling without replacement,”The Annals of Statistics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 39–48, 1974

    1974

  24. [33]

    Entropy accumulation,

    F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, and R. Renner, “Entropy accumulation,” arXiv:1607.01796, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607. 01796

    2016 arXiv

  25. [2019]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01513

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01513

    arXiv

  26. [2021]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04168

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04168

    2010 arXiv

  27. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02304

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02304

    arXiv

  28. [8592]

    Springer, 2014, pp. 167–174

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.