Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Experimental Quantum Key Distribution in an Indefinite Causal Order

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a photonic proof of principle that indefinite causal order lets Alice and Bob detect an eavesdropper through the control qubit without giving up any key bits.

desk verdict A credible first experiment for ICO-based QKD, but the headline no-key-sacrifice advantage is not proven for general attacks because public control outcomes can leak key information. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13561 v1 pith:6XKMQGUR submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph

Yann Valibouse , Martí Cladera-Rosselló , Michael Antesberger , Hector Spencer-Wood , Kyrylo Simonov , Patrik Sund , Mathieu Bozzio , Philip Walther
show 1 more author
Lee A. Rozema
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords indefinitecausalorderquantumSWITCHkeydistributionBB84eavesdropperdetectioncontrolqubitphotonicexperimentpost-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

The paper reports a photonic implementation of a BB84-like quantum key distribution protocol in which Alice and Bob are embedded inside a quantum SWITCH, so the order of their operations is a quantum superposition. It claims that an eavesdropper acting inside the switch disturbs the interference between the two causal orders, leaving a detectable signature in the control qubit rather than in the key itself. The experiment measures an average eavesdropper detection probability of $0.15 \pm 0.02$ per shared qubit, against a theoretical value of $1/8$, while the key-generation success probability reaches $0.964 \pm 0.004$ when no eavesdropper is present. Because the current gates are post-selected linear-optical interactions, the authors describe the result as a proof of principle, not a secure QKD protocol; if the mechanism survives a deterministic implementation, it would remove the standard BB84 trade-off between testing for eavesdropping and keeping key material.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photonic quantum SWITCH: a two-path interferometer in which the photon's path is the control qubit that decides the order of Alice's preparation and Bob's measurement gate, while the photon's polarization is the target carrying the key. Bob's local readout is made possible by a time-delocalized ancilla photon, path-entangled with the system photon, that interacts through post-selected polarizing-beam-splitter gates; the ancilla's path recombination erases which-order information and preserves the superposition. The logical control state is read as a joint Bell measurement on the two photons' path degrees of freedom, with $|\Phi^+\rangle$ (correlated ports) signalling the honest case and $|\Psi^+\rangle$ (anti-correlated ports) signalling decoherence. The identity carrying the argument is $p_{\mathrm{detect}|b,\mu}(\theta)=\cos^2\theta_{b,\mu}\,\sin^2\theta_{b,\mu}$, which averages to $1/8$ over the four BB84 states and is independent of Eve's angle.

What would settle it

Implement a fully coherent intercept-resend eavesdropper, using the same ancilla-based measurement as Bob rather than passive polarizers, inside the switch, and record the control-port statistics and Eve's guesses for all four BB84 states. The claim predicts an average detection probability of $1/8$ and maximal Eve information at a $22.5^\circ$ measurement angle; if the control qubit shows no rise above the $0.033 \pm 0.002$ false-positive rate while Eve still learns the key bits, the no-key-sacrifice detection claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Embedding Alice and Bob as the two operations inside the quantum SWITCH makes the honest protocol exactly correct: after basis reconciliation, the measurement projectors commute, and the output state factorizes as $\omega_c \otimes \sum_{b,\mu} P_b^{(\mu)}\rho_s P_b^{(\mu)}$, so Alice and Bob share perfectly correlated bits while the control qubit stays in $|+\rangle_c$. Eve's channel breaks this. In the reconciled subensemble the switched operation contains the generalized commutator $[P_b^{(\mu)}, E_k, P_{b'}^{(\mu)}]$, and every nonzero term transfers population into the orthogonal control state $|-\rangle_c$ with probability $p_- = \frac{1}{8}\sum_{b,b',\mu,k}\operatorname{Tr}\big[[P_b^{(\mu)}, E_k, P_{b'}^{(\mu)}]\rho_s[P_b^{(\mu)}, E_k, P_{b'}^{(\mu)}]^\dagger\big]$. The experiment verifies this signature for an intercept-resend eavesdropper implemented by polarizers: for Alice's $|H\rangle$ state and Eve measuring diagonally, the predicted detection probability is 25% and the measured value is $(27.6\pm1.4)\%$; averaging over all four BB84 states gives $0.15\pm0.02$ versus the theoretical $1/8$. This is the first demonstration that eavesdropper detection can be carried by the causal-order degree of freedom rather than by sacrificed key bits.

Load-bearing premise

The security reasoning assumes Eve acts only on the polarization target at a single location between Alice and Bob inside the quantum SWITCH, with no access to the control (path) degree of freedom and no second, coordinated eavesdropper at the other access point; the paper explicitly restricts its analysis to this single-Eve case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Eavesdropping can be monitored through the control qubit, so every reconciled qubit can in principle be both tested and retained for key generation, avoiding the BB84 requirement to discard the publicly compared fraction.
  • The average detection probability is linear in the attacked fraction, $p_{\mathrm{detect}}=t/8$ for Eve's optimal fixed measurement, giving a quantitative relation between attack strength and the control signature.
  • Eve gains more information than Alice and Bob share only when she attacks more than about $82.84\%$ of signals, at which point the accumulated detection probability is about $0.1036$; below that threshold the legitimate parties retain an information advantage.
  • The same protocol, with deterministic entangling gates replacing the post-selected linear-optical ones, could in principle become a QKD scheme with eavesdropper detection and no key sacrifice; the present experiment establishes the needed measurement technique.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The linear relation between attack strength and detection probability suggests the control signature could serve as a continuous intrusion monitor on retained key bits, estimating how large a fraction of signals Eve attacked without discarding any of them; the paper does not develop this monitoring application.
  • A secure version would need a proof against attacks that also touch the control qubit, since the passive-polarizer Eve in this experiment cannot access that degree of freedom; whether the no-key-sacrifice advantage survives general attacks is not settled by the reported data.
  • The protocol's two available eavesdropper locations invite a two-party coordinated-attack test: checking whether the control-qubit signature remains when Eve and a second eavesdropper act at both access points would probe the generalization the paper mentions but does not implement.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental proof-of-principle implementation of a BB84-like quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol in which Alice and Bob are embedded inside a photonic quantum SWITCH, so that their measurement-and-preparation operations act in a coherent superposition of causal orders. Eavesdropping is detected by monitoring the control (path) degree of freedom rather than by publicly comparing and discarding a subset of the key. The experiment uses a time-delocalized ancilla photon to let Bob read out the polarization locally without destroying the path coherence of the SWITCH. In the honest case the authors report a key-generation success probability of 96.4(4)% and a false-positive eavesdropper-detection probability of 3.3(2)%. For an emulated polarizer-based intercept-resend attack they measure an average detection probability of 0.15 ± 0.02, compared with the parameter-free theoretical prediction of 1/8, and they characterize the mutual information between Alice, Bob, and Eve, including a threshold attack strength t0 ≈ 0.83 at which Eve's information exceeds the Alice-Bob mutual information. The paper explicitly disclaims full security because of post-selection, but it claims a proof of principle that indefinite causal order can detect eavesdropping without sacrificing key bits.

Significance. If the central claim held in the advertised generality, this would be a valuable first experimental demonstration of an ICO-based cryptographic protocol, and the new in-SWITCH measurement technique is interesting in its own right. The measured detection probabilities and the analytical prediction p_detect = 1/8 match well, and the paper provides data and code availability that would allow independent verification of the experimental claims. However, the advertised advantage over BB84, namely that eavesdropping is detected without any disclosure of key material, is not established for the general single-location eavesdropper model that the paper itself introduces. That gap is load-bearing, because the protocol's principal claimed benefit is precisely that the control outcomes are publicly discussable without leaking key information. The experimental demonstration for a specific polarizer attack remains meaningful, but the general claim requires either a proof or a substantial qualification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.C and Sec. III.B (Eq. (6) and the paragraph on the role of control outcomes)] The claim that control outcomes are independent of the key and can be publicly disclosed without revealing key material is not proven for the general single-location eavesdropper model defined in Sec. II.C, and it is in fact false for channels allowed by that model. Equation (6) shows that the post-reconciliation state is not a product of control and target: after conditioning on the control outcome |−>_c, the target state is built from the generalized-commutator terms [P_b^(µ), E_k, P_{b'}^(µ)] ρ_s [ ... ]†, and the total probability of that outcome, Eq. (7), can depend on the prepared bit b. The honest-case state (14) and the polarizer-attack state (A6) do not establish bit-independence, and the stated restriction to a single eavesdropper still permits arbitrary channels {E_k}. A concrete counterexample is the amplitude-damping channel with Kraus operators E_0 = |0><0| + sqrt(1−γ)|1><1| and E_1 = sqrt(γ)|0><1| in the computational basis: for Alice's Z-basis bit 0 the Z-basis contribution to Eq. (7) vanishes, whereas for bit 1 it equals γ/8 before adding the Hadamard-basis terms, so the publicly announced control outcome is correlated with the key bit. Thus the abstract's assertion that the approach 'requires no disclosure of key material' does not hold for an adversary within the paper's own attack model. The authors should either prove the required key-independence for arbitrary single-location channels or explicitly restrict the no-key-sacrifice claim to the implemented projective (polarizer) attack and state that the general advantage over BB84 remains open.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. V (Conclusions)] The abstract and conclusions overstate the scope of what is demonstrated. The statement that 'every retained qubit can, in principle, be tested for eavesdropping while remaining available for key generation' is presented as a general advantage, but the detection mechanism is demonstrated only for a polarizer-based intercept-resend attack, and, as shown in the previous comment, the theoretical framework does not prove the required key-independence of the control outcomes for general single-location attacks. In addition, the conclusion describes the implemented Eve as 'a coherent measure-and-reprepare attack,' whereas Sec. IV.B states that the attack is emulated by combining two polarizer settings; this wording should be aligned with the experimental implementation. The authors should qualify the central claim as a proof of principle for the implemented projective-measurement attack and state explicitly that a general security analysis, including the question of whether control outcomes can be publicly disclosed without leaking key information, is left for future work.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.C, final paragraph] The sentence 'As shown in Ref. [41], such attacks cannot extract information about the key without inducing a nonzero population in the control state |−>_c' refers to the two-eavesdropper (Eve and Yves) attack; as written it could be misread as applying to the single-Eve restriction used in the rest of the paper. Please clarify which statement is inherited from Ref. [41] and which is established here.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (12)] The state on the right-hand side of Eq. (12) is not normalized; the authors should specify the success probability of the post-selected gate and the renormalization factor explicitly.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (11) and (13)] The correspondence between the causal-order branch labels ⟳ and ⟲ used in Eq. (11) and the port labels 1 and 2 used in the Bell states (13) should be defined explicitly, since the logical control states later rely on this mapping.
  4. [Sec. IV.B] The reported average detection probability 0.15 ± 0.02 should be accompanied by a precise statement of the averaging: over the four BB84 states, over Eve's two outcomes, and over which Eve angles in Fig. 4. The false-positive contribution of 0.033 ± 0.002 is mentioned later in the same section but should be tied to the quoted average explicitly.
  5. [Sec. IV.C, Eq. (27)] The interpolation model for a partial eavesdropping strength t should be stated as a modeling assumption in which Eve attacks a random fraction t of rounds independently, rather than as a security statement or a result of the protocol.
  6. [Sec. V, Conclusions] The phrase 'a coherent measure-and-reprepare attack' should be replaced by wording consistent with Sec. IV.B, for example 'an emulated or simulated intercept-resend (polarizer) attack,' because the experiment combines two polarizer settings rather than implementing a true coherent measure-and-reprepare device.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic predictions are derived from the stated quantum-SWITCH model and then compared with new measurements, with no fitted parameter standing in for a prediction.

full rationale

The analytical predictions are derived in-text from stated assumptions rather than imported as conclusions. The detection probability p_detect = 1/8 follows from the Eve-as-polarizer model in Appendices A and B: Eq. (A6) is constructed from the stated projector P_theta, Eq. (B9) gives p_detect|b,mu = cos^2(theta_{b,mu}) sin^2(theta_{b,mu}), and Eq. (B17) averages to 1/8. The honest-case control correlations and the vanishing p_detect for E_k proportional to I are derived in Sec. II.C. The experimental values (0.276 +/- 0.014 vs 0.25; 0.15 +/- 0.02 vs 0.125) are presented as comparisons with these independent predictions; no parameter is fitted to force agreement. The mutual-information curves are derived from the same shared state (Appendix C), and the threshold t0 = 0.8284 is solved from theoretical agreement probabilities, with experimental points shown as insets rather than used to set the prediction. Refs. [41] and [55] are self-citations, but they are not used as the derivation: the protocol's eavesdropping signature is re-derived in Sec. II.C and Appendices A-C, and the measurement scheme is cited for the apparatus, not as a substitute for the prediction. The one self-cited load-bearing-sounding statement, "As shown in Ref. [41]" for two eavesdroppers, is immediately followed by "we restrict ourselves to the simpler case of a single eavesdropper, Eve," so it does not carry the experimental claim. The paper's own caveats--post-selection loophole and lack of full security analysis against general attacks--are limitations on correctness/completeness rather than circularity, since the quantities actually checked are new measurements of the stated model. No equation is observed to reduce by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard quantum SWITCH formalism, the single-location Eve restriction, and the post-selected linear-optics measurement model. No new physical entities are introduced. The only numerical input from data is the display-level renormalization of mutual-information curves in Fig. 5.

free parameters (1)
  • MI renormalization constant = not specified in paper
    The theoretical mutual-information curves in Fig. 5 are renormalized using the experimentally observed maximum mutual information; this is a display-level fit and does not affect the detection-probability claim.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the quantum SWITCH channel formalism (Eq. 1) are assumed.
    The derivation of the honest and eavesdropped shared states in Sec. II and Appendices A-C relies on the standard Kraus-operator description of the quantum SWITCH for quantum channels.
  • domain assumption Eve is restricted to act on the polarization target at a single location between Alice and Bob, with no access to the control (path) qubit.
    Sec. II.C states 'we restrict ourselves to the simpler case of a single eavesdropper, Eve,' and the paper notes that unlike BB84, the setting admits two possible eavesdropping locations (Eve and Yves), which are not implemented or analyzed.
  • domain assumption The post-selected linear-optical PBS interaction faithfully realizes a CNOT gate when one photon exits each output port.
    Sec. III.A uses this standard photonic assumption (from Ref. [55]) to implement the von Neumann measurement; failure events are excluded via post-selection, which is the acknowledged security loophole.
  • domain assumption The random choice of basis by Alice and Bob and the input state |L> give uniform statistics over the four BB84 states.
    Sec. III.B and Appendix A assume that reconciliation leaves a uniform mixture, which is standard for BB84-type protocols.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Quantum Key Distribution in an Indefinite Causal Order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XKMQGUR

@misc{pith2026260813561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Quantum Key Distribution in an Indefinite Causal Order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XKMQGUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13561}
}
abstract

In quantum physics the order in which different operations occur can be placed in superposition. The resulting processes have an indefinite causal order and are both of fundamental interest and can be viewed as a novel quantum resource that enables a variety of new protocols. Here we report an experimental implementation of one such protocol, where we perform BB84-like quantum cryptography by placing Alice and Bob's measurement-and-preparation operations in a photonic quantum SWITCH. By embedding Alice and Bob within the quantum SWITCH, the protocol achieves an average eavesdropper detection probability of $0.15 \pm 0.02$ per shared qubit, with eavesdropper detection performed through measurements of the control qubit rather than by comparing the key. Unlike the standard BB84 and related schemes, which detect eavesdropping by publicly revealing and discarding a fraction of the raw key, our approach requires no disclosure of key material: every retained qubit can, in principle, be tested for eavesdropping while remaining available for key generation. The experiment relies on a new measurement technique that allows the polarization of a photon to be measured inside the quantum SWITCH without destroying path coherence. Although the present implementation does not yet constitute a secure quantum key distribution protocol, owing to the post-selection required for measurements within the quantum SWITCH, it provides a proof of principle that indefinite causal order can be exploited to detect eavesdropping without sacrificing key bits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental realization of the quantum SWITCH with a path-coherence-preserving measurement performed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Detection probability as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a,b) for the two measurement bases. To obtain an overall characterization of the protocol, we average the mutual information over the four BB84 signal states (2) prepared by Alice. Equivalently, we assume that Eve attacks every transmitted photon but has no prior info…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mutual information as a function of the eavesdrop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Measured and theoretical probabilities entering the mutual-information calculation when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hardy, Towards quantum gravity: a framework for probabilistic theories with non-fixed causal structure, J

    L. Hardy, Towards quantum gravity: a framework for probabilistic theories with non-fixed causal structure, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 3081 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Hardy, Quantum gravity computers: On the theory of computation with indefinite causal structure (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2009) pp

    L. Hardy, Quantum gravity computers: On the theory of computation with indefinite causal structure (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2009) pp. 379–401

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Baumeler and S

    ¨A. Baumeler and S. Wolf, The space of logically con- sistent classical processes without causal order, New J. Phys.18, 013036 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Wechs, H

    J. Wechs, H. Dourdent, A. A. Abbott, and C. Branciard, Quantum circuits with classical versus quantum control of causal order, PRX Quantum2, 030335 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Oreshkov, F

    O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum cor- relations with no causal order, Nat. Commun.3, 1092 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Val- iron, Quantum computations without definite causal structure, Phys. Rev. A88, 022318 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    A. Feix, M. Ara´ ujo, andˇC. Brukner, Quantum superposi- tion of the order of parties as a communication resource, Phys. Rev. A92, 052326 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    P. A. Gu´ erin, A. Feix, M. Ara´ ujo, andˇC. Brukner, Expo- nential communication complexity advantage from quan- tum superposition of the direction of communication, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 100502 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Ebler, S

    D. Ebler, S. Salek, and G. Chiribella, Enhanced com- munication with the assistance of indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 120502 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    L. M. Procopio, F. Delgado, M. Enr ´ ıquez, N. Belabas, and J. A. Levenson, Sending classical information via three noisy channels in superposition of causal orders, Phys. Rev. A101, 012346 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Loizeau and A

    N. Loizeau and A. Grinbaum, Channel capacity enhance- ment with indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. A101, 012340 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Goswami, Y

    K. Goswami, Y. Cao, G. Paz-Silva, J. Romero, and A. White, Increasing communication capacity via super- position of order, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033292 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Caleffi and A

    M. Caleffi and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Quantum Switch for the Quantum Internet: Noiseless communications through noisy channels, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.38, 575 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Mukhopadhyay and A

    C. Mukhopadhyay and A. K. Pati, Superposition of causal order enables quantum advantage in teleportation under very noisy channels, J. Phys. Commun.4, 105003 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Chiribella, M

    G. Chiribella, M. Banik, S. S. Bhattacharya, T. Guha, M. Alimuddin, A. Roy, S. Saha, S. Agrawal, and G. Kar, Indefinite causal order enables perfect quantum commu- nication with zero capacity channels, New J. Phys.23, 033039 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Caleffi, K

    M. Caleffi, K. Simonov, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Be- yond Shannon limits: Quantum communications through quantum paths, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.41, 2707 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Y. Wang, L. Zhou, T. Feng, H. Nie, Y. Xia, T. Xiao, J. Li, V. Vedral, and X. Zhou, Experimental demonstration of genuine quantum information transmission through com- pletely depolarizing channels in a superposition of cyclic orders (2025), arXiv:2510.07127 [quant-ph]

    2025

  10. [18]

    X. Zhao, Y. Yang, and G. Chiribella, Quantum metrology with indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 190503 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino, Strict hier- archy between parallel, sequential, and indefinite-causal- order strategies for channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200504 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Chapeau-Blondeau, Quantum parameter estimation on coherently superposed noisy channels, Phys

    F. Chapeau-Blondeau, Quantum parameter estimation on coherently superposed noisy channels, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032214 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Chapeau-Blondeau, Indefinite causal order for quan- tum metrology with quantum thermal noise, Phys

    F. Chapeau-Blondeau, Indefinite causal order for quan- tum metrology with quantum thermal noise, Phys. Lett. A447, 128300 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    P. Yin, X. Zhao, Y. Yang, Y. Guo, W.-H. Zhang, G.- C. Li, Y.-J. Han, B.-H. Liu, J.-S. Xu, G. Chiribella, G. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental super- heisenberg quantum metrology with indefinite gate order, Nat. Phys.19, 1122 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Q. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Yuan, and Y. Yang, Optimal strategies of quantum metrology with a strict hierarchy, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 070803 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Chapeau-Blondeau, Indefinite causal order for quan- tum phase estimation with pauli noise, Fluct

    F. Chapeau-Blondeau, Indefinite causal order for quan- tum phase estimation with pauli noise, Fluct. Noise Lett. 22, 2350036 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    A. Z. Goldberg, K. Heshami, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Evading noise in multiparameter quantum metrology with indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Research5, 033198 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Ara´ ujo, F

    M. Ara´ ujo, F. Costa, andˇC. Brukner, Computational ad- vantage from quantum-controlled ordering of gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250402 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    M. J. Renner and ˇC. Brukner, Computational advantage from a quantum superposition of qubit gate orders, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 230503 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Escand´ on-Monardes, A

    J. Escand´ on-Monardes, A. Delgado, and S. P. Walborn, Practical computational advantage from the quantum switch on a generalized family of promise problems, Quantum7, 945 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Y. Mo, C. Zhu, Z. Liu, M. Jing, and X. Wang, Enhance- ment of nonstabilizerness within indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. A109, 062428 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Simonov, M

    K. Simonov, M. Caleffi, J. Illiano, J. Romero, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Universal quantum computation via super- posed orders of single-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013239 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    Felce and V

    D. Felce and V. Vedral, Quantum refrigeration with indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 070603 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    T. Guha, M. Alimuddin, and P. Parashar, Thermody- namic advancement in the causally inseparable occur- rence of thermal maps, Phys. Rev. A102, 032215 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Simonov, G

    K. Simonov, G. Francica, G. Guarnieri, and M. Pater- nostro, Work extraction from coherently activated maps via quantum switch, Phys. Rev. A105, 032217 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    A. Z. Goldberg and K. Heshami, Breaking the limits of purification: Postselection enhances heat-bath algorith- mic cooling, J. Phys. Commun.7, 015003 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    G. Zhu, Y. Chen, Y. Hasegawa, and P. Xue, Charging quantum batteries via indefinite causal order: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240401 (2023). 13

    2023

  28. [36]

    Simonov, S

    K. Simonov, S. Roy, T. Guha, Z. Zimbor´ as, and G. Chiri- bella, Activation of thermal states by coherently con- trolled thermalization processes, New J. Phys.27, 074502 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    H. Li, H. Ma, Y. Hao, and W. Yu, Enhancing ergotropy of a quantum battery with coherent chargers: The cata- lystlike role of indefinite causal order, Phys. Rev. A112, 042229 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Q.-F. Xue, Q. Zhang, X.-C. Zhuang, Y.-J. Zhang, Y.- J. Xia, E. Russo, G. Chiribella, R. Lo Franco, and Z.- X. Man, Anomalous heat flows and quantum Otto en- gine with (in)definite causal order, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 030404 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    V. F. Lisboa, P. R. Dieguez, K. Simonov, and R. M. Serra, Correlations in a quantum switch-based heat en- gine with measurements: A proof-of-principle demon- stration, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 015058 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    Lai, H.-C

    P.-R. Lai, H.-C. Jan, J.-D. Lin, and Y.-N. Chen, Charg- ing efficiency bursts in a quantum battery with cyclic indefinite causal order (2026), arXiv:2603.22761 [quant- ph]

    2026

  33. [41]

    Spencer-Wood, Indefinite causal key distribution, J

    H. Spencer-Wood, Indefinite causal key distribution, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.58, 495303 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Z. Wu, J. Fullwood, Z. Ma, S.-Q. Zhou, Q. Zhao, and G. Chiribella, General communication enhancement via the quantum switch, Phys. Rev. A111, 012605 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Le´ sniak, R

    M. Le´ sniak, R. Kukulski, P. Lewandowska, G. Rajchel- Mieldzio´ c, and M. Wro´ nski, A bipartite quantum key dis- tribution protocol based on indefinite causal order (2026), arXiv:2603.08204 [quant-ph]

    2026

  36. [44]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, inProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Sys- tems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India(IEEE, New York, 1984)

    1984

  37. [45]

    Scarani, H

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

    2009

  38. [46]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Decoy state quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Laing, V

    A. Laing, V. Scarani, J. G. Rarity, and J. L. O’Brien, Reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A82, 012304 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    J. S. Sidhu, R. Maggi, S. Pascazio, and C. Lupo, Security of hybrid bb84 with heterodyne detection, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 025012 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Lucamarini and S

    M. Lucamarini and S. Mancini, Secure deterministic com- munication without entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 140501 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  43. [51]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992)

    1992

  44. [52]

    Bostr¨ om and T

    K. Bostr¨ om and T. Felbinger, Deterministic secure direct communication using entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 187902 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    Tomamichel, C

    M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Tight finite-key analysis for quantum cryptography, Nat. Commun.3, 10.1038/ncomms1631 (2012)

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Diamanti, H.-K

    E. Diamanti, H.-K. Lo, B. Qi, and Z. Yuan, Practical challenges in quantum key distribution, npj Quantum Inf.2, 10.1038/npjqi.2016.25 (2016)

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Valibouse, M

    Y. Valibouse, M. Cladera-Rossell´ o, M. Antesberger, P. Lima, P. Walther, and L. A. Rozema, Time-delocalized local measurements in an indefinite causal order (2026), arXiv:2604.11878 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Oreshkov, Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum mechanics, Quantum3, 206 (2019)

    O. Oreshkov, Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum mechanics, Quantum3, 206 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    L. M. Procopio, A. Moqanaki, M. Ara´ ujo, F. Costa, I. Alonso Calafell, E. G. Dowd, D. R. Hamel, L. A. Rozema, ˇC. Brukner, and P. Walther, Experimental su- perposition of orders of quantum gates, Nat. Commun. 6, 7913 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Rubino, L

    G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, A. Feix, M. Ara´ ujo, J. M. Zeuner, L. M. Procopio, ˇC. Brukner, and P. Walther, Experimental verification of an indefinite causal order, Sci. Adv.3, e1602589 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    K. Wei, N. Tischler, S.-R. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, J. M. Arrazola, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, H. Li, L. You, Z. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, B. C. Sanders, Q. Zhang, G. J. Pryde, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental quantum switching for exponentially superior quantum communication complexity, Phys. Rev. L...

    2019

  52. [60]

    Guo, X.-M

    Y. Guo, X.-M. Hu, Z.-B. Hou, H. Cao, J.-M. Cui, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and G. Chiribella, Experimental transmission of quantum information using a superposition of causal orders, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 030502 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Rubino, L

    G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, D. Ebler, H. Kristj´ ansson, S. Salek, P. Allard Gu´ erin, A. A. Abbott, C. Branciard, ˇC. Brukner, G. Chiribella, and P. Walther, Experimen- tal quantum communication enhancement by superpos- ing trajectories, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013093 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Rubino, L

    G. Rubino, L. A. Rozema, F. Massa, M. Ara´ ujo, M. Zych, ˇC. Brukner, and P. Walther, Experimental entanglement of temporal order, Quantum6, 621 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Cao, N.-N

    H. Cao, N.-N. Wang, Z. Jia, C. Zhang, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Quantum simulation of indefinite causal order induced quantum refrigeration, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L032029 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    H. Cao, J. Bavaresco, N.-N. Wang, L. A. Rozema, C. Zhang, Y.-F. Huang, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and P. Walther, Semi-device-independent certification of indefinite causal order in a photonic quantum switch, Op- tica10, 561 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    M. An, S. Ru, Y. Wang, Y. Yang, F. Wang, P. Zhang, and F. Li, Noisy quantum parameter estimation with in- definite causal order, Phys. Rev. A109, 012603 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Antesberger, M

    M. Antesberger, M. T. Quintino, P. Walther, and L. A. Rozema, Higher-order process matrix tomography of a passively-stable quantum switch, PRX Quantum5, 010325 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Str¨ omberg, P

    T. Str¨ omberg, P. Schiansky, M. T. Quintino, M. An- tesberger, L. A. Rozema, I. Agresti, ˇC. Brukner, and P. Walther, Experimental superposition of a quantum evolution with its time reverse, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023071 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    L. A. Rozema, T. Str¨ omberg, H. Cao, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, and P. Walther, Experimental aspects of indefinite causal order in quantum mechanics, Nat. Rev. Phys.6, 483 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    C. M. D. Richter, M. Antesberger, H. Cao, P. Walther, and L. A. Rozema, Towards an experimental device- independent verification of indefinite causal order (2025), 14 arXiv:2506.16949 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    X. Nie, X. Zhu, K. Huang, K. Tang, X. Long, Z. Lin, Y. Tian, C. Qiu, C. Xi, X. Yang,et al., Experimental realization of a quantum refrigerator driven by indefinite causal orders, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 100603 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    L. O. Casta˜ nos Cervantes, L. M. Procopio, and T. J. Bartley, Indefinite causal order in cavity quantum elec- trodynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023295 (2026)

    2026

  64. [72]

    Von Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quan- tum mechanics: New edition(Princeton University Press, 2018)

    J. Von Neumann,Mathematical foundations of quan- tum mechanics: New edition(Princeton University Press, 2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    S. Barz, I. Kassal, M. Ringbauer, Y. O. Lipp, B. Daki´ c, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and P. Walther, A two-qubit photonic quantum processor and its application to solving systems of linear equations, Scientific reports4, 6115 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Valibouse, M

    Y. Valibouse, M. Cladera-Rossell´ o, M. Antesberger, H. Spencer-Wood, K. Simonov, P. Sund, M. Bozzio, P. Walther, and L. A. Rozema, Experimental quan- tum key distribution in an indefinite causal order, 10.5281/zenodo.21916346 (2026). Appendix A: Shared state inside the quantu...

    2026 doi

  67. [75]

    Within this basis, the two possible key bits are assumed to be chosen uniformly

    Fixed-basis probabilities We first consider the case in whichAliceandBobboth use the computational basis. Within this basis, the two possible key bits are assumed to be chosen uniformly. The marginal probabilities are therefore P(Z)(0A) =P (Z)(1A) =P (Z)(0B) =P (Z)(1B) =P (Z)(...

  68. [76]

    We average uniformly over the four BB84 preparations, i.e., over both basis choices and both bit values

    Average over the four BB84 states We now consider the experimentally relevant situation in whichAlicechooses uniformly among the four BB84 states (2), andEvedoes not know this choice in advance. We average uniformly over the four BB84 preparations, i.e., over both basis choice...

  69. [77]

    Reduction of the mutual information The mutual information between two partiesXandYis defined in Eq. (23). Both for the fixed-basis distributions and for the BB84-averaged distribution, the marginal probabilities are uniform and the joint probabilities satisfy P(0X ,0 Y ) =P(1...

  70. [78]

    Threshold eavesdropping strength WhenEveattacks only a fractiontof the transmitted photons, we model the agreement probabilities as in Eq. (27). At the optimal angleθ=π/8, the threshold at whichEveobtains the same mutual information asAliceandBobis 21 determined byH(E:A/B) =H(...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.