Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Finite-size security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with imperfect heterodyne measurement

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a finite-size security proof for continuous-variable quantum key distribution with imperfect heterodyne receivers, showing that phase imbalance in the receiver reduces but does not eliminate the secure key rate, and…

desk verdict Useful practical fix for imbalanced heterodyne CVQKD, but the central security claim needs a real Holevo derivation before it is a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10278 v1 pith:BUCAKVTU submitted 2025-01-17 quant-ph physics.optics

Adnan A.E. Hajomer , Akash Nag Oruganti , Ivan Derkach , Ulrik L Andersen , Vladyslav C Usenko , Tobias Gehring This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics MSC 81P9494A60 PACS 03.67.Dd03.67.Hk
keywords continuous-variablequantumkeydistributionheterodynedetectionphaseimbalancefinite-sizesecuritycollectiveattackscovariancematrixmutualinformationlocaldatatransformation
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

Continuous-variable quantum key distribution relies on heterodyne receivers that measure two quadratures at once, but integrated receivers have phase imbalances that make the two measurements not perfectly orthogonal. This paper claims that such imbalances can be handled in a finite-size security proof by keeping the full covariance matrix with all cross-correlations, estimating the imbalance $\theta+\phi$ with Gaussian confidence intervals, and optionally applying a local linear transformation to Alice's or Bob's data before error correction. The paper shows that phase imbalance reduces the mutual information and increases the Holevo bound, so it shortens the secure distance, but a positive key rate survives if the full covariance matrix is used; symmetrizing the matrix after the transformation would overestimate security. An experiment with a $10^\circ$ phase imbalance at 17 km confirms the estimation procedure and yields finite-size key rates consistent with the model. If correct, the result relaxes the phase-balance requirement for photonic integrated CVQKD receivers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four-by-four covariance matrix $\Gamma$ of Alice's and Bob's quadratures, with all anti-diagonal correlation terms $\varsigma$ kept; the security analysis is carried out on this full matrix. The proof also uses the determinant formula for the true mutual information, the local transformation in Eq. (6) with angles $\Theta = \tan^{-1}(\varsigma_{A_p,B_x}/\sigma_{x,A,B})$ and $\Phi = \tan^{-1}(\varsigma_{A_x,B_p}/\sigma_{p,A,B})$, and ratio estimators $\hat{T}_\theta$, $\hat{T}_\phi$ for the imbalances whose variances are computed to leading order in $1/m$. These estimators produce the $6.5$-$\sigma$ confidence intervals for $\delta$, $\eta$, and $\varepsilon$ used in the finite-size key-rate formula, making the analysis compatible with composable security.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to generate synthetic data from the paper's Gaussian model with known $\theta$, $\phi$, $\eta$, and $\varepsilon$ for $m = 10^6$, apply the estimators in Eqs. (S14)–(S15), and check whether the empirical frequency of estimates outside the $6.5$-$\sigma$ interval exceeds $10^{-10}$; any significant excess would show the confidence intervals are not tight enough. A complementary experiment would repeat the 17 km measurement with a deliberately larger phase imbalance, say $30^\circ$, where the $1/y \approx 2 - y$ approximation is less accurate, and compare the measured key rate with the formula's prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for Gaussian-modulated coherent-state CVQKD with heterodyne detection, the finite-size secret-key rate secure against collective attacks is $K^n = (n/N)[K^\infty_{TT}(t_{\mathrm{low}}, \varepsilon_{\mathrm{up}}, \delta_{\mathrm{up}}) - \Delta(n)]$ (Eq. 12), where the asymptotic rate $K^\infty$ is evaluated from the full covariance matrix $\Gamma$ rather than from a symmetrized version, and $t_{\mathrm{low}}$, $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{up}}$, $\delta_{\mathrm{up}}$ are worst-case estimates of transmission, excess noise, and total phase imbalance at a $10^{-10}$ failure probability. The phase imbalance is modelled as independent shifts $\theta$ and $\phi$ on the two quadratures, which create anti-diagonal terms $\varsigma$ in $\Gamma$; these terms reduce the true mutual information $I_T(A:B) = \frac{1}{2}\log_2(|\gamma_A|/|\gamma_{A|B}|)$ and increase Eve's Holevo bound unless the full matrix is used. The paper shows that a local transformation (Eq. 6) with angles estimated from $\Gamma$ recovers the lost mutual information when the receiver measures canonical conjugate quadratures ($\theta = -\phi$), and partially recovers it otherwise; symmetrization after the transformation is explicitly shown to be insecure. Experimentally, the imbalance is estimated from correlations both between Alice and Bob and between Bob's own quadratures, giving consistent values near $10^\circ$, and finite-size key rates are positive at 17 km with optimized data-splitting fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the phase-imbalance estimates computed from a finite block of signals being accurate enough that their 6.5-standard-deviation confidence intervals are valid at the $10^{-10}$ failure level; if those estimates are not close to Gaussian for blocks of about a million signals, the guaranteed key rate is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the full-covariance approach $K_{TT}$, positive finite-size keys are achievable at longer distances than with the symmetrized approaches; the maximum secure distance shrinks with increasing phase imbalance.
  • For short distances, the $K_{IT}$ approach that performs error correction before parameter estimation yields higher key rates, because it avoids the finite-size penalty of estimating the imbalance first; for longer distances, estimating the imbalance and transforming the data pays off.
  • The fraction $n/N$ of signals assigned to key generation must be optimized; without this optimization the advantage of the transformation is not fully realized.
  • Symmetrizing the covariance matrix after applying the local transformation overestimates the mutual information and therefore cannot be used in a security proof.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes the amplitude imbalance $\eta_{bs}$ is fixed and known; a natural extension is to let it fluctuate and include its estimator in the confidence-interval set, which would matter for receivers whose splitting ratio drifts with temperature.
  • The frame-wise stability check of the phase estimates suggests an adaptive post-processing rule: re-estimate $\delta$ per frame and discard frames where the imbalance wanders, rather than assuming a single fixed imbalance for the whole key.
  • The result implies a concrete design target for integrated receivers: phase imbalance up to about $10^\circ$ is tolerable with the transformation, so manufacturers could relax the optical-hybrid specification and compensate digitally, trading a modest loss of distance against lower fabrication cost.
  • A direct experimental test of the finite-size bound would be to repeat the measurement at larger imbalance values or smaller block sizes and verify that the empirical key-rate drop matches the formula's prediction; the paper only demonstrates one operating point.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central claim is that for Gaussian-modulated coherent-state CVQKD with heterodyne detection, the finite-size secret-key rate secure against collective attacks is $K^n = (n/N)[K^\infty_{TT}(t_{\mathrm{low}}, \varepsilon_{\mathrm{up}}, \delta_{\mathrm{up}}) - \Delta(n)]$ (Eq. 12), where the asymptotic rate $K^\infty$ is evaluated from the full covariance matrix $\Gamma$ rather than from a symmet

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a security analysis for Gaussian-modulated coherent-state CVQKD with heterodyne detection when the receiver has phase and amplitude imbalances. The authors model the imperfections as phase shifts θ and ϕ plus a beam-splitter imbalance ηbs, write the full covariance matrix Γ including cross-correlations, and introduce a 'true' mutual information IT(A:B) together with a local data transformation intended to recover information without overestimating security. They then state finite-size key-rate formulas (Eqs. 12-13) that combine asymptotic rates KTT and KIT with a finite-size correction Δ(n), using worst-case estimated parameters at 10^-10 failure probability. The paper reports experimental data from a 90° optical hybrid with about 10° phase imbalance and compares achievable key rates with and without the transformation.

Significance. If the finite-size security claim were fully proven, the result would be practically valuable: it would quantify how phase imbalance in integrated heterodyne receivers degrades CVQKD and would offer a post-processing transformation to mitigate the loss, thereby relaxing fabrication tolerances for photonic integrated receivers. The mutual-information part (Eqs. 4-5 and the Supplement) is derived in a transparent way, and the paper is careful to warn that symmetrization after the transformation can overestimate security. The experimental characterization of a 10°-imbalance receiver is useful and the data are presented in a reproducible style. However, the central security claim is not yet established, because the Holevo bound for the full covariance matrix that enters the advertised rates is never defined or derived.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3A, Table 1] The asymptotic key rate in Eq. (2) is evaluated for the approaches KTT and KIT using a Holevo bound χT(E) computed from the full covariance matrix Γ, but neither the definition of χT(E) nor its derivation is given anywhere in the paper or the Supplement. In particular, for the phase-imbalanced heterodyne receiver the conditional state relevant to Eve is not the same as in the ideal symmetric case, and one cannot simply transplant the standard symplectic-eigenvalue formula. Since the paper's advertised advantage over symmetrization is precisely that using the full Γ does not overestimate Eve's information, this missing computation is load-bearing; without it Eqs. (12)-(13) and the asymptotic curves in Fig. 2 are unsupported.
  2. [Sec. 3B, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The finite-size correction Δ(n) is imported from Refs. [33,34] without stating its exact functional form, the conditions under which it applies, or a composable security proof adapted to the present protocol with imperfect heterodyne detection and estimation of the imbalance δ. The sentence in Sec. 3B that the analysis is 'compatible with the composable security framework' is an assertion rather than a derivation. For a paper whose title promises finite-size security, the reader needs the precise expression for Δ(n), the associated failure probabilities, and an explicit statement of how the parameter estimation of θ, ϕ, and δ enters the composable bound.
  3. [Supplement Sec. 5, Eqs. (S14)-(S27)] The variance formulas for the imbalance estimators rest on the approximation 1/y ≈ 2 − y and on dropping O(1/m²) terms, and the confidence intervals are then taken as Gaussian at the 6.5σ level corresponding to 10^-10. The manuscript does not justify that these approximations yield valid upper confidence bounds for δ at the block sizes used (m around 10^6), nor does it address the non-Gaussianity of ratio estimators. Because δup enters the finite-size rate in Eq. (12), this is a second load-bearing step in the finite-size claim and needs a rigorous justification or a numerical check.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 3c] The experimental validation computes the key-rate points from parameters (ε, δ, η) estimated on the same frames that are then reported as validating the model, so the agreement in Fig. 3b and the key-rate points in Fig. 3c are in-sample consistency checks rather than an independent test of the finite-size security claim. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, provide a train-test split or at least quantify the parameter-estimation uncertainty in the displayed rates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The transformation matrix in Eq. (6) is written as [[cosΘ, sinΘ],[cosΦ, sinΦ]], which is not orthogonal in general; if a rotation or a more general invertible linear map is intended, the matrix and the domain of Θ and Φ should be specified precisely.
  2. [Eqs. (7)-(10)] The sign conventions for θ and ϕ are inconsistent between the covariance-matrix elements (where σ Ap,Bx contains sin[θ] and σ Ax,Bp contains −sin[ϕ]) and the estimator formulas in Eqs. (7)-(8); the authors should define the signs once and use them consistently throughout.
  3. [General notation] The modulation variance is denoted Vm, VA, and Vt at different places (e.g., Eq. (10), Sec. 2C, and Supplement Eqs. (S17)-(S27)); these notations should be unified and defined in one place.
  4. [Sec. 3B, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The notation K^{n} in Eq. (12) and K^{N} in Eq. (13) is confusing because the prefactor n/N appears only in Eq. (12); the authors should clarify that N is the total number of exchanged signals, n is the number used for key generation, and why the prefactor is absent in Eq. (13).
  5. [Supplement, Eq. (S9)] The symbol ηϵ in Eq. (S9) is not defined; it should be stated whether this is the excess noise before heterodyne measurement, and how it relates to ε used in the main text.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'experimantally' in the caption of Fig. 3c and 'support support' in the Acknowledgments; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite-size key-rate expression is a standard analytic bound, and the estimated parameters are used with confidence intervals in the usual QKD manner; the missing explicit Holevo-bound formula is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The asymptotic rate K = βI(A:B) − χ(E) (Eq. 2) and the finite-size expressions K^{n} = (n/N)[K∞(tlow, εup, δup) − Δ(n)] (Eq. 12) and K^{N} = K∞IT(tlow, εup, δup) − Δ(N) (Eq. 13) are standard forms imported from the QKD literature, with the finite-size penalty Δ(n) taken from Refs. [33,34]; they are analytic bounds, not fitted outputs. The mutual-information part is derived explicitly in the Supplementary Material (Eqs. S1-S7), and the 'true' mutual information IT(A:B) is invariant under the local linear transformation Eq. (6), so the key rate does not secretly depend on the transformation angles fitted to the data. The phase-imbalance parameters θ, ϕ, ηbs and α are estimated from the observed covariance matrix, and the estimators' variances are computed in Supplementary Eqs. S14-S37; using the same data for parameter estimation and key generation is the standard finite-size QKD procedure and is accounted for by confidence intervals at failure probability 10^-10 and by the discarded parameter-estimation fraction. This is not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Refs. 5, 14, 19, 31) support background claims (integrated receiver characteristics, long-distance demonstrations) and the empirical statement that phase mismatch is the dominant receiver imperfection; they are not the load-bearing content of the finite-size security proof, and no 'uniqueness theorem' is imported from the authors' prior work. One rigor gap should be explicitly flagged but it is not circularity: the paper defines χT(E) only as 'the Holevo bound evaluated from the full covariance matrix' (Table 1 and Sec. 3A) and never writes or derives its formula. For a phase-imbalanced heterodyne POVM, transplanting the standard symplectic-eigenvalue expression requires justification; without it, the numerical values of KTT and KIT are unsupported. However, this is an omitted derivation, not an equation that reduces to its own input. The experimental validation is in-sample (the 17-km points are computed with parameters estimated from the same frames), so it is not an independent predictive test, but again that weakens the demonstration, not the security derivation. Overall, the central claim is not circular, and no specific reduction of a predicted quantity to a fitted or self-cited input can be exhibited.

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

The central claim is a security proof whose output is a key rate conditional on estimating channel and imperfection parameters. The ledger lists the estimated parameters and the modeling assumptions that the proof imports from prior CVQKD theory; the paper does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • θ and ϕ (phase imbalance angles) = θ + ϕ ≈ 10 degrees in the experiment
    Estimated from data via Eqs. (7)-(8); the key rate depends on their sum δ = θ + ϕ.
  • ηbs (beam splitter transmission imbalance) = Not reported explicitly
    Estimated from Eq. (9); enters τx and τp in the covariance model.
  • α (modulation rescaling factor) = Not reported explicitly
    Estimated from Eq. (10); used to relate modulation strength to the measured covariance.
  • ε (excess noise) = ≈ 5 × 10^-3 SNU averaged over frames
    Estimated from the experimental data; the finite-size key rate uses the upper bound εup.
  • Vm (modulation variance) = 1.6 to 4.5 SNU in the experiment
    Chosen by Alice and varied in the experiment; key-rate curves are shown for Vm = 1.9, 3.3, and 4.66 SNU.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian extremality for collective attacks
    Used implicitly in Sec. 3A when replacing coherent states by a two-mode squeezed vacuum to compute χ(E); standard in CVQKD proofs.
  • domain assumption Gaussian-modulated protocol with additive Gaussian noise
    The protocol and channel model in Sec. 2 assume Gaussian modulation and Gaussian channel noise, enabling covariance-matrix security analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Receiver imperfection is fully captured by phase imbalance and beam splitter imbalance
    The entire covariance matrix model in Sec. 2C is built on this; unmodeled imperfections could break the bound.
  • domain assumption θ, ϕ, and ηbs are fixed over the key-exchange duration and under Bob's control
    Stated in Sec. 3B; if the phase drifts during the exchange, the confidence intervals and the transformation are invalid.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-size estimator variances are valid under the approximations used
    Supplementary Eqs. S18-S26 use 1/y ≈ 2 - y and drop O(1/m²) terms; the claimed 10^-10 failure probability depends on these approximations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-size security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with imperfect heterodyne measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUCAKVTU

@misc{pith2026250110278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-size security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with imperfect heterodyne measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUCAKVTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10278}
}
read the original abstract

Continuous-variable quantum key distribution (CVQKD) using coherent states and heterodyne detection enables secure quantum communication based on technology that has large similarities to coherent optical telecommunication. Yet, practical implementations of coherent receivers used in both technologies encounter device imperfections, which for CVQKD are often not addressed in security proofs. Here, we present a theoretical framework that rigorously accounts for imperfect heterodyne measurements arising from phase imbalances in the coherent (heterodyne) receiver. Focusing on collective attacks, we establish a finite-size security proof that reveals how measurement imperfections limit the distance over which a positive key rate is achievable. To mitigate these effects, we propose a local transformation during classical post-processing. We validate our approach experimentally on a CVQKD system with an imperfect coherent receiver, underscoring its potential for scalable, cost-effective CVQKD with photonic integrated receivers in which phase-imbalances naturally appear through manufacturing tolerances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10278 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Illustration of different approaches for evaluation of the mutual information between Alice and Bob. Shade indicates the strength of the value, i.e. the darker the color the higher the absolute value of the matrix element. Symmetrization simplifies the security analysis at the cost of more conservative protocol performance. Data transformation aids the information reconciliation and improves the performance of th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Maximal tolerable excess noise ε dependence on the channel loss η for different models (summarized in Tab. (1)) under various misalignment angles θ = 0, π/18, π/12, π/6 in asymptotic regime. Reconciliation efficiency β = 95%, modulation variance Vm = 3.3 SNU. B. Finite-size effects In practice only a finite amount of signals can be exchanged be￾tween trusted parties which imposes limitations on the accuracy of param… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Experimental setup for imbalance characterization. Alice sends an ensemble of coherent states generated by modulated 1550 nm continuous wave (CW) laser using IQ modulator driven by an arbitrary waveform generator (AWG). To operate the IQ modulator in carrier suppression mode, an automatic bias controller is used. Variable optical attenuators are used to control the variance of the modulated state and simulated fi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Asymmetry effects in homodyne and heterodyne measurements: Positive operator-valued measures and asymptotic security of Gaussian-continuous-variable quantum key distribution

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Asymmetric homodyne/heterodyne detectors admit a one-parameter family of squeezed-state POVM decompositions, and the untrusted-noise CV-QKD key rate must be optimized over the squeezing parameter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Advances in quantum cryptography,

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Col- beck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottavianiet al., “Advances in quantum cryptography,” Adv. Opt. Photonics12, 1012–1236 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Integrated silicon photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution,

    P . Sibson, J. E. Kennard, S. Stanisic, C. Erven, J. L. O’Brien, and M. G. Thompson, “Integrated silicon photonics for high-speed quantum key distribution,” Optica 4, 172–177 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    An integrated silicon photonic chip plat- form for continuous-variable quantum key distribution,

    G. Zhang, J. Y . Haw, H. Cai, F . Xu, S. Assad, J. F . Fitzsimons, X. Zhou, Y . Zhang, S. Yu, J. Wuet al., “An integrated silicon photonic chip plat- form for continuous-variable quantum key distribution,” Nat. Photonics 13, 839–842 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Experimental quantum key distribution with integrated silicon photonics and electronics,

    C.-X. Zhu, Z.-Y . Chen, Y . Li, X.-Z. Wang, C.-Z. Wang, Y .-L. Zhu, F .-T. Liang, W.-Q. Cai, G. Jin, S.-K. Liao et al., “Experimental quantum key distribution with integrated silicon photonics and electronics,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 064034 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Continuous-variable quantum key distribution at 10 gbaud using an integrated photonic- electronic receiver,

    A. A. Hajomer, C. Bruynsteen, I. Derkach, N. Jain, A. Bomhals, S. Bas- tiaens, U. L. Andersen, X. Yin, and T. Gehring, “Continuous-variable quantum key distribution at 10 gbaud using an integrated photonic- electronic receiver,” Optica 11, 1197–1204 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    An integrated silicon photonic chip platform for continuous-variable quantum key distribution,

    G. Zhang, J. Y . Haw, H. Cai, F . Xu, S. Assad, J. Fitzsimons, X. Zhou, Y . Zhang, S. Yu, J. Wu, W. Ser, L. Kwek, and A.-q. Liu, “An integrated silicon photonic chip platform for continuous-variable quantum key distribution,” Nat. Photonics 13 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Fundamentals of coherent optical fiber communications,

    K. Kikuchi, “Fundamentals of coherent optical fiber communications,” J. Light. Technol. 34, 157–179 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Gaussian quantum information,

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, “Gaussian quantum information,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum cryptography without switching,

    C. Weedbrook, A. M. Lance, W. P . Bowen, T. Symul, T. C. Ralph, and P . K. Lam, “Quantum cryptography without switching,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 170504 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Composable security proof for continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution with coherent states,

    A. Leverrier, “Composable security proof for continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution with coherent states,” Phys. review letters 114, 070501 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Improved composable key rates for cv-qkd,

    S. Pirandola and P . Papanastasiou, “Improved composable key rates for cv-qkd,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023321 (2024). Research Article 8

    2024

  4. [12]

    Practical continuous- variable quantum key distribution with composable security,

    N. Jain, H.-M. Chin, H. Mani, C. Lupo, D. S. Nikolic, A. Kordts, S. Pi- randola, T. B. Pedersen, M. Kolb, B. Ömeret al., “Practical continuous- variable quantum key distribution with composable security,” Nat. com- munications 13, 4740 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Finite-size security for discrete-modulated continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution protocols,

    F . Kanitschar, I. George, J. Lin, T. Upadhyaya, and N. Lütkenhaus, “Finite-size security for discrete-modulated continuous-variable quan- tum key distribution protocols,” PRX Quantum 4, 040306 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Experi- mental composable key distribution using discrete-modulated continu- ous variable quantum cryptography,

    A. A. Hajomer, F . Kanitschar, N. Jain, M. Hentschel, R. Zhang, N. Lütkenhaus, U. L. Andersen, C. Pacher, and T. Gehring, “Experi- mental composable key distribution using discrete-modulated continu- ous variable quantum cryptography,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13702 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Continuous variable quantum key distribution with a real local oscillator using simultaneous pilot signals,

    S. Kleis, M. Rueckmann, and C. G. Schaeffer, “Continuous variable quantum key distribution with a real local oscillator using simultaneous pilot signals,” Opt. Lett. 42, 1588–1591 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    generat- ing the local oscillator “locally

    B. Qi, P . Lougovski, R. Pooser, W. Grice, and M. Bobrek, “generat- ing the local oscillator “locally” in continuous-variable quantum key distribution based on coherent detection,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 041009 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Demonstration of high-speed and low-complexity continuous variable quantum key distribution system with local local oscillator,

    S. Ren, S. Y ang, A. Wonfor, I. White, and R. Penty, “Demonstration of high-speed and low-complexity continuous variable quantum key distribution system with local local oscillator,” Sci. Reports 11, 9454 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Pilot-assisted intradyne reception for high-speed continuous-variable quantum key distribution with true local oscillator,

    F . Laudenbach, B. Schrenk, C. Pacher, M. Hentschel, C.-H. F . Fung, F . Karinou, A. Poppe, M. Peev, and H. Hübel, “Pilot-assisted intradyne reception for high-speed continuous-variable quantum key distribution with true local oscillator,” Quantum 3, 193 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Continuous-variable quantum key distribution at 10 gbaud using an integrated photonic- electronic receiver,

    A. A. Hajomer, C. Bruynsteen, I. Derkach, N. Jain, A. Bomhals, S. Bas- tiaens, U. L. Andersen, X. Yin, and T. Gehring, “Continuous-variable quantum key distribution at 10 gbaud using an integrated photonic- electronic receiver,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19642 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sub-gbps key rate four-state continuous- variable quantum key distribution within metropolitan area,

    H. Wang, Y . Li, Y . Pi, Y . Pan, Y . Shao, L. Ma, Y . Zhang, J. Y ang, T. Zhang, W. Huang et al., “Sub-gbps key rate four-state continuous- variable quantum key distribution within metropolitan area,” Commun. Phys. 5, 162 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Silicon photonics in optical coherent systems,

    C. Doerr and L. Chen, “Silicon photonics in optical coherent systems,” Proc. IEEE 106, 2291–2301 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Tolerant and high performance 3× 3 and 4× 4 multimode interference couplers,

    E. van Vliet, D. Pustakhod, M. Smit, and X. Leijtens, “Tolerant and high performance 3× 3 and 4× 4 multimode interference couplers,” in Pro- ceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium of the IEEE Photonics Society Benelux Chapter, November 3-4, 2014, Enschede, The Netherlands, (Twe...

    2014

  15. [23]

    Quantum key distribution with nonideal heterodyne detection: Composable security of discrete-modulation continuous-variable protocols,

    C. Lupo and Y . Ouyang, “Quantum key distribution with nonideal heterodyne detection: Composable security of discrete-modulation continuous-variable protocols,” PRX Quantum 3, 010341 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Impact of receiver imbalances on the security of continuous variables quantum key distribution,

    D. Pereira, M. Almeida, M. Facão, A. N. Pinto, and N. A. Silva, “Impact of receiver imbalances on the security of continuous variables quantum key distribution,” EPJ Quantum Technol.8, 1–12 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Modulation leakage vulnerability in continuous- variable quantum key distribution,

    N. Jain, I. Derkach, H.-M. Chin, R. Filip, U. L. Andersen, V. C. Usenko, and T. Gehring, “Modulation leakage vulnerability in continuous- variable quantum key distribution,” Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 045001 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Continuous variable quantum cryptog- raphy using coherent states,

    F . Grosshans and P . Grangier, “Continuous variable quantum cryptog- raphy using coherent states,” Phys. review letters88, 057902 (2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    Analysis of imperfections in practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution,

    P . Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, E. Diamanti, and A. Leverrier, “Analysis of imperfections in practical continuous-variable quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A 86, 032309 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Continuous- variable quantum key distribution with gaussian modulation—the the- ory of practical implementations,

    F . Laudenbach, C. Pacher, C.-H. F . Fung, A. Poppe, M. Peev, B. Schrenk, M. Hentschel, P . Walther, and H. Hübel, “Continuous- variable quantum key distribution with gaussian modulation—the the- ory of practical implementations,” Adv. Quantum Technol.1, 1800011 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states,

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, “Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states,” Proc. Royal Soc. A: Math. Phys. engineering sciences 461, 207–235 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Mutual information and minimum mean-square error in gaussian channels,

    D. Guo, S. Shamai, and S. Verdú, “Mutual information and minimum mean-square error in gaussian channels,” IEEE transactions on infor- mation theory 51, 1261–1282 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion over 100-km fiber with local local oscillator,

    A. A. Hajomer, I. Derkach, N. Jain, H.-M. Chin, U. L. Andersen, and T. Gehring, “Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion over 100-km fiber with local local oscillator,” Sci. Adv.10, eadi9474 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Quantum key distribution using gaussian-modulated co- herent states,

    F . Grosshans, G. Van Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, and P . Grangier, “Quantum key distribution using gaussian-modulated co- herent states,” Nature 421, 238–241 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Finite-size analysis of a continuous-variable quantum key distribution,

    A. Leverrier, F . Grosshans, and P . Grangier, “Finite-size analysis of a continuous-variable quantum key distribution,” Phys. Rev. A81, 062343 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Continuous-variable quantum-key- distribution protocols with a non-gaussian modulation,

    A. Leverrier and P . Grangier, “Continuous-variable quantum-key- distribution protocols with a non-gaussian modulation,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 042312 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Composable security for continuous variable quantum key distribution: Trust levels and practical key rates in wired and wire- less networks,

    S. Pirandola, “Composable security for continuous variable quantum key distribution: Trust levels and practical key rates in wired and wire- less networks,” Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043014 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Pre-calibration and compensation of quadrature components in continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion,

    J. Xiang, T. Wang, L. Li et al., “Pre-calibration and compensation of quadrature components in continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion,” Quantum Inf. Process. 22, 33 (2023). Research Article 1 Supplemental Materials: Imperfect heterodyne measurement in continuous variab...

    2023

  29. [37]

    |γB| |γB|A| # = 1 2 log

    MUTUAL INFORMATION The mutual information between Alice and Bob is: IAB = H(xb, pb) − H(xb, pb|xm, pm) (S1) Where H(xb, pb) and H(xb, pb|xm, pm) are the entropies of the bi-variant Gaussian distributions with covariance matrices γB and γB|A. H(xb, pb) =− Z Z N (0, γB) log[N (0...

  30. [38]

    EXCESS NOISE For imbalance heterodyne measurement, the quadratures can not be considered independent of each other while estimating the excess noise. In Ref. [ S36] the authors consider the quadratures separately while calculating the excess noise which lead to overestimation ...

  31. [39]

    Assuming its distribution is zero centered Gaussian p(θ) =N (0, ς2), the secret key rate now strongly depends on its variance as ⟨cos θ⟩ = exp −ς4/4

    PHASE SHIFT FLUCTUATIONS Statistical variation of the phase shift θ can significantly impact the range of secure parameters and feasibility of secure key distribution in the first place even in asymptotic regime [S27]. Assuming its distribution is zero centered Gaussian p(θ) =...

  32. [40]

    The shot noise is influenced by the detector’s responsivity, which may vary over time for various reasons

    USING THE IMPERFECTION TO NORMALIZE THE DATA (OPTIONAL) To estimate the excess noise, we must first normalize the data with respect to shot noise. The shot noise is influenced by the detector’s responsivity, which may vary over time for various reasons. Hence shot noise needs ...

  33. [41]

    1 (√τxCosθ + √τpCosϕ)2 # (S36) The variance of the second term is obtained by integrating the following integrals numerically, Var

    FINITE-SIZE EFFECTS In practice only a finite amount of signals can be exchanged between trusted parties which imposes limitations on the accuracy of parameter estimation and must be taken into account during security analysis. In the presence of imbalance in the heterodyne me...

Pith tools

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