Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Modeling and Characterization of Arbitrary Order Pulse Correlations for Quantum Key Distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A step-response measurement bounds all QKD pulse correlations.

desk verdict Clean LTI-step-response derivation of exponential pulse-correlation bounds, with a real gap between the fitted model and a certified security bound — worth serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18684 v2 pith:FXIM6RGZ submitted 2025-06-23 quant-ph

Ainhoa Agulleiro , Fadri Grünenfelder , Margarida Pereira , Guillermo Currás-Lorenzo , Hugo Zbinden , Marcos Curty , Davide Rusca This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords quantumkeydistributionpulsecorrelationspatterningeffectlineartime-invariantmodelstepresponseunboundeddecoy-stateprotocolBB84
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 addresses a gap in quantum key distribution: memory effects in modulators make emitted pulse states depend on settings chosen many rounds earlier, and no existing method could characterize those correlations beyond a few orders. The authors propose modeling the bandwidth-limited devices in the transmitter as a single linear time-invariant low-pass system, so that the entire correlation structure follows from the system's step response. Under the assumption that the step-response error is bounded by a single exponential, they derive closed-form exponential upper bounds on the correlation strength of every order, for both phase and intensity encoding. This supplies the experimentally missing parameters needed by existing security proofs that handle unbounded correlations, converting an apparently impossible characterization problem into one waveform measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the step-response error function $g(t)$, defined by writing the LTI system's step response as $\vartheta(t)=G_0[1+g(t)]\theta(t)$. For a low-pass system, $g(t)$ is a sum of damped oscillations, and the key technical step is replacing it by the global exponential envelope $|g(t)|\le A e^{-bt}$. Because the output is a superposition of shifted step responses, the phase difference between two $N$-pulse sequences that differ only in round $N-l$ collapses to $\Delta_{N-l}[g(t_0+lT)-g(t_0+(l-1)T)]$, which the envelope bounds term by term; the fidelity bounds for qubit phases and Poissonian intensity distributions then convert that into the exponential correlation bounds. This machinery is what reduces an exponential-in-$l$ characterization problem to two fitted parameters, $A$ and $b$.

What would settle it

Generate long random setting sequences and directly measure, for many large separations $l$, how much flipping the $(N-l)$-th setting changes the phase or intensity of pulse $N$; if any measured strength exceeds the corresponding exponential bound from Eq. (14) or Eq. (15), the model is falsified. A cheaper check is to record the actual step response over many time constants and test whether $|g(t)|\le A e^{-bt}$ holds everywhere, since the fitted envelope in the paper is only compared with one five-pulse sequence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a transmitter whose memory is captured by an LTI low-pass system with step-response error satisfying $|g(t)| \le A e^{-bt}$, the setting-choice-dependent pulse correlations are bounded by $\epsilon_l^\phi(t_0) = \frac{1}{4} A^2 \Delta_{\max}^2 e^{-2bt_0}(1+e^{-bT})^2 e^{-2bT(l-1)}$ for phase encoding and $\epsilon_l^\mu(t_0) = \frac{\mu_0}{2} A \Delta_{\max} e^{-bt_0}(1+e^{-bT}) e^{-bT(l-1)}$ for intensity encoding. These are exactly the exponential form $\epsilon_l \le \epsilon_1 e^{-C(l-1)}$ that the unbounded-correlation security analysis of [23] requires, with $C^\phi=2bT$ and $C^\mu=bT$. Therefore a single step-response measurement---or, as done experimentally, the same data already acquired for short-range characterization---determines the effective maximum correlation length $l_e$, and existing finite-length proofs can be applied as if correlations beyond $l_e$ were zero, paying only a small security-parameter increase. The paper validates the model by fitting one measured five-pulse sequence from a 50 MHz transmitter and using the fitted filter to estimate $l_e^\phi=6$ and $l_e^\mu=11$ for $N=10^{12}$ emitted signals.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain depends on the transmitter's memory being representable by a single linear low-pass system whose step-response error stays inside one exponential envelope $|g(t)|\le A e^{-bt}$ for all times; if the real device has nonlinear behavior that is not dominated by this linear response, or if the fitted $A$ and $b$ underestimate the true tail of $g(t)$, the exponential bounds on correlations are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The characterization burden for arbitrary-order pulse correlations drops from generating and processing exponentially many setting sequences to measuring one step response and fitting two parameters.
  • For the experimental 50 MHz transmitter with $N=10^{12}$, the effective correlation length is $l_e^\phi=6$ for phase correlations and $l_e^\mu=11$ for intensity correlations, so existing security proofs for finite $l_c$ apply with those values and a small security-parameter penalty.
  • The correlation decay rate is set by the ratio of system bandwidth to repetition rate: $C^\phi=2bT$ and $C^\mu=bT$, so correlations grow when the protocol is run faster relative to the device bandwidth.
  • Secret-key-rate simulations for BB84 with unbounded phase correlations show that using the LTI-model bounds, rather than raw experimental short-range strengths, preserves higher rates because state-preparation flaws are not counted as correlations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable prediction of the model is parameter transferability: the same fitted filter should predict correlations at other repetition rates, since $T$ enters the exponents explicitly, so re-running the characterization at 25 MHz and 100 MHz would check the model directly.
  • If finite-key security proofs for intensity correlations become available, the same $A$ and $b$ parameters would immediately yield $l_e^\mu$ and unlock finite-key decoy-state rates under unbounded intensity correlations; the paper stops short of this because current intensity-correlation proofs are asymptotic.
  • One could use the exponential envelope as a design tool before building a link: a single step-response measurement of candidate modulators would predict whether a chosen repetition rate is safely below the memory-dominated regime, guiding the bandwidth-versus-rate trade-off.
  • The same LTI-envelope reasoning should transfer to other encoding degrees of freedom, such as polarization modulation through a birefringent phase modulator, because the underlying phase modulation is still a linear response to the applied field.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an LTI low-pass model for setting-choice-dependent (SCD) pulse correlations in QKD transmitters. It shows that if the step-response error satisfies |g(t)| ≤ A e^{-bt} (Eq. 13), then phase and intensity correlation strengths at any order l obey the exponential bounds (14) and (15), with parameters given in Eqs. (16)-(17). These bounds are of the form required by the security framework of Pereira et al. [23], allowing an effective maximum correlation length l_e (Eq. 11) to be computed. The authors measure short-range correlations up to fourth order for a 50-MHz intensity modulator driven by a 150-MHz AWG, fit a three-pole transfer function to one measured sequence (Fig. 7 and Table I), and use the fitted parameters to estimate l_e and to simulate secret-key rates for unbounded correlations (Fig. 9).

Significance. Conditional on Eq. (13), the paper provides a clean and useful analytical result: arbitrary-order correlation strengths can be bounded from a single step-response measurement, and the exponential decay rate is expressed through physically meaningful parameters. The derivation in Appendix D is internally consistent, and the bridge to the security analysis of [23] is clearly made. The experimental demonstration, including the characterization of all 243 five-pulse sequences and the distinction between correlations and state-preparation flaws, is valuable and clearly presented. However, the current experimental evidence does not certify that Eq. (13) is a true upper bound for the real device, and the intensity bounds are derived under a Dirac-delta pulse approximation that is not fully reconciled with the finite-width pulses used in the experiment. The significance of the paper would be substantially strengthened by a demonstration that the fitted parameters are conservative, e.g., via direct step-response measurement, uncertainty bounds, or validation on multiple sequences.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B and Eq. (13)] The central assumption that |g(t)| ≤ A e^{-bt} is a genuine upper bound for the real transmitter is not experimentally established. The parameters A=1.60 and b=318.7 Mrad/s come from a least-squares fit of a three-pole transfer function to a single five-pulse sequence (Fig. 7 and Table I); no uncertainty, residual analysis, or validation on independent sequences is provided. Because Eqs. (14)-(15) and the resulting l_e (Eq. 11) scale directly with A and e^{-bT(l-1)}, any underestimation of A or b, or any unmodeled nonlinearity, invalidates the claimed exponential bound for all l. The statement that nonlinearities are "still dominated by its linear behavior" is an assumption without supporting evidence. Please provide a certified upper bound on the true step response (via direct measurement, conservative fitting, or worst-case analysis) and validate it on multiple sequences.
  2. [Section IV.A and Appendix D, Eq. (15)] The intensity-correlation bound (15) is derived using the Dirac-delta pulse approximation leading to Eq. (D13). The experimental intensity characterization, however, uses Gaussian pulses of FWHM 1 ns (Eq. 9) integrated over Δt = 2 FWHM (Eq. 8). The paper does not show that Eq. (15) remains a valid upper bound for finite-width pulses, nor does it provide a finite-pulse correction. Since the experimental parameters, including the chosen t0 values, are defined for the finite-pulse case, this gap directly affects the applicability of the intensity-correlation results. Please provide a derivation for finite pulse shapes or demonstrate that the delta approximation is conservative for the measured pulse parameters.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 9] The model's best-case prediction ϵ_total = 3.83e-10 is orders of magnitude below the directly measured value 1.94e-3. The authors attribute this difference to SPFs and noise, but they do not provide a quantitative comparison of the model's predicted ϵ_l with the measured correlation strengths (Fig. 3 vs Fig. 8), nor do they demonstrate that the exponential bound (14) envelopes the measured short-range values. As written, the security claim rests on the unverified assumption that the model captures all SCD correlations. Please add a direct comparison of model predictions and experimental ϵ_l for l=1,...,4 and discuss explicitly whether the fitted bound is conservative with respect to those measured values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV.B] The word "dtermine" should be "determine".
  2. [Section IV.A] The notation ϵϕ_l(t0) is used both for the actual measured correlation strength and for the upper bound (e.g., Eq. (14)); consider using a distinct symbol such as ϵ̄ϕ_l(t0) for the bound to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section IV.B and Table I] Report uncertainties for the fitted parameters A and b and propagate them to Cϕ and Cµ; the current values are given without error bars.
  4. [Section V] The yellow lines in Fig. 9 assume ideal BB84 states with zero SPFs, but this is only stated in Appendix B; the main text should say so explicitly for clarity.
  5. [Appendix E, Eq. (E9)] Clarify that the bounds plotted in Fig. 7 are computed from the fitted transfer function, not directly from the measured waveform; a data-derived envelope would provide stronger evidence for Eq. (13).
  6. [Section III, experimental setup] It should be stated whether the measured V_AWG(t) includes the oscilloscope's 4-GHz bandwidth response, which could affect the fitted filter parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponential correlation bound is derived from the LTI step-response model, and A,b are calibrated to a measured waveform rather than to the predicted correlation strengths.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section IV.A introduces the LTI low-pass assumption, defines the step-response error g(t) in Eq. (12), and assumes the exponentially decaying bound |g(t)| <= A e^{-bt} in Eq. (13). Appendix D then derives, from linearity alone, the exact phase difference in Eq. (D6), and bounds it with Eq. (D9); the fidelity inequalities in Eqs. (D11) and (D19) convert this into the exponential correlation bounds of Eqs. (14) and (15). The exponential-in-l form is therefore a consequence of the model, not an input imported from [23]. The experimentally fitted A and b in Table I are obtained from a least-squares fit to one measured V_AWG(t) waveform (Section IV.B), not to the measured correlation strengths epsilon_l of Section III, so the long-range predictions are genuine extrapolations rather than refittings of the target quantity. Although [23] shares several authors and supplies the formula for l_e, the present paper does not cite [23] to justify the exponential decay; it derives that decay independently and uses [23] only to convert the bound into an effective correlation length. The residual concern that a single fitted three-pole filter may not constitute a true conservative upper bound for the real transmitter is an assumption/validation gap, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central bounds rest on four physical assumptions plus two fitted parameters. A and b are the only truly free numbers: they encode the device bandwidth and are fitted to one measured waveform. The exponential bound on g(t) is the most fragile input; without it, Eqs. (14)-(15) do not follow.

free parameters (2)
  • Filter parameters A and b (via G0, nu1, nu2, alpha1) = A=1.60, b=318.7 MHz (Table I)
    Obtained by least-squares fit of V_AWG(t) to Eq. (E7); they set the exponential decay rate for all long-range bounds, Eqs. (14)-(15).
  • mu0 = 0.3
    Mean photon number of the signal state, chosen by hand following [9]; enters linearly in the intensity bound Eq. (15) and in the SKR simulation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Devices with memory effects can be modeled as an LTI low-pass system; nonlinearities are dominated by the linear response.
    Section IV states this explicitly and treats an intensity modulator by assuming the PM inside it is linear and the interference is perfect.
  • domain assumption The step-response error satisfies |g(t)| ≤ A e^{-bt} for all t ≥ 0.
    Eq. (13); used to derive Eq. (D9). The experimental section only demonstrates this for a single fitted sequence, not as a proven property of the device.
  • domain assumption Laser pulses are narrow enough to be approximated as Dirac deltas for intensity correlations.
    Appendix D before Eq. (D13); this conflicts with the Gaussian profile used in the short-range characterization, Eq. (9).
  • domain assumption Phase-randomized weak coherent pulses remain Poissonian conditioned on the actual intensity, and phase randomization is perfect.
    Section II, paragraph before Eq. (5); standard in decoy-state QKD.
  • domain assumption The temporal distribution of phase-encoded states is sufficiently narrow to ignore the time-dependent encoding side-channel.
    Section II, paragraph after Eq. (3); the paper explicitly sets this side-channel aside to focus on setting-choice dependent correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling and Characterization of Arbitrary Order Pulse Correlations for Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXIM6RGZ

@misc{pith2026250618684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling and Characterization of Arbitrary Order Pulse Correlations for Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXIM6RGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18684}
}
read the original abstract

In quantum key distribution (QKD) implementations, memory effects caused by the limited bandwidth of modulators and/or other active devices can leak information about previous setting choices. Security proofs addressing this imperfection require the characterization of pulse correlations, which, in principle, can be of an arbitrary order, even unbounded. Experimentally, this is very hard (if not impossible) to achieve. Here, we solve this pressing problem by introducing a simple linear model to explain pulse correlations. In so doing, we can derive upper bounds on the correlation strength of arbitrary order from the study of the step response of the system. Importantly, this is what is needed to ensure the security of QKD in the presence of pulse correlations of unbounded length. We experimentally characterize short-range correlations and apply the proposed method to account for long-range correlations to an infinite order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: PM: phase modulator, PR-WCPs: phase-randomized weak coherent pulses, S: signal, D: decoy, V: vacuum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Experimental setup. The dashed lines indicate a thermally controlled box. PC: polarization controller, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Plot showing how the mean photon number is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Voltage square pulses generated by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Secret-key rates calculated using the security [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Intensity correlation strengths at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Plot of the pole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: (a) Effective maximum correlation length as a function of the number of emitted pulses in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Effective maximum correlation length for the scenario considering intensity correlations. The black(red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fault-Tolerant Quantum Key Distribution: Enabling Overclocked Modulation

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An overclocked QKD protocol that accounts for cross-correlations between intensity and bit/basis encoding, demonstrated at 1 GHz with double the secret key rate of a 250 MHz baseline.

  2. Simplified quantum key distribution implementation secure in the presence of state preparation flaws

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A three-state BB84 QKD system with time-bin encoding achieves secure key distribution over 151 km by adapting the loss-tolerant method to account for measured state preparation flaws.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Kato, A. Mizutani, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with correlated sources, Science Advances 6, eaaz4487 (2020)

    2020

  2. [1]

    Renner, Security of Quantum Key Distribution , Ph.D

    R. Renner, Security of Quantum Key Distribution , Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    For the BB84 protocol (∆max = 3π/2), the results are ϵϕ 1(tb

    = 2 .0× 10−4 and ϵϕ 1(tw 0 ) = 7 .2× 10−4 for the three-state protocol (∆ max =π). For the BB84 protocol (∆max = 3π/2), the results are ϵϕ 1(tb

    work page

  4. [3]

    experiment

    = 4.5× 10−4 and ϵϕ 1(tw 0 ) = 1.6× 10−3. Estimated upper bound for intensity correlations For intensity correlations, using Eq. (17a) and the found parameters for the filter displayed in Table I in Appendix E, we find that Cµ≈ 6.4. The predicted effec- tive first order correlation strength, however, depends on both the simulated mean photon number of a si...

    work page

  5. [4]

    If we consider N = 10 12 emitted signals and a failure probability of d = 10−10, this yields an effective maxi- mum correlation length of lµ e = 11 for both values of t0 considered

    = 3.8× 10−3 andϵµ 1(tw 0 ) = 5.3× 10−3. If we consider N = 10 12 emitted signals and a failure probability of d = 10−10, this yields an effective maxi- mum correlation length of lµ e = 11 for both values of t0 considered. 11 0 5 10 15 20 t0 (ns) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ϵφ total(t0) 12 14 16 180.0000 0.0002 0.0004 three-state BB84 FIG. 8: Plot of ϵϕ total(t0) ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Planes Complementarios de I+D+I con las Co- munidades Autonomas

    = 1 .94× 10−3. Lastly, in yellow we plot the results obtained when using a hybrid method in which the exponential bounds are assumed for long-range cor- relations, while for short-range we use the correlation strengths that are estimated from analytical results given by the LTI model. More concretely, we directly calculate φjN|˜jN−1 (t0)−φjN|jN−1(t0) with...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Wang, Beating the Photon-Number-Splitting Attack in Practical Quantum Cryptography, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

    X.-B. Wang, Beating the Photon-Number-Splitting Attack in Practical Quantum Cryptography, Physical Review Letters 94, 230503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple Proof of Security of the BB84 Quantum Key Distribution Protocol, Physical Review Letters 85, 441 (2000)

    2000

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Gottesman and H.-K

    D. Gottesman and H.-K. Lo, Proof of security of quantum key distribution with two-way classical communications, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 49, 457 (2003)

    2003

  2. [9]

    Trefilov et al

    by directly observing the polarization and intensity of the states conditioned on the previous setting choice with a polarimeter and an optical oscilloscope, respec- tively. Trefilov et al. characterized intensity correlations up to the sixth order and showed that higher-order...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Hwang, Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    W.-Y. Hwang, Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication, Physical Review Letters 91, 057901 (2003)

    2003

  4. [11]

    H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Decoy state quantum key distribution, Physical Review Letters 94, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  5. [12]

    Gottesman, H.-K

    D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect devices, Quantum Information and Computation 4, 325 (2004)

    2004

  6. [13]

    Tamaki, M

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

    2014

  7. [14]

    Gr¨ unenfelder, A

    F. Gr¨ unenfelder, A. Boaron, D. Rusca, A. Martin, and H. Zbinden, Performance and security of 5 GHz repetition rate polarization-based Quantum Key Distribution, Applied Physics Letters 117, 144003 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Y. Lu, S.-K. Liao, J. Huang, H. Li, Z. Wang, H.-K. Mao, B. Yan, Q. Li, Y. Liu, Q. Zhang, C.-Z. Peng, L. You, F. Xu, and J.-W. Pan, High-rate quantum key distribution exceeding 110 Mb s –1, Nature Photonics 17, 416 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Gr¨ unenfelder, A

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

    2023

  10. [17]

    Yoshino, M

    K.-I. Yoshino, M. Fujiwara, K. Nakata, T. Sumiya, T. Sasaki, M. Takeoka, M. Sasaki, A. Tajima, M. Koashi, and A. Tomita, Quantum key distribution with an efficient countermeasure against correlated intensity fluctuations in optical pulses, npj Quantum Information 4, 8 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    F.-Y. Lu, X. Lin, S. Wang, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, P. Ye, R. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Intensity modulator for secure, stable, and high-performance decoy-state quantum key distribution, npj Quantum Information 7, 75 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    Kang, F.-Y

    X. Kang, F.-Y. Lu, S. Wang, J.-L. Chen, Z.-H. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Patterning-Effect Calibration Algorithm for Secure Decoy-State Quantum Key Distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology 41, 75 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Lu, Z.-H

    F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, J.-L. Chen, X. Kang, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Intensity Tomography Method for Secure and High-Performance Quantum Key Distribution, Journal of Lightwave Technology 41, 4895 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Zapatero, A

    V. Zapatero, A. Navarrete, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Security of quantum key distribution with intensity correlations, Quantum 5, 602 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Sixto, V

    X. Sixto, V. Zapatero, and M. Curty, Security of decoy-state quantum key distribution with correlated intensity fluctuations, Physical Review Applied 18, 044069 (2022). 25

    2022

  16. [24]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, M. Pereira, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Security of high-speed quantum key distribution with imperfect sources (2025), preprint arXiv:2305.05930

    2025

  17. [25]

    Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S

    G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, S. Nahar, N. L¨ utkenhaus, K. Tamaki, and M. Curty, Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect phase randomisation, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 015025 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Navarrete, A. Mizutani, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Modified BB84 quantum key distribution protocol robust to source imperfections, Physical Review Research 5, 023065 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Li, F.-Y

    J.-X. Li, F.-Y. Lu, Z.-H. Wang, V. Zapatero, M. Curty, S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, W. Chen, D.-Y. He, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, Quantum key distribution overcoming practical correlated intensity fluctuations (2025), preprint arXiv:2501.13482

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pereira, G

    M. Pereira, G. Curr´ as-Lorenzo, A. Mizutani, D. Rusca, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, Quantum key distribution with un- bounded pulse correlations, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015001 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Trefilov, X

    D. Trefilov, X. Sixto, V. Zapatero, A. Huang, M. Curty, and V. Makarov, Intensity correlations in decoy-state BB84 quantum key distribution systems (2024), preprint arXiv:2411.00709

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T. Xing, J. Liu, L. Zhang, M.-Y. Wang, Y.-H. Li, R. Liu, Q. Peng, D. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Liu, W. Li, Y. Cao, and A. Huang, Characterization of intensity correlation via single-photon detection in quantum key distribution, Optics Express32, 31767 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Gnanapandithan, L

    A. Gnanapandithan, L. Qian, and H.-K. Lo, Hidden multidimensional modulation side channels in quantum protocols, Physical Review Letters 134, 130802 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Mizutani, Y

    A. Mizutani, Y. Takeuchi, and K. Tamaki, Finite-key security analysis of differential-phase-shift quantum key distribution, Physical Review Research 5, 023132 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.