Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

One-Time Shot-Noise Unit Calibration Method for Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution

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 that the shot-noise unit of a continuous-variable QKD receiver can be calibrated from one measurement, with a trusted-detector model that keeps secret key rates essentially unchanged.

desk verdict A practical one-step SNU calibration for CV-QKD that is more solid than the conditional verdict suggests; the eta_e worst-case concern is defused by the product-form dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06230 v2 pith:NRYAJIXV submitted 2019-08-17 quant-ph

Yi-Chen Zhang , Yundi Huang , Ziyang Chen , Zhengyu Li , Song Yu , Hong Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P94
keywords continuous-variablequantumkeydistributionshot-noiseunitcalibrationtrusteddetectormodelhomodynedetectionfinite-sizesecurityanalysisattacksentanglement-basedsecretrate
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 tries to establish that the shot-noise unit (SNU) of a continuous-variable quantum key distribution receiver can be calibrated in one step rather than two, without opening security loopholes. In the conventional two-time evaluation, Bob measures the detector's electronic noise with the local oscillator off and then the total noise with it on, subtracting the former from the latter. The proposed one-time calibration instead uses the LO-on total variance $V_{\mathrm{tot}}$ as the normalization unit, $\mathrm{SNU}' = V_{\mathrm{tot}} = \mathrm{SNU}+V_{\mathrm{ele}}$, and reinterprets the electronic-noise contribution as the output of a trusted beam splitter inside Bob's receiver. The paper proves that this prepare-and-measure procedure is equivalent to an entanglement-based model whose secret key rate, in asymptotic and finite-size simulations and in a 49.85 km proof-of-principle experiment, comes close to the conventional method while simplifying hardware and reducing statistical fluctuation. This matters because a simpler, single-switch calibration is compatible with real-time monitoring and automatic operation, and because it removes a class of calibration-misestimation attacks.

What carries the argument

The central object is a trusted-detector entanglement-based model containing two vacuum-coupled beam splitters: one with transmittance $\eta_d$ equal to the detector efficiency, and one with transmittance $\eta_e = A^2 X_{\mathrm{LO}}^2/(A^2 X_{\mathrm{LO}}^2+v_{\mathrm{el}})$ that models the electronic noise as an extra trusted loss. The load-bearing identity is that normalizing Bob's raw outputs by $\mathrm{SNU}'=V_{\mathrm{tot}}$ makes the prepare-and-measure output coincide with the homodyne measurement of mode $B_3$ in the entanglement-based model, so the security analysis can be run on the EB covariance matrix while the experiment only measures $V_{\mathrm{tot}}$ once. A three-mode version permutes the two beam splitters to carry the efficiency loss into Bob's trusted modes, giving a tighter Holevo bound; the finite-size version traverses a $\chi^2(m-1)$ confidence interval for $V_{\mathrm{tot}}$ to bound SNU fluctuation.

What would settle it

Compute the three-mode secret key rate while sweeping $\eta_e$ from its lower bound to $1$ with $T\eta_e$ held at the measured total loss; if the minimum occurs at any interior value rather than at $\eta_e=1$, the conservative bound and the claimed equivalence to two-time calibration are not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that replacing the two-step calibration formula $\mathrm{SNU}=V_{\mathrm{tot}}-V_{\mathrm{ele}}$ by the one-step definition $\mathrm{SNU}'=V_{\mathrm{tot}}$ does not change the physical content of the security analysis, provided the detector's electronic noise is modeled as a trusted beam splitter with transmittance $\eta_e = A^2 X_{\mathrm{LO}}^2/(A^2 X_{\mathrm{LO}}^2+v_{\mathrm{el}})$. With this $\eta_e$, the normalized homodyne output of the prepare-and-measure scheme equals the measurement of mode $B_3$ in the entanglement-based model, and the same equivalence extends to other trusted additive noises such as relative-intensity noise. The paper derives the full two-mode and three-mode covariance matrices, computes the symplectic eigenvalues for reverse reconciliation against collective attacks, and shows numerically that the three-mode one-time model's secret key rate stays within about 0.64% of the conventional model at variance $V=4$ asymptotically. A proof-of-principle experiment over 49.85 km of fiber with 11.62 dB loss yields asymptotic key rate 11.62 kbps and finite-size key rate 2.39 kbps, slightly below but comparable to the two-time method. The authors conclude that one-time calibration can serve as a direct substitute, with the cost that electronic noise is conservatively treated as untrusted channel loss.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, with the combined loss $T\eta_e$ fixed, the worst-case secret key rate is reached when all loss is assigned to the untrusted channel ($\eta_e=1$); the paper asserts this after Eq. (41) but gives no proof or numerical scan.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one-time calibration, a single optical switch in the signal path alternates between SNU calibration and key distribution, so the local-oscillator power is never attenuated by a switch and real-time calibration becomes practical.
  • The one-time SNU is a single measured variance rather than a difference of two variances, so its finite-size confidence interval is narrower than the conventional one for the same calibration data.
  • The three-mode entanglement-based model yields secret key rates and tolerable excess noise essentially matching the two-time method in both asymptotic and finite-size simulations; the rate disparity can be as low as 0.64% at variance $V=4$.
  • The prepare-and-measure to entanglement-based equivalence holds even when relative-intensity noise is included, so the one-time calibration extends to any additional trusted additive noise.
  • The 49.85 km proof-of-principle experiment demonstrates the method in practice, with asymptotic key rate 11.62 kbps and finite-size key rate 2.39 kbps under an 11.62 dB channel loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors do not pursue is the short-block regime: their finite-size formulas imply the one-time method gains most when the block is small enough that skipping the separate $V_{\mathrm{ele}}$ measurement noticeably enlarges the data fraction $n/N$ available for key distillation.
  • The same beam-splitter normalization trick should transfer to heterodyne detection and to other shot-noise-normalized continuous-variable protocols such as quantum digital signatures and quantum secret sharing, which the paper mentions but does not derive.
  • A cautious deployment would independently monitor the electronic noise, because the key-rate bound only becomes conservative after accepting the asserted worst case that all loss is attributed to the untrusted channel; the authors do not provide that independent check.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes replacing the conventional two-step shot-noise-unit (SNU) calibration of a CV-QKD homodyne detector, SNU = Vtot - Vele, with a one-step calibration, SNU' = Vtot, where Vtot already includes the electronic noise. The authors construct an entanglement-based (EB) model in which the electronic noise is represented by a beam splitter with transmittance eta_e and the detection efficiency by a second beam splitter with transmittance eta_d, and they show algebraically that the prepare-and-measure (PM) output normalized by SNU' equals the homodyne output of this EB model. They derive two-mode and three-mode covariance matrices, compute secret key rates under collective attacks in the asymptotic and finite-size regimes, and present simulation comparisons with the conventional two-time-evaluation (TTE) model, together with a proof-of-principle experiment over 49.85 km of fiber. The central claim is that the one-time calibration achieves essentially the same key rate as the TTE model while simplifying the calibration procedure and reducing statistical fluctuation.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the proposal is a useful practical simplification for CV-QKD systems: it eliminates one optical switch and one calibration step, and it can make real-time SNU monitoring easier. The algebraic equivalence in Eqs. (7)-(10) is consistent, and the three-mode trusted-detector covariance matrix in Eq. (34) is a useful explicit construction. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or code, but the analytic derivations are largely reproducible from the text. The experimental demonstration, while single-point, provides supporting evidence for feasibility. I assess the central idea as sound, with the caveats below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV A, Eq. (41)] The assertion that the worst-case secret key rate is obtained at eta_e = 1 is not proved, and the heuristic given ('the lowest secret key rate may be obtained when the untrusted party controls all the loss') is not supported. This matters because the paper uses that assertion to justify Eq. (35), where Eve is taken to purify only A, B3, and C. However, under the trusted-detector assumptions stated in Sec. III A, the covariance matrices in Eqs. (14) and (34) depend on T and eta_e only through the product T eta_e, so the key rate is in fact invariant under the split between channel loss and electronic-noise transmittance. The authors should replace the unproved worst-case claim with this direct product-dependence argument. If the intention is to cover the case where the electronic noise is untrusted, mode D must be included in the Holevo bound, which is not done.
  2. [Section IV B, Eqs. (42)-(52)] The finite-size security analysis accounts for the shot-noise-unit estimation uncertainty (Eqs. (43)-(48)) but does not specify how the finite-size estimation of the channel transmittance T and the excess noise epsilon_c enters the covariance matrix and the term I^{epsilon_PE}(B:E) in Eq. (42). The text only says that the lower bound is found by traversing the SNU confidence interval. Consequently, the finite-size key-rate curves in Figs. 9 and 10 and the finite-size experimental rate in Sec. V are not reproducible from the information given. Please provide the parameter-estimation confidence intervals and the resulting worst-case covariance matrices, or explicitly state and cite the standard construction with enough detail to reproduce the results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III A, Eq. (8)] The phrase 'equation(3)' should be 'Eq. (7)'; Eq. (3) is the definition of the conventional SNU.
  2. [Section IV A, Eq. (24)] The formula for lambda_3^2 appears to contain a typo in the denominator; from Eq. (23) it should be V(V chi + 1)/(V + chi), not V(V chi + 1)/(V + V chi).
  3. [Section IV B, Eq. (52)] The off-diagonal B3-C block is written with sigma_z, whereas the corresponding term in Eq. (34) is proportional to the identity matrix; please check the sign and matrix convention.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 12] The experimental key rates are reported as single mean values without error bars or the number of runs; because the paper emphasizes reduced statistical fluctuation, the claim would be strengthened by reporting uncertainties.
  5. [General] The paper claims security against 'arbitrary collective attacks' but does not state the Gaussian optimality reduction that justifies restricting the analysis to Gaussian attacks; this standard step should be cited explicitly.
  6. [General] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'Secert' in the Fig. 6 caption, 'we are still not satisfy that mode D is practically controlled by Eve' after Eq. (41), and inconsistent notation such as SNU versus SN U and chi_{B3E} versus chi_{BE}; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One self-definitional step (eta_e chosen to force PM/EB equivalence) is minor; the central key-rate and experimental comparisons are independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III A, paragraph after Eq. (10) defining eta_e]
    "Now if we define ηe = A2X 2 LO A2X 2 LO +vel , then equation(8) can be rewrite as equation(3), then xnew out = ˆxhom. Thus we have also derived the corresponding EB version of the model and the equivalence between the PM model and the EB model is built."

    The electronic-noise beam-splitter transmittance eta_e is not independently measured or derived; it is defined as A^2 X_LO^2/(A^2 X_LO^2 + v_ele), which is exactly SNU/(SNU+V_ele). With this choice, the coefficients in the normalized PM output (Eq. 10) become sqrt(eta_e eta_d), sqrt(eta_e(1-eta_d)), sqrt(1-eta_e), matching the two-beam-splitter EB homodyne output (Eq. 7). The PM/EB equivalence is therefore true by construction rather than by derivation. However, this step does not taint the later key-rate simulations or the experiment, which evaluate the model rather than extracting a fitted prediction from the data.

full rationale

The only potentially circular step is the definition of eta_e in Sec. III A, which forces the claimed equivalence between the one-time-calibrated PM output and the trusted-detector EB model. This is a self-definitional construction: the parameter is chosen so that Eq. (10) reproduces Eq. (7), and the paper then says the EB model is 'derived.' That equivalence is load-bearing for the security analysis, but it is not an empirical prediction and does not make the central comparative claims circular. The key-rate calculations in Sec. IV use the covariance matrices obtained from this model with fixed simulation parameters; no parameter is fitted to the experimental output. The finite-size SNU fluctuation analysis is a direct statistical consequence of measuring Vtot versus Vtot-Vele, not a renamed fit. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [24], [25]) are prior experimental demonstrations and are not used as the argument's load-bearing support. The reader's concern about the unproved worst-case minimization over eta_e after Eq. (41) is not a circularity issue; moreover, the covariance matrices in Eqs. (14) and (34) depend on T and eta_e only through the product T eta_e, so the key rate is invariant under the split and the claimed worst case at eta_e = 1 is algebraically justified. Overall, the derivation is essentially self-contained: one benign definitional step, no fitted-input-as-prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no renaming of a known result as new organization.

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

The central derivation reuses the standard trusted-detector model and adds a new normalization convention; no fundamentally new physical entities are introduced. The main loaded assumptions are the trusted-noise conditions and the unproven monotonicity of the key rate over ηe.

free parameters (3)
  • Electronic-noise transmittance ηe = worst-case set to 1 in key-rate lower bound; otherwise defined as A²X_LO²/(A²X_LO²+v_el)
    The one-time calibration does not measure ηe directly; the security analysis bounds it and asserts the minimum key rate at ηe = 1 (Sec. IV, after Eq. 41).
  • Simulation parameters V, εc, v_el, η_d, β = V in {40, 20, 4}, εc = 0.01, v_el = 0.01, η_d = 0.6, β = 0.956
    Used in Figs. 2 and 6-10 for performance comparison; they are standard values chosen by hand from prior experiments, not fitted to this paper's data, but they determine the reported key-rate curves.
  • Total and electronic noise variances in Fig. 4 = V_tot = 2.3768, V_ele = 0.421
    Chosen to imitate a practical realization in the finite-size SNU fluctuation simulation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bob's detector loss and electronic noise leak no information to Eve (trusted detector assumption)
    Stated explicitly in Sec. III A as assumptions 1-3; without it, the trusted-noise EB model is not valid.
  • domain assumption Electronic noise is additive, zero-mean Gaussian and can be represented by a vacuum mode through a beamsplitter
    Used in Eq. (10) to replace X_ele with sqrt(v_el) x_v2; standard in trusted-noise CV-QKD.
  • domain assumption Gaussian extremality and the collective-attack security framework of prior CV-QKD proofs apply to the derived EB model
    The key-rate formulas (17)-(20) rely on the standard Gaussian security analysis [9-11,14-17,41]; the paper does not reprove security from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper For fixed total loss Tηe = const, the secret key rate is minimized at ηe = 1
    Asserted in Sec. IV A after Eq. (41) without a derivation; this is the load-bearing step for the conservative lower bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-Time Shot-Noise Unit Calibration Method for Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NRYAJIXV

@misc{pith2026190806230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-Time Shot-Noise Unit Calibration Method for Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NRYAJIXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06230}
}
read the original abstract

The shot-noise unit in continuous-variable quantum key distribution plays an important and fundamental role in experimental implementation as it is used as a normalization parameter that contribute to perform security analysis and distill the key information. However, the traditional calibration procedure and detector model can not cover all system noise in practical application, which will result in some loopholes and influence the practical security. What's more, the traditional procedure is also rather complicated and has difficulty in compatible with automatic operating system. In this paper we propose a calibration model based on the proposed trusted detector model, which could naturally close the loopholes in practical application. It can help identify the shot-noise unit in only one step, which can not only effectively simplify the evaluation process but also reduce the statistical fluctuation, while two steps are needed in traditional method. We prove its feasibility and derive the complete version of the corresponding entanglement-based model. Detailed security analysis against arbitrary collective attacks and numerous simulation results in both the asymptotic limit regime and the finite-size regime are provided. A proof-of-principle experiment has been implemented and the results indicate that the one-time-calibration model can be employed as a powerful substitution to calibrate the shot-noise unit. Our method paves the way for the deployment of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with real time calibration and automatic operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The detailed entangle-based trusted homodyne detec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simulation result of the secret key rate as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The entanglement-based model of one-time evaluatio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Normalized SNU and deviation with ideal calibration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Three-mode entanglement-based model of the one-tim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Secret key rate as a function of transmission distanc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Secret key rate disparity as a function of trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Secret key rate as a function of transmission distanc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: In the experiment, a coherent-state protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Optical layout of the experiment. Alice uses two hig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Secret key rate as a function of channel loss with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

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. Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution with Rateless Reconciliation Protocol

    quant-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A rateless reconciliation protocol combining multidimensional reconciliation with Raptor codes achieves over 95% efficiency from -20 to 0 dB SNR in simulations and supports optimal modulation variance in CV-QKD.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Scarani, H

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

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. S. Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, P. Wallden, Advances in Quantum Cryptogra- phy, arXiv:1906.01645 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Diamanti and A

    E. Diamanti and A. Leverrier, Distributing secret keys with quantum continuous variables: principle, security and implementations, Entropy 17, 6072 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Grosshans and P

    F. Grosshans and P. Grangier, Continuous variable quan- tum cryptography using coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 057902 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Weedbrook, A

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

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Grosshans, G

    F. Grosshans, G. V. Assche, J. Wenger, R. Brouri, N. J. Cerf, P. Grangier, Quantum key distribution using Gaussian modulated coherent states, Nature 421, 238 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Leverrier, R

    A. Leverrier, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, R. Renner, N. J. Cerf, Security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution 16 against general attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 030502 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Leverrier, Composable security proof for continuou s- variable quantum key distribution with coherent states, Phys

    A. Leverrier, Composable security proof for continuou s- variable quantum key distribution with coherent states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 070501 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Leverrier, Security of continuous-variable quantu m key distribution via a Gaussian de Finetti reduction, Phys

    A. Leverrier, Security of continuous-variable quantu m key distribution via a Gaussian de Finetti reduction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 200501 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, L. Banchi, Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communi- cations, Nature Communications 8, 15043 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Pirandola, S

    S. Pirandola, S. L. Braunstein, R. Laurenza, C. Otta- viani, T. P. W. Cope, G. Spedalieri, L. Banchi, Theory of channel simulation and bounds for private communi- cation, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 035009 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Grosshans, Collective attacks and unconditional se - curity in continuous variable quantum key distribution, Phys

    F. Grosshans, Collective attacks and unconditional se - curity in continuous variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 020504 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Navascu´ es and A

    M. Navascu´ es and A. Ac ´ ın, Security bounds for continu- ous variables quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 020505 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, S. L. Braunstein, S. Lloyd, Direct and reverse secret-key capacities of a quantum channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 050503 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Renner and J

    R. Renner and J. I. Cirac, de Finetti representation the o- rem for infinite-dimensional quantum systems and appli- cations to quantum cryptography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110504 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    A. M. Lance, T. Symul, V. Sharma, C. Weedbrook, T. C. Ralph, P. K. Lam, No-switching quantum key distribution using broadband modulated coherent light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 180503 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Lodewyck, M

    J. Lodewyck, M. Bloch, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, S. Fossier, E. Karpov, E. Diamanti, T. Debuisschert, N. J. Cerf, R. Tualle-Brouri, S. W. McLaughlin, P. Grangier, Quan- tum key distribution over 25 km with an all-fiber continuous-variable system, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042305 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    Qi, L.-L

    B. Qi, L.-L. Huang, L. Qian, H.-K. Lo, Experimental study on the Gaussian-modulated coherent-state quan- tum key distribution over standard telecommunication fibers, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052323 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    I. Khan, C. Wittmann, N. Jain, N. Killoran, N. L¨ utkenhaus, C. Marquardt, G. Leuchs, Optimal work- ing points for continuous-variable quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A 88, 010302 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Huang, P

    D. Huang, P. Huang, D. Lin, G. Zeng, Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution by control- ling excess noise, Sci. Rep. 6, 19201 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Zhang, J

    G. Zhang, J. Y. Haw, H. Cai, F. Xu, S. M. Assad, J. F. Fitzsimons, X. Zhou, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, J. Wu, W. Ser, L. C. Kwek, A. Q. Liu, An integrated silicon photonic chip platform for continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion, Nat. Photon. 13, 839 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Zhang, Z

    Y.-C. Zhang, Z. Chen, S. Pirandola, X. Wang, C. Zhou, B. Chu, Y. Zhao, B. Xu, S. Yu, H. Guo, Long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution over 202. 81 km fiber, arXiv:2001.02555 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Li, Z. Chen, C. Weedbrook, Y. Zhao, X. Wang, Y. Huang, C. Xu, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Li, X. Zhang, Z. Zheng, B. Chu, X. Gao, N. Meng, W. Cai, Z. Wang, G. Wang, S. Yu, H. Guo, Continuous-variable QKD over 50 km commercial fiber, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 4 035006 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Li, Y.-C

    Z. Li, Y.-C. Zhang, Hong Guo, User-defined quantum key distribution, arXiv:1805.04249 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ghorai, P

    S. Ghorai, P. Grangier, E. Diamanti, A. Leverrier, Asymptotic security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with a discrete modulation, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021059 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    J. Lin, T. Upadhyaya, N. L¨ utkenhaus, Asymptotic se- curity analysis of discrete-modulated continuous-variab le quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041064 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Ferenczi, P

    A. Ferenczi, P. Grangier, F. Grosshans, Calibration at - tack and defense in continuous variable quantum key dis- tribution, International Quantum Electronics Conference IC13 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Jouguet, S

    P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, E. Diamanti, Preventing calibration attacks on the local oscillator in continuous- variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062313 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    B. Qi, P. Lougovski, R. Pooser, W. Grice, M. Bobrek, Generating the local oscillator “locall” in continuous- variable quantum key distribution based on coherent de- tection, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041009 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    D. B. S. Soh, C. Brif, P. J. Coles, N. L¨ utkenhaus, R. M. Camacho, J. Urayama, M. Sarovar, Self-referenced continuous-variable quantum key distribution protocol, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041010 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Fossier, E

    S. Fossier, E. Diamanti, T. Debuisschert, R. Tualle- Brouri, P. Grangier, Improvement of continuous-variable quantum key distribution systems by using optical preamplifiers, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys 42, 114014 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Usenko and R

    V. Usenko and R. Filip, Trusted noise in continuous- variable quantum key distribution: a threat and a de- fense, Entropy 18, 20 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Li, Y.-C

    Z. Li, Y.-C. Zhang, F. Xu, X. Peng, H. Guo, Continuous- variable measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052301 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Z

    Y.-C. Zhang, Z. Li, S. Yu, W. Gu, X. Peng, H. Guo, Continuous-variable measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution using squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 90, 052325 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Pirandola, C

    S. Pirandola, C. Ottaviani, G. Spedalieri, C. Weed- brook, S. L. Braunstein, S. Lloyd, T. Gehring, C. S. Ja- cobsen, U. L. Andersen, High-rate measurement-device- independent quantum cryptography, Nat. Photon. 9, 397 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    X. Wang, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, H. Guo, High efficiency post- processing for continuous-variable quantum key distribu- tion: using all raw keys for parameter estimation and key extraction, Quantum Information Processing 18, 264 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 461, 2053 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Communication, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Leverrier, F

    A. Leverrier, F. Grosshans, P. Grangier, Finite-size a nal- ysis of a continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062343 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Leverrier, R

    A. Leverrier, R. All´ eaume, J. Boutros, G. Z´ emor, P. Grangier, Multidimensional reconciliation for a continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. 17 Rev. A 77, 042325 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Richardson and R

    T. Richardson and R. Urbanke, Multi-edge type LDPC codes, presented at the Workshop honoring Prof. Bob McEliece on his 60th birthday, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Krawczyk, LFSR-based hashing and authentication, Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO’94, 129 (1994)

    H. Krawczyk, LFSR-based hashing and authentication, Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO’94, 129 (1994)

    1994

  37. [45]

    C.-H. F. Fung, X. Ma, H. F. Chau, Practical issues in quantum-key-distribution postprocessing, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012318 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Z. Li, B. Xu, S. Yu, H. Guo, Effi- cient rate-adaptive reconciliation for continuous-varia ble quantum key distribution, Quantum Inf. Comput. 17, 1123 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    C. Zhou, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, G. Zhang, S. Yu, H. Guo, Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribution with Rateless Reconciliation Protocol, Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 054013 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Croal, C

    C. Croal, C. Peuntinger, B. Heim, I. Khan, C. Mar- quardt, G. Leuchs, P. Wallden, E. Andersson, N. Ko- rolkova, Free-space quantum signatures using heterodyne measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100503 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    P. G. Warren and B. Qi, Quantum secret sharing using weak coherent states, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022339 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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