Fully passive reference frame independent quantum key distribution

Jia-Wei Ying; Lan Zhou; Shi-Pu Gu; Xing-Fu Wang; Yu-Bo Sheng

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Fully passive reference frame independent quantum key distribution

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully passive source can run reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution without active modulation, retaining more than half the ideal key rate and reaching 167 km at $10^{12}$ pulses.

desk verdict The fully-passive/RFI combination is worth taking seriously, but the key-rate numbers are inflated by a backwards lower-bound in Eq. (38) and an unproven security argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15528 v1 pith:OQ6YH6ZA submitted 2025-04-22 quant-ph

Jia-Wei Ying , Shi-Pu Gu , Xing-Fu Wang , Lan Zhou , Yu-Bo Sheng This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Dd

keywords fullypassiveQKDreference-frame-independentside-channelsuppressionfinite-keyanalysisdecoy-statemethodpost-selectionintervalquantumkeydistributionstatepreparation

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 proposes a reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution protocol whose transmitter is a fully passive source, removing the active modulation that creates side-channel vulnerabilities in earlier RFI-QKD implementations. It claims that by optimizing post-selection intervals and source intensities, the protocol reaches a secure key transmission rate above 50% of an ideal actively modulated QKD, and that with $10^{12}$ source pulses it achieves maximum distances of 167 km for aligned reference frames and 136 km for a 45-degree misalignment. The point is to show that passive-state generation and RFI's relaxed alignment requirement are compatible without sacrificing practical performance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fully passive source plus the post-selection intervals: the source emits coherent pulses with random intensity and random Bloch-sphere angles, and intervals $S^y_Z$, $S^y_X$, $S^y_Y$ filter the pulses into approximate $Z$, $X$, and $Y$ basis states for the vacuum/decoy/signal intensity classes. Around that sits the RFI security parameter $C = \langle X_AX_B\rangle^2 + \langle X_AY_B\rangle^2 + \langle Y_AX_B\rangle^2 + \langle Y_AY_B\rangle^2$, which is independent of the reference-frame misalignment and, through the RFI security bound, bounds Eve's information from the observed single-photon error rates. The finite-key part uses decoy-state linear programming with concentration inequalities to bound single-photon yields and errors, and the protocol is optimized over the post-selection interval widths and source intensities.

What would settle it

Run the decoy-state finite-key analysis with a source-flaw security proof, replacing the ideal-state RFI bound by a bound valid for the worst-case mixture inside each post-selection interval; a substantial drop below 50% of the active-modulation rate would refute the paper's central claim. Experimentally, characterizing the actual distribution of emitted states and comparing the worst-case $C$ to the observed $C$ would show whether Eve can exploit the interval-induced deviations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully passive source, which produces randomly distributed coherent states without active modulation, can replace Alice's six-state active preparation in RFI QKD while using the X and Y measurement correlations to bound Eve through the reference-frame-independent parameter $C$. The paper establishes a system model for the gain and error rate as integrals over the post-selected state intervals, optimizes the interval widths and intensities, and applies a decoy-state finite-key analysis based on a martingale concentration bound. On that basis it finds that the fully passive protocol reaches more than half the key rate of ideal actively modulated QKD, and its maximum distance can slightly exceed the active protocol in the infinite-key limit (215 km vs 214 km), with finite-key distances of 167 km and 136 km for misalignments of 0 and 45 degrees at $10^{12}$ pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The key-rate formula assumes the reference-frame-independent security bound derived for six ideal states still limits Eve when Alice's emitted states are mixtures averaged over the post-selection intervals; if this bound fails for those imperfect states, the central security claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The key rate of fully passive RFI QKD can exceed half that of ideal active-modulation QKD, making passive transmitters practical for RFI-type protocols.
At $10^{12}$ pulses the protocol reaches 167 km with aligned frames and 136 km at 45-degree misalignment, and a GHz source can accumulate this data in minutes.
Because the Z basis is reserved for key while X and Y bases are used for parameter estimation, the protocol uses the passively generated states more fully than earlier fully passive QKD.
The protocol removes the active-modulation side-channel attack surface (e.g., trojan-horse and unambiguous-state-discrimination attacks) on the source without requiring device-independent assumptions.
In the infinite-key limit the maximum distance (215 km) slightly exceeds that of the actively modulated RFI protocol (214 km), because the RFI bound constrains Eve more tightly.

Reading between the lines

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

A security proof that accounts for the non-ideal emitted states (treating them as source flaws rather than ideal six states) would be needed to confirm the key-rate numbers; until then the reported rates assume the ideal-state RFI bound extends to the post-selected mixtures.
The performance dip at 45-degree misalignment suggests an adaptive strategy that rebalances the choice of $X$ and $Y$ bases or shrinks the post-selection windows could recover some of that lost rate; this is a testable extension.
The same fully passive transmitter could be nested inside measurement-device-independent or twin-field setups, where removing active-modulation side channels would combine with different distance advantages; the paper does not analyze that combination.
Since the finite-key bounds rely on trace distances between neighboring post-selection intervals, a tighter characterization of those intervals would directly improve the estimated key rate without changing the protocol.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's central claims are not supported: the lower bound on C in Eq. (38) is computed from the wrong end of the error interval, and the RFI security bound is applied to post-selected mixed states without proof. Both flaws inflate the reported key rates, so the headline numbers (167 km, 136 km, >50% of active QKD) are optimistic.

What is actually new: the combination of a fully passive source with RFI QKD. The authors use X/Y basis emissions for parameter estimation and Z for key generation, which sensibly avoids discarding the Y-basis states. The system model follows the established fully passive source analysis, and the finite-key treatment uses Kato's inequality in the standard way. The citation pattern is appropriate; the relevant fully passive and RFI papers are cited. As a protocol design, this is a reasonable contribution.

The problems are in the security analysis and the numerics. Eq. (38) is backwards. The function (1-2x)^2 decreases on [0, 0.5] and increases on [0.5, 1]. A lower bound should be (1-2 e^U)^2 when the interval lies below 0.5, and (1-2 e^L)^2 when it lies above. The paper does the opposite in both branches, so C_L is actually an upper bound on C. Since the RFI key rate formula gives Eve less information when C is larger, the protocol overestimates the secure key. That directly affects the central quantitative claims.

Second, the paper uses Laing et al.'s RFI bound (Ref. [23]) for the ideal six states, but Alice's emitted states are mixtures over the post-selection intervals. No proof is given that the C parameter computed from observed error rates still bounds Eve's information for these mixed states. This is exactly the situation addressed by source-flaw analyses such as Ref. [25], which is cited but not used. The authors need to either prove the bound for their states or adopt a conservative analysis.

Third, the probability density f(I,θ) in Eq. (23) appears mis-normalized. I did not compute the full integral, but the form does not obviously integrate to 1 over the domain. If it is wrong, all gains and rates are off. The reader flagged this, and it deserves checking before any numbers are quoted.

These are not minor issues. The protocol idea is fine, but the performance numbers are currently unjustified. I would send this to peer review because the topic is timely and the flaws are addressable: fix the C_L calculation, add a proper security argument for mixed states, and recheck the normalization. The likely outcome should be major revision, not acceptance. The reader's conditional verdict is fair.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a fully passive reference-frame-independent QKD protocol in which Alice uses a fully passive source to generate coherent pulses with random polarization and intensity, post-selects six intervals approximating the Z, X, and Y basis states, and uses Z-basis events for key while X/Y-basis events feed the RFI parameter C. The authors give a system model for gains and error rates, a finite-key analysis based on Kato's inequality and decoy-state linear programming, and numerical optimization of post-selection intervals and intensities. The central quantitative claims are that the asymptotic key rate exceeds 50% of ideal actively modulated QKD, and that with N=10^12 pulses the distance reaches 167 km for beta=0 and 136 km for beta=45 degrees.

Significance. The protocol idea is a sensible and potentially useful combination of two mature techniques: fully passive sources [45,48,49] and RFI key distillation [23]. The authors correctly identify that using the X/Y bases for eavesdropping estimation and the Z basis for key generation improves the utilization of passively generated states. The paper provides explicit formulas for gains, errors, and finite-key bounds, and the numerical work is transparent about parameters. If the security analysis is made rigorous for the actual non-ideal emitted states and the reported numerical bounds are corrected, the result would be a competitive fully passive RFI protocol. At present, however, the headline numbers are not supported by the analysis as written.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II D, Eq. (38)] The lower bound on C is computed from the wrong end of the error-rate interval. For g(x)=(1-2x)^2, the function is decreasing on [0,0.5] and increasing on [0.5,1]. The lower bound on an interval [e^L,e^U] is therefore g(e^U) when e^U<=0.5 and g(e^L) when e^L>=0.5. Eq. (38) does the opposite in both nonzero branches, producing upper values rather than lower values; only the 'otherwise' branch is correct. Since I_E^1 in Eqs. (4)-(6) decreases with C, this makes the protocol underestimate Eve's information and overestimate the key rate. This error directly affects the main claims (the >50% ratio, 167 km, and 136 km), so the branch assignment must be corrected and all simulations rerun.
[Sec. II B, Eqs. (4)-(8)] The RFI security bound of Ref. [23] is applied to states that are not the six ideal states. Because of post-selection, the actual emitted states are mixtures over the intervals in Eqs. (1)-(2), and the paper substitutes error rates estimated for these mixed states directly into the C parameter and the bound I_E^1. No proof is given that the Laing et al. security statement remains valid for such non-ideal preparations. A source-flaw security analysis along the lines of Ref. [25] (which the manuscript cites but does not use) is necessary before the key-rate formula in Eq. (8) can be considered a valid lower bound. Without this, the claimed secure key rates are not established.
[Sec. II C, Eq. (23)] The probability density used for the passive source appears to be incorrect. With phi uniformly distributed over [0,2pi), the marginal density is 1/(2pi), not 1/(2Delta_phi); the latter is a conditional density on the post-selected interval and would make <P> in Eq. (22) identically 1. In addition, the stated f(I,theta) has square roots in the numerator, whereas the density derived from the arcsine-distributed sin^2 half-differences (the fully passive source model of Ref. [48]) has an inverse-square-root form. Since <Q> and <E> in Eqs. (20)-(21) are weighted by this density, every numerical result depends on it. The authors should re-derive the density from the source model in Appendix A and recompute the simulations.
[Sec. II C, Eq. (31) and Sec. II D, Eq. (30)] The definition of <P(I,n)> is inconsistent with its use. As printed, Eq. (31) is an unconditional average over the interval: integral over S of (I^n e^{-I}/n!) f(I,theta,phi) dI dtheta dphi. In that case, multiplying by <P> in Eqs. (8) and (30) double counts the interval probability. If the authors intended a conditional average, Eq. (31) is missing the division by <P>. The same issue affects the constraints in Eqs. (34) and (43). This is not a notational nuance: it changes the single-photon count M^L_{S_s ZZ,1} and hence the final key length, so the inconsistency must be resolved and the numerics redone.

minor comments (4)

[Title and abstract] The title contains a typo ('dist ribution'), and the abstract uses '10 12' instead of 10^12.
[Sec. II D, Eq. (39)] Eq. (39) writes the bounds for e^1_{xiA xiB} with subscripts S_s ZZB,1 for all basis combinations; if this is literal, it would make the X/Y-basis error bounds depend on Z-basis counts. The subscript should presumably be S_s^{xiA xiB},1.
[Fig. 1] The caption and main text are ambiguous about colors: the text says the red curve is the ideal case and also lists red as one of the three finite-N curves; please clarify the color assignment for each N and each beta value.
[Sec. III, R_s definition] The comparison with actively modulated QKD would be clearer if the authors stated explicitly how the active protocol's key rate is defined (per pulse or per second) and which optimization constraints are imposed on its intensities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central rate calculation is a self-contained simulation built on external RFI and finite-key results, with only a non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central performance claims are obtained by evaluating the key-rate formula Eq. (8) from the externally established RFI security bound of Laing et al. [23], the finite-key framework of Zapatero and Curty [49], and the fully passive source model of Wang et al. [45] and Zapatero et al. [48]. The simulation parameters are stated from [49], and the optimization over post-selection intervals and intensities maximizes the same model's rate; it is not a fit to a target result that is then relabeled as a prediction. The finite-key parameter estimation is a standard linear-programming decoy analysis using Kato's inequality, again from [49]. The only self-citation is Ref. [55], which appears in a broad list of fully-passive applications and is not used as evidence for any load-bearing security claim. The main unproven step is the validity of applying the RFI bound to Alice's post-selected mixed states rather than ideal six states, and the monotonicity in Eq. (38) is questionable; these are correctness and security-analysis concerns, not circularity, because the equations are not defined in terms of the results they are used to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol's predicted performance depends on the passive source model from Refs. [45,48], the RFI security analysis from Ref. [23], and the finite-key analysis from Ref. [49]. The security proof for the specific mixed states generated by post-selection is assumed, not proven.

free parameters (4)

post-selection half-widths Delta theta_Z, Delta theta_X/Y, Delta phi_X/Y = not stated in text; numerically optimized
Optimized in Sec. III to maximize secure key rate; performance numbers depend on these values.
intensity interval boundaries I_v, I_d, I_s (relative to I) = I_v=0.05I, I_d=0.1I, I_s=I as base scheme; I itself optimized
Decoy-state intensity intervals are chosen to maximize key rate.
error correction efficiency f_e = not stated; taken from Ref. [49]
Used in lambda_EC; value not given in text.
source pulse frequency n = 1 GHz
Used to convert key per pulse to bit rate.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The RFI security analysis of Laing et al. (Ref. [23]) applies to the post-selected mixed states emitted by the fully passive source.
Eq. (8) uses the RFI key rate formula without a proof that C bounds Eve's information for non-ideal states; a source-flaw or loss-tolerant proof would be needed.
domain assumption The finite-key security analysis of Zapatero and Curty (Ref. [49]) is valid for this protocol.
Eqs. (9), (24)-(46) are taken from Ref. [49] and assumed to hold with the passive RFI setting.
domain assumption The passive source output distribution is f(I,theta,phi)=f(I,theta)f(phi) with f(phi)=1/(2 Delta phi).
Eq. (23); the normalization is unclear for the Z interval where phi covers (0,2pi), suggesting a possible typo.
domain assumption Threshold detector model with efficiency eta_d=65%, dark count P_d=10^-6, and intrinsic error rate e_d=1.5%, with single-click events only.
Eqs. (16)-(19); the model discards double clicks, which should be stated explicitly.
standard math Kato's inequality provides valid finite-size bounds for the estimated parameters.
Appendix B cites Ref. [56]; the bound is standard.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully passive reference frame independent quantum key distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQ6YH6ZA

@misc{pith2026250415528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully passive reference frame independent quantum key distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQ6YH6ZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15528}
}

abstract

Reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution (RFI QKD) significantly alleviates alignment requirements for reference frame in practical quantum communication systems. While the original protocol requires Alice to prepare six quantum states in $Z$, $X$, and $Y$ bases, its reliance on active modulation introduces inherent side-channel vulnerabilities from device imperfections. We address this security limitation by integrating a fully passive source into the RFI framework. In this paper, we propose a fully passive RFI QKD protocol. Our protocol avoids active modulation entirely, suppressing side-channel risks through passive quantum state generation. Moreover, by making full utilization of the quantum states generated by the fully passive source, we enhance the secure key rate of fully passive protocol. We establish a system model to analyze the performance of the protocol. Through the optimization of post-selection intervals and intensities, we obtain the maximum secure key transmission rate of the protocol. Under ideal circumstances, the secure key transmission rate of our protocol can reach more than 50% of that of the ideal QKD. Under practical conditions, we have considered the finite-length effect. When pulse number generated by the source reaches $10^{12}$, the maximum communication distances of the protocol can reach 167 km and 136 km with a reference frame misalignment of $0 $ and $45^{\circ} $ respectively. We believe that our protocol can contribute to the development of practical QKD systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15528 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The structure of the fully passive source, which is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[23]

Y. M. Xie, Y. S. Lu, C. X. Weng, X. Y. Cao, Z. Y. Jia, Y. Bao, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, H. L. Yin, and Z. B. Chen, Breaking the rate-loss bound of quantum key distribution with asynchronous two-photon interference, PRX Quant. 3, 020315 (2022)

work page 2022
[25]

X. H. Tian, R. Yang , H. Liu, P. Fan, J. Zhang, C. Gu, M. Chen, M. Hu, F. Y. Lu, C. Zhu, Z. Q. Yin, Z. J. Yin, M. Yuan, S. Wang, W. Chen, Y. X. Gong, S. N. Zhu, and Z. D. Xie, Experimental Demonstration of Drone- Based Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 200801 (2024)

work page 2024
[48]

W. Y. Wang, R. Wang, C. Q. Hu, V. Zapatero, L. Qian, B. Qi, M. Curty, and H. K. Lo, Fully passive quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 220801 (2023)

2023
[1]

⟨P ⟩Ss Z is the probability that Alice generates photons in the Z basis, and can be calculated with Eq

the lower bound of MSs Z Z,1 MSs ZZ,1 is the single-photon response count, and it is deﬁned as: MSs ZZ,1 =N ⟨P ⟩Ss ZPZ⟨P (I, 1)⟩Ss Z ⟨Y 1 Z ⟩L Ss Z (30) where N is the total number of pulses generated by the fully passive source. ⟨P ⟩Ss Z is the probability that Alice generates photons in the Z basis, and can be calculated with Eq. (22). PZ is the probabi...

work page
[2]

(4), (5), and (6), IE 1 is a function that is related to C and e1 ZZ

the upper bound of IE 1 According to Eqs. (4), (5), and (6), IE 1 is a function that is related to C and e1 ZZ . We need to estimate the upper bound of e1 ZZ and the lower bound of C. According to Eq. (8), the lower bound of C can be calculated as: CL =CL XAXB +CL XAYB +CL YAXB +CL YAYB, (37) where CL ξAξB =    (1 − 2e1,U ξAξB )2, if e 1,L ξAξB ≥ 0.5, ...

work page
[3]

Through Eqs

the upper bound of λ EC λEC is the information entropy that needs to be con- sumed for error correction and λEC =feMU Ss ZZh(EU Ss ZZ). Through Eqs. (25) and (26), it is easy for us to conclude that: MU Ss ZZ =KU Nj,ǫ(MSs ZZ), (44) EU Ss ZZ = mU Ss ZZ ML Ss ZZ , (45) where mU Ss ZZ =KU Nj,ǫ(mSs ZZ ), (46) ML Ss ZZ =KL Nj,ǫ(MSs ZZ), MSs ZZ =N ⟨P ⟩Ss ZPZ⟨QZ...

work page 2023
[4]

C. H. Bennett, and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: public key distribution and coin tossing, Proceed- ings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, New York), 175 (1984)

work page 1984
[5]

H. K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device in- dependent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 60 references

[6]

Curty, F

M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C. C. W. Lim, K. Tamaki, and H. K. Lo, Finite-key analysis for measurement-device independent quantum key distribution, Nat. Commun. 5, 3732 (2014)

2014
[7]

C. Wang, X. T. Song, Z. Q. Yin, S. Wang, W. Chen, C. M. Zhang, G. C. Guo, and Z. F. Han, Phase-Reference- Free Experiment of Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 160502 (2015)

2015
[8]

H. L. Yin, T. Y. Chen, Z. W. Yu, H. Liu, L. X. You, Y. H. Zhou, S. J. Chen, Y. Q. Mao, M. Q. Huang, W. J. Zhang, H. Chen, M. J. Li, D. Nolan, F. Zhou, X. Jiang, Z. Wang, Q. Zhang, X. B. Wang, and J. W. Pan, Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distri- bution Over a 404 k...

2016
[9]

D. Luo, X. Liu, K. B. Qin, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Practical asynchronous measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution with advantage distillation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022605 (2024)

2024
[10]

Curty, K

M. Curty, K. Azuma, and H. K. Lo, Simple security proof of twin-ﬁeld type quantum key distribution protocol, npj Quantum Information 5, 64 (2019)

2019
[11]

C. Cui, Z. Q. Yin, R. Wang, W. Chen, S. Wang, G. C. Guo, and Z. F. Han, Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribu- tion without Phase Postselection, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 034053 (2019)

2019
[12]

Y. Liu, Z. W. Yu, W. Zhang, J. Y. Guan, J. P. Chen, C. Zhang, X. L. Hu, H. Li, C. Jiang, J. Lin, T. Y. Chen, L. You, Z. Wang, X. B. Wang, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, Experimental Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribu- tion through Sending or Not Sending, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100505 (2019)

2019
[13]

S. Wang, Z. Q. Yin, D. Y. He, W. Chen, R. Q. Wang, P. Ye, Y. Zhou, G. J. Fan-Yuan, F. X. Wang, W. Chen, Y. G. Zhu, P. V. Morozov, A. V. Divochiy, Z. Zhou, G. C. Guo, and Z. F. Han, Twin-ﬁeld quantum key distribution over 830-km ﬁbre, Nat. Photonics 16, 2 (2022)

2022
[14]

P. Zeng, H. Y. Zhou, W. J. Wu, and X. F. Ma, Mode- pairing quantum key distribution, Nat. Commun. 13, 3903 (2022)

2022
[15]

H. T. Zhu, Y. Z. Huang, H. Liu, P. Zeng, M. Zou, Y. Q. Dai, S. B. Tang, H. Li, L. X. You, Z. Wang, Y. A. Chen, X. F. Ma, T. Y. Chen, and J. W. Pan, Experi- mental Mode-Pairing Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution without Global Phase Lock- ing, Phys. Rev. Le...

2023
[16]

X. Liu, D. Luo, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Mode- pairing quantum key distribution with advantage distil- lation, Phys. Rev. A 107.062613 (2023)

2023
[17]

Ac ´ ın, N

A. Ac ´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007)

2007
[18]

Pironio, A

S. Pironio, A. Ac ´ ın, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar and V. Scarani, Device-independent quantum key distribu- tion secure against collective attacks, New J. Phys. 11, 045021 (2009)

2009
[19]

D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, B. C. Nichol, G. Araneda, D. Main, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, K. Ivanov, and E. Z. Tan, Experimental quantum key distribution certiﬁed by Bell’s theorem, Nature 607, 682-686 (2022)

2022
[20]

Zhang, T

W. Zhang, T. V. Leent, K. Redeker, R. Garthoﬀ, R. Schwonnek, F. Fertig, S. Eppelt, W. Rosenfeld, V. Scarani, and C. C. W. Lim, A device-independent quan- tum key distribution system for distant users, Nature 607, 687-691 (2022)

2022
[21]

W. Z. Liu, Y. Z. Zhang, Y. Z. Zhen, M. H. Li, Y. Liu, J. Y. Fan, F. H. Xu, Q. Zhang, and J. W. Pan, Toward a photonic demonstration of device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 050502 (2022)

2022
[22]

Zhang, Z

Y. Zhang, Z. Chen, S. Pirandola, X. Wang, C. Zhou, B. Chu, Y. Zhao, B. Xu, S. Yu, and H. Guo, Long- Distance Continuous-Variable Quantum Key Distribu- tion over 202.81 km of Fiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010502 (2020)

2020
[24]

Y. Yu , W. Li, L Wang, and S. M. Zhao, Interfering-or- not-interfering quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052609 (2024)

2024
[26]

Laing, V

A. Laing, V. Scarani, J. G. Rarity, and J. L. O’Brien, Reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012304 (2010)

2010
[27]

Zhang, K

P. Zhang, K. Aungskunsiri, E. Mart ´ ın-L´ opez, J. Wab- nig, M. Lobino, R. W. Nock, J. Munns, D. Bonneau, P. Jiang, H. W. Li, A. Laing, J. G. Rarity, A. O. Niskanen, M. G. Thompson, and J. L. O’Brien, Reference-Frame- Independent Quantum-Key-Distribution Server with a Telecom...

2014
[28]

C. Wang, S. H. Sun, X. C. Ma, G. Z. Tang, and L. M. Liang, Reference-frame-independent quantum key distri- bution with source ﬂaws, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042319 (2015)

2015
[29]

C. M. Zhang, J. R. Zhu, and Q. Wang, Practical decoy- state reference-frame-independent measurement-device- independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032309 (2017)

2017
[30]

Y. Xue, L. Shi, W. Chen, Z. Q. Yin, G. j. Fan-Yuan, H. 12 Y. Fu, Q. H. Lu, and J. H. Wei, Improving the perfor- mance of reference-frame-independent quantum key dis- tribution through a turbulent atmosphere, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062602 (2020)

2020
[31]

A. R. Jin, P. Zeng, R. V. Penty, and X. F. Ma, Reference- Frame-Independent Design of Phase-Matching Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 034017 (2021)

2021
[32]

Zhou , H

Y. Zhou , H. J. Ding, J. Y. Liu, C. H. Zhang, X. Y. Zhou, and Q. Wang, Finite-key security analysis against the Trojan-horse attack on practical reference-frame- independent measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 024007 (2025)

2025
[33]

H. Liu, J. Wang, H. Ma, and S. Sun, Reference- frameindependent quantum key distribution using fewer states, Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 034039 (2019)

2019
[34]

J. Wang, H. Liu, H. Ma, and S. Sun, Experimental study of four-state reference-frame-independent quantum key distribution with source ﬂaws, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032309 (2019)

2019
[35]

J. Y. Liu, X. Y. Zhou, and Q. Wang, Reference-frame- independent measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution using fewer states, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022602 (2021)

2021
[36]

Z. R. Xie, Z. Y. Tian, X. D. Fan, Y. Chen, and S. H. Sun, Four-state reference-frame-independent quan- tum key distribution over 200 km, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064037 (2024)

2024
[37]

X. Liu, D. Luo, Z. C. Luo, S. Z. Li, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Reference-frame-independent quantum key dis- tribution over 250 km of optical ﬁber, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064018 (2024)

2024
[38]

Gnanapandithan, L

A. Gnanapandithan, L. Qian, and H. K. Lo, Hidden Multidimensional Modulation Side Channels in Quantum Protocols, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 130802 (2025)

2025
[39]

Vakhitov, V

A. Vakhitov, V. Makarov, and D. R. Hjelme, Large pulse attack as a method of conventional optical eavesdropping in quantum cryptography, J. Mod. Opt. 48, 2023 (2001)

2001
[40]

Gisin, S

N. Gisin, S. Fasel, B. Kraus, H. Zbinden, and G. Ri- bordy, Trojan-horse attacks on quantum-key-distribution systems, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022320 (2006)

2006
[41]

N. Jain, E. Anisimova, I. Khan, V. Makarov, C. Mar- quardt, and G. Leuchs, Trojan-horse attacks threaten the security of practical quantum cryptography, New J. Phys. 16, 123030 (2014)

2014
[42]

N. Jain, B. Stiller, I. Khan, V. Makarov, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Risk Analysis of Trojan-Horse Attacks on Practical Quantum Key Distribution Systems, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 21, 3 (2015)

2015
[43]

Lucamarini, I

M. Lucamarini, I. Choi, M. B. Ward, J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Practical Security Bounds Against the Trojan-Horse Attack in Quantum Key Dis- tribution, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031030 (2015)

2015
[44]

Navarrete, and M

´A. Navarrete, and M. Curty, Improved ﬁnite-key secu- rity analysis of quantum key distribution against Trojan- horse attacks, Quantum Science and Technology, 7, 3 (2022)

2022
[45]

T. T. Luo, Q. Liu, X. R. Sun, C. F. Huang, Y. Chen, Z. R. Zhang, and K. J. Wei, Security analysis against the Trojan horse attack on practical polarization-encoding quantum key distribution systems, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042608 (2024)

2024
[46]

I. D. Ivanovic, How to diﬀerentiate between nonorthogo - nal states, Phys. Lett. A 123, 257 (1987)

1987
[47]

G. C. Lorenzo, M. Pereira, G. Kato, M. Curty, and K. Tamaki, A security framework for quantum key distribu- tion implementations, arXiv:2305.05930 (2024)

2024
[49]

C. Q. Hu, W. Y. Wang, K. S. Chan, Z. H. Yuan, and H. K. Lo, Proof-of-Principle Demonstration of Fully Pas- sive Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 110801 (2023)

2023
[50]

F. Y. Lu, Z. H. Wang, V. Zapatero, J. L. Chen, S. Wang, Z. Q. Yin, M. Curty, D. Y. He, R. Wang, W. Chen, G. J. Fan-Yuan, G. C. Guo, and Z. F. Han, Experimental demonstration of fully passive quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 110802 (2023)

2023
[51]

Zapatero, W

V. Zapatero, W. Wang, and M. Curty, A fully passive transmitter for decoy-state quantum key distribution, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 025014 (2023)

2023
[52]

Zapatero, and M

V. Zapatero, and M. Curty, Finite-key security of passi ve quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 014018 (2024)

2024
[53]

J. J. Li, W. Y. Wang, and H. K. Lo, Fully passive measurement-device-independent quantum key distribu- tion, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 064056 (2024)

2024
[54]

X. Wang, F. Y. Lu, Z. H. Wang, Z. Q. Yin, S. Wang, J. Q. Geng, W. Chen, D. Y. He, G. C. Guo, and Z. F. Han, Fully passive measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 064067 (2024)

2024
[55]

Tannous, W

R. Tannous, W. Wu, S. Vinet, C. Perumangatt, D. Sinar, A. Ling, T. Jennewein, Towards Fully Passive Time-Bin Quantum Key Distribution over Multi-Mode Channels, arXiv:2302.05038 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[56]

W. Y. Wang, R. Wang, and H. K. Lo, Fully-Passive Twin- Field Quantum Key Distribution, arXiv:2304.12062 (2023)

2023
[57]

J. J. Li, W. Y. Wang, and H. F. Chau, Fully Passive Quantum Conference Key Agreement, arXiv:2407.15761 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[58]

J. W. Ying, Q. Zhang, S. P. Gu, X. F. Wang, L. Zhou, and Y. B. Sheng, Fully passive quantum secure direct communication, arXiv:2502.12652, (2025)

2025 arXiv
[59]

Kato, Concentration inequality using unconﬁrmed knowledge, arXiv:2002.04357 (2020)

G. Kato, Concentration inequality using unconﬁrmed knowledge, arXiv:2002.04357 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[60]

G. C. Lorenzo, ´A. Navarrete, M. Pereira, and K.Tamaki, Finite-key analysis of loss-tolerant quantum key distri- bution based on random sampling theory, Phys. Rev.A 104, 012406 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [23]

Y. M. Xie, Y. S. Lu, C. X. Weng, X. Y. Cao, Z. Y. Jia, Y. Bao, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, H. L. Yin, and Z. B. Chen, Breaking the rate-loss bound of quantum key distribution with asynchronous two-photon interference, PRX Quant. 3, 020315 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [25]

X. H. Tian, R. Yang , H. Liu, P. Fan, J. Zhang, C. Gu, M. Chen, M. Hu, F. Y. Lu, C. Zhu, Z. Q. Yin, Z. J. Yin, M. Yuan, S. Wang, W. Chen, Y. X. Gong, S. N. Zhu, and Z. D. Xie, Experimental Demonstration of Drone- Based Quantum Key Distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 200801 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [48]

W. Y. Wang, R. Wang, C. Q. Hu, V. Zapatero, L. Qian, B. Qi, M. Curty, and H. K. Lo, Fully passive quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 220801 (2023)

2023

[4] [1]

⟨P ⟩Ss Z is the probability that Alice generates photons in the Z basis, and can be calculated with Eq

the lower bound of MSs Z Z,1 MSs ZZ,1 is the single-photon response count, and it is deﬁned as: MSs ZZ,1 =N ⟨P ⟩Ss ZPZ⟨P (I, 1)⟩Ss Z ⟨Y 1 Z ⟩L Ss Z (30) where N is the total number of pulses generated by the fully passive source. ⟨P ⟩Ss Z is the probability that Alice generates photons in the Z basis, and can be calculated with Eq. (22). PZ is the probabi...

work page

[5] [2]

(4), (5), and (6), IE 1 is a function that is related to C and e1 ZZ

the upper bound of IE 1 According to Eqs. (4), (5), and (6), IE 1 is a function that is related to C and e1 ZZ . We need to estimate the upper bound of e1 ZZ and the lower bound of C. According to Eq. (8), the lower bound of C can be calculated as: CL =CL XAXB +CL XAYB +CL YAXB +CL YAYB, (37) where CL ξAξB =    (1 − 2e1,U ξAξB )2, if e 1,L ξAξB ≥ 0.5, ...

work page

[6] [3]

Through Eqs

the upper bound of λ EC λEC is the information entropy that needs to be con- sumed for error correction and λEC =feMU Ss ZZh(EU Ss ZZ). Through Eqs. (25) and (26), it is easy for us to conclude that: MU Ss ZZ =KU Nj,ǫ(MSs ZZ), (44) EU Ss ZZ = mU Ss ZZ ML Ss ZZ , (45) where mU Ss ZZ =KU Nj,ǫ(mSs ZZ ), (46) ML Ss ZZ =KL Nj,ǫ(MSs ZZ), MSs ZZ =N ⟨P ⟩Ss ZPZ⟨QZ...

work page 2023

[7] [4]

C. H. Bennett, and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: public key distribution and coin tossing, Proceed- ings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, New York), 175 (1984)

work page 1984

[8] [5]

H. K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi, Measurement-device in- dependent quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012)

work page 2012