Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Cryptography Security

Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect phase randomisation

Crossref
Authors: Guillermo Currás-Lorenzo, Shlok Nahar, Norbert Lütkenhaus, Kiyoshi Tamaki, Marcos Curty

Year

2023

Paper ID

13802

Status

Peer-reviewed

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

101

Citations

24

Abstract

Abstract The performance of quantum key distribution (QKD) is severely limited by multiphoton emissions, due to the photon-number-splitting attack. The most efficient solution, the decoy-state method, requires that the phases of all transmitted pulses are independent and uniformly random. In practice, however, these phases are often correlated, especially in high-speed systems, which opens a security loophole. Here, we address this pressing problem by providing a security proof for decoy-state QKD with correlated phases that offers key rates close to the ideal scenario. Our work paves the way towards high-performance secure QKD with practical laser sources, and may have applications beyond QKD.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Cryptography & Security research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2023 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Abstract The performance of quantum key distribution (QKD) is severely limited by multiphoton emissions, due to the photon-number-splitting attack.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #13802

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-06-14 07:14:16

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.