Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Cryptography Security
Quantum Software Tools Programming
Rigorous phase-error-estimation security framework for QKD with correlated sources
arXiv
Authors: Guillermo Currás-Lorenzo, Margarida Pereira, Kiyoshi Tamaki, Marcos Curty
Year
2026
Paper ID
3903
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
76
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Practical QKD modulators introduce correlations between consecutively emitted pulses due to bandwidth limitations, violating key assumptions underlying many security proof techniques. Here, we address this problem by introducing a simple yet powerful mathematical framework to directly extend phase-error-estimation-based security proofs for imperfect but uncorrelated sources to also incorporate encoding correlations. Our framework overcomes important limitations of previous approaches in terms of generality and rigor, significantly narrowing the gap between theoretical security guarantees and real-world QKD implementations.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Software Tools & Programming research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Practical QKD modulators introduce correlations between consecutively emitted pulses due to bandwidth limitations, violating key assumptions underlying many security proof...
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 arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.