Heralded-qubit amplifiers for practical device-independent quantum key distribution

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Curty, Marcos ^a   Moroder, Tobias ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^b ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DETECTION EFFICIENCY; ENTANGLEMENT SWAPPING; LINEAR OPTICS; QUANTUM KEY DISTRIBUTION; QUANTUM MECHANICAL MODEL; QUANTUM RELAYS; SECURITY PROOFS;

QUANTUM CHEMISTRY; QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT;

QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY;

EID: 79961079184     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.010304     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Y. Zhao, C.-H. F. Fung, B. Qi, C. Chen, and H. K. Lo, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042333 78, 042333 (2008);
2. L. Lydersen, Nature Photonics PLRAAN 1749-4885 10.1038/nphoton.2010.214 4, 686 (2010);
3. F. Xu, B. Qi, and H.-K. Lo, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/113026 12, 113026 (2010);
4. I. Gerhardt., Nature Comm. 2041-1723 10.1038/ncomms1348 2, 349 (2011).
5. D. Mayers and A. C.-C. Yao, in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'98) (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1998), p. 503;
6. A. Acín, N. Gisin, and L. Masanes, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.120405 97, 120405 (2006). (Pubitemid 44434927)
7. A. Acín, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98. 230501 98, 230501 (2007).
8. S. Pironio, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/11/4/045021 11, 045021 (2009).
9. P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. D PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.2.1418 2, 1418 (1970).
10. N. Gisin, S. Pironio, and N. Sangouard, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.070501 105, 070501 (2010).
11. N. Sangouard, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106. 120403 106, 120403 (2011).
12. T. C. Ralph and A. P. Lund, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Quantum Communication, Measurement and Computing, edited by, A. Lvovsky, (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2009), p. 155.
13. If the measurement setting is chosen in advance, the trigger outcome could again depend on the input choice. That is, a real experiment should not post-select those events where the trigger has succeeded.
14. J. F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23. 880 23, 880 (1969).
15. M. McKague, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/11/10/103037 11, 103037 (2009).
16. cc. This accounts for the case that the only quantum strategy, following the terminology of Ref., for which one can directly employ the key rate formula of the lossless case, must give conclusive outcomes for all different basis settings and not just for the settings used to evaluate the CHSH parameter. Otherwise the eavesdropper could pretend a large value of this parameter by a strategy that always gives conclusive outcomes (and a large violation) for the CHSH settings but if Alice measures in her key setting then it gives an inconclusive result and hence is discarded in the post-processing phase.
17. X Ma, T. Moroder and N. Lütkenhaus, e-print arXiv: 0812.4301.
18. A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller and S. W. Nam, Opt. Express OPEXFF 1094-4087 10.1364/OE.16.003032 16, 3032 (2008). (Pubitemid 351342522)