A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract Device-independent quantum key distribution (DIQKD) enables the generation of secret keys over an untrusted channel using uncharacterized and potentially untrusted devices 1–9 . The proper and secure functioning of the devices can be certified by a statistical test using a Bell inequality 10–12 . This test originates from the foundations of quantum physics and also ensures robustness against implementation loopholes 13 , thereby leaving only the integrity of the users’ locations to be guaranteed by other means. The realization of DIQKD, however, is extremely challenging—mainly because it is difficult to establish high-quality entangled states between two remote locations with high detection efficiency. Here we present an experimental system that enables for DIQKD between two distant users. The experiment is based on the generation and analysis of event-ready entanglement between two independently trapped single rubidium atoms located in buildings 400 metre apart 14 . By achieving an entanglement fidelity of $$ {\mathcal F} \,\ge 0.892(23)$$ ℱ ≥ 0.892 ( 23 ) and implementing a DIQKD protocol with random key basis 15 , we observe a significant violation of a Bell inequality of S = 2.578(75)—above the classical limit of 2—and a quantum bit error rate of only 0.078(9). For the protocol, this results in a secret key rate of 0.07 bits per entanglement generation event in the asymptotic limit, and thus demonstrates the system’s capability to generate secret keys. Our results of secure key exchange with potentially untrusted devices pave the way to the ultimate form of quantum secure communications in future quantum networks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Decoherence results from qubit interactions with their environments due to the fragility of qubits and the gradual loss of qubit-to-environment information.
“Furthermore, decoherence results from qubit interactions with their environments due to the fragility of qubits and the gradual loss of qubit-to-environment information [82].”
From Quantum Computing: Vision and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [82]
The Methods section, “Atomic coherence time” (page not provided), says fluctuations in local magnetic fields and trap-induced light shifts limit the coherence of atomic qubits and describes dephasing effects. This supports environmental influences on coherence, but the paper does not attribute decoherence to qubit fragility or a gradual loss of qubit-to-environment information. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 303
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [26]Liu, W.-Z. et al. Photonic verification of device-independent quantum key distribution against collective attacks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01480 (2021). · arXiv
- [36]Portmann, C. & Renner, R. Security in quantum cryptography. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00021 (2021). · arXiv
- [42]Rosenfeld, W. Experiments with an Entangled System of a Single Atom and a Single Photon. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (2008).
- Authors
- Zhang, W., van Leent, T., Redeker, K., Garthoff, R., Schwonnek, R., Fertig, F., Eppelt, S., Rosenfeld, W., Scarani, V., Lim, C. C.-W., & Weinfurter, H.
- Affiliations
- Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (DE)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Centre for Quantum Technologies (SG)
- Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lim, Charles C.-W.
- Weinfurter, Harald
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2022-07-27
- Volume
- 607
- Issue
- 7920
- Pages
- 687-691
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC9329124
- OpenAlex
- W4288052074
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 19.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
- National Research Foundation
- National Research Foundation Singapore (NRFF11-2019-0001, QEP-P2)
- Ministry of Education - Singapore
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 2111, EXC- 2111390814868, 390814868, 2111390814868)
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (16KIS0123, 16KIS0127, 16KISQ002, 390814868, 16KIS0864, 16KIS0880)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/T001062/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Wireless Communication Security Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- device-independent quantum key distribution, Bell inequality violation, entanglement fidelity, secret key rate, quantum secure communication, quantum networks, untrusted devices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review