CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scalable high-rate, high-dimensional time-bin encoding quantum key distribution

Islam, Nurul T, Lim, Charles Ci Wen, Cahall, Clinton, Qi, Bing, Kim, Jungsang, Gauthier, Daniel J·2019·Quantum Science and Technology
DOI 10.1088/2058-9565/ab21a4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We propose and experimentally demonstrate a new scheme for measuring high-dimensional phase states using a two-photon interference technique, which we refer to as quantum-controlled measurement. Using this scheme, we implement a d -dimensional time-phase quantum key distribution (QKD) system and achieve secret key rates of 5.26 and 8.65 Mbps using d = 2 and d = 8 quantum states, respectively, for a 4 dB channel loss, illustrating that high-dimensional time-phase QKD protocols are advantageous for low-loss quantum channels. This work paves the way for practical high-dimensional QKD protocols for metropolitan-scale systems. Furthermore, our results apply equally well for other high-dimensional protocols, such as those using the spatial degree-of-freedom with orbital angular momentum states being one example.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/2058-9565/ab21a4

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The HOM effect is an optical implementation of the (destructive) SWAP test.

    “Perhaps surprisingly, the analogy between them goes all the way down to formal equivalence: the HOM effect is an optical implementation of the (destructive) SWAP test [135].”

    From Two-photon interference: the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect (2021) · cites this paper as [135]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Makino, 2016, Sci. Adv., 2, 10.1126/sciadv.1501772 · DOI
  2. Lyons, 2018, Sci. Adv., 4, 10.1126/sciadv.aap9416 · DOI
  3. Lo, 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130503 · DOI
  4. Guan, 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.180502 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Valivarthi, 2017, Quantum Sci. Tech., 2, 10.1088/2058-9565/aa8790 · DOI
  6. Sasaki, 2014, Nature, 509, 475, 10.1038/nature13303 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brougham, 2013, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 46, 10.1088/0953-4075/46/10/104010 · DOI
  8. Wang, 2018, Quantum Sci. Tech., 3, 10.1088/2058-9565/aaace4 · DOI
  9. Dušek, 2002, Phys. Rev. A, 66, 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.022112 · DOI
  10. Marsili, 2013, Nat. Photon., 7, 210, 10.1038/nphoton.2013.13 · DOI
  11. Islam, 2017, Sci. Adv., 3, 10.1126/sciadv.1701491 · DOI
  12. Islam, 2018, Phys. Rev. A, 97, 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.042347 · DOI
  13. Lukens, 2018, Appl. Phys. Lett., 112, 10.1063/1.5024318 · DOI
  14. Islam, 2017, Phys. Rev. Appl., 7, 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.7.044010 · DOI
  15. Aragoneses, 2018, Opt. Lett., 43, 3806, 10.1364/OL.43.003806 · DOI
  16. Lim, 2014, Phys. Rev. A, 89, 10.1103/PhysRevA.89.022307 · DOI
  17. Renner, 2008, Int. J. Quantum Inf., 06, 1, 10.1142/S0219749908003256 · DOI
  18. Renner, 2007, Nat. Phys., 3, 645, 10.1038/nphys684 · DOI
  19. Christandl, 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.020504 · DOI
  20. Renner, 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.110504 · DOI
  21. Mirhosseini, 2015, New J. Phys., 17, 10.1088/1367-2630/17/3/033033 · DOI
  22. Wang, 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.230503 · DOI
  23. Lo, 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.230504 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sheridan, 2010, Phys. Rev. A, 82, 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.030301 · DOI
  25. Ma, 2005, Phys. Rev. A, 72, 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012326 · DOI
  26. Cao, 2015, New J. Phys., 17, 10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/053014 · DOI
  27. Cahall, 2018, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 89, 10.1063/1.5018179 · DOI
  28. Moschandreou, 2018, J. Lightwave Tech., 36, 3752, 10.1109/JLT.2018.2850282 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Tamaki, 2014, Phys. Rev. A, 90, 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.052314 · DOI
  30. Fung, 2011, Phys. Rev. A, 84, 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.020303 · DOI
  31. Cahall, 2017, Optica, 4, 1534, 10.1364/OPTICA.4.001534 · DOI
  32. Lucamarini, 2018, Nature, 557, 400, 10.1038/s41586-018-0066-6 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Ding, 2017, Npj Quantum Inf., 3, 25, 10.1038/s41534-017-0026-2 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Sit, 2017, Optica, 4, 1006, 10.1364/OPTICA.4.001006 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Brádler, 2016, New J. Phys., 18, 10.1088/1367-2630/18/7/073030 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Islam, N. T., Lim, C. C. W., Cahall, C., Qi, B., Kim, J., & Gauthier, D. J.
ORCID
Islam, Nurul T
Venue
Quantum Science and Technology
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2019-06-11
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
035008
ISSN
2058-9565
DOI
10.1088/2058-9565/ab21a4
Cited by
38
References
2
Licence
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N00014-13-1-0627)

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