Comparison of Discrete Variable and Continuous Variable Quantum Key Distribution Protocols with Phase Noise in the Thermal-Loss Channel-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Comparison of Discrete Variable and Continuous Variable Quantum Key Distribution Protocols with Phase Noise in the Thermal-Loss Channel

Published:2024-06-20 Issue: Volume:8 Page:1382
ISSN:2521-327X
Container-title:Quantum
language:en
Short-container-title:Quantum

Author:

Kish Sebastian P.¹²,Gleeson Patrick J.²,Walsh Angus²,Lam Ping Koy³²,Assad Syed M.³²

Affiliation:

1. Data61, CSIRO, Marsfield, NSW, Australia.

2. Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology, Department of Quantum Science and Technology, Research School of Physics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

3. Institute of Materials Research and Engineering, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, 138634, Singapore.

Abstract

Discrete-variable (DV) quantum key distribution (QKD) based on single-photon detectors and sources have been successfully deployed for long-range secure key distribution. On the other hand, continuous-variable (CV) quantum key distribution (QKD) based on coherent detectors and sources is currently lagging behind in terms of loss and noise tolerance. An important discerning factor between DV-QKD and CV-QKD is the effect of phase noise, which is known to be more relevant in CV-QKD. In this article, we investigate the effect of phase noise on DV-QKD and CV-QKD protocols, including the six-state protocol and squeezed-state protocol, in a thermal-loss channel but with the assumed availability of perfect sources and detectors. We find that in the low phase noise regime but high thermal noise regime, CV-QKD can tolerate more loss compared to DV-QKD. We also compare the secret key rate as an additional metric for the performance of QKD. Requirements for this quantity to be high vastly extend the regions at which CV-QKD performs better than DV-QKD. Our analysis addresses the questions of how phase noise affects DV-QKD and CV-QKD and why the former has historically performed better in a thermal-loss channel.

Publisher

Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

Link

https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2024-06-20-1382/pdf/

Reference56 articles.

1. Nedasadat Hosseinidehaj, Zunaira Babar, Robert Malaney, Soon Xin Ng, and Lajos Hanzo. Satellite-based continuous-variable quantum communications: State-of-the-art and a predictive outlook. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 21 (1): 881–919, 2019. 10.1109/COMST.2018.2864557.

2. Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Theoretical Computer Science, 560: 7–11, 2014. ISSN 0304-3975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397514004241. Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84.

3. Hong-Yi Su. Simple analysis of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol. Quantum Information Processing, 19 (6): 169, 2020. 10.1007/s11128-020-02663-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-020-02663-z.

4. T. C. Ralph. Continuous variable quantum cryptography. Phys. Rev. A, 61: 010303, Dec 1999. 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.010303. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.010303.

5. T. C. Ralph. Security of continuous-variable quantum cryptography. Phys. Rev. A, 62: 062306, Nov 2000. 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062306. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062306.