Proof-of-principle experimental demonstration of twin-field quantum key distribution over optical channels with asymmetric losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Twin-field (TF) quantum key distribution (QKD) is highly attractive because it can beat the fundamental limit of secret key rate for point-to-point QKD without quantum repeaters. Many theoretical and experimental studies have shown the superiority of TFQKD in long-distance communication. All previous experimental implementations of TFQKD have been done over optical channels with symmetric losses. But in reality, especially in a network setting, the distances between users and the middle node could be very different. In this paper, we perform a proof-of-principle experimental demonstration of TFQKD over optical channels with asymmetric losses. We compare two compensation strategies, that are (1) applying asymmetric signal intensities and (2) adding extra losses, and verify that strategy (1) provides much better key rate. Moreover, the higher the loss, the more key rate enhancement it can achieve. By applying asymmetric signal intensities, TFQKD with asymmetric channel losses not only surpasses the fundamental limit of key rate of point-to-point QKD for 50 dB overall loss, but also has key rate as high as 2.918 × 10−6 for 56 dB overall loss. Whereas no keys are obtained with strategy (2) for 56 dB loss. The increased key rate and enlarged distance coverage of TFQKD with asymmetric channel losses guarantee its superiority in long-distance quantum networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".