In a typical optical implementation of the Bennett-Brassard 1984 (so-called BB84) quantum key distribution protocol, the sender uses an active source to produce the required signal states.While active state preparation of BB84 signals is a simple and elegant solution in principle, in practice passive state preparation might be desirable in some scenarios, for instance, in those experimental setups operating at high transmission rates.Passive devices usually involve parametric down-conversion.Here we show that coherent light is also suitable for passive generation of BB84 signal states.Our method does not require any externally-driven element, but only linear optical components and photodetectors.The resulting key rate is similar to the one delivered by an active source.
In a typical optical implementation of the Bennett-Brassard 1984 (so-called BB84) quantum key distribution protocol, the sender uses an active source to produce the required signal states.While active state preparation of BB84 signals is a simple and elegant solution in principle, in practice passive state preparation might be desirable in some scenarios, for instance, in those experimental setups operating at high transmission rates.Passive devices usually involve parametric down-conversion.Here we show that coherent light is also suitable for passive generation of BB84 signal states.Our method does not require any externally-driven element, but only linear optical components and photodetectors.The resulting key rate is similar to the one delivered by an active source.
Most experimental realizations of quantum key distribution are based on the Bennett-Brassard 1984 (the so-called BB84) protocol. In a typical optical implementation of this scheme, the sender uses an active source to produce the required BB84 signal states. While active state preparation of BB84 signals is a simple and elegant solution in principle, in practice passive state preparation might be desirable in some scenarios, for instance, in those experimental setups operating at high transmission rates. Passive schemes might also be more robust against side-channel attacks than active sources. Typical passive devices involve parametric down-conversion. In this paper, we show that both coherent light and practical single-photon sources are also suitable for passive generation of BB84 signal states. Our method does not require any externally driven element, but only linear optical components and photodetectors. In the case of coherent light, the resulting key rate is similar to the one delivered by an active source. When the sender uses practical single-photon sources, however, the distance covered by a passive transmitter might be longer than that of an active configuration.
Signal state preparation in quantum key distribution schemes can be realized using either an active or a passive source. Passive sources might be valuable in some scenarios; for instance, in those experimental setups operating at high transmission rates, since no externally driven element is required. Typical passive transmitters involve parametric down-conversion. More recently, it has been shown that phase-randomized coherent pulses also allow passive generation of decoy states and Bennett–Brassard 1984 (BB84) polarization signals, though the combination of both setups in a single passive source is cumbersome. In this paper, we present a complete passive transmitter that prepares decoy-state BB84 signals using coherent light. Our method employs sum-frequency generation together with linear optical components and classical photodetectors. In the asymptotic limit of an infinite long experiment, the resulting secret key rate (per pulse) is comparable to the one delivered by an active decoy-state BB84 setup with an infinite number of decoy settings.
Decoy states have been proven to be a very useful method for significantly enhancing the performance of quantum key distribution systems with practical light sources. Although active modulation of the intensity of the laser pulses is an effective way of preparing decoy states in principle, in practice passive preparation might be desirable in some scenarios. Typical passive schemes involve parametric down-conversion. More recently, it has been shown that phase-randomized weak coherent pulses (WCP) can also be used for the same purpose [M. Curty et al., Opt. Lett. 34, 3238 (2009).] This proposal requires only linear optics together with a simple threshold photon detector, which shows the practical feasibility of the method. Most importantly, the resulting secret key rate is comparable to the one delivered by an active decoy-state setup with an infinite number of decoy settings. In this article we extend these results, now showing specifically the analysis for other practical scenarios with different light sources and photodetectors. In particular, we consider sources emitting thermal states, phase-randomized WCP, and strong coherent light in combination with several types of photodetectors, like, for instance, threshold photon detectors, photon number resolving detectors, and classical photodetectors. Our analysis includes as well the effect that detection inefficiencies and noise in the form of dark counts shown by current threshold detectors might have on the final secret key rate. Moreover, we provide estimations on the effects that statistical fluctuations due to a finite data size can have in practical implementations.
Abstract Passive generation of quantum states in quantum key distribution (QKD) is an elegant solution to utilise an internal source of quantum randomness of the transmitter’s scheme. It can be profitable, for example, in setups running at high repetition rates. However, the original analysis of passive protocol doesn’t consider real-life effects of a laser source, therefore possibly breaches the unconditional security of the scheme. Here we take into account the influence of various laser imperfections and make a refined comparison between active and passive setups. We show that the new bound on the secret key rate of the passive protocol stays similar to the one of an active scheme, thus proving passive generation to be a practical means of constructing QKD systems.
The decoy-state Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol is widely regarded as the de facto standard for practical implementations. On the receiver side, passive basis choice is attractive because it significantly reduces the need for random number generators and eliminates the need for optical modulators. Despite these advantages, a finite-key analytical security proof for the decoy-state BB84 protocol, where the basis is chosen passively with a biased probability, has been lacking. In this work, we present a simple analytical finite-key security proof for this setting, yielding a closed-form secret-key rate formula that can be directly evaluated using experimentally accessible parameters. Numerical simulations show that the key rates of passiveand active-measurement implementations are nearly identical, indicating that passive measurement does not compromise key-generation efficiency in practical QKD systems.
The passive approach to quantum key distribution (QKD) eliminates all optical modulators and random number generators from QKD systems reaching an enhanced simplicity, immunity to modulator side channels, and potentially higher repetition rates. In this work, we provide finite-key security bounds for a fully passive decoy-state Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) protocol, considering a recently presented passive QKD source. With our analysis, the attainable secret-key rate is comparable to that of the perfect parameter-estimation limit, in fact differing from the key rate of the active approach by less than one order of magnitude. This demonstrates the practicality of fully passive QKD solutions.