English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Discrete-variable (DV) quantum key distribution (QKD) based on single-photondetectors and sources have been successfully deployed for long-range secure keydistribution. On the other hand, continuous-variable (CV) quantum keydistribution (QKD) based on coherent detectors and sources is currently laggingbehind in terms of loss and noise tolerance. An important discerning factorbetween DV-QKD and CV-QKD is the effect of phase noise, which is known to bemore relevant in CV-QKD. In this article, we investigate the effect of phasenoise on DV-QKD and CV-QKD protocols, including the six-state protocol andsqueezed-state protocol, in a thermal-loss channel but with the assumedavailability of perfect sources and detectors. We find that in the low phasenoise regime but high thermal noise regime, CV-QKD can tolerate more losscompared to DV-QKD. We also compare the secret key rate as an additional metricfor the performance of QKD. Requirements for this quantity to be high vastlyextend the regions at which CV-QKD performs better than DV-QKD. Our analysisaddresses the questions of how phase noise affects DV-QKD and CV-QKD and whythe former has historically performed better in a thermal-loss channel.

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