Abstract
Twinfield (TF) quantum key distribution (QKD) has rapidly risen as the most viable solution to longdistance secure fibre communication thanks to its fundamentally repeaterlike rateloss scaling. However, its implementation complexity, if not successfully addressed, could impede or even prevent its advance into realworld. To satisfy its requirement for twinfield coherence, all present setups adopted essentially a gigantic, resourceinefficient interferometer structure that lacks scalability that mature QKD systems provide with simplex quantum links. Here we introduce a technique that can stabilise an open channel without using a closed interferometer and has general applicability to phasesensitive quantum communications. Using locally generated frequency combs to establish mutual coherence, we develop a simple and versatile TFQKD setup that does not need service fibre and can operate over links of 100 km asymmetry. We confirm the setup’s repeaterlike behaviour and obtain a finitesize rate of 0.32 bit/s at a distance of 615.6 km.
Introduction
Communication at the single photon level enables quantum key distribution (QKD) to achieve a revolutionary milestone in information security, allowing two distant users to establish a cryptographic key with verifiable secrecy^{1,2}. Decades’ development has advanced fibrebased QKD systems to a maturity level that is suitable for showcasing longterm, uninterrupted services in realworld networks^{3,4,5,6}. In such systems, quantum signals experience the loss of the entire link and thus their maximally achievable rates scale linearly with the channel transmittance (η)^{7,8,9}. This rateloss scaling leads to a prohibitively low rate for long haul links, while such links often bear strategic importance for connecting metropolitan cities. Theoretically, quantum repeaters^{10,11} can improve this scaling to \({\eta }^{\frac{1}{N+1}}\) with N intermediate nodes and thus enable secure communications over arbitrarily long distances, but require technologies that are yet to become practical.
Twinfield (TF) QKD protocol^{12} was recently proposed for practical longhaul quantum communications. Similarly to the form of QKD that achieves measurementdeviceindependence^{13,14} (MDI), it uses an intermediate measurement node that halves the signal transmission loss, but extracts the information from the firstorder interference rather than twophoton coincidence so as to gain the advantageous repeaterlike rateloss scaling of \(\sqrt{\eta }\). Security against general attacks was proven for protocol variants^{15,16,17,18,19,20,21}, among which sendingnotsending (SNS)^{17} and nophasepost selection (NPP)^{18,19,20} remove partially the need for phase slice reconciliation and thus improve key generation efficiency. An exciting collection of experiments^{22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33} has successfully validated TFQKD’s superior rateloss scaling and repeatedly broken the communication distance record, which now stands at 833 km^{32}.
With above achievements, the primary experimental focus should now turn to addressing TFQKD’s implementation complexity, which would otherwise impair its practical deployment. Due to the stringent requirement for twinfield phase tracking, all existing longhaul TFQKD setups have to adopt essentially a gigantic Mach–Zehnder inteferometer (MZI) configuration with half of its fibre used for optical frequency dissemination (Fig. 1a). Use of service fibre brings two severe drawbacks. First, the setups are fibreresource inefficient and require additional frequency locking hardware and often optical amplifiers along the service fibre. Second, the closed fibre configuration is inherently incompatible with optical switching, which could restrict TFQKD’s scalability into a larger network like other QKD systems^{34,35}. Using Sagnac interferometer permits a simple TFQKD ring network^{36}, but its longhaul capability could be obstructed by noise contamination due to counterpropagating signals of strong intensity disparity. Ideally, the twinfield phase could be stabilised without using a closed interferometer so as to reach a simple setup (Fig. 1b) sharing an identical fibre configuration as MDIQKD. We note that new MDIQKD variants were recently proposed to allow repeaterlike rateloss scaling via postdetection timebin pairing^{37,38}.
To perform TFQKD, it is necessary to ensure stable interference at the intermediate node (Charlie) between signals transmitted by two remote users (Alice and Bob). The phase difference (ϕ) between their signals evolves as
where Δν is the difference between the users’ laser frequencies (ν), c light speed in vacuum, n is the refractive index of the fibre, and Δ(nL) the optical length difference between the users’ fibres to Charlie. The fibre term \(\frac{\nu }{c}\frac{{{{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}}{{\Delta }}(nL)}{{{{{{{{\rm{d}}}}}}}}t}\) contributes typically a few kHz to the phase instability for a fibre link of several hundred kilometres^{12,28}. This kHz drift alone can be corrected for with a feedback loop of a subMHz bandwidth using a lowlevel reference signal, without scattering overwhelming noise photons and thus crucially maintaining the quantum channel intact. However, the laser term is more problematic. Freerunning lasers have unsatisfying longterm stability, with daily frequency drift often in the region of 10–100 MHz, although some can offer instantaneous linewidth of 1 kHz. Referencing to a highfineness cavity helps, but the cavity itself drifts. Consequently, TFQKD setups to date resort to sending strong laser signals to synchronise the users’ lasers to enforce Δν = 0 and hence require a separate service fibre channel to avoid contamination to the quantum link (see Fig. 1a). The resulting setup has a closed fibre configuration.
In this work, we develop a scheme to stabilise an open quantum link between two distant users that share no prior mutual coherence and are separated by hundreds kilometres of single mode fibre. Using this scheme we have achieved a drastically simplified and versatile TFQKD setup, capable of supporting asymmetric links, that needs neither dissemination of optical frequencies nor its associated service fibre and hardware, as schematically shown in Fig. 1b. Here, each user generates their local frequency comb and transmits one comb line to Charlie for interference, the outcome of which feeds into a photoncounting proportionalintegralderivative (PID) controller that allows rapid reading out and zeroing the laser frequency difference as well as cancelling the fibre fluctuation. Importantly, our solution brings neither performance degradation nor loss of practicality thanks partly to its choice of proven ingredients including ultrastable lasers^{30,33}, optical frequency combs^{31}, and dualwavelength stabilisation^{28,31}.
Results
Our setup (Fig. 2) does not need service fibre and has an identical fibre configuration as MDIQKD^{13}. Alice and Bob are connected to Charlie from opposite directions via their segments of the quantum link. The quantum link is made of spools of ultralow loss fibres with an average loss coefficient of 0.168 dB km^{−1}. For detailed information on the fibre properties, refer to Supplementary Table 1.
Each user owns an independent continuouswave laser that features a subHz shortterm linewidth and allows adjustment of its optical frequency at 1 mHz step size. See Methods for the detailed information on the lasers. Passing through a phase modulator (PM), the laser light is modulated to generate a frequency comb (Fig. 2a) with a precise spacing of 25 GHz thanks to the microwave frequency driver referenced to a Rubidium frequency standard. For 50 GHz densewavelengthdivisionmultiplexing (DWDM) compatibility, two comb lines of λ_{q} = 1549.72 nm and λ_{c} = 1550.52 nm (ITU Channels 34.5 and 33.5) are selected and filtered into two separate paths. The continuouswave λ_{c} signal is used to establish coherence with the other user, and we refer to it as the ‘channel reference’. The λ_{q} signal passes through the encoder box (Fig. 2b), which carves the continuouswave input into a train of pulses of 300 ps width at an interval of 1 ns. The encoder’s description is provided in Supplementary Note 1. We apply blockwise modulation for every 200 pulses. The first 95 pulses of each block do not receive further modulation and are used to sense the phase of the quantum channel. They are referred to as the ‘quantum reference’. The last 100 pulses are modulated independently according to TFQKD protocol’s requirement. As these quantum pulses can be considerably weaker than the quantum reference, the encoder extinguishes the 5 pulses in between to create an empty buffer to prevent intergroup contamination. Overall, our setup has an effective QKD clock rate of 500 MHz. After the encoder box, the λ_{q} light is recombined with the channel reference (λ_{c}) into the quantum channel segment using a DWDM filter. In addition to setting the approximate photon fluxes, both wavelengths paths have separate polarisation controls for precompensation of polarisation rotation by the quantum link.
After travelling through their respective quantum link segments, Alice and Bob’s light enters Charlie’s 50/50 interfering beam splitter with an identical polarisation and matched intensities. The interference outcome is spectrally demultiplexed before detection by three superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPD’s), with D_{0} and D_{1} assigned to the λ_{q} signals and D_{c} for the λ_{c} channel reference. Charlie contains a PM in one of his input arms for fast phase feedback control. Charlie’s components losses and detector performance is summarised in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3.
We describe briefly below, and provide more information in Supplementary Note 2, on how our setup is stabilised. For all different fibre lengths, we adjust the channel references’ intensities to have a maximal interference visibility and maintain an average count rate of approximately 13 MHz at D_{c}. This count rate allows 200 kHz sampling with acceptable noise by a fieldprogrammablegatedarray (FPGA) PID controller (Supplementary Fig. 1) to process and generate compensation voltages to Charlie’s PM, locking the differential phase to π/2 between the channel references. This locking process cancels simultaneously both instability terms in Eq. (1), i.e., the laser frequency difference and fibre fluctuation. As described later, the FPGA controller allows realtime readout of the laser frequency difference and can thus apply feedback to one user’s laser to prevent the laser drifting out of the PID’s correction bandwidth. Due to coherence among comb lines, the phase instability by frequency difference for the λ_{q} signals is reduced by a factor of \(\frac{{\lambda }_{q}{\lambda }_{c}}{{\lambda }_{q}}\), similarly to that by the fibre fluctuation^{28}. The phase drift by this residual difference can then be corrected for through a second stage compensation^{28} which uses the interference result of the quantum reference to act on a fibre stretcher in Alice’s encoder at a rate of 50–100 Hz. Note that use of coherent combs enables the setup to support asymmetric channels, which can substantially ease fibre provision during installation.
To evaluate the effectiveness of our open fibre scheme, we analyse the compensation signal that is applied to the Charlie’s PM in response to the lasers’ frequency difference (Δν) and fibre fluctuation of the quantum channel. Figure 3a, b show the histograms of compensation signals integrated over 10 ms intervals for three different frequency offsets. For clarity, the PM compensation signal is converted to angular frequency with unit of 2π s^{−1} or Hz. For a 10 m quantum channel (Fig. 3a), the PID compensates mostly the laser frequency difference and we therefore observe a histogram of sharp distributions with its compensating signal tracking exactly the laser frequency difference. After installing 615.6 km fibre (Fig. 3b), each histogram becomes considerably broadened because the PID has now to work on also rapid and random fibre fluctuation. However, the peak of each histogram remains at the same angular frequency, as the random fibre fluctuation does not produce an instant net drift. We can then determine the laser frequency drift with high accuracy by increasing the readout time to just 100 ms, as shown in Fig. 3c, where the compensation rate follows strictly the frequency offset. This fast readout enables realtime compensation for laser frequency drift, which is indispensable for longterm operation of TFQKD.
Figure 3d shows the interference results of the channel references at Charlie’s interfering 50/50 beamsplitter after travelling the 615.6 km quantum channel. With the PID switched off, the measured optical power oscillates violently between constructive and destructive extremes due to fast fibre fluctuation. We extract an average fringe visibility of 97.8 %, which is noticeably worse than the value of 99.0 % obtained with a single laser serving both the users, illustrating a small penalty of using truly independent lasers. We extract a standard deviation of 1.07 kHz for the fibre drift, which is comparable to those reported in the literature^{12,28,30,32}. After enabling the PID control, the interference output is narrowed down to a tight band (green). We extract the phase angles and plot their distributions as shown in Fig. 3e–g. We obtain almost identical standard deviations of 0.099, 0.096, and 0.097 rad for different frequency offsets of −2, 0, and +2 kHz, suggesting the PID control is tolerant to at least 2 kHz detuning. A phase deviation of 0.1 rad will cause about 0.5% drop in the interference visibility, which is acceptable for TFQKD. After the PID control on the channel reference, the phase drift of the λ_{q} signals is drastically slowed down, as shown by orange circles in Fig. 3d. The standard deviation of this drift rate is 0.72 Hz, which is 1500 times slower than the value for the unstabilised channel. We measure an interference fringe visibility of be 96.8 %, which will cause 1.6% floor to the QBER in the phase basis. For detailed information on how the visibility values were extracted, see Supplementary Note 4.
With the simplex channel stabilisation, we performed two sets of TFQKD experiments using the SNS protocol^{23,39,40}. In the first set, the users’ channel losses to Charlie are strictly matched while their fibre lengths may differ by 10 km, which was introduced for balancing the loss by Charlie’s PM. We ran the SNS protocol for three distances of 403.73, 518.16, and 615.59 km, with 2.025 × 10^{12}, 2.475 × 10^{12}, and 1.418 × 10^{13} total pulses sent respectively. We take the actively oddparity pairing (AOPP) method for data postprocessing, which can efficiently reduce the bitflip error rate of the raw key and have a higher probability for pairing success than the random ‘twoway classical communication’ method^{39}, and use the zigzag approach proposed in ref. ^{40} in the secure key rate (SKR) calculation. The detailed experimental parameters and results can be found in Supplementary Tables 4–6. In Fig. 4, we present our experimental results (red square) in terms of SKR versus distance together with the simulation curve (red line). We include also the absolute repeaterless Pirandola–Laurenza–Ottaviani–Banchi bound^{9} (black line), i.e., SKC_{0}, which represents the fundamentally maximum rate that an ideal pointpoint QKD could achieve and can only be overcome by a repeaterlike setup. With finitesize effects being taken into consideration, we obtain SKR’s of 146.7, 14.38 and 0.32 bit/s for 403.73, 518.16, and 615.59 km, respectively. They all overcome the SKC_{0} bound, confirming the repeaterlike behaviour of our setup. At 615.6 km, the SKR is 9.70 times above SKC_{0}.
To further demonstrate the robustness of our open channel scheme, we explore the capability of our setup supporting asymmetric fibre links. With Bob’s fibre fixed at 253.78 km, we ran experiments over two different distances of 201.87 and 153.45 km between Alice and Charlie, representing a link asymmetry of 51.91 and 100.33 km, respectively. For fair assessment, we use an identical parameter set and compensate the extra loss asymmetry by adding 8.13 dB attenuation to the 153.45 km link. During optimisation of the parameter set, we apply mathematical constraint that need to be satisfied for the security of asymmetric SNS protocol^{41} and introduce a new constraint for the intensities of both decoy states to guarantee a high interference visibility at Charlie. The experimental results are shown in Fig. 4 (green triangles). We extract respective finitesize SKR’s of 50.75 and 46.30 bit/s for the asymmetries of 51.91 km and 100.33 km, with a minor deterioration by extra 48 km asymmetry. This result improves considerably over the current asymmetry record of 22 km^{31}, while most setups had to keep channels strictly matched down to metres^{22,23,28,32}. Additionally, our result illustrates also the importance of parameter optimisation for asymmetric links, as the obtained SKR’s are thrice higher than the rate (green dashed line) expected if we just add attenuation to balance the fibre disparity.
We compare our open scheme with recent experiments that adopted the closed MZI configuration. As SKR’s and distances are directly affected by the detector performance and/or the clock frequency, the relevant parameter to compare here is the quantum bit error rate (QBER) arising from the interfering twinfield signals that went through TFQKD’s phase randomisation process. Based on this criteria, we list in Table 1 the Xbasis QBER for experiments that adopted also the SNS protocol. Within the margin of error, our system gives even a slightly better QBER of 4.75 % than the other setups^{28,33}, showing no performance degradation from using truly independent lasers between an open quantum channel.
Discussion
With the openchannel stabilisation technique we are able to achieve a simple and robust TFQKD setup that can drastically ease fibre provision and route planning for future deployment. The technique could be adapted to enable freespace quantum experiments involving singlephoton interference between remote light sources, including freespace TFQKD. Moreover, its demonstrated frequency tolerance makes it possible to use lessdemanding lasers, e.g., these lasers^{42,43} that reference to absolute atomic or molecular transitions and feature typically 1 kHz linewidth, stimulating further simplification in TFQKD setups. We believe our technique is applicable to phasebased quantum applications in general, including quantum repeaters^{11}, single photon entanglement distribution^{44}, and quantum internet^{45}.
Methods
Ultrastable lasers
The ultrastable lasers were manufactured by MenloSystems (Model: ORSCubic). Each laser emits at a wavelength of 1550.12 nm and features a subHz shortterm linewidth thanks to its use of Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) technique for locking to a cavity with a fineness of 250,000 and a free spectral range (FSR) of 3 GHz. In the PDH locking path there is an extra phase modulator that is driven at a base frequency of 300 MHz and allows fine adjustment of the laser frequency with a step size of 1 mHz. We measured the two lasers to have respective frequency drift rates of 110.4 mHz s^{−1} and 92.5 mHz s^{−1} in the same direction, and their differential frequency drifts about 1500 Hz per day. During initial characterisation of the TFQKD setup, the frequency difference (Δν) between the lasers was monitored through their beating note recorded by a photodiode and can be precisely set via adjusting the modulation frequency to the PM in one laser. This laser frequency drift can easily be corrected for by our photoncountingbased FPGA PID controller, so the offset monitoring by the photodiode is unnecessary during TFQKD experiments. Our laser frequency feedback will work even when they are installed in separated locations.
Coherent frequency comb
We generate the electrooptic frequency comb by passing the continuouswave laser through a phase modulator that is driven by a stable microwave source with its power carefully set. Driving at 25 GHz, we obtain a total of 13 comb lines between 1548.9 and 1551.3 nm as shown in Fig. 2a. The comb lines of 1549.72 nm (λ_{q}) and 1550.52 nm (λ_{c}) are selected as the quantum signal and the channel reference respectively. Their spacing of 0.8 nm (100 GHz) is compatible with the ITU G694.1 standard DWDM grid and allows convenient spectral filtering and wavelength routing. After spectral filtering, each comb line has an output power of ≥300 μW and channel isolation of >55 dB, both sufficient for TFQKD encoding.
Protocol
In this experiment, we adopt a 4intensity SNSTFQKD protocol with actively oddparity pairing (AOPP)^{39} for the data postprocessing, with finitesize effects being taken into account. We describe the theory of asymmetric protocol^{41} and mention that it also applies to the symmetric case when Alice and Bob have an identical loss to Charlie and use the same values for their source parameters.
In this protocol, Alice and Bob repeat the following process N_{tot} times to obtain a string of binary bits. In each time window, Alice (Bob) randomly decides whether it is a decoy window with probability p_{Ax} (p_{Bx}) or a signal window with probability 1 − p_{Ax} (1 − p_{Bx}). If it is a signal window, Alice (Bob) randomly prepares a phaserandomised weak coherent state (WCS) with intensity μ_{Az} (μ_{Bz}) and decides whether to send it or not, with probabilities ϵ_{A} (ϵ_{B}) and 1 − ϵ_{A} (1 − ϵ_{B}), respectively. For the decisions of notsending in the signal windows, Alice (Bob) denotes them as bit 0 (1), and for the decisions of sending, Alice (Bob) denotes them as bit 1 (0). If a decoy window is chosen, Alice (Bob) randomly prepares phaserandomised WCS with intensities μ_{A0} (μ_{B0}), μ_{A1} (μ_{B1}) or μ_{A2} (μ_{B2}) with respective probabilities 1 − p_{A1} − p_{A2} (1 − p_{B1} − p_{B2}), p_{A1} (p_{B1}) and p_{A2} (p_{B2}). As was proven in ref. ^{41}, in order to main the security of the protocol, the asymmetric source parameters should satisfy the following mathematical constraint
Note that this requirement is automatically met for the symmetric protocol, and its purpose is to guarantee the users’ raw key free from systematic bias. After the preparation stage, Alice and Bob send their pulses to the middle untrusted node, Charlie, who performs interference measurements and announces publicly which detector clicks. The detection events which one and only one detector clicks are taken as effective events. For time windows determined by both Alice and Bob to be a signal window, which are labelled as Z windows, Alice and Bob get two n_{t} bits of raw key strings comprised by the corresponding bits from effective events. The bitflip error rate of these two strings is denoted as E_{z}.
Events in time windows determined by both Alice and Bob to be a decoy window, which are labelled as X windows, are used to perform the security analysis. In X windows where Alice and Bob choose intensities μ_{A1} and μ_{B1}, respectively, the phase information of their WCSs would be publicly announced and postselected based on the following criteria
where θ_{A1} and θ_{B1} are the private phases of Alice’s and Bob’s pulses respectively and M is the number of phase slices.
The AOPP method is used to reduce the errors of raw key strings before the error correction and privacy amplification processes. In AOPP, Bob first actively pairs his bits 0 with bits 1 of the raw key string and announces the pairing information to Alice. Alice performs the same pairing accordingly and they then compare the parity of pairs. They discard both bits in the pair if the announced parities are different and keep the first bit of the pairs if the parities are the same. The users now use the remaining bits to form a new shorter string \({n}_{t}^{{\prime} }\) with dramatically reduced bitflip error rate \({E}_{z}^{{\prime} }\), from which they will extract the final key.
Next we briefly show how to extract the information of singlephoton states, which constitutes the final key rate formula, from Xwindow events, through decoystate analysis. We denote the counting rate of sources κζ in X windows by S_{κζ}, which is the ratio of the number of corresponding effective events to the number of respective pulses sent out by Alice and Bob. These values can be measured in the experiment. Note that a statistical fluctuation analysis should be considered here as part of the finitesize effects, with more details being presented in ref. ^{46}. Then we use the decoystate method to deduce the counting rate of singlephoton states which either Alice or Bob actually sends out a single photon from WCSs, which are^{41},
respectively, where the notations \(\langle \underline{\cdot }\rangle\) and \(\langle \overline{\cdot }\rangle\) denote the lower and the upper bound of the corresponding expected values, respectively, with a composable definition of security and the Chernoff bound being applied. Their detailed explanations and expressions can be found in the ref. ^{47}. Then the lower bound of the expected value of the counting rate of untagged bits, which is the number of bits generated through effective events when the users actually send out singlephoton states in Z windows, is given by^{41}
and the lower bound of the expected value of the number of untagged bits is
where N_{ZZ} = N_{tot}(1 − p_{Ax})(1 − p_{Bx}) is the number of pulses Alice and Bob both choose signal windows. According to ref. ^{41}, so long as Eq. (2) is satisfied, the phaseflip error rate of untagged bits in Z windows can be calculated from the bitflip error rate of untagged bits in X windows, which is written as
where T_{XX} is the ratio of the number of corresponding error events over the number of total pulses with intensities μ_{A1} and μ_{B1} sent out in X windows.
The secret key rate (SKR) of AOPP with finitesize effects is given by
where \(h(x)=x{\log }_{2}x(1x){\log }_{2}(1x)\) is the binary Shannon entropy. f = 1.1 is the error correction efficiency factor. \({{\Delta }}=2{\log }_{2}(2/{\epsilon }_{{{{{{{{\rm{cor}}}}}}}}})+4{\log }_{2}(1/\sqrt{2}{\epsilon }_{{{{{{{{\rm{PA}}}}}}}}}\hat{\epsilon })\) is the finitesize correction term, with ϵ_{cor} = 10^{−10}, ϵ_{PA} = 10^{−10} and \(\hat{\epsilon }=1{0}^{10}\) being the failure probabilities for error correction, privacy amplification and the coefficient of the smoothing parameter, respectively. \({n}_{1}^{{\prime} }\) and \({e}_{1}^{{\prime} {{{{{{{\rm{ph}}}}}}}}}\) are the number of untagged bits and their phaseflip error rate, respectively, after AOPP process. Here we adopt a zigzag approach proposed in ref. ^{40} in order to obtain higher key rates and take all the finitekey effects efficiently, the same as the calculation method applied in experimental reference^{29,30,33}. For simplicity, we do not list the calculation processes here, with all details can be found in the cited papers.
Data availability
The data that support the plots within this paper are deposited on Zenodo^{48}.
References
Bennett, C. H. & Brassard, G. Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 7–11 (2014).
Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W. & Zbinden, H. Quantum cryptography. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145–195 (2002).
Stucki, D. et al. Longterm performance of the SwissQuantum quantum key distribution network in a field environment. N. J. Phys. 13, 123001 (2011).
Sasaki, M. et al. Field test of quantum key distribution in the Tokyo qkd network. Opt. Express 19, 10387–10409 (2011).
Dynes, J. F. et al. Cambridge quantum network. npj Quant. Inf. 5, 101 (2019).
Chen, Y.A. et al. An integrated spacetoground quantum communication network over 4600 kilometres. Nature 589, 214–219 (2021).
Takeoka, M., Guha, S. & Wilde, M. M. Fundamental rateloss tradeoff for optical quantum key distribution. Nat. Commun. 5, 5235 (2014).
Pirandola, S., GarcíaPatrón, R., Braunstein, S. L. & Lloyd, S. Direct and reverse secretkey capacities of a quantum channel. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 050503 (2009).
Pirandola, S., Laurenza, R., Ottaviani, C. & Banchi, L. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications. Nat. Commun. 8, 15043 (2017).
Briegel, H.J., Dür, W., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum repeaters: the role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932–5935 (1998).
Duan, L.M., Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Longdistance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics. Nature 414, 413–418 (2001).
Lucamarini, M., Yuan, Z. L., Dynes, J. F. & Shields, A. J. Overcoming the ratedistance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters. Nature 557, 400–403 (2018).
Lo, H.K., Curty, M. & Qi, B. Measurementdeviceindependent quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130503 (2012).
Braunstein, S. L. & Pirandola, S. Sidechannelfree quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 130502 (2012).
Tamaki, K., Lo, H.K., Wang, W. & Lucamarini, M. Information theoretic security of quantum key distribution overcoming the repeaterless secret key capacity bound. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05511 (2018).
Ma, X., Zeng, P. & Zhou, H. Phasematching quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. X 8, 031043 (2018).
Wang, X.B., Yu, Z.W. & Hu, X.L. Twinfield quantum key distribution with large misalignment error. Phys. Rev. A 98, 062323 (2018).
Lin, J. & Lütkenhaus, N. Simple security analysis of phasematching measurementdeviceindependent quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. A 98, 042332 (2018).
Curty, M., Azuma, K. & Lo, H.K. Simple security proof of twinfield type quantum key distribution protocol. npj Quant. Inf. 5, 64 (2019).
Cui, C. et al. Twinfield quantum key distribution without phase postselection. Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 034053 (2019).
CurrásLorenzo, G. et al. Tight finitekey security for twinfield quantum key distribution. npj Quant. Inf. 7, 22 (2021).
Minder, M. et al. Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeaterless rateloss limit. Nat. Photonics 13, 334–338 (2019).
Wang, S. et al. Beating the fundamental ratedistance limit in a proofofprinciple quantum key distribution system. Phys. Rev. X 9, 021046 (2019).
Liu, Y. et al. Experimental twinfield quantum key distribution through sending or not sending. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100505 (2019).
Zhong, X., Hu, J., Curty, M., Qian, L. & Lo, H.K. Proofofprinciple experimental demonstration of twinfield type quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100506 (2019).
Fang, X.T. et al. Implementation of quantum key distribution surpassing the linear ratetransmittance bound. Nat. Photonics 14, 422–425 (2020).
Chen, J.P. et al. Sendingornotsending with independent lasers: secure twinfield quantum key distribution over 509 km. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 070501 (2020).
Pittaluga, M. et al. 600km repeaterlike quantum communications with dualband stabilization. Nat. Photonics 15, 530–535 (2021).
Liu, H. et al. Field test of twinfield quantum key distribution through sendingornotsending over 428 km. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 250502 (2021).
Chen, J.P. et al. Twinfield quantum key distribution over a 511 km optical fibre linking two distant metropolitan areas. Nat. Photonics 15, 570–575 (2021).
Clivati, C. et al. Coherent phase transfer for realworld twinfield quantum key distribution. Nat. Commun. 13, 157 (2022).
Wang, S. et al. Twinfield quantum key distribution over 830 km fibre. Nat. Photonics 16, 154 – 161 (2022).
Chen, J.P. et al. Quantum key distribution over 658 km fiber with distributed vibration sensing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 180502 (2022).
Toliver, P. et al. Experimental investigation of quantum key distribution through transparent optical switch elements. IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 15, 1669–1671 (2003).
Tang, Y.L. et al. Measurementdeviceindependent quantum key distribution over untrustful metropolitan network. Phys. Rev. X 6, 011024 (2016).
Zhong, X., Wang, W., Mandil, R., Lo, H.K. & Qian, L. Simple multiuser twinfield quantum key distribution network. Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 014025 (2022).
Xie, Y.M. et al. Breaking the rateloss bound of quantum key distribution with asynchronous twophoton interference. PRX Quantum 3, 020315 (2022).
Zeng, P., Zhou, H., Wu, W. & Ma, X. Modepairing quantum key distribution. Nat. Commun. 13, 3903 (2022).
Xu, H., Yu, Z.W., Jiang, C., Hu, X.L. & Wang, X.B. Sendingornotsending twinfield quantum key distribution: breaking the direct transmission key rate. Phys. Rev. A 101, 042330 (2020).
Jiang, C., Hu, X.L., Xu, H., Yu, Z.W. & Wang, X.B. Zigzag approach to higher key rate of sendingornotsending twin field quantum key distribution with finitekey effects. N. J. Phys. 22, 053048 (2020).
Hu, X.L., Jiang, C., Yu, Z.W. & Wang, X.B. Sendingornotsending twinfield protocol for quantum key distribution with asymmetric source parameters. Phys. Rev. A 100, 062337 (2019).
Maurice, V. et al. Miniaturized optical frequency reference for nextgeneration portable optical clocks. Opt. Express 28, 24708–24720 (2020).
Talvard, T. et al. Enhancement of the performance of a fiberbased frequency comb by referencing to an acetylenestabilized fiber laser. Opt. Express 25, 2259–2269 (2017).
Caspar, P. et al. Heralded distribution of singlephoton path entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 110506 (2020).
Pompili, M. et al. Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solidstate qubits. Science 372, 259–264 (2021).
Yu, Z.W., Hu, X.L., Jiang, C., Xu, H. & Wang, X.B. Sendingornotsending twinfield quantum key distribution in practice. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–8 (2019).
Jiang, C., Yu, Z.W., Hu, X.L. & Wang, X.B. Unconditional security of sending or not sending twinfield quantum key distribution with finite pulses. Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 024061 (2019).
Zhou, L. et al. Data accompanying “Twinfield quantum key distribution without optical frequency dissemination”. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7565924 (2023).
Acknowledgements
We thank X. B. Wang for helpful discussions on the SNSAOPP TFQKD protocol. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 62105034 (L.Z.) and 62250710162 (Z. Y.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.Z. and J.L. developed the experimental setup, performed the experiments, collected and analysed the data. Y.J. performed the simulation. Z.Y. supervised the project, and wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Communications thanks Shuang Wang, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, L., Lin, J., Jing, Y. et al. Twinfield quantum key distribution without optical frequency dissemination. Nat Commun 14, 928 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467023365732
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467023365732
This article is cited by

Experimental quantum secret sharing based on phase encoding of coherent states
Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy (2023)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.