## 4 Results and Analysis  
In the preceding section, we showed the details of our detection method. Now, we move forward to the corresponding experiments based on the aforementioned method and analyze the experimental results. Generally speaking, the real experimental data were substituted into the formulas in Section 3 to verify the correctness of our method. The experimental parameters were from real experiments [36]. Specially, the experimenters in [36] adopted a symmetric scheme; that is, all parameters of Alice and Bob were identical and optimized. The relevant experimental parameters used in [36] and this paper are shown in Table 1.  
Based on the above parameters, we can obtain the values of \(Q^{W}_{\mu_{1}\
u_{1}}\), as shown in Table 2. Note that Table 2 in this paper is exactly the same as Table I in the Supplementary Materials of [36]. We record the values of \(n^{W}_{\mu_{2}\
u_{1}}\), as shown in Table 3. Note that the data in Table 3 can be deduced from Table I in the Main Text of [36]. According to the above data and Equation (8), all values of \(U^{W}_{\mu_{1}\
u_{1}}\) can be obtained, as shown in Table 4.  
The schematic diagram of statistical hypothesis testing is illustrated in Figure 1. After calculation, we obtained the value of the test statistic \(v=0.236\). Given the significance  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mu_{2}(\
u_{2})\) & \(\mu_{1}(\
u_{1})\) & \(\mu_{0}(\
u_{0})\) & \(P_{\mu_{2}}(P_{\
u_{2}})\) & \(P_{\mu_{1}}(P_{\
u_{1}})\) & \(P_{\mu_{0}}(P_{\
u_{0}})\) & \(P_{Z}(P_{X})\) \\ \hline
0.3 & 0.1 & 0.01 & 0.2 & 0.45 & 0.35 & 0.5 \\ \hline \(N_{data}\) & \(e_{d}\) & \(e_{0}\) & \(p_{d}\) & \(L_{ac}(L_{bc})\) & \(\delta\) & \(\theta\) \\ \hline \(1.69\times 10^{11}\) & 0.01 & 0.5 & \(5\times 10^{-5}\) & 5 & 0.2 & 0.8 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Experimental parameters used in this paper. Data from _Phys. Rev. Lett._**2014**, _112_, 190503.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \(Z\) & & & \(X\) & \\ \hline \(\
u_{1}\)\(\mu_{k}\) & \(\mu_{2}\) & \(\mu_{1}\) & \(\mu_{0}\) & \(\mu_{2}\) & \(\mu_{1}\) & \(\mu_{0}\) \\ \hline \(\
u_{2}\) & 0.4643 & 0.1596 & 0.0215 & 0.9086 & 0.4074 & 0.2449 \\ \hline \(\
u_{1}\) & 0.1596 & 0.0539 & 0.0066 & 0.4074 & 0.1039 & 0.0319 \\ \hline \(\
u_{0}\) & 0.0215 & 0.0066 & 0.0007 & 0.2449 & 0.0319 & 0.0012 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The values of \(Q^{W}_{\mu_{1}\
u_{1}}(\times 10^{-4})\) with intensities \(\mu_{k}\in\{\mu_{2},\mu_{1},\mu_{0}\}\) and \(\
u_{1}\in\{\
u_{2},\
u_{1},\
u_{0}\}\) based on \(W\in\{X,Z\}\). Reprinted/adapted with permission from Ref. [36], 2014, American Physical Society.  
level of the test \(\alpha=0.05\), the critical values were \(v_{[1-\alpha/2]}=1.96\) and \(-v_{[1-\alpha/2]}=-1.96\). Since \(-1.96<0.236<1.96\), the test statistic did not fall inside the rejection region, and we failed to reject \(H_{0}\). In other words, we inferred that there was no PNS attack on the channel, and the corresponding Type I error probability was less than 5%. According to [36], there was indeed no PNS attack in the experiment, which verifies the correctness of our method. Thus, both single-photon and multiphoton components can be used to generate keys in this case. At this time, the secure key rate can be estimated through Equation (11).