Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Lightweight Mediated Semi-Quantum Key Distribution Protocol with a Dishonest Third Party based on Bell States

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Bell states plus a one-way channel let two classical users share a secret key even when the mediating third party is dishonest and tries to learn it.

desk verdict A plausible lightweight MSQKD variant with a dishonest TP, but the security proof as written has load-bearing gaps around the Bell-diagonal attack assumption and a missing error-correction step. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02788 v3 pith:5PVEPGWU submitted 2019-09-06 quant-ph cs.CR

Chia-Wei Tsai , Chun-Wei Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CR MSC 81P94 PACS 03.67.Dd
keywords mediatedsemi-quantumkeydistributiondishonestthirdpartyBellstatesTrojanhorseattackcollectivequantumratelightweightprotocol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a mediated semi-quantum key distribution protocol in which two classical participants, Alice and Bob, establish a secret key with the help of a third party that is assumed dishonest. The claim is that the third party can perform any attack and still learn nothing about the final key, because any attempt to read the key through ancillary qubits either raises the quantum bit error rate or leaves the key uncorrelated with the third party's probe. The protocol uses Bell states as the quantum resource and requires the classical users only to measure in the Z basis and to apply a Hadamard gate, with one-way transmission from the third party to the users. If the claim holds, this would be the first mediated semi-quantum scheme that combines a dishonest third party with no Trojan-horse detector and lightweight classical hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bell state $|\Phi^+\rangle = (|00\rangle + |11\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ together with each user's choice of the identity operator $I$ or the Hadamard gate $H$. When both classical parties apply the same operator and then measure in the Z basis, their outcomes are perfectly correlated and pure-random; when they apply different operators, the outcomes are uncorrelated and are discarded. This relation turns one shared Bell state into one raw key bit, and the one-way third-party-to-users channel, with no return path, is what blocks Trojan-horse photons.

What would settle it

Compute the full Alice-Bob-third-party state produced by the collective-attack unitary of Eq. (3) acting on the Bell state while Alice and Bob apply identity or Hadamard. If that state is not of the Bell-diagonal form of Eq. (10), or gives different error rates in the two modes, the claimed positive key rate for $Q \le 0.11$ and the protocol's abort threshold do not follow; an explicit attack producing such a state would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By sending one qubit of a Bell state to each classical party and having each party independently decide to apply the identity or Hadamard before a Z-basis measurement, the protocol creates pure-random correlated bits whenever both parties choose the same operation, while opposite operations produce uncorrelated results and are discarded. The security claim is that a dishonest third party, even with arbitrary collective attacks, cannot obtain information about the raw key without being detected: the robustness analysis shows that passing the public-discussion check forces the third party's probe states to coincide, and the key-rate bound, computed under a Bell-diagonal attack model, is positive for a quantum bit error rate up to $Q = 0.11$. The paper further claims immunity to fake-photon attacks by the third party and, because transmission is one-way, immunity to Trojan-horse attacks without equipping the classical users with detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The key-rate calculation assumes that after the third party attacks, the joint state of everyone has a specific symmetrical form whose error rate is the same in both measurement modes, but the paper never derives that form from the attack it models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Classical participants can implement the protocol with only a Z-basis measurement and a Hadamard gate, both of which have been demonstrated in optical and quantum-computer experiments.
  • Because qubits travel only from the third party to the users, the users need no photon-number splitter or wavelength filter against Trojan-horse attacks, and the time qubits must be maintained against decoherence is roughly halved relative to two-way mediated protocols.
  • The protocol has a qubit efficiency of $1/8$, matching the best of the compared mediated semi-quantum schemes while allowing a dishonest third party.
  • A third party that substitutes fake photon pairs can be detected: any mismatch in the expected correlation appears in public discussion, and the detection probability approaches 1 as the number of check bits grows.
  • The key-rate bound supplies the abort threshold: the participants terminate the protocol when the public-discussion error rate exceeds the value at which the secret-key rate is no longer positive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's positive key rate rests on assuming the attacked state has the Bell-diagonal form of Eq. (10); deriving the actual state from the unitary attack of Eq. (3) would determine whether the 11 percent error-rate threshold is real or an artifact of the assumption.
  • Because the security proof treats the attack as collective, an extension to coherent attacks across rounds would test whether the dishonest-third-party claim survives the strongest allowed strategies.
  • The same identity-or-Hadamard correlation on Bell states could be repurposed for multi-party group-key distribution, which the paper names as future work.
  • An experimental demonstration with two classical users and a simulated cheating third party would be the natural test; a useful benchmark is whether the observed error rate stays below the predicted threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mediated semi-quantum key distribution (MSQKD) protocol in which a dishonest third party (TP) prepares Bell states and sends one qubit to each of two classical users, Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob each randomly apply either the identity or the Hadamard operation, measure in the Z basis, discard cases where their operations differ, use part of the remaining bits for public discussion, and perform privacy amplification on the rest. The authors claim that the protocol is secure against collective attacks, fake-photon attacks, and Trojan-horse attacks, and that the one-way communication structure removes the need for Trojan-horse detectors. They derive a key-rate bound and claim a positive secret-key rate for QBER up to Q = 0.11, and they compare the protocol with prior MSQKD schemes in terms of quantum capabilities, qubit efficiency, decoherence time, and detector requirements.

Significance. If the security proof were sound, the protocol would represent a meaningful practical advance in semi-quantum cryptography: it is positioned as the first MSQKD protocol to combine one-way quantum transmission, a dishonest TP, the absence of Trojan-horse detectors, and classical users requiring only Z-basis measurement and Hadamard operations. The paper also provides a clear comparison table with earlier protocols and borrows standard security-proof machinery rather than fitting constants to the desired result, so the approach is not circular. However, the central security claim currently rests on several unproven assumptions, so the significance is conditional on a substantial revision of the proof.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, Eq. (10)] The attacked Alice–Bob–TP state is postulated to be Bell-diagonal with the same QBER Q in both measurement modes. This form is not derived from the collective-attack unitary in Eq. (3), and the key-rate expression in Eq. (13) and the threshold Q ≤ 0.11 depend exactly on this assumption. Since the attack amplitudes α_1 and α_2 can differ, the weights λ_2 and λ_3 need not be equal; the phase-error rate relevant to privacy amplification is not directly observed and need not equal the bit-error rate. The authors should derive the attacked state from their explicit attack model, or state and justify a physical symmetry assumption that forces the Bell-diagonal form with equal error rates.
  2. [Section 2, Step 4] The protocol specifies only privacy amplification after the public-discussion step. At nonzero QBER, Alice and Bob's raw keys are not identical, so the key-rate bound from Ref. [57] cannot be applied without an explicit information-reconciliation step; without reconciliation the final keys may not even match. The authors must add an error-correction stage, analyze its cost, and include it in the key-rate formula before claiming a positive key rate for Q ≤ 0.11.
  3. [Section 3.1.1] The robustness analysis treats only the zero-error case, showing that an undetected attack with a1 = a2 = 0 leaves no correlation with TP's ancilla. It does not provide a quantitative trade-off between the induced QBER and the information gained by TP for 0 < Q ≤ 0.11, so the claim that the protocol is secure for nonzero QBER is not supported by this analysis. The proof needs to bound Eve's information as a function of the observed QBER, not merely show that zero disturbance implies zero information.
  4. [Section 3.2] The fake-photon analysis considers only specific replacement states, such as |00> and an X-basis pair, and computes a detection probability for one example. It does not provide a complete characterization of TP's possible fake-photon strategies or prove that every such strategy is detected with the claimed probability. Since the protocol's security claim includes robustness against fake-photon attacks, the analysis should cover the full set of states TP could substitute.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 3.1.2] Equation numbering is duplicated: Eq. (13) is used both for the key-rate bound and later for the qubit-efficiency definition; please renumber.
  2. [Section 2, Step 4] Step 4 refers to 'Table 3' for the measurement-result relationship, but the relevant table is Table 4.
  3. [Section 3.1.2] The text uses 'Model 1' and 'Mode 2' inconsistently; please use 'Mode 1' and 'Mode 2' throughout.
  4. [Section 2] There is a typo in 'Alice and Bos'; it should be 'Alice and Bob'.
  5. [Eq. (3)] The definition of the attack unitary is not fully specified: the notation alternates between E and U, and the orthogonality and normalization of the ancilla states are stated only in words. Please make the definition precise.
  6. [General] The figures are referenced but not included in the manuscript text; the final submission must include Figures 1–3 and ensure that the key-rate plot is legible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the security argument borrows external proof machinery and the only self-citations are baselines or ordinary prior-work references; the Bell-diagonal key-rate assumption is a proof gap, not a result forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that two classical participants can share a key with a dishonest TP using one-way Bell-state transmission, Z-basis measurement, and Hadamard operations—is not obtained by fitting a parameter, renaming a known result, or importing an unverified self-citation. The robustnes analysis in Section 3.1.1 derives the zero-error attack condition directly from the collective-attack unitary in Eq. (3), and the fake-photon and Trojan-horse analyses follow from the protocol's one-way transmission and measurement structure. The key-rate bound in Section 3.1.2 uses the external method of Renner, Gisin, and Kraus [57] and a BB84-style entropy evaluation; no constant is calibrated to a target secret-key rate. The only load-bearing comparison with prior work is the authors' earlier honest-TP protocol [26], which is used as a baseline in Table 5 and in the efficiency comparison, not as a premise for the dishonest-TP security claim; the remaining self-citations are ordinary literature references. The main weakness is that Eq. (10) simply postulates a Bell-diagonal Alice-Bob-TP state with QBER Q in both measurement modes, rather than deriving it from the attack unitary in Eq. (3), and the protocol omits an explicit information-reconciliation step; these are correctness or completeness gaps that may invalidate the claimed region Q ≤ 0.11, but they are not cases where the conclusion is equivalent to the input by construction. No circular step can be exhibited with a quoted reduction, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard protocol assumptions (authenticated channel, no collusion), an external security formula, and an unproved Bell-diagonal attack model. No new physical entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numbers are the operation probabilities and checking fraction, which affect efficiency but not the core security equation.

free parameters (2)
  • Operation probability P_a = P_b = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Step 2. Sets the sifting rate to 1/2 and the final qubit efficiency to 1/8; it is not fitted to data and is not load-bearing for the security claim.
  • Checking-bit fraction = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Step 3. Half of the sifted bits are used for public discussion; this choice affects error-detection statistics and efficiency, but the security proof does not depend on its exact value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Alice and Bob have an authenticated classical channel that the TP cannot tamper with.
    Stated in Section 2 assumptions. Public discussion in Step 3 relies on this; without it the TP could replace Alice's or Bob's announced bases and outcomes.
  • domain assumption The dishonest TP is treated as acting alone and not colluding with Alice or Bob.
    Table 2 defines an untrusted TP as able to perform any possible attack, but the security analyses never consider a TP that cooperates with one participant. This is standard in three-party QKD but is an extra restriction.
  • standard math The collective-attack security criterion of Renner-Gisin-Kraus (Eq. (9)) applies to this protocol.
    Section 3.1.2 adopts r >= S(U|E) - H(U|B) as the key-rate lower bound. The protocol must also include error correction for this bound to be operational, which the paper omits.
  • ad hoc to paper After an attack the joint state can be written in Bell-diagonal form with equal error rates in the Z and X (H) modes.
    Eq. (10) and the surrounding text assume this form and set lambda3+lambda4 = Q and lambda2+lambda4 = Q. This is the load-bearing modeling step for the Q <= 0.11 threshold and is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lightweight Mediated Semi-Quantum Key Distribution Protocol with a Dishonest Third Party based on Bell States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PVEPGWU

@misc{pith2026190902788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lightweight Mediated Semi-Quantum Key Distribution Protocol with a Dishonest Third Party based on Bell States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PVEPGWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02788}
}
read the original abstract

The mediated semi-quantum key distribution (MSQKD) protocol is an important research issue that lets two classical participants share secret keys securely between each other with the help of a third party (TP). However, in the existing MSQKD protocols, there are two improvable issues, namely (1) the classical participants must be equipped with expensive detectors to avoid Trojan horse attacks and (2) the trustworthiness level of TP must be honest. To the best of our knowledge, none of the existing MSQKD protocols can resolve both these issues. Therefore, this study takes Bell states as the quantum resource to propose a MSQKD protocol, in which the classical participants do not need a Trojan horse detector and the TP is dishonest. Furthermore, the proposed protocol is shown to be secure against well-known attacks and the classical participants only need two quantum capabilities. Therefore, in comparison to the existing MSQKD protocols, the proposed protocol is better practical.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Annalen der Physik 531(8), 1800347 (2019)

    Lin, P.-H., Tsai, C.-W., Hwang, T.: Mediated Semi-Quantum Key Distribution Using Single Photons. Annalen der Physik 531(8), 1800347 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [57]

    Renner, R., Gisin, N., Kraus, B.: Information-theoretic security proof for quantum-key-distribution protocols. Phys. Rev. A 72(1), 012332 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [1]

    Therefore, the key distribution protocol is a fundamental part in cyber security research

    Introduction To establish a secure communication, any two participants must share a secret key. Therefore, the key distribution protocol is a fundamental part in cyber security research. In 1984, Bennet and Brassard

    work page 1984

  4. [2]

    Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing,

    Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., "Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing," in 14 IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, 1984, pp. 175-179

    work page 1984

  5. [3]

    W., Preskill, J.: Simple Proof of Security of the BB84 Quantum Key Distribution Protocol

    Shor, P. W., Preskill, J.: Simple Proof of Security of the BB84 Quantum Key Distribution Protocol. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85(2), 441-444 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [4]

    IEEE Trans

    Gottesman, D., Hoi-Kwong, L.: Proof of security of quantum key distribution with two-way classical communications. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49(2), 457-475 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [5]

    Tsurumaru, T., Tamaki, K.: Security proof for quantum-key-distribution systems with threshold detectors. Phys. Rev. A 78(3), 032302 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [6]

    H., Brassard, G., Mermin, N

    Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Mermin, N. D.: Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68(5), 557-559 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 63 references
  1. [7]

    J., Bourennane, M., Karlsson, A., Gisin, N.: Security of Quantum Key Distribution Using d-Level Systems

    Cerf, N. J., Bourennane, M., Karlsson, A., Gisin, N.: Security of Quantum Key Distribution Using d-Level Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(12), 127902 (2002)

    2002

  2. [8]

    Long, G., Liu, X.: Theoretically efficient high-capacity quantum-key-distribution scheme. Phys. Rev. A 65(3), 032302 (2002)

    2002

  3. [9]

    J., Grangier, P.: Quantum key distribution using gaussian-modulated coherent states

    Grosshans, F., Van Assche, G., Wenger, J., Brouri, R., Cerf, N. J., Grangier, P.: Quantum key distribution using gaussian-modulated coherent states. Nature 421, 238 (2003)

    2003

  4. [10]

    Hwang, W.-Y .: Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(5), 057901 (2003)

    2003

  5. [11]

    K., Ma, X

    Lo, H. K., Ma, X. F., Chen, K.: Decoy state quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94(23), 4 (2005)

    2005

  6. [12]

    C., Li, C

    Hwang, T., Lee, K. C., Li, C. M.: Provably secure three-party authenticated quantum key distribution protocols. IEEE T Depend Secure 4(1), 71-80 (2007)

    2007

  7. [13]

    H., Deng, F

    Li, X. H., Deng, F. G., Zhou, H. Y .: Efficient quantum key distribution over a collective noise channel. Phys. Rev. A 78(2), 022321 (2008)

    2008

  8. [14]

    C., Tsai, C

    Hwang, T., Hwang, C. C., Tsai, C. W.: Quantum key distribution protocol using dense coding of three-qubit W state. The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 61(3), 785-790 (2011)

    2011

  9. [15]

    Lo, H.-K., Curty, M., Qi, B.: Measurement-Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(13), 130503 (2012)

    2012

  10. [16]

    Yang, C.-W.: New Probabilistic Quantum Key Distribution Protocol. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 57(12), 3651-3657 (2018)

    2018

  11. [17]

    Boyer, M., Kenigsberg, D., Mor, T.: Quantum Key Distribution with Classical Bob. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(14), 140501 (2007)

    2007

  12. [18]

    Boyer, M., Gelles, R., Kenigsberg, D., Mor, T.: Semiquantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. A 79(3), 032341 (2009)

    2009

  13. [19]

    Zou, X., Qiu, D., Li, L., Wu, L., Li, L.: Semiquantum-key distribution using less than four quantum states. Phys. Rev. A 79(5), 052312 (2009)

    2009

  14. [20]

    J.: Semiquantum Key Distribution Using Entangled States

    Wang, J., Zhang, S., Zhang, Q., Tang, C. J.: Semiquantum Key Distribution Using Entangled States. Chinese Phys. Lett. 28(10), 100301 (2011)

    2011

  15. [21]

    Quantum Inf

    Yu, K.-F., Yang, C.-W., Liao, C.-H., Hwang, T.: Authenticated semi-quantum key distribution protocol using Bell states. Quantum Inf. Process. 13(6), 1457-1465 (2014)

    2014

  16. [22]

    O.: Mediated semiquantum key distribution

    Krawec, W. O.: Mediated semiquantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. A 91(3), 032323 (2015)

    2015

  17. [23]

    Quantum Inf

    Zou, X., Qiu, D., Zhang, S., Mateus, P.: Semiquantum key distribution without invoking the classical 15 party’s measurement capability. Quantum Inf. Process. 14(8), 2981-2996 (2015)

    2015

  18. [24]

    H., Zhang, S.: Semiquantum key distribution with secure delegated quantum computation

    Li, Q., Chan, W. H., Zhang, S.: Semiquantum key distribution with secure delegated quantum computation. Scientific Reports 6, 19898 (2016)

    2016

  19. [25]

    Annalen der Physik 530(4), 1700206 (2018)

    Liu, Z.-R., Hwang, T.: Mediated Semi-Quantum Key Distribution Without Invoking Quantum Measurement. Annalen der Physik 530(4), 1700206 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Modern Physics Letters A 34(34), 1950281 (2019)

    Tsai, C.-W., Yang, C.-W., Lee, N.-Y .: Lightweight mediated semi-quantum key distribution protocol. Modern Physics Letters A 34(34), 1950281 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Sci China Phys Mech 57(9), 1696-1702 (2014)

    Zou, X., Qiu, D.: Three-step semiquantum secure direct communication protocol. Sci China Phys Mech 57(9), 1696-1702 (2014)

    2014

  22. [29]

    Quantum Inf

    Luo, Y .-P., Hwang, T.: Authenticated semi-quantum direct communication protocols using Bell states. Quantum Inf. Process. 15(2), 947-958 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    Quantum Inf

    Zhang, M.-H., Li, H.-F., Xia, Z.-Q., Feng, X.-Y ., Peng, J.-Y .: Semiquantum secure direct communication using EPR pairs. Quantum Inf. Process. 16(5), 117 (2017)

    2017

  24. [31]

    Xie, C., Li, L., Situ, H., He, J.: Semi-quantum Secure Direct Communication Scheme Based on Bell States. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 57(6), 1881-1887 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Quantum Inf

    Yan, L., Sun, Y ., Chang, Y ., Zhang, S., Wan, G., Sheng, Z.: Semi-quantum protocol for deterministic secure quantum communication using Bell states. Quantum Inf. Process. 17(11), 315 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    Modern Physics Letters A 34(01), 1950004 (2019)

    Sun, Y ., Yan, L., Chang, Y ., Zhang, S., Shao, T., Zhang, Y .: Two semi-quantum secure direct communication protocols based on Bell states. Modern Physics Letters A 34(01), 1950004 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Quantum Inf

    Yang, C.-W.: Efficient and secure semi-quantum secure direct communication protocol against double CNOT attack. Quantum Inf. Process. 19(2), 50 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    H., Long, D

    Li, Q., Chan, W. H., Long, D. Y .: Semiquantum secret sharing using entangled states. Phys. Rev. A 82(2), 022303 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    Yang, C.-W., Hwang, T.: Efficient Key Construction on Semi-quantum Secret Sharing Protocols. Int. J. Quant. Infor. 11(05), 1350052 (2013)

    2013

  30. [37]

    Quantum Inf

    Yu, K.-F., Gu, J., Hwang, T., Gope, P.: Multi-party semi-quantum key distribution-convertible multi-party semi-quantum secret sharing. Quantum Inf. Process. 16(8), 194 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    Modern Physics Letters A 34(27), 1950213 (2019)

    Tsai, C.-W., Yang, C.-W., Lee, N.-Y .: Semi-quantum secret sharing protocol using W-state. Modern Physics Letters A 34(27), 1950213 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    D., Pathak, A.: Orthogonal-state-based and semi-quantum protocols for quantum private comparison in noisy environment

    Thapliyal, K., Sharma, R. D., Pathak, A.: Orthogonal-state-based and semi-quantum protocols for quantum private comparison in noisy environment. Int. J. Quant. Infor. 16(05), 1850047 (2018)

    2018

  33. [40]

    Quantum Inf

    Lin, P.-H., Hwang, T., Tsai, C.-W.: Efficient semi-quantum private comparison using single photons. Quantum Inf. Process. 18(7), 207 (2019)

    2019

  34. [41]

    Y ., Li, Y

    Nie, Y . Y ., Li, Y . H., Wang, Z. S.: Semi-quantum information splitting using GHZ-type states. Quantum Inf. Process. 12(1), 437-448 (2013)

    2013

  35. [42]

    Quantum Inf

    Zhang, W.-W., Zhang, K.-J.: Cryptanalysis and improvement of the quantum private comparison protocol with semi-honest third party. Quantum Inf. Process. 12(5), 1981-1990 (2013)

    2013

  36. [43]

    A., Ekert, A

    Zukowski, M., Zeilinger, A., Horne, M. A., Ekert, A. K.: Event-Ready-Detectors Bell Experiment Via Entanglement Swapping. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71(26), 4287-4290 (1993)

    1993

  37. [44]

    O., Mateus, P., Paunković, N., Souto, A., Walther, P.: 16 Experimental Quantum Cryptography With Classical Users

    Massa, F., Yadav, P., Moqanaki, A., Krawec, W. O., Mateus, P., Paunković, N., Souto, A., Walther, P.: 16 Experimental Quantum Cryptography With Classical Users. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01780 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx/devices

    IBM q experience. https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx/devices. Accessed: 2020-04-22

    2020

  39. [46]

    Experimental quantum teleportation

    Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Klaus Mattle, Manfred Eibl, Harald Weinfurter, Anton Zeilinger, “Experimental quantum teleportation”, Nature 390 (1997), pages575–579

    1997

  40. [47]

    Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation

    Ji-Gang Ren et al., “Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation”, Nature 549(2017), pages70–73

    2017

  41. [48]

    Andersen, Experimental demonstration of a Hadamard gate for coherent state qubits

    Anders Tipsmark, Ruifang Dong, Amine Laghaout, Petr Marek, Miroslav Ježek, and Ulrik L. Andersen, Experimental demonstration of a Hadamard gate for coherent state qubits. Phys. Rev. A 84(2011) 050301

    2011

  42. [49]

    N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and P. G. Kwiat, Optical simulation of quantum logic, Phys. Rev. A 57(1998), Issue 3, R1477

    1998

  43. [50]

    O'Brien, Optical Quantum Computing, Science, V ol

    Jeremy L. O'Brien, Optical Quantum Computing, Science, V ol. 318(2007), Issue 5856, pp. 1567-1570

    2007

  44. [51]

    H., Brassard, G., Robert, J

    Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Robert, J. M.: Privacy Amplification by Public Discussion. SIAM J Comput 17(2), 210-229 (1988)

    1988

  45. [52]

    H., Brassard, G., Crepeau, C., Maurer, U

    Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crepeau, C., Maurer, U. M.: Generalized privacy amplification. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 41(6), 1915-1923 (1995)

    1995

  46. [53]

    d., Mor: Security of Quantum Key Distribution against All Collective Attacks

    Biham, Boyer, Brassard, Graaf, v. d., Mor: Security of Quantum Key Distribution against All Collective Attacks. Algorithmica 34(4), 372-388 (2002)

    2002

  47. [54]

    J., Dušek, M., Lütkenhaus, N., Peev, M.: The security of practical quantum key distribution

    Scarani, V ., Bechmann-Pasquinucci, H., Cerf, N. J., Dušek, M., Lütkenhaus, N., Peev, M.: The security of practical quantum key distribution. Rev Mod Phys 81(3), 1301-1350 (2009)

    2009

  48. [55]

    Security proof of a semi-quantum key distribution protocol,

    Krawec, W. O., "Security proof of a semi-quantum key distribution protocol," in 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2015, pp. 686-690

    2015

  49. [56]

    O.: Quantum Key Distribution with Mismatched Measurements over Arbitrary Channels

    Krawec, W. O.: Quantum Key Distribution with Mismatched Measurements over Arbitrary Channels. Quantum Inf Comput 17(3-4), 209-241 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Tan, Y .-g., Lu, H., Cai, Q.-y.: Comment on ``Quantum Key Distribution with Classical Bob''. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(9), 098901 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    G., Li, X

    Deng, F. G., Li, X. H., Zhou, H. Y ., Zhang, Z. J.: Improving the security of multiparty quantum secret sharing against Trojan horse attack. Phys. Rev. A 72(4), 044302 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Y .: Eavesdropping on the two-way quantum communication protocols with invisible photons

    Cai, Q. Y .: Eavesdropping on the two-way quantum communication protocols with invisible photons. Phys. Lett. A 351(1-2), 23-25 (2006)

    2006

  53. [61]

    Yang, C.-W., Hwang, T.: Improved QSDC Protocol over a Collective-Dephasing Noise Channel. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 51(12), 3941-3950 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Quantum Inf

    Yang, C.-W., Hwang, T.: Quantum dialogue protocols immune to collective noise. Quantum Inf. Process. 12(6), 2131-2142 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Quantum Blind Signature Based on Two-State Vector Formalism

    Yang, C.-W., Hwang, T., Luo, Y .-P.: Enhancement on "Quantum Blind Signature Based on Two-State Vector Formalism". Quantum Inf. Process. 12(1), 109-117 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.