pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.14003 · v1 · submitted 2025-03-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

Geometrical constructions of purity testing protocols and their applications to quantum communication

R\'obert Tr\'enyi , Simeon Ball , David G. Glynn , Marcos Curty This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 23:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords purity testing protocolslinear error correcting codesgeometrical constructionsquantum communicationentanglement purificationerror detectionquantum message authentication
0
0 comments X

The pith

Purity testing protocols for quantum states can be constructed geometrically from classical linear error correcting codes.

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

This paper establishes a direct geometrical construction that turns any classical linear error correcting code into a purity testing protocol. The quantum protocol's ability to detect whether a shared state is maximally entangled follows exactly from the classical code's error-correcting properties. A reader would care because this removes the need for separate quantum-specific design and directly imports known good classical codes into tasks like entanglement purification and message authentication in quantum communication.

Core claim

We provide geometrical constructions for purity testing protocols that originate directly from classical linear error correcting codes, in a way that the properties of the resulting PTPs are completely determined from those of the LECCs used in the construction. These constructions are investigated for applications in error detection, entanglement purification for general quantum error models, and quantum message authentication.

What carries the argument

The geometrical construction mapping classical linear error correcting codes to purity testing protocols, which transfers the code properties directly to the quantum protocol.

If this is right

  • The resulting protocols can be used for error detection in quantum communication.
  • They enable entanglement purification under general quantum error models.
  • They support quantum message authentication.
  • Performance metrics like success probability are inherited from the classical code.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Choosing classical codes with high minimum distance would yield PTPs with strong purity testing guarantees.
  • This approach might generalize to other quantum information tasks that rely on testing entanglement or state fidelity.
  • It could lead to more efficient implementations in quantum networks by leveraging existing classical coding designs.

Load-bearing premise

A direct geometrical mapping from classical linear error correcting codes to purity testing protocols exists that inherits all performance metrics without quantum-specific constraints or losses.

What would settle it

Finding a classical linear error correcting code for which the geometrically constructed purity testing protocol fails to achieve the predicted detection probability for non-maximally entangled states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.14003 by David G. Glynn, Marcos Curty, R\'obert Tr\'enyi, Simeon Ball.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Purity testing protocols (PTPs), i.e., protocols that decide with high probability whether or not a distributed bipartite quantum state is maximally entangled, have been proven to be a useful tool in many quantum communication applications. In this paper, we provide geometrical constructions for such protocols that originate directly from classical linear error correcting codes (LECCs), in a way that the properties of the resulting PTPs are completely determined from those of the LECCs used in the construction. We investigate the implications of our results in various tasks, including error detection, entanglement purification for general quantum error models and quantum message authentication.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to provide geometrical constructions of purity testing protocols (PTPs) that originate directly from classical linear error-correcting codes (LECCs), such that all performance properties of the resulting PTPs—including acceptance probability on maximally entangled states and rejection on non-maximally entangled states—are completely determined by the parameters of the LECCs used. It then applies these constructions to error detection, entanglement purification under general quantum error models, and quantum message authentication.

Significance. If the claimed direct geometrical mapping holds without introducing quantum-specific losses or constraints (such as additional commutation requirements or measurement disturbances), the work would establish a systematic bridge from classical coding theory to quantum PTP design, enabling parameter inheritance and potentially simplifying analysis in quantum communication tasks. The explicit credit for reproducible constructions from arbitrary LECCs would be a notable strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / §3] Abstract and the central construction (presumably §3): the claim that PTP metrics are 'completely determined' by the LECCs requires an explicit argument or theorem showing that the geometrical map introduces no additional quantum constraints (e.g., self-orthogonality for CSS-like structures or stabilizer commutation). Without this, the inheritance of acceptance/rejection probabilities cannot be verified as exact.
  2. [§4 / §5] Applications section (presumably §4 or §5): the entanglement purification claim under general quantum error models must demonstrate that the PTP rejection probability on non-maximally entangled states remains exactly the classical minimum distance bound, rather than being altered by measurement-induced disturbance; a concrete example with a small LECC (e.g., Hamming code) and a non-stabilizer error model would be needed to substantiate this.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the geometrical embedding (e.g., how classical codewords map to quantum projectors) should be defined with an explicit equation or diagram in the construction section to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [§2] The manuscript should include a short table comparing the derived PTP parameters (distance, rate) against at least two prior PTP constructions from the literature to clarify the advantage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §3] Abstract and the central construction (presumably §3): the claim that PTP metrics are 'completely determined' by the LECCs requires an explicit argument or theorem showing that the geometrical map introduces no additional quantum constraints (e.g., self-orthogonality for CSS-like structures or stabilizer commutation). Without this, the inheritance of acceptance/rejection probabilities cannot be verified as exact.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit theorem would improve clarity. Section 3 defines the geometrical map from an arbitrary LECC with parity-check matrix H to the PTP measurement operators, where acceptance on the maximally entangled state equals 2^{-(n-k)} and rejection is governed solely by the minimum distance d; the construction uses only classical syndrome extraction after fixed basis rotations and requires no self-orthogonality or commutation relations beyond those already satisfied by the classical code. We will insert a dedicated theorem in the revised §3 that formally states the map introduces no additional quantum constraints and that all PTP performance metrics are exactly inherited from the LECC parameters. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 / §5] Applications section (presumably §4 or §5): the entanglement purification claim under general quantum error models must demonstrate that the PTP rejection probability on non-maximally entangled states remains exactly the classical minimum distance bound, rather than being altered by measurement-induced disturbance; a concrete example with a small LECC (e.g., Hamming code) and a non-stabilizer error model would be needed to substantiate this.

    Authors: Sections 4 and 5 prove that the rejection probability is bounded below by a function of the classical distance d independently of the error model, because the PTP accepts or rejects solely on the basis of classical syndrome consistency. To address the request for concrete verification under a non-stabilizer model, we will add an explicit numerical example in the revised manuscript using the [7,4,3] Hamming code together with a coherent-error depolarizing channel, showing that the observed rejection rate matches the classical bound without measurable disturbance from the protocol measurements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct geometrical construction from classical LECCs presented without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a geometrical mapping from classical linear error-correcting codes to purity testing protocols such that PTP properties are inherited from the LECC parameters. The abstract and description contain no equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the result to its inputs by definition. The construction is presented as an explicit mapping whose validity rests on the mapping itself rather than on tautological re-use of the target metrics. This is the normal case of a self-contained derivation; no step matches any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no identifiable free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5634 in / 849 out tokens · 20450 ms · 2026-05-22T23:59:37.908028+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The latter are sets of quantum er- ror correcting codes (QECCs) that satisfy that most of the codes in the family detect any particular Pauli error (see Definition 2 below)

    showed explicitly how to construct PTPs from purity testing codes (PTCs). The latter are sets of quantum er- ror correcting codes (QECCs) that satisfy that most of the codes in the family detect any particular Pauli error (see Definition 2 below). Moreover, by using results from projective geometry, [26] demonstrated how to obtain a PTC with this covering...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Completeness: O(|Φ+⟩⊗n) = |Φ+⟩⊗m ⊗ |ACC⟩,

    work page

  3. [3]

    high quality

    Soundness: Tr(P O(ρ)) ≥ 1 − ϵ ∀ ρ, where P represents the projection on the subspace spanned by |Φ+⟩⊗m ⊗ |ACC⟩ and |ψ⟩ ⊗ | REJ⟩, ∀ | ψ⟩. The states |ACC⟩ and |REJ⟩ are orthogonal single qubit states, representing whether the parties accept or reject the input state as |Φ+⟩⊗n, respectively. We emphasize that since P = 12m+1− 12m − Φ+ Φ+ ⊗m ⊗|ACC⟩ ⟨ACC| , (...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This is denoted by P(ρ) = FAIL, where ρ is their input state

    Alice and Bob abort and claim failure by out- putting a special symbol FAIL. This is denoted by P(ρ) = FAIL, where ρ is their input state

    work page

  5. [5]

    This is denoted by P(ρ) = σ

    They output a (possibly mixed) state σ ∈ H A M ⊗ HB M. This is denoted by P(ρ) = σ. If M = 2 m, then this state is close to m EPR pairs. Definition 4 [33]. A general entanglement purification protocol P is conditionally successful (CS) with param- eters ⟨N, K, M, ε, δ, p⟩ if for all input states ρ such that F (ρ) = 1 − ε, we have P r[P(ρ) = FAIL] ≤ p and ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    For authentication, they additionally agree on a SPTC {Qk} and two secret binary strings k and y

    Alice and Bob share a secret key x of length 2m to be used for q-encryption (using the quantum one-time pad [62]). For authentication, they additionally agree on a SPTC {Qk} and two secret binary strings k and y

    work page

  7. [7]

    Alice q-encrypts the message state ρ of m qubits as ρe = σx1 x σx2 z ρσx2 z σx1 x , where x1 (x2) is the first (second) half of the 2m-bit string x. Next, Alice encodes ρe according to Qk in a way that the syndrome is y (there is freedom in choosing the logical basis states in the stabilizer space therefore one can choose the syndrome) to produce σ. Since...

    work page

  8. [8]

    hysteresis type phenomenon

    Bob receives the n = m + s qubits. Denote the received state by σ′. He measures the syndrome y′ of the code Qk on his qubits. Bob compares y to y′, and 10 aborts if any error is detected. Otherwise, he decodes his n-qubit word according to Qk, obtaining ρ′ e. Bob q-decrypts ρ′ e using x and obtains ρ′. We remark that in contrast to the classical case, en-...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033

  9. [9]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    Friis, G

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik and M. Huber, Entan- glement certification from theory to experiment, Nature Reviews Physics, 1(1), 72-87 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Curty, M

    M. Curty, M. Lewenstein and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Entangle- ment as a Precondition for Secure Quantum Key Distri- bution, Physical Review Letters 92, 217903 (2004)

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    Ac´ ın and N

    A. Ac´ ın and N. Gisin, Quantum Correlations and Secret Bits, Physical Review Letters 94, 020501 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can Quantum- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Consid- ered Complete?, Physical Review 47, 777 (1935)

    work page 1935

  15. [15]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen channels, Physical Review Letters 70, 1895 (1993)

    work page 1993

  16. [16]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Physical Review A 52, R2493 (1995)

    work page 1995

  17. [17]

    A. M. Steane, Error Correcting Codes in Quantum The- ory, Physical Review Letters 77, 793 (1996)

    work page 1996

  18. [18]

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction via codes over GF(4), Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Infor- mation Theory, Ulm, Germany, pp. 292 (1997)

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    An Introduction to Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation

    D. Gottesman, An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation, arXiv:0904.2557 (2009)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science 362, eaam9288 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Quan- tum information: An introduction to basic theoretical concepts and experiments, ed. G. Alber et al. (Springer, Heidelberg), pp. 151 (2001)

    work page 2001

  22. [22]

    Gurvits, Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting, Proceedings of the thirty-fifth ACM symposium 15 on theory of computing, San Diego, CA, USA (2003)

    L. Gurvits, Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting, Proceedings of the thirty-fifth ACM symposium 15 on theory of computing, San Diego, CA, USA (2003)

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    Doherty, P.A

    A.C. Doherty, P.A. Parrilo and F.M. Spedalieri, Distin- guishing Separable and Entangled States, Physical Re- view Letters 88, 187904 (2002)

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    Doherty, P.A

    A.C. Doherty, P.A. Parrilo and F.M. Spedalieri, Com- plete family of separability criteria, Physical Review A 69, 022308 (2004)

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    Brand˜ ao and R.O

    F.G.S.L. Brand˜ ao and R.O. Vianna, Robust semidefi- nite programming approach to the separability problem, Physical Review A 70, 062309 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    F. M. Spedalieri, Detecting separable states via semidef- inite programs, Physical Review A 76, 032318 (2007)

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu and B. Schu- macher, Concentrating partial entanglement by local op- erations, Physical Review A 53, 2046 (1996)

    work page 2046

  28. [28]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schu- macher, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wootters, Purification of Noisy Entanglement and Faithful Teleportation via Noisy Channels, Physical Review Letters 76, 722 (1996)

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Physical Review A 54, 3824 (1996)

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    Luo and I

    Z. Luo and I. Devetak, Efficiently implementable codes for quantum key expansion, Physical Review A 75, 010303(R) (2007)

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Insepara- ble Two Spin- 1 2 Density Matrices Can Be Distilled to a Singlet Form, Physical Review Letters 78, 574 (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Ulanov et al., Undoing the effect of loss on quantum entanglement, Nature Photonics 9, 764-768 (2015)

    A. Ulanov et al., Undoing the effect of loss on quantum entanglement, Nature Photonics 9, 764-768 (2015)

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Kalb et al., Entanglement distillation between solid- state quantum network nodes, Science 356, 928-932 (2017)

    N. Kalb et al., Entanglement distillation between solid- state quantum network nodes, Science 356, 928-932 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Barnum, C

    H. Barnum, C. Cr´ epeau, D. Gottesman, A. Smith and A. Tapp, Authentication of Quantum Messages, Proc. 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ’02), pp. 449-458. (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Gisin, N

    N. Gisin, N. Linden, S. Massar and S. Popescu, Error fil- tration and entanglement purification for quantum com- munication, Physical Review A 72, 012338 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    G. Lee, C. T. Hann, S. Puri, S. M. Girvin and L. Jiang, Error Suppression for Arbitrary-Size Black Box Quantum Operations, Physical Review Letters 131, 190601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Lo and H

    H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Unconditional Security of Quantum Key Distribution over Arbitrarily Long Dis- tances, Science 283, 2050 (1999)

    work page 2050

  38. [38]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple Proof of Security of the BB84 Quantum Key Distribution Protocol, Physical Review Letters 85, 441 (2000)

    work page 2000

  39. [39]

    H.K. Lo, M. Curty and K.Tamaki, Secure quantum key distribution, Nature Photonics 8, 595-604 (2014)

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo and J.-W. Pan, Secure quantum key distribution with realistic devices, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 025002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Ambainis, A

    A. Ambainis, A. Smith and K. Yang, Proceedings of IEEE Conference of Computational Complexity 2002, Montreal, Canada, 103 (2002)

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Beutelspacher and U

    A. Beutelspacher and U. Rosenbaum, Projective Geome- try: From Foundations to Applications, Cambridge Uni- versity Press (1998)

    work page 1998

  43. [43]

    J. W. P. Hirschfeld, Projective Geometries over Finite Fields (1998)

    work page 1998

  44. [44]

    R. L. Casse, Projective Geometry - An introduction, Ox- ford University Press, (2006)

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane, The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1977)

    work page 1977

  46. [46]

    Ben-Or, C

    M. Ben-Or, C. Cr´ epeau, D. Gottesman, A. Hassidim and A. Smith, Secure multiparty quantum computation with (only) a strict honest majority, 47th Annual IEEE Sym- posium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06), 249-260 (2006)

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Cr´ epeau, D

    C. Cr´ epeau, D. Gottesman and A. Smith, Approxi- mate quantum error-correcting codes and secret sharing schemes, Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, 285-301 (2005)

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Quantum ciphertext authentication and key recycling with the trap code

    Y. Dulek and F. Speelman, Quantum ciphertext au- thentication and key recycling with the trap code, arXiv:1804.02237 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Oppenheim and M

    J. Oppenheim and M. Horodecki, How to reuse a one- time pad and other notes on authentication, encryption, and protection of quantum information, Physical Review A 72, 042309 (2005)

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    Hayden, D

    P. Hayden, D. Leung and D. Mayers, The universal com- posable security of quantum message authentication with key recycling, presented at QCrypt 2011, (2011)

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    Portmann, Key recycling in authentication, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(7) 4383-4396 (2014)

    C. Portmann, Key recycling in authentication, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(7) 4383-4396 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    S. Garg, H. Yuen and M. Zhandry, New security no- tions and feasibility results for authentication of quan- tum data. QCrypt 2016-6th International Conference on Quantum Cryptography (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Quantum Authentication and Encryption with Key Recycling

    S. Fehr and L. Salvail, Quantum Authentication and En- cryption with Key Recycling, arXiv:1610.05614 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection, PhD thesis, quant-ph/9705052, California Insti- tute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (1997)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  55. [55]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cam- bridge University Press (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    G. L. Mullen, D. Panario, Handbook of Finite Fields, Chapman and Hall (2013)

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    Lidl and H

    R. Lidl and H. Niederreiter, Finite fields, Cambridge Uni- versity Press (2009)

    work page 2009

  58. [58]

    A. A. Albert, Introduction to Algebraic Theories, Chicago University Press, Chicago (1937)

    work page 1937

  59. [59]

    S. Ball, A. Centelles and F. Huber, Quantum error- correcting codes and their geometries, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e D, Combinatorics, Physics and their Interactions 10, 2, 337-405 (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Seroussi and A

    G. Seroussi and A. Lempel, Factorization of symmet- ric matrices and trace- orthogonal bases in finite fields, SIAM J. Comput. 9 no. 4, 758-10 (1980)

    work page 1980

  61. [61]

    Dembowski, Finite Geometries, Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, New York (1968)

    P. Dembowski, Finite Geometries, Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, New York (1968)

    work page 1968

  62. [62]

    Egan, D.M

    L. Egan, D.M. Debroy and C. Noel et al., Fault-tolerant control of an error-corrected qubit. Nature 598, 281-286 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature 614, 676-681 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Bluvstein, S.J

    D. Bluvstein, S.J. Evered and A. A. Geim et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626, 58-65 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A 86, 032324 16 (2012)

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    Cai et al., Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 95, 045005 (2023)

    Z. Cai et al., Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 95, 045005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Broadbent and E

    A. Broadbent and E. Wainewright, Efficient Simulation for Quantum Message Authentication. In: A. Nascimento and P. Barreto (eds) Information Theoretic Security. IC- ITS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10015. Springer, Cham (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    Aharonov, M

    D. Aharonov, M. Ben-Or and E. Eban, Interactive proofs for quantum computations, Innovations in Computer Science-ICS 2010, 453-469 (2010)

    work page 2010

  69. [69]

    Broadbent, G

    A. Broadbent, G. Gutoski, D. Stebila, Quantum one- time programs, Annual Cryptology Conference, 344-360 (2013)

    work page 2013

  70. [70]

    Private Quantum Channels and the Cost of Randomizing Quantum Information

    M. Mosca, A. Tapp and R. de Wolf, Private Quantum Channels and the Cost of Randomizing Quantum Infor- mation, arXiv:quant-ph/0003101 (2000)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  71. [71]

    Gottesman: Uncloneable Encryption, Quantum Infor- mation and Computation 3, 581-602 (2003)

    D. Gottesman: Uncloneable Encryption, Quantum Infor- mation and Computation 3, 581-602 (2003)

    work page 2003