Bounds on quantum conference key agreement in pair-entangled networks

Anton Trushechkin; Dagmar Bru{\ss}; Hermann Kampermann; Justus Neumann

arxiv: 2605.18399 · v1 · pith:XGZW7ETVnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

Bounds on quantum conference key agreement in pair-entangled networks

Justus Neumann , Hermann Kampermann , Dagmar Bru{\ss} , Anton Trushechkin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 11:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords conference key agreementquantum networksbipartite entanglementupper boundskey distillationnetwork topologyquantum cryptography

0 comments

The pith

Upper bounds on the distillable conference key in quantum networks are set by topology and entanglement.

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

The paper investigates conference key agreement in quantum networks connected by bipartite entangled state sources. It focuses on local operations that do not require quantum memory. Upper bounds on the rate of distillable conference key are derived based on the network topology and the degree of entanglement provided by the sources. Tightness of these bounds is proven for particular cases, where pairwise bipartite key distillation followed by merging into a conference key is shown to be optimal.

Core claim

We derive upper bounds on the distillable conference key depending on the network topology and degree of entanglement of the sources, and prove tightness of these bounds for some particular cases. In these cases, we show that pairwise bipartite key distillation followed by merging the bipartite keys into the conference key is optimal.

What carries the argument

Upper bounds on the distillable conference key rate derived from network topology and entanglement degree of bipartite sources, under local operations without quantum memory, with proof of optimality for pairwise distillation plus merging.

Load-bearing premise

The allowed operations belong to the class of local operations not requiring quantum memory.

What would settle it

An experiment achieving a higher conference key rate than the derived bound in one of the tight cases, using only local operations without quantum memory, would disprove the result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18399 by Anton Trushechkin, Dagmar Bru{\ss}, Hermann Kampermann, Justus Neumann.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of Proposition 1. Here each edge corresponds to one Bell pair. A simple bound on the distillable conference rate is given by a “weakest” cut: If we find a cut of the graph such that both parts contain vertices from I (secrecy-seeking parties, depicted in green), then the distillable conference key cannot be larger than the distillable bipartite key corresponding to this bipartition, which i… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Illustration of Theorems 4 and 5. These theorems include the minimization over all vertex partitions such that each subset intersects with I (secrecy-seeking parties, depicted in green). We consider arbitrary vertex partitions of the graphs and the partition subsets are encircled by blue dashed curves. For PEN states, the total entanglement entropy (if the state is pure) or the total entanglement cost (i… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Tree network. The subgraph induced by the ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the task of conference key agreement in near-term quantum networks, where the nodes are connected by sources of bipartite entangled states, under the class of local operations not requiring quantum memory. We derive upper bounds on the distillable conference key depending on the network topology and degree of entanglement of the sources, and prove tightness of these bounds for some particular cases. In these cases, we show that pairwise bipartite key distillation followed by merging the bipartite keys into the conference key is optimal.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows that in pair-entangled networks under memoryless local operations, upper bounds on conference key rates are tight in some cases because bipartite distillation plus merging is optimal.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work gives upper bounds on the rate of conference key agreement in networks built from bipartite entangled sources, and it proves those bounds are tight for particular topologies and entanglement strengths by showing that distilling pairwise keys first and then merging them works as well as anything else under the stated rules. The bounds depend on network structure and source quality in a direct way. That is the concrete result. It organizes what is possible without quantum memory at the nodes, which matches the hardware most groups have right now. The optimality argument for the bipartite-plus-merge approach is the part that feels new relative to earlier bipartite or multipartite key papers. It turns an abstract limit into something protocol designers can check against. The derivations appear to come from topology constraints and entanglement measures rather than loose estimates, and the matching lower bounds in the special cases give the result some weight. The main limitation is the explicit restriction to memoryless operations. That is not hidden, but it means the numbers do not apply once nodes can hold quantum states across rounds. If the full proofs have any unstated assumptions about the form of the local maps, that would be the place to look, though the abstract framing suggests they stayed within the model they defined. Readers working on near-term quantum networks or multipartite QKD will get the most out of it; the bounds serve as a reference point rather than a complete protocol. The paper is focused enough and the claims are specific enough that it should go to referees rather than a desk reject.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives upper bounds on the distillable conference key rate for quantum networks in which nodes are linked by sources of bipartite entangled states. The analysis is restricted to local operations that do not require quantum memory. The bounds are expressed in terms of network topology and the degree of entanglement of the sources. Tightness is established for selected topologies and entanglement parameters, with the additional claim that pairwise bipartite key distillation followed by classical merging of the resulting keys is optimal in those cases.

Significance. If the derivations and tightness proofs hold, the results supply concrete, topology-dependent limits on conference-key rates achievable with near-term hardware. The explicit identification of an optimal strategy (bipartite distillation plus merging) in the tight cases is a useful benchmark for protocol design. The memoryless-operation model is stated clearly and matches current experimental constraints, strengthening the practical relevance of the bounds.

minor comments (3)

§2, paragraph following Eq. (3): the notation for the entanglement parameter (e.g., the precise definition of the two-qubit state fidelity or concurrence) is introduced without an explicit reference to the standard parametrization used later in the bound derivations; a short clarifying sentence would remove ambiguity for readers.
Figure 2 caption: the legend distinguishes 'achievable rate' from 'upper bound' but the plotted curves for the star network appear to overlap exactly; a brief statement confirming that the plotted points are numerically indistinguishable within the plotted precision would improve clarity.
§4.2, sentence after Eq. (11): the phrase 'local operations not requiring quantum memory' is repeated verbatim from the abstract; a single forward reference to the model definition in §1 would suffice and avoid minor redundancy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our work and for recommending minor revision. The referee summary accurately captures the main contributions of the manuscript. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from explicit network topology constraints and source entanglement degrees under the stated model of local operations without quantum memory. Upper bounds are obtained via standard information-theoretic arguments on distillable keys, with tightness established through explicit constructions showing optimality of bipartite distillation plus merging in specific cases. No step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain; the central claims remain independent of the target quantities and are falsifiable against the model assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard quantum information assumptions about entanglement distillation and local operations; no free parameters or invented entities are indicated in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Conference key agreement is performed under local operations not requiring quantum memory.
Explicitly stated as the operational class under consideration.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1087 out tokens · 33165 ms · 2026-05-20T11:00:05.912207+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Al- ice”) andA 2 =B(“Bob

This allows the secrecy-seeking parties to establish a conference key private also from the node 7. The node 6, 8 and 9 can verify the GHZ-type correlation such that node 7 cannot cheat. Thus, in the presence of untrusted nodes, genuinely multipartite quantum conference key agreement proto- cols (rather than putting together the bipartite ones) might be n...

work page 2004
[2]

Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

H. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

work page 2008
[3]

Pirandola and S

S. Pirandola and S. Braunstein, Physics: Unite to build a quantum internet, Nature532, 169 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Simon, Towards a global quantum network, Nature Photon.11, 678 (2017)

C. Simon, Towards a global quantum network, Nature Photon.11, 678 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Nature Photon.11, eaam9288 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

P. P. Rohde,The Quantum Internet. The second Quan- tum Revolution(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2021)

work page 2021
[7]

P. P. Rohde, Z. Huang, Y. Ouyang, H.-L. Huang, Z.-E. Su, S. Devitt, R. Ramakrishnan, A. Mantri, S.-H. Tan, N. Liu, S. Harrison, C. Radhakrishnan, G. K. Brennen, B. Q. Baragiola, J. P. Dowling, T. Byrnes, and W. J. Munro, The quantum internet (technical version) (2025), arXiv:2501.12107 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

N. H. Valencia, A. Ma, S. Goel, S. Leedumrong- watthanakun, F. Graffitti, A. Fedrizzi, W. McCutcheon, and M. Malik, A large-scale reconfigurable multiplexed quantum photonic network (2025), arXiv:2501.07272 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

Kumar, C

V. Kumar, C. Cicconetti, M. Conti, and A. Passarella, Quantum internet: Technologies, protocols, and research challenges (2025), arXiv:2502.01653 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

Shi and H

R. Shi and H. Zhong, Multi-party quantum key agree- ment with bell states and bell measurements, Quantum Information Processing12, 921 (2013)

work page 2013
[11]

Shukla, N

C. Shukla, N. Alam, and A. Pathak, Protocols of quan- tum key agreement solely using bell states and bell mea- surement, Quantum Information Processing13, 2391 (2014)

work page 2014
[12]

Epping, H

M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bruß, Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quan- tum key distribution in networks, New. J. Phys.19, 093012 (2017)

work page 2017
[13]

Murta, F

G. Murta, F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Quantum conference key agreement: A review, Advanced Quantum Technologies3, 2000025 (2020)

work page 2020
[14]

Grasselli, G

F. Grasselli, G. Murta, J. de Jong, F. Hahn, D. Bruß, H. Kampermann, and A. Pappa, Secure anonymous con- ferencing in quantum networks, arXiv preprint (2021), 2111.05363

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

Pickston, J

A. Pickston, J. Ho, A. Ulibarrena, F. Grasselli, M. Proi- etti, C. L. Morrison, P. Barrow, F. Graffitti, and A. Fedrizzi, Conference key agreement in a quantum net- work, npj Quantum Information9, 82 (2023)

work page 2023
[16]

Contreras-Tejada, C

P. Contreras-Tejada, C. Palazuelos, and J. de Vicente, Asymptotic survival of genuine multipartite entangle- ment in noisy quantum networks depends on the topol- ogy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 220501 (2022)

work page 2022
[17]

Devetak and A

I. Devetak and A. Winter, General upper bound for con- ferencing keys in arbitrary quantum networks, Proc. R. Soc. A207–235, 041016 (2005)

work page 2005
[18]

The Structure of Bipartite Quantum States - Insights from Group Theory and Cryptography

M. Christandl, The structure of bipartite quantum states - insights from group theory and cryptography (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0604183 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[19]

Augusiak and P

R. Augusiak and P. Horodecki, Multipartite secret key distillation and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. A80, 042307 (2009)

work page 2009
[20]

S. Das, S. B¨ auml, M. Winczewski, and K. Horodecki, Universal limitations on quantum key distribution over a network, Physical Review X11, 041016 (2021)

work page 2021
[21]

Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys

F. Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 200401 (2012)

work page 2012
[22]

Navascu´ es, E

M. Navascu´ es, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas- Kerstjens, Genuine network multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 240505 (2020)

work page 2020
[23]

Kraft, S

T. Kraft, S. Designolle, C. Ritz, N. Brunner, O. G¨ uhne, and M. Huber, Quantum entanglement in the triangle network, Phys. Rev. A103, L060401 (2021)

work page 2021
[24]

Hansenne, Z.-P

K. Hansenne, Z.-P. Xu, T. Kraft, and O. G¨ uhne, Sym- metries in quantum networks lead to no-go theorems for entanglement distribution and to verification techniques, Nature Comm.13, 496 (2022)

work page 2022
[25]

Neumann, T

J. Neumann, T. V. Kondra, K. Hansenne, L. T. Wein- brenner, H. Kampermann, O. G¨ uhne, D. Bruß, and N. Wyderka, No quantum advantage without classical communication: Fundamental limitations of quantum networks, arXiv preprint (2025), 2503.09473

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Carrara, H

G. Carrara, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and G. Murta, Genuine multipartite entanglement is not a precondition for secure conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013264 (2021)

work page 2021
[27]

Wooltorton, P

L. Wooltorton, P. Brown, and R. Colbeck, Genuine multipartite entanglement is not necessary for standard device-independent conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220803 (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

Pirandola, General upper bound for conferencing keys in arbitrary quantum networks, IET Quantum Commun

S. Pirandola, General upper bound for conferencing keys in arbitrary quantum networks, IET Quantum Commun. 1, 22 (2020)

work page 2020
[29]

Nitinawarat, C

S. Nitinawarat, C. Ye, A. Barg, P. Narayan, and A. Reznik, Secret key generation for a pairwise indepen- dent network model, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory56, 6482 (2010)

work page 2010
[30]

Nitinawarat and P

S. Nitinawarat and P. Narayan, Perfect omniscience, per- fect secrecy, and steiner tree packing, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor.56, 6490–6500 (2010)

work page 2010
[31]

Trushechkin, H

A. Trushechkin, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Spanning-tree-packing protocol for conference key prop- agation in quantum networks (2025)

work page 2025
[32]

Devetak and A

I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A461, 207 (2005)

work page 2005
[33]

Augusiak and P

R. Augusiak and P. Horodecki, Multipartite secret key distillation and bound entanglement, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 042307 (2009)

work page 2009
[34]

Grasselli, H

F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Finite-key effects in multipartite quantum key distribution proto- cols, New Journal of Physics20, 113014 (2018)

work page 2018
[35]

Csisz´ ar and P

I. Csisz´ ar and P. Narayan, Secrecy capacities for multiple terminals, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory50, 3047 (2004)

work page 2004
[36]

Navascu´ es, E

M. Navascu´ es, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas- Kerstjens, Genuine network multipartite entanglement, Physical Review Letters125, 240505 (2020)

work page 2020
[37]

Diestel,Graph Theory, 5th ed

R. Diestel,Graph Theory, 5th ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2017)

work page 2017
[38]

Khatri and M

S. Khatri and M. M. Wilde, Principles of quantum communication theory: A modern approach (2024), arXiv:2011.04672 [quant-ph]. 16

work page arXiv 2024
[39]

D. Yang, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and W. Song, Squashed entanglement for multipartite states and entanglement measures based on the mixed convex roof, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory55, 3375 (2009)

work page 2009
[40]

K. P. Seshadreesan, M. Takeoka, and M. M. Wilde, Bounds on entanglement distillation and secret key agree- ment for quantum broadcast channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory62, 2849 (2016)

work page 2016
[41]

Koashi and A

M. Koashi and A. Winter, Monogamy of quantum entan- glement and other correlations, Phys. Rev. A69, 022309 (2004)

work page 2004
[42]

Chaves, C

R. Chaves, C. Majenz, and D. Gross, Information– theoretic implications of quantum causal structures, Na- ture communications6, 5766 (2015)

work page 2015
[43]

Wolfe, R

E. Wolfe, R. W. Spekkens, and T. Fritz, The inflation technique for causal inference with latent variables, Jour- nal of Causal Inference7, 20170020 (2019), article ID 20170020

work page 2019
[44]

Wolfe, A

E. Wolfe, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, M. Grinberg, D. Rosset, A. Ac´ ın, and M. Navascu´ es, Quantum inflation: A gen- eral approach to quantum causal compatibility, Phys. Rev. X11, 021043 (2021)

work page 2021
[45]

T´ oth and O

G. T´ oth and O. G¨ uhne, Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism, Phys. Rev. A72, 022340 (2005)

work page 2005
[46]

Vedral and M

V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement measures and purification procedures, Phys. Rev. A57, 1619 (1998)

work page 1998
[47]

K. M. R. Audenaert and J. Eisert, Continuity bounds on the quantum relative entropy – II, J. Math. Phys.52, 112201 (2011)

work page 2011
[48]

M. J. Donald and M. Horodecki, Continuity of relative entropy of entanglement, Phys. Lett. A264, 257 (1999)

work page 1999
[49]

Holevo,Quantum Systems, Channels, Information

A. Holevo,Quantum Systems, Channels, Information. A Mathematical Introduction(De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2013)

work page 2013
[50]

Csisz´ ar and J

I. Csisz´ ar and J. K¨ orner,Information Theory: Cod- ing Theorems for Discrete Memoryless Systems, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

work page 2011

[1] [1]

Al- ice”) andA 2 =B(“Bob

This allows the secrecy-seeking parties to establish a conference key private also from the node 7. The node 6, 8 and 9 can verify the GHZ-type correlation such that node 7 cannot cheat. Thus, in the presence of untrusted nodes, genuinely multipartite quantum conference key agreement proto- cols (rather than putting together the bipartite ones) might be n...

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

H. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Pirandola and S

S. Pirandola and S. Braunstein, Physics: Unite to build a quantum internet, Nature532, 169 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Simon, Towards a global quantum network, Nature Photon.11, 678 (2017)

C. Simon, Towards a global quantum network, Nature Photon.11, 678 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Nature Photon.11, eaam9288 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

P. P. Rohde,The Quantum Internet. The second Quan- tum Revolution(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

P. P. Rohde, Z. Huang, Y. Ouyang, H.-L. Huang, Z.-E. Su, S. Devitt, R. Ramakrishnan, A. Mantri, S.-H. Tan, N. Liu, S. Harrison, C. Radhakrishnan, G. K. Brennen, B. Q. Baragiola, J. P. Dowling, T. Byrnes, and W. J. Munro, The quantum internet (technical version) (2025), arXiv:2501.12107 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

N. H. Valencia, A. Ma, S. Goel, S. Leedumrong- watthanakun, F. Graffitti, A. Fedrizzi, W. McCutcheon, and M. Malik, A large-scale reconfigurable multiplexed quantum photonic network (2025), arXiv:2501.07272 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

[9] [9]

Kumar, C

V. Kumar, C. Cicconetti, M. Conti, and A. Passarella, Quantum internet: Technologies, protocols, and research challenges (2025), arXiv:2502.01653 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

[10] [10]

Shi and H

R. Shi and H. Zhong, Multi-party quantum key agree- ment with bell states and bell measurements, Quantum Information Processing12, 921 (2013)

work page 2013

[11] [11]

Shukla, N

C. Shukla, N. Alam, and A. Pathak, Protocols of quan- tum key agreement solely using bell states and bell mea- surement, Quantum Information Processing13, 2391 (2014)

work page 2014

[12] [12]

Epping, H

M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. Macchiavello, and D. Bruß, Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quan- tum key distribution in networks, New. J. Phys.19, 093012 (2017)

work page 2017

[13] [13]

Murta, F

G. Murta, F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Quantum conference key agreement: A review, Advanced Quantum Technologies3, 2000025 (2020)

work page 2020

[14] [14]

Grasselli, G

F. Grasselli, G. Murta, J. de Jong, F. Hahn, D. Bruß, H. Kampermann, and A. Pappa, Secure anonymous con- ferencing in quantum networks, arXiv preprint (2021), 2111.05363

work page arXiv 2021

[15] [15]

Pickston, J

A. Pickston, J. Ho, A. Ulibarrena, F. Grasselli, M. Proi- etti, C. L. Morrison, P. Barrow, F. Graffitti, and A. Fedrizzi, Conference key agreement in a quantum net- work, npj Quantum Information9, 82 (2023)

work page 2023

[16] [16]

Contreras-Tejada, C

P. Contreras-Tejada, C. Palazuelos, and J. de Vicente, Asymptotic survival of genuine multipartite entangle- ment in noisy quantum networks depends on the topol- ogy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 220501 (2022)

work page 2022

[17] [17]

Devetak and A

I. Devetak and A. Winter, General upper bound for con- ferencing keys in arbitrary quantum networks, Proc. R. Soc. A207–235, 041016 (2005)

work page 2005

[18] [18]

The Structure of Bipartite Quantum States - Insights from Group Theory and Cryptography

M. Christandl, The structure of bipartite quantum states - insights from group theory and cryptography (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0604183 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

[19] [19]

Augusiak and P

R. Augusiak and P. Horodecki, Multipartite secret key distillation and bound entanglement, Phys. Rev. A80, 042307 (2009)

work page 2009

[20] [20]

S. Das, S. B¨ auml, M. Winczewski, and K. Horodecki, Universal limitations on quantum key distribution over a network, Physical Review X11, 041016 (2021)

work page 2021

[21] [21]

Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys

F. Buscemi, All entangled quantum states are nonlocal, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 200401 (2012)

work page 2012

[22] [22]

Navascu´ es, E

M. Navascu´ es, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas- Kerstjens, Genuine network multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 240505 (2020)

work page 2020

[23] [23]

Kraft, S

T. Kraft, S. Designolle, C. Ritz, N. Brunner, O. G¨ uhne, and M. Huber, Quantum entanglement in the triangle network, Phys. Rev. A103, L060401 (2021)

work page 2021

[24] [24]

Hansenne, Z.-P

K. Hansenne, Z.-P. Xu, T. Kraft, and O. G¨ uhne, Sym- metries in quantum networks lead to no-go theorems for entanglement distribution and to verification techniques, Nature Comm.13, 496 (2022)

work page 2022

[25] [25]

Neumann, T

J. Neumann, T. V. Kondra, K. Hansenne, L. T. Wein- brenner, H. Kampermann, O. G¨ uhne, D. Bruß, and N. Wyderka, No quantum advantage without classical communication: Fundamental limitations of quantum networks, arXiv preprint (2025), 2503.09473

work page arXiv 2025

[26] [26]

Carrara, H

G. Carrara, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and G. Murta, Genuine multipartite entanglement is not a precondition for secure conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013264 (2021)

work page 2021

[27] [27]

Wooltorton, P

L. Wooltorton, P. Brown, and R. Colbeck, Genuine multipartite entanglement is not necessary for standard device-independent conference key agreement, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220803 (2025)

work page 2025

[28] [28]

Pirandola, General upper bound for conferencing keys in arbitrary quantum networks, IET Quantum Commun

S. Pirandola, General upper bound for conferencing keys in arbitrary quantum networks, IET Quantum Commun. 1, 22 (2020)

work page 2020

[29] [29]

Nitinawarat, C

S. Nitinawarat, C. Ye, A. Barg, P. Narayan, and A. Reznik, Secret key generation for a pairwise indepen- dent network model, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory56, 6482 (2010)

work page 2010

[30] [30]

Nitinawarat and P

S. Nitinawarat and P. Narayan, Perfect omniscience, per- fect secrecy, and steiner tree packing, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor.56, 6490–6500 (2010)

work page 2010

[31] [31]

Trushechkin, H

A. Trushechkin, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Spanning-tree-packing protocol for conference key prop- agation in quantum networks (2025)

work page 2025

[32] [32]

Devetak and A

I. Devetak and A. Winter, Distillation of secret key and entanglement from quantum states, Proceedings of the Royal Society A461, 207 (2005)

work page 2005

[33] [33]

Augusiak and P

R. Augusiak and P. Horodecki, Multipartite secret key distillation and bound entanglement, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 042307 (2009)

work page 2009

[34] [34]

Grasselli, H

F. Grasselli, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, Finite-key effects in multipartite quantum key distribution proto- cols, New Journal of Physics20, 113014 (2018)

work page 2018

[35] [35]

Csisz´ ar and P

I. Csisz´ ar and P. Narayan, Secrecy capacities for multiple terminals, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory50, 3047 (2004)

work page 2004

[36] [36]

Navascu´ es, E

M. Navascu´ es, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas- Kerstjens, Genuine network multipartite entanglement, Physical Review Letters125, 240505 (2020)

work page 2020

[37] [37]

Diestel,Graph Theory, 5th ed

R. Diestel,Graph Theory, 5th ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2017)

work page 2017

[38] [38]

Khatri and M

S. Khatri and M. M. Wilde, Principles of quantum communication theory: A modern approach (2024), arXiv:2011.04672 [quant-ph]. 16

work page arXiv 2024

[39] [39]

D. Yang, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, J. Oppenheim, and W. Song, Squashed entanglement for multipartite states and entanglement measures based on the mixed convex roof, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory55, 3375 (2009)

work page 2009

[40] [40]

K. P. Seshadreesan, M. Takeoka, and M. M. Wilde, Bounds on entanglement distillation and secret key agree- ment for quantum broadcast channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory62, 2849 (2016)

work page 2016

[41] [41]

Koashi and A

M. Koashi and A. Winter, Monogamy of quantum entan- glement and other correlations, Phys. Rev. A69, 022309 (2004)

work page 2004

[42] [42]

Chaves, C

R. Chaves, C. Majenz, and D. Gross, Information– theoretic implications of quantum causal structures, Na- ture communications6, 5766 (2015)

work page 2015

[43] [43]

Wolfe, R

E. Wolfe, R. W. Spekkens, and T. Fritz, The inflation technique for causal inference with latent variables, Jour- nal of Causal Inference7, 20170020 (2019), article ID 20170020

work page 2019

[44] [44]

Wolfe, A

E. Wolfe, A. Pozas-Kerstjens, M. Grinberg, D. Rosset, A. Ac´ ın, and M. Navascu´ es, Quantum inflation: A gen- eral approach to quantum causal compatibility, Phys. Rev. X11, 021043 (2021)

work page 2021

[45] [45]

T´ oth and O

G. T´ oth and O. G¨ uhne, Entanglement detection in the stabilizer formalism, Phys. Rev. A72, 022340 (2005)

work page 2005

[46] [46]

Vedral and M

V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio, Entanglement measures and purification procedures, Phys. Rev. A57, 1619 (1998)

work page 1998

[47] [47]

K. M. R. Audenaert and J. Eisert, Continuity bounds on the quantum relative entropy – II, J. Math. Phys.52, 112201 (2011)

work page 2011

[48] [48]

M. J. Donald and M. Horodecki, Continuity of relative entropy of entanglement, Phys. Lett. A264, 257 (1999)

work page 1999

[49] [49]

Holevo,Quantum Systems, Channels, Information

A. Holevo,Quantum Systems, Channels, Information. A Mathematical Introduction(De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2013)

work page 2013

[50] [50]

Csisz´ ar and J

I. Csisz´ ar and J. K¨ orner,Information Theory: Cod- ing Theorems for Discrete Memoryless Systems, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

work page 2011