Pith. sign in

REVIEW

New binding-concealing trade-offs for quantum string commitment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv quant-ph/0506001 v5 pith:4CTEJOCF submitted 2005-05-31 quant-ph

classification quant-ph
keywords commitmentschemesstringtrade-offsalicebuhrmanprotocolsingle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

String commitment schemes are similar to the well studied bit commitment schemes in cryptography with the difference that the committing party, say Alice, is supposed to commit a long string instead of a single bit, to another party say Bob. Similar to bit commitment schemes, such schemes are supposed to be binding, i.e Alice cannot change her choice after committing, and concealing i.e. Bob cannot find Alice's committed string before Alice reveals it. Ideal commitment schemes are known to be impossible. Even if some degrees of cheating is allowed, Buhrman, Christandl, Hayden, Lo and Wehner (quant-ph/0504078) have recently shown that there are some binding-concealing trade-offs that any quantum string commitment scheme (QSC) must follow. They showed trade-offs both in the scenario of single execution of the protocol and in the asymptotic regime of sufficiently large number of parallel executions of the protocol. We present here new trade-offs in the scenario of single execution of a QSC protocol. Our trade-offs also immediately imply the trade-off shown by Buhrman et al. in the asymptotic regime. We show our results by making a central use of an important information theoretic tool called the substate theorem due to Jain, Radhakrishnan and Sen. Our techniques are quite different from that of Buhrman et al. and may be of independent interest.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools