pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21880 · v1 · pith:OU7H7A3Rnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Device-Independent Quantum Secret Sharing Protocol Enhanced by Advantage Distillation

Yong-Hui Yang , Jian-Hong Shi , Hong-Wei Li , Hai-Long Zhang , Yun-Teng Yang , Yu-Bing Zhu , Yan-Yang Zhou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 06:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords device-independent quantum secret sharingadvantage distillationthree-party protocolnoise tolerancesecure distancefiber channelquantum key distribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Advantage distillation extends to three-party device-independent quantum secret sharing to raise secure distances and noise tolerance.

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

The paper adapts advantage distillation from two-party quantum key distribution to three-party device-independent quantum secret sharing by redesigning the data interaction and verification steps. This adaptation is applied to the basic protocol and to variants that use noise preprocessing or post-selection. Simulations over fiber channels show clear gains in reach and robustness against noise. A reader would care because device-independent secret sharing promises security without trusting the hardware, yet loss and noise have kept such systems from working over useful distances; these changes narrow that gap.

Core claim

By generalizing advantage distillation to the three-party setting and applying the redesigned procedures to both the basic DI-QSS protocol and the active improvement strategies, the work shows improved noise tolerance, a lower required global detection efficiency threshold, and longer maximum secure distances, with numerical results for fiber channels giving an increase from 0.16 km to 1.85 km and noise tolerance from 10.17 percent to 28.49 percent.

What carries the argument

Redesigned data interaction and verification procedures that extend advantage distillation from two-party QKD to three-party DI-QSS while preserving the underlying device-independent security assumptions.

If this is right

  • The basic protocol reaches a maximum secure distance of 1.85 km over fiber instead of 0.16 km.
  • Noise tolerance rises from 10.17 percent to 28.49 percent.
  • The global detection efficiency threshold needed for security is lowered.
  • The same gains appear when advantage distillation is combined with noise preprocessing and post-selection.
  • The protocol becomes usable in noisier and lossier real-world channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same redesign pattern might improve other three-party or multi-party device-independent tasks that currently suffer from similar noise limits.
  • Two-party distillation techniques can apparently be lifted to three parties without losing their error-filtering power, suggesting a route to simplify multi-party protocol engineering.
  • Combining this method with newer error-correction codes could push distances further still in future work.

Load-bearing premise

The redesigned procedures for advantage distillation in the three-party case keep the original device-independent security proof intact and do not create new side-channel vulnerabilities.

What would settle it

An explicit attack on the three-party advantage-distillation protocol that extracts secret information without violating the Bell inequality or triggering detectable inconsistencies in the verification steps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21880 by Hai-long Zhang, Hong-Wei Li, Jian-Hong Shi, Yan-Yang Zhou, Yong-Hui Yang, Yu-Bing Zhu, Yun-Teng Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the DI-QSS protocol. A central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Flowchart of the tripartite advantage distillation pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the secret sharing rates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Three-dimensional plot of the secret sharing rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Three-dimensional surfaces showing the relationship [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Three-dimensional surfaces of the secret sharing rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Curve of secret sharing rate versus global detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Plot of the secret sharing rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Plot of the secret sharing rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Device-independent quantum secret sharing (DI-QSS) provides high security by eliminating the need to trust devices, yet its practical performance is limited by channel loss and noise. This work extends advantage distillation from two-party quantum key distribution (QKD) to three-party DI-QSS, redesigning the corresponding data interaction and verification procedures. The technique is systematically applied to the basic protocol and three active improvement strategies: noise preprocessing, post-selection, and their combination. This approach enhances noise tolerance, reduces the required global detection efficiency threshold, and significantly extends the maximum secure communication distance. Numerical simulations demonstrate that for the basic protocol over fiber, the maximum secure distance increases from 0.16 km to 1.85 km, and the noise tolerance improves from 10.17% to 28.49%. The results show that generalizing advantage distillation to the three-party setting effectively strengthens the protocol's robustness and practicality, enhancing its adaptability to realistic noise and advancing the development of more reliable quantum secret sharing systems.

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 manuscript extends advantage distillation from two-party QKD to three-party device-independent quantum secret sharing (DI-QSS). It redesigns the data interaction and verification procedures for the basic protocol and for combinations with noise preprocessing, post-selection, and both. Numerical simulations are presented claiming that, for the basic protocol over fiber, the maximum secure distance increases from 0.16 km to 1.85 km while noise tolerance improves from 10.17% to 28.49%.

Significance. If the device-independent security reduction remains valid after the procedural redesign, the work would provide a concrete route to improving the robustness of DI-QSS against channel loss and noise, thereby increasing its practical reach. The numerical gains, if rigorously supported, would constitute a useful benchmark for future experimental efforts in multi-party DI protocols.

major comments (2)
  1. [Security analysis] The central performance claims rest on the assumption that the redesigned three-party data interaction and verification steps preserve the original tripartite Bell inequality and the associated conditional min-entropy bound used in the basic protocol. The manuscript does not provide an explicit re-derivation or verification that the new acceptance criteria do not introduce unaccounted correlations with the raw key bits. Without this, the reported key-rate curves cannot be considered device-independent. (Security analysis section; compare to the entropy estimation formula in the basic protocol.)
  2. [Numerical results] Table or figure presenting the numerical results (e.g., the fiber-channel distance and noise-tolerance curves): the reported improvements are obtained under specific channel-loss and noise models. The text should state whether these parameters were fixed from standard models before optimization or selected to emphasize the advantage-distillation gain; otherwise the quantitative claims risk circularity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Protocol description] Clarify the notation for the three-party acceptance probability after advantage distillation; the current description leaves ambiguous how the verification threshold is chosen relative to the original protocol.
  2. [Discussion] Add a short paragraph comparing the obtained noise tolerance (28.49%) with existing two-party DI-QKD results under advantage distillation to place the three-party extension in context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Security analysis] The central performance claims rest on the assumption that the redesigned three-party data interaction and verification steps preserve the original tripartite Bell inequality and the associated conditional min-entropy bound used in the basic protocol. The manuscript does not provide an explicit re-derivation or verification that the new acceptance criteria do not introduce unaccounted correlations with the raw key bits. Without this, the reported key-rate curves cannot be considered device-independent. (Security analysis section; compare to the entropy estimation formula in the basic protocol.)

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification strengthens the security argument. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated paragraph in the Security Analysis section that re-derives the tripartite Bell inequality for the updated data-interaction and verification steps. The acceptance criteria are constructed so that the test subset remains statistically independent of the raw key bits in the same manner as the original protocol; consequently the conditional min-entropy bound carries over unchanged. This addition removes any ambiguity regarding device-independent security of the reported key-rate curves. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results] Table or figure presenting the numerical results (e.g., the fiber-channel distance and noise-tolerance curves): the reported improvements are obtained under specific channel-loss and noise models. The text should state whether these parameters were fixed from standard models before optimization or selected to emphasize the advantage-distillation gain; otherwise the quantitative claims risk circularity.

    Authors: The fiber-loss coefficient, detector efficiency, and dark-count rate are taken from standard models in the quantum-communication literature and were fixed before any optimization of the advantage-distillation thresholds. We have revised the Numerical Results section to state this explicitly, cite the relevant references, and note that the same fixed parameters are used for both the original and advantage-distilled protocols. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; simulations are direct computations under standard models.

full rationale

The paper describes an extension of advantage distillation to three-party DI-QSS via redesigned interaction and verification steps, then applies the technique to a basic protocol plus three existing improvement strategies. Performance claims (e.g., distance 0.16 km to 1.85 km, noise tolerance 10.17% to 28.49%) are obtained from explicit numerical simulations over fiber channels using standard loss and noise models. These are forward computations of key rates from chosen parameters rather than quantities fitted to the reported gains or redefined by construction. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that collapse the central result to unverified prior assumptions appear in the derivation. The security reduction is asserted to carry over from the basic protocol, but the reported metrics remain externally falsifiable against standard channel models and do not reduce tautologically to the protocol description itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum-channel models, device-independent security definitions from prior DI-QKD literature, and simulation parameters for fiber loss and noise; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • global detection efficiency threshold
    The paper reports a reduced threshold but does not specify its exact fitted value or how it was chosen from experimental constraints.
  • noise preprocessing parameters
    Parameters for the noise preprocessing strategy are selected to optimize the reported gains.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The three-party Bell inequality and security proof remain valid after the advantage-distillation redesign.
    Invoked when claiming the protocol stays device-independent.
  • domain assumption Fiber channel loss and noise follow the standard exponential model used in QKD simulations.
    Used to generate the numerical distance and tolerance figures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1333 out tokens · 38839 ms · 2026-05-22T06:50:21.949990+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

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Zhou, B.-W

    L. Zhou, B.-W. Xu, W. Zhong, and Y.-B. Sheng, Physical Review Applied19, 014036 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Harney and S

    C. Harney and S. Pirandola, PRX Quantum3, 010311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Senthoor and P

    K. Senthoor and P. K. Sarvepalli, Physical Review A100, 052313 (2019). 12

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    J.-W. Ying, P. Zhao, W. Zhong, M.-M. Du, X.-Y. Li, S.- T. Shen, A.-L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and Y.-B. Sheng, Physical Review Applied22, 024040 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Zhang, D.-S

    W. Zhang, D.-S. Ding, Y.-B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B.-S. Shi, and G.-C. Guo, Physical review letters118, 220501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Xiao, H.-L

    Y.-R. Xiao, H.-L. Yin, W.-J. Hua, X.-Y. Cao, and Z.-B. Chen, Physical Review Letters135, 150801 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Sheridan, T

    L. Sheridan, T. P. Le, and V. Scarani, New Journal of Physics12, 123019 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    A. K. Ekert, B. Huttner, G. M. Palma, and A. Peres, Physical Review A50, 1047 (1994)

    work page 1994

  9. [9]

    C. Lee, I. Sohn, and W. Lee, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management19, 2689 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    A. K. Ekert, Physical review letters67, 661 (1991)

    work page 1991

  11. [11]

    Lo Piparo, M

    N. Lo Piparo, M. Razavi, and W. J. Munro, Physical Review A95, 022338 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Reviews of modern physics92, 025002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Wang, Z.-Q

    S. Wang, Z.-Q. Yin, D.-Y. He, W. Chen, R.-Q. Wang, P. Ye, Y. Zhou, G.-J. Fan-Yuan, F.-X. Wang, W. Chen, et al., Nature photonics16, 154 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Zhang, T

    W. Zhang, T. van Leent, K. Redeker, R. Garthoff, R. Schwonnek, F. Fertig, S. Eppelt, W. Rosenfeld, V. Scarani, C. C.-W. Lim,et al., Nature607, 687 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Zapatero, T

    V. Zapatero, T. van Leent, R. Arnon-Friedman, W.- Z. Liu, Q. Zhang, H. Weinfurter, and M. Curty, npj quantum information9, 10 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V. Buˇ zek, and A. Berthiaume, Physical Re- view A59, 1829 (1999)

    work page 1999

  17. [17]

    Guo and G.-C

    G.-P. Guo and G.-C. Guo, Physics Letters A310, 247 (2003)

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Liao, C.-W

    C.-H. Liao, C.-W. Yang, and T. Hwang, Quantum infor- mation processing13, 1907 (2014)

    work page 1907

  19. [19]

    Fu, H.-L

    Y. Fu, H.-L. Yin, T.-Y. Chen, and Z.-B. Chen, Physical review letters114, 090501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Zhang, W

    Q. Zhang, W. Zhong, M.-M. Du, S.-T. Shen, X.-Y. Li, A.-L. Zhang, L. Zhou, and Y.-B. Sheng, Physical Review A110, 042403 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Zhang, J.-W

    Q. Zhang, J.-W. Ying, Z.-J. Wang, W. Zhong, M.-M. Du, S.-T. Shen, X.-Y. Li, A.-L. Zhang, S.-P. Gu, X.-F. Wang, et al., Physical Review A111, 012603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Popescu and D

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Foundations of Physics24, 379 (1994)

    work page 1994

  23. [23]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Reviews of modern physics86, 419 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Improved Data Post-Processing in Quantum Key Distribution and Application to Loss Thresholds in Device Independent QKD

    X. Ma and N. L¨ utkenhaus, arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.1203 10.48550/arXiv.1109.1203 (2011)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1109.1203 2011

  25. [25]

    E. Y.-Z. Tan, C. C.-W. Lim, and R. Renner, Physical Review Letters124, 020502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    M. Ho, P. Sekatski, E.-Z. Tan, R. Renner, J.-D. Bancal, and N. Sangouard, Physical review letters124, 230502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Woodhead, A

    E. Woodhead, A. Ac´ ın, and S. Pironio, Quantum5, 443 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Sekatski, J.-D

    P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, X. Valcarce, E. Y.-Z. Tan, R. Renner, and N. Sangouard, Quantum5, 444 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    J. R. Gonzales-Ureta, A. Predojevi´ c, and A. Cabello, Physical Review A103, 052436 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Brown, H

    P. Brown, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, Nature communica- tions12, 575 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Brown, H

    P. Brown, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, Quantum8, 1445 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Schwonnek, K

    R. Schwonnek, K. T. Goh, I. W. Primaatmaja, E. Y.- Z. Tan, R. Wolf, V. Scarani, and C. C.-W. Lim, Nature communications12, 2880 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    X. Liu, D. Luo, Z. Zhang, and K. Wei, Physical Review A107, 062613 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Zhu, C.-M

    J.-R. Zhu, C.-M. Zhang, R. Wang, and H.-W. Li, Optics Letters48, 542 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Z. Du, G. Liu, X. Zhang, and X. Ma, Quantum Science and Technology10, 015050 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Stasiuk, N

    M. Stasiuk, N. L¨ utkenhaus, and E. Y.-Z. Tan, Physical Review A111, 022631 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Wang, C.-M

    R.-Q. Wang, C.-M. Zhang, Z.-Q. Yin, H.-W. Li, S. Wang, W. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and Z.-F. Han, New Journal of Physics24, 073049 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    W. O. Krawec, Discover Networks1, 5 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Svetlichny, Physical Review D35, 3066 (1987)

    G. Svetlichny, Physical Review D35, 3066 (1987)

    work page 1987

  40. [40]

    N. D. Mermin, Physical Review Letters65, 1838 (1990)

    work page 1990

  41. [41]

    Bancal, N

    J.-D. Bancal, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, and Y.-C. Liang, Physical review letters106, 020405 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Devetak and A

    I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proceedings of the Royal So- ciety A: Mathematical, Physical and engineering sciences 461, 207 (2005)

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Augusiak and P

    R. Augusiak and P. Horodecki, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 042307 (2009)

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Zhang, L

    W. Zhang, L. You, H. Li, J. Huang, C. Lv, L. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Wu, Z. Wang, and X. Xie, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy60, 120314 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    D. V. Reddy, R. R. Nerem, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and V. B. Verma, Optica7, 1649 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Hao, Q.-Y

    H. Hao, Q.-Y. Zhao, Y.-H. Huang, J. Deng, F. Yang, S.- Y. Ru, Z. Liu, C. Wan, H. Liu, Z.-J. Li,et al., Light: Science & Applications13, 25 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Masini, S

    M. Masini, S. Pironio, and E. Woodhead, Quantum6, 843 (2022)

    work page 2022