pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.08530 · v3 · submitted 2024-12-11 · 🪐 quant-ph

Ensemble-Based Quantum Token Protocol Benchmarked on IBM Quantum Processors

Lucas Tsunaki , Bernd Bauerhenne , Malwin Xibraku , Martin E. Garcia , Kilian Singer , Boris Naydenov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 07:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum tokensensemble protocolIBM quantum processorsforgery probabilityquantum authenticationquantum securityunclonable stateshardware benchmark
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ensemble quantum tokens achieve forgery acceptance probability below 10^{-22} while maintaining genuine acceptance above 0.999 on IBM processors.

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

The paper proposes an ensemble-based quantum token protocol for authentication, modeled using a simple quantum mechanical observable. It benchmarks the protocol on five IBM quantum processors and analyzes a general hacker attack where the attacker measures the token to forge a fake one. The experimental results show that the bank can reject forged coins with extremely low error probability while reliably accepting its own coins. This demonstrates the protocol's security in a hardware-agnostic way, suggesting viability for various quantum systems.

Core claim

The ensemble-based quantum token protocol, described through a quantum mechanical observable model, was tested on IBM quantum processors, where the probability of erroneously accepting a forged coin made of multiple tokens reaches below 10^{-22}, and the probability of accepting the bank's own coin exceeds 0.999, confirming practical security against measurement-based forgery attacks.

What carries the argument

The ensemble-based quantum token protocol modeled by a quantum mechanical observable, which allows multiple tokens to reduce forgery success while preserving high genuine acceptance rates.

Load-bearing premise

The simple quantum-mechanical-observable model of the ensemble protocol, together with the analyzed hacker measurement attack, accurately represents realistic forgery attempts and hardware noise on IBM processors.

What would settle it

An experiment showing the bank's acceptance probability for a forged coin above 10^{-22} or for its own coin below 0.999 under the described attack and model would falsify the central security claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08530 by Bernd Bauerhenne, Boris Naydenov, Kilian Singer, Lucas Tsunaki, Malwin Xibraku, Martin E. Garcia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Proposed ensemble-based quantum token protocol and the diamond quantum coin device. An issuing agent (e.g. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. General hacker attack scenario considered in this work. Firstly, the attacker attempts to gain information about the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Normalized expectation values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: By fitting ⟨Nˆ⟩ with Eq. 1 and σN with Eq. 2, we obtain the values of the normalized contrast c and σexp (Tab. I). All five quantum processing units show a maximum of σN at θ = π/2, resulting from a strong contribution from quantum projection noise to the total uncertainty. In Kyiv and Kyoto, a large contribution from shot noise is also observed, given by a higher uncertainty at θ = π over θ = 0. While in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Self acceptance fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Forged tokens distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Solution for forger angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Angle dependence of the self-acceptance fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Angle dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum tokens envision to store unclonable quantum states in a physical device, with the goal of being used for personal authentication protocols, as required by banks. Still, the experimental realization of such devices faces many technical challenges, which can be partially mitigated using ensembles instead of single qubits. In this work, we thus propose an ensemble-based quantum token protocol, describing it through a simple yet general model based on a quantum mechanical observable. The protocol is benchmarked on five IBM quantum processors and a general hacker attack scenario is analyzed, in which the attacker attempts to read the bank token and forge a fake one, based on the information gained from this measurement. We experimentally demonstrate that the probability that the bank erroneously accepts a forged coin composed of multiple tokens can reach values below $10^{-22}$, while the probability that the bank accepts its own coin is above 0.999. The overall security of the protocol is therefore demonstrated within a hardware-agnostic framework, confirming the practical viability of the protocol in arbitrary quantum systems and thus paving the way for future applications with different ensembles of qubits, such as color center defects in solids.

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 proposes an ensemble-based quantum token protocol described via a simple quantum-mechanical observable model. The protocol is benchmarked experimentally on five IBM quantum processors; a measurement-based hacker attack is analyzed in which the attacker reads the token and forges a replacement. The central claims are that the bank accepts its own (genuine) coin with probability above 0.999 while the probability of erroneously accepting a forged multi-token coin can be driven below 10^{-22}, supporting practical viability in a hardware-agnostic framework.

Significance. If the observable model accurately captures both the analyzed attack and the dominant noise channels on IBM hardware, the reported numbers would constitute direct experimental support for quantum-token authentication with forgery probabilities low enough for realistic banking use cases. The work also supplies concrete single-token benchmark data on current processors that could serve as a baseline for future ensemble or defect-based implementations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / security analysis] Abstract and security-analysis section: the forged-coin acceptance probability below 10^{-22} is obtained by substituting experimentally measured single-token observables into the QM model and computing the multi-token case under the measurement attack; no direct multi-token forgery experiment is reported, so the headline number rests entirely on the model being exact for token independence, all relevant IBM noise channels, and the chosen attack.
  2. [Results] Results / experimental section: while genuine-coin acceptance >0.999 can be measured directly, the manuscript provides no tabulated raw counts, error bars, or statistical procedure for combining data across the five processors, making it impossible to verify that the quoted threshold is robust against finite-sample fluctuations or device-to-device variation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model section] The model definition (observable and ensemble size) should be stated with an explicit equation number so that the mapping from measured single-token statistics to the multi-token forgery formula is unambiguous.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for the IBM benchmark plots should include the precise number of shots and the definition of the plotted observable to allow reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the distinction between direct experimental results and model-based extrapolations as well as improve data transparency. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / security analysis] Abstract and security-analysis section: the forged-coin acceptance probability below 10^{-22} is obtained by substituting experimentally measured single-token observables into the QM model and computing the multi-token case under the measurement attack; no direct multi-token forgery experiment is reported, so the headline number rests entirely on the model being exact for token independence, all relevant IBM noise channels, and the chosen attack.

    Authors: We agree that the <10^{-22} forged-coin probability is computed by applying the QM observable model to the experimentally measured single-token values rather than obtained from a direct multi-token forgery experiment. The model exploits the statistical independence of tokens in the ensemble, so the multi-token forgery probability is the product of the per-token probabilities under the measurement attack. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state in the abstract and security-analysis section that this figure is a model extrapolation, and we will add a dedicated paragraph discussing the assumptions of token independence and the model's coverage of dominant IBM noise channels. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / experimental section: while genuine-coin acceptance >0.999 can be measured directly, the manuscript provides no tabulated raw counts, error bars, or statistical procedure for combining data across the five processors, making it impossible to verify that the quoted threshold is robust against finite-sample fluctuations or device-to-device variation.

    Authors: We acknowledge the absence of raw counts, error bars, and the aggregation procedure in the current text. In the revision we will insert a table (or supplementary section) listing the raw measurement counts per processor, the per-device acceptance probabilities with binomial confidence intervals, and the statistical method used to combine the five devices (unweighted average together with the observed standard deviation across devices). This addition will allow direct verification of robustness against sampling fluctuations and device variation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; protocol claims rest on experimental benchmarking and a general QM model

full rationale

The paper defines a protocol via a simple quantum-mechanical-observable model, performs direct measurements of single-token observables on IBM hardware, and uses the model to compute multi-token forgery probabilities under a specified measurement attack. No equations reduce to fitted parameters by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for the central security bounds, and the genuine-coin acceptance probability is directly measurable. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks with no self-definitional or ansatz-smuggling steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the model is described only as simple and general based on a quantum observable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5744 in / 1057 out tokens · 21518 ms · 2026-05-23T07:15:49.646478+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Digital Twin Simulations Toolbox of the Nitrogen-Vacancy Center in Diamond

    quant-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A Python library simulates NV center spin dynamics in diamond with a non-perturbative time-dependent Hamiltonian model that includes realistic pulse constraints and optical initialization/readout to predict fluorescen...

  2. Security Analysis of Ensemble-Based Quantum Token Protocol Under Advanced Attacks

    quant-ph 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Ensemble-based quantum token protocol remains secure against advanced attacks permitting sub-ensemble and individual qubit measurements, as shown by analysis, simulations, and IBM Quantum experiments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. L. Park, The concept of transition in quantum mechan- ics, Foundations of Physics1, 23 (1970)

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    Portmann and R

    C. Portmann and R. Renner, Security in quantum cryp- tography, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 025008 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Pastawski, N

    F. Pastawski, N. Y. Yao, L. Jiang, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac, Unforgeable noise-tolerant quantum tokens, PNAS 109, 16079 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    K. T. T. Singer, C. Popov, and B. Naydenov, Patent de 10 2022 107 528 a1 2023.10.05: Verfahren zum erstellen eines quanten-datentokens (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits, Science 372, 259 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Pfaff, B

    W. Pfaff, B. J. Hensen, H. Bernien, S. B. van Dam, M. S. Blok, T. H. Taminiau, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and R. Hanson, Unconditional quantum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits, Science345, 532 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    R. J. D. Tilley, Color centers, inEncyclopedia of Color Science and Technology, edited by R. Luo (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2014) pp. 1–9

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Pezzagna and J

    S. Pezzagna and J. Meijer, Quantum computer based on color centers in diamond, Applied Physics Reviews 8, 011308 (2021), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0007444/19740523/011308_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0007444/19740523/011308_1_online.pdf 2021

  9. [9]

    Unden, N

    T. Unden, N. Tomek, T. Weggler, F. Frank, P. London, J. Zopes, C. Degen, N. Raatz, J. Meijer, H. Watanabe, K. M. Itoh, M. B. Plenio, B. Naydenov, and F. Jelezko, Co- herent control of solid state nuclear spin nano-ensembles, npj Quantum Information4, 39 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Volkova, J

    K. Volkova, J. Heupel, S. Trofimov, F. Betz, R. Colom, R. W. MacQueen, S. Akhundzada, M. Reginka, A. Ehres- mann, J. P. Reithmaier, S. Burger, C. Popov, and B. Nay- denov, Optical and spin properties of nv center ensembles in diamond nano-pillars, Nanomaterials12(2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    S. A. Momenzadeh, R. J. Stöhr, F. F. de Oliveira, A. Brunner, A. Denisenko, S. Yang, F. Reinhard, and J. Wrachtrup, Nanoengineered diamond waveguide as a robust bright platform for nanomagnetometry using shallow nitrogen vacancy centers, Nano Letters15, 165 (2015)

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Gruber, A

    A. Gruber, A. Dräbenstedt, C. Tietz, L. Fleury, J. Wrachtrup, and C. von Borczyskowski, Scanning confo- cal optical microscopy and magnetic resonance on single defect centers, Science276, 2012 (1997)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Jelezko, T

    F. Jelezko, T. Gaebel, I. Popa, A. Gruber, and J. Wrachtrup, Observation of coherent oscillations in a single electron spin, Physical Review Letters92, 076401 (2004)

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Neumann, J

    P. Neumann, J. Beck, M. Steiner, F. Rempp, H. Fedder, P. R. Hemmer, J. Wrachtrup, and F. Jelezko, Single-shot readout of a single nuclear spin, Science329, 542 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    T. Xie, Z. Zhao, S. Xu, X. Kong, Z. Yang, M. Wang, Y. Wang, F. Shi, and J. Du, 99.92%-fidelity cnot gates in solids by noise filtering, Physical Review Letters130, 030601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Impact of annealing and nanostructuring on properties of nv centers created by different techniques, Diamond and Related Materials154, 112126 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    B. T. Torosov and N. V. Vitanov, Experimental demon- stration of composite pulses on ibm’s quantum computer, Physical Review Applied18, 034062 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    X. Wang, L. S. Bishop, J. Kestner, E. Barnes, K. Sun, and S. Das Sarma, Composite pulses for robust universal control of singlet–triplet qubits, Nature communications 3, 997 (2012)

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Security Analysis of Ensemble-Based Quantum Token Protocol Under Advanced Attacks

    B. Bauerhenne, L. Tsunaki, J. Thieme, B. Naydenov, and K. Singer, Advanced attacks on qubit-ensemble based quantum coins, arXiv2412.20243(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    D. M. Toyli, C. D. Weis, G. D. Fuchs, T. Schenkel, and D. D. Awschalom, Chip-scale nanofabrication of single spins and spin arrays in diamond, Nano Letters10, 3168 (2010)

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    Tsunaki, A

    L. Tsunaki, A. Singh, K. Volkova, S. Trofimov, T. Preg- nolato, T. Schröder, and B. Naydenov, Ambiguous res- onances in multipulse quantum sensing with nitrogen- vacancy centers, Physical Review A111, 022606 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    P. C. Maurer, G. Kucsko, C. Latta, L. Jiang, N. Y. Yao, S. D. Bennett, F. Pastawski, D. Hunger, N. Chisholm, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, J. I. Cirac, and M. D. Lukin, Room-temperature quantum bit memory exceeding one second, Science336, 1283 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Pfender, N

    M. Pfender, N. Aslam, P. Simon, D. Antonov, G. Thiering, S. Burk, F. Fávaro de Oliveira, A. Denisenko, H. Fedder, J. Meijer, J. A. Garrido, A. Gali, T. Teraji, J. Isoya, M. W. Doherty, A. Alkauskas, A. Gallo, A. Grüneis, P. Neumann, and J. Wrachtrup, Nano Letters17, 5931 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Bozzio, A

    M. Bozzio, A. Cavaillès, E. Diamanti, A. Kent, and D. Pitalúa-García, Multiphoton and side-channel attacks in mistrustful quantum cryptography, PRX Quantum2, 030338 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Kwiat, H

    P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. A. Kasevich, Interaction-free measurement, Physical Review Letter74, 4763 (1995)

    work page 1995

  26. [26]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv2405.08810 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. X. Wei, S. Srinivasan, E. Magesan, S. Carnevale, G. Keefe, D. Klaus, O. Dial, and D. McKay, Demonstration of a high-fidelity cnot gate for fixed- frequencytransmonswithengineeredzzsuppression,Phys- ical Review Letters127, 130501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature627, 778 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    J. R. Glick, T. P. Gujarati, A. D. Córcoles, Y. Kim, A. Kandala, J. M. Gambetta, and K. Temme, Covariant quantum kernels for data with group structure, Nature Physics20, 479 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Tsunaki, Quantum token, https://github.com/ lucas-tsunaki/quantum-token(2024)

    L. Tsunaki, Quantum token, https://github.com/ lucas-tsunaki/quantum-token(2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    H. B. Callen and T. A. Welton, Irreversibility and gener- alized noise, Physical Review83, 34 (1951)

    work page 1951

  32. [32]

    Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M

    R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, M. Jarzyna, and J. Kołodyński,Chapter Four - Quantum Limits in Optical Interferometry, edited by E. Wolf, Progress in Optics, Vol. 60 (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 345–435. 16

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, J. M. Gilli- gan, D. J. Heinzen, F. L. Moore, M. G. Raizen, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum projection noise: Population fluctua- tions in two-level systems, Physical Review A47, 3554 (1993)

    work page 1993

  34. [34]

    I. I. Rabi, Space quantization in a gyrating magnetic field, Physical Review51, 652 (1937)

    work page 1937

  35. [35]

    O’hagan and T

    A. O’hagan and T. Leonard, Bayes estimation subject to uncertainty about parameter constraints, Biometrika63, 201 (1976)

    work page 1976

  36. [36]

    Waldherr, Y

    G. Waldherr, Y. Wang, S. Zaiser, M. Jamali, T. Schulte- Herbrüggen, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. F. Isoya, J.and Du, P. Neumann, and J. Wrachtrup, Quantum error correction in a solid-state hybrid spin register, Nature506, 204 (2014)

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Oliveira, R

    I. Oliveira, R. Sarthour Jr, T. Bonagamba, E. Azevedo, and J. C. Freitas,NMR quantum information processing (Elsevier, 2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    Maletinsky, S

    P. Maletinsky, S. Hong, M. S. Grinolds, B. Hausmann, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, M. Loncar, and A. Yacoby, A robust scanning diamond sensor for nanoscale imaging with single nitrogen-vacancy centres, Nature nanotechnol- ogy7, 320 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Dolde, I

    F. Dolde, I. Jakobi, B. Naydenov, N. Zhao, S. Pezzagna, C. Trautmann, J. Meijer, P. Neumann, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Room-temperature entanglement between single defect spins in diamond, Nature Physics9, 139 (2013)

    work page 2013