Security proof of quantum cryptography based entirely on entanglement purification

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 323021-3230213

  Aschauer, Hans ^a   Briegel, Hans J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS (INFORMATION THEORY); DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; ERROR CORRECTION; SECURITY OF DATA; SPURIOUS SIGNAL NOISE;

ENTANGLEMENT PURIFICATION;

QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY;

EID: 0036756894     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2614 (1996).
2. A.R. Calderbank and P. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1098 (1996).
3. A.M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996).
4. C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996).
5. C.H. Bennett, D.P. DiVincenzo, J.A. Smolin, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
6. D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2818 (1996).
7. C.H. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India (IEEE, New York, 1985), pp. 175-179.
8. A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
9. A.K. Ekert, B. Huttner, G.M. Palina, and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A 50, 1047 (1994).
10. C.A. Fuchs and A. Peres, Phys. Rev, A 53, 2038 (1996).
11. N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 54, 97 (1996).
12. C.A. Fuchs, N. Gisin, R.B. Griffiths, C.-S. Niu, and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1163 (1997).
13. D. Mayers, in Advances in Cryptology, Proceedings of Crypto '96, edited by Neal Koblitz (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996), pp. 343-357; see also e-print quant-ph/9802025.
14. E. Biham, M. Boyer, P.O. Boykin, T. Mor, and V. Roy-chowdhurny, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory. of Computing (ACM Press, New York, 2000), pp. 715-724; e-print quant-ph/9912053.
15. H. Inamori, e-print quant-ph/0008064.
16. P.W. Shor and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 441 (2000).
17. C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N.D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992).
18. H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998).
19. W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 59, 169 (1999).
20. G. Giedke, H.-J. Briegel, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2641 (1999).
21. H.-K. Lo and H.F. Chau, Science 283, 2050 (1999).
22. While it would be interesting to extend our proof to the hash-ing protocol, we note that for noisy local operations the hash-ing protocol, which requires Alice and Bob to apply a large number of controlled-NOT operations in every distillation step, usually performs much worse that the recurrence protocols. The reason for this lies in the fact that the noise (i.e., information loss) introduced with every controlled-NOT operation accumulates and rapidly shatters the potential information that could ideally be gained from the parity measurement.
23. C. Macchiavello, Phys. Lett. A 246, 385 (1998).
24. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. Zurek, e-print quant-ph/9610011.
25. J. Preskill, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454, 365 (1998).
26. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, e-print quant-ph/9608012.
27. A.Y. Kitaev, Russ. Math. Surveys 52, 1191 (1997).
28. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. Zurek, Science 279, 342 (1998).
29. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, e-print quant-ph/9611025.
30. C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
31. M. Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M.A. Home, and A.K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287 (1993).
32. J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3891 (1998).
33. S.J. van Enk, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4293 (1997).
34. S.J. van Enk, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Science 279, 205 (1998).
35. H.-J. Briegel, W.Dür, J. Cirac, and P. Zoller, The Physics of Quantum Information (Springer, New York, 2000).
36. We owe the term private entanglement to Charles Bennett.
37. K. Kraus, Lect. Notes Phys. 190 (1983).
38. We are grateful to C.H. Bennett for pointing out this possibility.
39. R. Raussendorf and H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
40. B.-G. Englert, Z. Naturforsch., A: Phys. Sci. 54, 11 (1999).
41. J.I. Cirac and N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 229, 1 (1997).
42. This will prevent Eve from making use of any possibly prearranged order of the pairs, which Alice and Bob are meant to follow when performing the distillation process.
43. While, strictly speaking, this equality holds only for N → ∞, the subsequent arguments also hold for the exact but more complicated form of Eq. (16) for finite N.