Multipartite Bound Information Exists and Can Be Activated

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 92, Issue 10, 2004, Pages

  Acin A ^a   Cirac, J I ^b   Masanes, Ll ^c  

^a ICFO INSTITUT DE CIENCIES FOTONIQUES   (Spain)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR QUANTENOPTIK   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING; LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; PROBLEM SOLVING; RANDOM PROCESSES;

CLASSICAL INFORMATION THEORY; ENTANGLEMENT; QUANTUM INFORMATION THEORY;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 2142643721     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.107903     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. U. M. Maurer, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 39, 733 (1993).
2. N. Gisin and S. Wolf, in Proceedings of CRYPTO 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1880 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000), p. 482.
3. D. Collins and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032321 (2002).
4. N. J. Cerf, S. Massar, and S. Schneider, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042309 (2002).
5. D. Bruss, J. I. Cirac, P. Horodecki, F. Hulpke, B. Kraus, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 1399 (2002).
6. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5239 (1998).
7. Recently, a quantum argument was used in I. Kerenidis and R. de Wolf, quant-ph/0208062, for improving the existing bounds on a classical communication complexity problem.
8. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
9. AB.
10. R. Renner and S. Wolf, in Advances in Cryptology, EUROCRYPT 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2656 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003), p. 562.
11. More precisely, given P(A, B, E), if C denotes the communication sent over the public channel for the preparation of N events of (A, B), there exists a channel for Eve mapping N realizations of E into C, where N → ∞.
12. The initial definition of bound information given in Ref. [2] consisted of a probability distribution P(A, B, E) such that 0 = S(A; B ∥ E) < I(A:B ↓ E), where I(A: B ↓ E) is defined in Eq. (2). However, the two definitions are equivalent [R. Renner and S. Wolf (private communication)].
13. U. Maurer and S. Wolf, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 45, 499 (1999).
14. By a tripartite key we mean a common random bit possessed by each of the three honest parties, about which Eve has virtually no information.
15. This is analogous to the scenario of entanglement transformations. There (i) three collaborating parties can transform a shared GHZ state, (|000〉 + |111〉)/ √2, into a singlet, (|00〉 + |11〉)/ √2, between any pair of parties, and (ii), if Alice shares singlets with Bob and Clare, she can locally prepare a GHZ state and teleport two of the three qubits to both of them. These two procedures have the following cryptographic analogs: (i) the sharing of a tripartite secret key allows the honest parties to obtain a bipartite key between any two of them. The third party should simply forget her information. And (ii), if a party - say Alice - shares one secret key with Bob and other with Clare, she can distribute any kind of secret correlations using one-time pad, e.g., a tripartite key.
16. W. Dür and J. I. Cirac, J. Phys. A 34, 6837 (2001).
17. P.W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and A.V. Thapliyal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 107901 (2003).
18. Actually, the honest parties should run this protocol for a sufficiently large N and then apply error correction and privacy amplification techniques for distilling the key with asymptotically finite rate.
19. P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2681 (2001).
20. A. Acín and N. Gisin, quant-ph/0310054.
21. K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, quant-ph/0309110.