Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0808.2040

Impossibility Proofs and Quantum Bit Commitment

Horace P. Yuen

Published Aug 14, 2008• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The nature and scope of various impossibility proofs as they relate to real-world situations are discussed. In particular, it is shown in words without technical symbols how secure quantum bit commitment protocols may be obtained with testing that exploits the multiple possibilities of cheating entanglement formation.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0808.2040

Related papers

Unconditionally Secure Quantum Bit Commitment

Horace P. Yuen

The ``impossibility proof'' on unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is examined. It is shown that the possibility of juxtaposing quantum and classical randomness has not been properly taken into account. A specific protocol that beats entanglement cheating with entanglement is proven to be unconditionally secure.

arXiv:quant-ph/0505132•May 18, 2005•6 citations

Quantum bit commitment and unconditional security

Horace P. Yuen

It is generally believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible, due to widespread acceptance of an impossibility proof that utilizes quantum entaglement cheating. In this paper, we delineate how the impossibiliy proof formulation misses various types of quantum bit commitment protocols based on two-way quantum communications. We point out some of the gaps in the impossibility proof reasoning, and present corresponding counterexamples. Four different types of bit commitment protocols are constructed with several new protocol techniques. A specific Type 4 protocol is described and proved unconditionally secure. Security analysis of a Type 1 protocol and a Type 2 protocol are also sketched. The security of Type 3 protocols is as yet open. A development of quantum statistical decision theory and quantum games is needed to provie a complete security analysis of many such protocols.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207089•Jul 16, 2002•4 citations

Unconditionally Secure Quantum Bit Commitment Is Possible

Horace P. Yuen

Bit commitment involves the submission of evidence from one party to another so that the evidence can be used to confirm a later revealed bit value by the first party, while the second party cannot determine the bit value from the evidence alone. It is widely believed that secure quantum bit commitment is impossible due to quantum entanglement cheating, which is codified in a general impossibility theorem. In this paper, the scope of this general impossibility proof is extended and analyzed, and gaps are found. Three specific protocols are described for which the entanglement cheating as given in the impossibility proof fails to work. One of these protocols, QBC2, is proved to be unconditionally secure.

arXiv:quant-ph/0006109•Jun 23, 2000•14 citations

How unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is possible

Horace P. Yuen

Bit commitment involves the submission of evidence from one party to another so that the evidence can be used to confirm a later revealed bit value by the first party, while the second party cannot determine the bit value from the evidence alone. It is widely believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible due to quantum entanglement cheating, which is codified in a general impossibility theorem. In this paper, the scope of this general impossibility proof is analyzed, and gaps are found. Two variants of a bit commitment scheme utilizing anonymous quantum states and decoy states are presented. In the first variant, the exact verifying measurement is independent of the committed bit value, thus the second party can make it before the first party opens, making possible an unconditional security proof based on no-cloning. In the second variant, the impossibility proof fails because quantum entanglement purification of a mixed state does not render the protocol determinate. Whether impossibility holds in this or similar protocols is an open question, although preliminary results already show that the impossibility proof cannot work as it stands.

arXiv:quant-ph/0109055•Sep 13, 2001•0 citations

How to Build Unconditionally Secure Quantum Bit Commitment Protocols

Horace P. Yuen

The ``impossibility proof'' on unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is critically analyzed. Many possibilities for obtaining a secure bit commitment protocol are indicated, purely on the basis of two-way quantum communications, which are not covered by the impossibility proof formulation. They are classified under six new types of protocols, with security proofs for specific examples on four types. Reasons for some previously failed attempts at obtaining secure protocols are also indicated.

arXiv:quant-ph/0305144•May 23, 2003•6 citations

An Information-Theoretic Perspective on the Quantum Bit Commitment Impossibility Theorem

Marius Nagy, Naya Nagy

This paper proposes a different approach to pinpoint the causes for which an unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment protocol cannot be realized, beyond the technical details on which the proof of Mayers' no-go theorem is constructed. We have adopted the tools of quantum entropy analysis to investigate the conditions under which the security properties of quantum bit commitment can be circumvented. Our study has revealed that cheating the binding property requires the quantum system acting as the safe to harbor the same amount of uncertainty with respect to both observers (Alice and Bob) as well as the use of entanglement. Our analysis also suggests that the ability to cheat one of the two fundamental properties of bit commitment by any of the two participants depends on how much information is leaked from one side of the system to the other and how much remains hidden from the other participant.

Entropy•Mar 13, 2018•7 citations
It is generally believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible, due to widespread acceptance of an impossibility proof that utilizes quantum entaglement cheating. In this paper, we delineate how the impossibiliy proof formulation misses various types of quantum bit commitment protocols based on two-way quantum communications. We point out some of the gaps in the impossibility proof reasoning, and present corresponding counterexamples. Four different types of bit commitment protocols are constructed with several new protocol techniques. A specific Type 4 protocol is described and proved unconditionally secure. Security analysis of a Type 1 protocol and a Type 2 protocol are also sketched. The security of Type 3 protocols is as yet open. A development of quantum statistical decision theory and quantum games is needed to provie a complete security analysis of many such protocols.
Bit commitment involves the submission of evidence from one party to another so that the evidence can be used to confirm a later revealed bit value by the first party, while the second party cannot determine the bit value from the evidence alone. It is widely believed that secure quantum bit commitment is impossible due to quantum entanglement cheating, which is codified in a general impossibility theorem. In this paper, the scope of this general impossibility proof is extended and analyzed, and gaps are found. Three specific protocols are described for which the entanglement cheating as given in the impossibility proof fails to work. One of these protocols, QBC2, is proved to be unconditionally secure.
Bit commitment involves the submission of evidence from one party to another so that the evidence can be used to confirm a later revealed bit value by the first party, while the second party cannot determine the bit value from the evidence alone. It is widely believed that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible due to quantum entanglement cheating, which is codified in a general impossibility theorem. In this paper, the scope of this general impossibility proof is analyzed, and gaps are found. Two variants of a bit commitment scheme utilizing anonymous quantum states and decoy states are presented. In the first variant, the exact verifying measurement is independent of the committed bit value, thus the second party can make it before the first party opens, making possible an unconditional security proof based on no-cloning. In the second variant, the impossibility proof fails because quantum entanglement purification of a mixed state does not render the protocol determinate. Whether impossibility holds in this or similar protocols is an open question, although preliminary results already show that the impossibility proof cannot work as it stands.
The ``impossibility proof'' on unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is critically analyzed. Many possibilities for obtaining a secure bit commitment protocol are indicated, purely on the basis of two-way quantum communications, which are not covered by the impossibility proof formulation. They are classified under six new types of protocols, with security proofs for specific examples on four types. Reasons for some previously failed attempts at obtaining secure protocols are also indicated.
This paper proposes a different approach to pinpoint the causes for which an unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment protocol cannot be realized, beyond the technical details on which the proof of Mayers' no-go theorem is constructed. We have adopted the tools of quantum entropy analysis to investigate the conditions under which the security properties of quantum bit commitment can be circumvented. Our study has revealed that cheating the binding property requires the quantum system acting as the safe to harbor the same amount of uncertainty with respect to both observers (Alice and Bob) as well as the use of entanglement. Our analysis also suggests that the ability to cheat one of the two fundamental properties of bit commitment by any of the two participants depends on how much information is leaked from one side of the system to the other and how much remains hidden from the other participant.