We show that the Mayers-Shor-Preskill approach and Renner's approach to proving the security of quantum key distribution (QKD) are essentially the same. We begin our analysis by considering a special case of QKD called privacy amplification (PA). PA itself is an important building block of cryptography, both classical and quantum. The standard theoretical tool used for its security proof is called the leftover hashing lemma (LHL). We present a direct connection between the LHL and the coding theorem of a certain quantum error correction code. Then we apply this result to proving the equivalence between the two approaches to proving the security of QKD.
We show that the Mayers-Shor-Preskill approach and Renner's approach to proving the security of quantum key distribution (QKD) are essentially the same. We begin our analysis by considering a special case of QKD called privacy amplification (PA). PA itself is an important building block of cryptography, both classical and quantum. The standard theoretical tool used for its security proof is called the leftover hashing lemma (LHL). We present a direct connection between the LHL and the coding theorem of a certain quantum error correction code. Then we apply this result to proving the equivalence between the two approaches to proving the security of QKD.
In this paper, we introduce the concept of dual universality of hash functions and present its applications to quantum cryptography. We begin by establishing the one-to-one correspondence between a linear function familyFand a code familyC, and thereby defining ε-almost dual universal2hash functions, as a generalization of the conventional universal2hash functions. Then, we show that this generalized (and thus broader) class of hash functions is in fact sufficient for the security of quantum cryptography. This result can be explained in two different formalisms. First, by noting its relation to the δ-biased family introduced by Dodis and Smith, we demonstrate that Renner's two-universal hashing lemma is generalized to our class of hash functions. Next, we prove that the proof technique by Shor and Preskill can be applied to quantum key distribution (QKD) systems that use our generalized class of hash functions for privacy amplification. While Shor-Preskill formalism requires an implementer of a QKD system to explicitly construct a linear code of the Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) type, this result removes the existing difficulty of the construction of a linear code of CSS code by replacing it by the combination of an ordinary classical error correcting code and our proposed hash function. We also show that a similar result applies to the quantum wire-tap channel. Finally, we compare our results in the two formalisms and show that, in typical QKD scenarios, the Shor-Preskill-type argument gives better security bounds in terms of the trace distance and Holevo information than the method based on the δ-biased family.
Privacy amplification (PA) is an indispensable component in classical and quantum cryptography. Error correction (EC) and data compression (DC) algorithms are also indispensable in classical and quantum information theory. We here study quantum algorithms of these three types (PA, EC, and DC) in the one-shot scenario, and show that they all become equivalent if modified properly. As an application of this equivalence, we take previously known security bounds of PA, and translate them into coding theorems for EC and DC which have not been obtained previously. Further, we apply these results to simplify and improve our previous result that the two prevalent approaches to the security proof of quantum key distribution (QKD) are equivalent. We also propose a new method to simplify the security proof of QKD.
The security of quantum key distribution (QKD) is evaluated based on the secrecy of Alice's key and the correctness of the keys held by Alice and Bob. A practical method for ensuring correctness is known as error verification, in which Alice and Bob reveal a portion of their reconciled keys and check whether the revealed information matches. In this paper, we point out that when error verification is performed in a QKD protocol, the definition of secrecy must be revised accordingly. We illustrate the necessity of this revision with a counterexample, showing that neglecting it can lead to an incorrect security claim. In particular, we observe that in the case of the security proof method based on phase error correction, which is one of the mainstream approaches and also known as Koashi's approach, no explicit method has been established to properly incorporate the revised secrecy definition. To resolve this issue, we present a way to translate the phase error correction-based approach into another mainstream approach, called the leftover hash lemma-based approach, also known as Renner's approach, where a solution has already been formulated. As a consequence, security proofs under the phase error correction-based approach automatically remain valid without any change in the secret key length, even if they implicitly consider error verification without revising the secrecy definition.
The amount of secret key that can be obtained from a quantum key distribution run depends on both the physically observed error rates and the mathematical bounds used to certify security. For finite datasets, conservative bounds force users to discard a substantial fraction of the potentially available key. Here we further refine and extend the privacy amplification bounds achievable through the recent leftover hash lemma of Regula and Tomamichel [arXiv:2603.04493] and incorporate them into the security analysis of quantum key distribution based on entropic uncertainty relations. This improves on state-of-the-art key rates in finite-block regimes, certifying more secret key from the same experimental data without changes to the protocol, and outperforming techniques based on entropy accumulation. The results illustrate how sharper mathematical estimates can directly increase the usable output of a quantum communication system.
Privacy amplification (PA) is an indispensable component in classical and quantum cryptography. Error correction (EC) and data compression (DC) algorithms are also indispensable in classical and quantum information theory. We here study these three algorithms (PA, EC, and DC) in the presence of quantum side information, and show that they all become equivalent in the one-shot scenario. As an application of this equivalence, we take previously known security bounds of PA, and translate them into coding theorems for EC and DC which have not been obtained previously. Further, we apply these results to simplify and improve our previous result that the two prevalent approaches to the security proof of quantum key distribution (QKD) are equivalent. We also propose a new method to simplify the security proof of QKD.
The trace distance criterion for security of Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) has been widely perceived that its upperbound is the maximum failure probability in distributing an ideal quantum state that the quantum system shared by legitimate users is decoupled from the quantum system the eavesdropper possesses, therefore the eavesdropper would not obtain any hints on the key shared by the legitimate users no matter how much her measurement is optimal. However, there an arbitrariness in the definition of the trace distance with the decoupled quantum system the eavesdropper possesses as the previous work pointed out, and such an arbitrariness would be confusions in guaranteeing the security of QKD. In this work, from the framework of Bit-Error-Rate (BER) Guarantee discussed also in the previous work, such an arbitrariness is removed from the definition of the trace distance criterion by discussing the similarities and differences between the security of QKD and classical information-theoretic cryptography by Leftover Hash Lemma (LHL). However, in the previous work BER Guarantee was derived under the assumption that the eavesdropper launches the weakest class of attack, so-called “Individual Attacks.” Therefore, it is still unknown whether direct upper-bounding of the term would give tighter upper-bound in general, such as “Collective Attacks” or “Coherent Attacks”, compared to the upper-bound by LHL, as well as the secure-key generation rate. This study also revisits the security proof of QKD given by P. Shor and J. Preskill in 2000.