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

Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol’ ”

Giuseppe Vallone, Giovanni Di Giuseppe, Paolo Mataloni, Paolo Villoresi, Marco Lucamarini

Published Jun 27, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Our paper [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)], setting forth a previously unknown connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality, has recently received a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066303 (2016)] about a possible flaw in its potential device-independent (DI) implementation. We point the authors of the Comment to prior works showing that what they assume to be specific to our protocol's DI implementation is actually a standard assumption in DI quantum key distribution. Therefore there is no need to revise any of the conclusions drawn in Lucamarini et al. [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)].

DOI
10.1103/physreva.93.066304

Related papers

Comment on “Device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol”

Yong-Gang Tan, Qing-yu Cai

Recently, Lucamarini et al. proposed the device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)]. By exploiting the results in device-independent quantum key distribution with the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality, they claimed the security of their protocol. We will show, however, the way of encoding and the process for the latent eavesdropper to obtain the illegal information are different in these two protocols. Thus the security of their protocol cannot rely on Bell's theorem only.

Physical Review A•Jun 27, 2016•2 citations

Device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol

Marco Lucamarini, Giuseppe Vallone, Ilaria Gianani +2 more

In this paper we set forth a connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality. This allows us to extend the usual prepare-and-measure protocol to its entanglement-based formulation. We exploit a recent result in the framework of device-independent quantum key distribution to provide a simple, model-independent, security proof for the protocol. The minimum efficiency required for a practical implementation of the scheme can be as low as 75% in the completely untrusted case and 50% in case the sender is assumed to be trusted.

arXiv:1111.1997•Physical Review A•Sep 18, 2012•23 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fully device-independent conference key agreement' ”

Jérémy Ribeiro, Gláucia Murta, Stephanie Wehner

In this Reply we correct a mistake that we made in the correctness proofs of our protocol. Specifically, the Bell inequality we used ensures security but does not allow us to produce a key. In this Reply we explain and correct this mistake by adjusting the Bell inequality we used in the proof. Incidentally, this correction leads to slightly better asymptotic key rates. Importantly, none of the conclusions of the article are affected.

Physical Review A•Aug 26, 2019•18 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum key distribution for d -level systems with generalized Bell states’ ”

Vahid Karimipour

In the preceding Comment it has been claimed that an entangled-based quantum key distribution protocol proposed by Zhang, Li, and Gao [Phys. Rev. A 64, 024302 (2001)] and its generalization to $d$-level systems by Karimipour, Bahraminasab, and Bagherinezhad [Phys. Rev. A 65, 052331 (2002)] are insecure against an attack devised by the authors of the Comment. We invalidate the arguments of the Comment and show that the protocols are still secure.

arXiv:quant-ph/0509189•Physical Review A•Dec 20, 2005•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Security proof for cryptographic protocols based only on the monogamy of Bell's inequality violations'”

Marcin Pawłowski

In this reply, I address the comment by Hwang and Gittsovich on my paper [Phys. Rev. A 82, 032313 (2010)]. The authors of the Comment pointed out that I used an implicit assumption that the alphabet of the eavesdropper was binary. They claimed that such an assumption was unrealistic. Here, I show that, even without this assumption, the main result of my paper still holds.

arXiv:1205.6672•Physical Review A•Apr 17, 2012•6 citations

Comment on “Fully device-independent conference key agreement”

Timo Holz, Daniel Miller, Hermann Kampermann +1 more

In this Comment we discuss the device-independent conference key agreement (DICKA) protocol [Phys. Rev. A 97, 022307 (2018)]. We show that the suggested honest implementation fails, because perfectly correlated measurement results and the required Bell-inequality violation cannot be achieved simultaneously, in contradiction to what is claimed. We further show via semidefinite programming that there cannot exist any suitable honest implementation in the tripartite setting, rendering the DICKA protocol incomplete.

arXiv:1906.01710•Physical Review A•Aug 26, 2019•11 citations
Our paper [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)], setting forth a previously unknown connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality, has recently received a Comment [Phys. Rev. A 93, 066303 (2016)] about a possible flaw in its potential device-independent (DI) implementation. We point the authors of the Comment to prior works showing that what they assume to be specific to our protocol's DI implementation is actually a standard assumption in DI quantum key distribution. Therefore there is no need to revise any of the conclusions drawn in Lucamarini et al. [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)].
Recently, Lucamarini et al. proposed the device-independent entanglement-based Bennett 1992 protocol [Phys. Rev. A 86, 032325 (2012)]. By exploiting the results in device-independent quantum key distribution with the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality, they claimed the security of their protocol. We will show, however, the way of encoding and the process for the latent eavesdropper to obtain the illegal information are different in these two protocols. Thus the security of their protocol cannot rely on Bell's theorem only.
In this paper we set forth a connection between the Bennett 1992 protocol and a Bell inequality. This allows us to extend the usual prepare-and-measure protocol to its entanglement-based formulation. We exploit a recent result in the framework of device-independent quantum key distribution to provide a simple, model-independent, security proof for the protocol. The minimum efficiency required for a practical implementation of the scheme can be as low as 75% in the completely untrusted case and 50% in case the sender is assumed to be trusted.
In the preceding Comment it has been claimed that an entangled-based quantum key distribution protocol proposed by Zhang, Li, and Gao [Phys. Rev. A 64, 024302 (2001)] and its generalization to ddd-level systems by Karimipour, Bahraminasab, and Bagherinezhad [Phys. Rev. A 65, 052331 (2002)] are insecure against an attack devised by the authors of the Comment. We invalidate the arguments of the Comment and show that the protocols are still secure.
In this Comment we discuss the device-independent conference key agreement (DICKA) protocol [Phys. Rev. A 97, 022307 (2018)]. We show that the suggested honest implementation fails, because perfectly correlated measurement results and the required Bell-inequality violation cannot be achieved simultaneously, in contradiction to what is claimed. We further show via semidefinite programming that there cannot exist any suitable honest implementation in the tripartite setting, rendering the DICKA protocol incomplete.