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

Linking Classical and Quantum Key Agreement: Is There "Bound Information"?

Nicolas Gisin, Stefan Wolf

Published May 11, 2000• 6 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Abstract. After carrying out a protocol for quantum key agreement over a noisy quantum channel, the parties Alice and Bob must process the raw key in order to end up with identical keys about which the adversary has virtually no information. In principle, both classical and quantum protocols can be used for this processing. It is a natural question which type of protocols is more powerful. We show that the limits of tolerable noise are identical for classical and quantum protocols in many cases. More specifically, we prove that a quantum state between two parties is entangled if and only if the classical random variables resulting from optimal measurements provide some mutual classical information between the parties. In addition, we present evidence which strongly suggests that the potentials of classical and of quantum protocols are equal in every situation. An important consequence, in the purely classical regime, of such a correspondence would be the existence of a classical counterpart of so-called bound entanglement, namely “bound information” that cannot be used for generating a secret key by any protocol. This stands in sharp contrast to what was previously believed. Keywords. Secret-key agreement, intrinsic information, secret-key rate, quantum privacy amplification, purification, entanglement. 1

Related papers

Linking Classical and Quantum Key Agreement: Is There "Bound Information"?

Nicolas Gisin, Stefan Wolf

After carrying out a protocol for quantum key agreement over a noisy quantum channel, the parties Alice and Bob must process the raw key in order to end up with identical keys about which the adversary has virtually no information. In principle, both classical and quantum protocols can be used for this processing. It is a natural question which type of protocols is more powerful. We prove for general states but under the assumption of incoherent eavesdropping that Alice and Bob share some so-called intrinsic information in their classical random variables, resulting from optimal measurements, if and only if the parties' quantum systems are entangled. In addition, we provide evidence that the potentials of classical and of quantum protocols are equal in every situation. Consequently, many techniques and results from quantum information theory directly apply to problems in classical information theory, and vice versa. For instance, it was previously believed that two parties can carry out unconditionally secure key agreement as long as they share some intrinsic information in the adversary's view. The analysis of this purely classical problem from the quantum information-theoretic viewpoint shows that this is true in the binary case, but false in general. More explicitly, bound entanglement, i.e., entanglement that cannot be purified by any quantum protocol, has a classical counterpart. This "bound intrinsic information" cannot be distilled to a secret key by any classical protocol. As another application we propose a measure for entanglement based on classical information-theoretic quantities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0005042•May 11, 2000•3 citations

Bound Information: The Classical Analog to Bound Quantum Entanglemen

Nicolas Gisin, Renato Renner, Stefan Wolf

It was recently pointed out that there is a close connection between information-theoretic key agreement and quantum entanglement purification. This suggests that the concept of bound entanglement (entanglement which cannot be purified) has a classical counterpart: bound information, which cannot be used to generate a secret key by any protocol. We analyse a probability distribution which results when a specific bound entangled quantum state is measured. We show strong evidence for the fact that the corresponding mutual information is indeed bound. The probable existence of such information stands in contrast to previous beliefs in classical information theory. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Basel eBooks•Jan 1, 2001•7 citations

Quantum Cryptography on Noisy Channels: Quantum versus Classical Key-Agreement Protocols

Nicolas Gisin, Stefan Wolf

When the 4-state or the 6-state protocol of quantum cryptography is carried out on a noisy quantum channel, then the raw key has to be processed to reduce the information of a spy down to an arbitrarily low value, providing Alice and Bob with a secret key. In principle, quantum algorithms as well as classical algorithms can be used for this processing. A natural question is: Up to which error rate on the raw key is a secret-key agreement at all possible? Under the assumption of incoherent eavesdropping, we find that the quantum and classical limits are precisely the same: As long as Alice and Bob share some entanglement, both quantum and classical protocols provide secret keys.

arXiv:quant-ph/9902048•Physical Review Letters•Nov 15, 1999•67 citations

Bound Entangled States with a Private Key and their Classical Counterpart

Māris Ozols, Graeme Smith, John A. Smolin

Entanglement is a fundamental resource for quantum information processing. In its pure form, it allows quantum teleportation and sharing classical secrets. Realistic quantum states are noisy and their usefulness is only partially understood. Bound-entangled states are central to this question--they have no distillable entanglement, yet sometimes still have a private classical key. We present a construction of bound-entangled states with a private key based on classical probability distributions. From this emerge states possessing a new classical analogue of bound entanglement, distinct from the long-sought bound information. We also find states of smaller dimensions and higher key rates than previously known. Our construction has implications for classical cryptography: we show that existing protocols are insufficient for extracting private key from our distributions due to their "bound-entangled" nature. We propose a simple extension of existing protocols that can extract a key from them.

arXiv:1305.0848•Physical Review Letters•Mar 18, 2014•25 citations

Private Classical Communication

Mark M. Wilde

We have now seen in Chapters 20–22 how Alice can communicate classical or quantum information to Bob, perhaps even with the help of shared entanglement. One might argue that these communication tasks are the most fundamental tasks in quantum Shannon theory, given that they have furthered our understanding of the nature of information transmission over quantum channels. However, when discussing the communication of classical information, we made no stipulation as to whether this classical information should be public, so that any third party might have partial or full access to it, or private, so that no third party has access. This chapter establishes the private classical capacity theorem, which gives the maximum rate at which Alice can communicate classical information privately to Bob without anyone else in the universe knowing what she sent to him. A variation of the information-processing task corresponding to this theorem was one of the earliest studied in quantum information theory, with the Bennett– Brassard-84 quantum key distribution protocol being the first proposed protocol for exploiting quantum mechanics to establish a shared secret key between two parties. The private classical capacity theorem is important for quantum key distribution because it establishes the maximum rate at which two parties can generate a shared secret key. Another equally important, but less obvious utility of private classical communication is in establishing a protocol for quantum communication at the coherent information rate. Section 22.2 demonstrated a somewhat roundabout way of arriving at the conclusion that it is possible to communicate quantum information reliably at the coherent information rate—recall that we “coherified” the entanglement-assisted classical capacity theorem and then exploited the coherent communication identity and catalytic use of entanglement. Establishing achievability of the coherent information rate via private classical coding is another way of arriving at the same result, with the added benefit that the resulting protocol does not require the catalytic use of entanglement. The intuition for quantum communication via privacy arises from the nocloning theorem. Suppose that Alice is able to communicate private classical messages to Bob, so that the channel's environment (Eve) is not able to distinguish which message Alice is transmitting to Bob.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 2, 2016•2 citations

Information-theoretic security proof for quantum-key-distribution protocols

Renato Renner, Nicolas Gisin, Barbara Kraus

We present a technique for proving the security of quantum-key-distribution (QKD) protocols. It is based on direct information-theoretic arguments and thus also applies if no equivalent entanglement purification scheme can be found. Using this technique, we investigate a general class of QKD protocols with one-way classical post-processing. We show that, in order to analyze the full security of these protocols, it suffices to consider collective attacks. Indeed, we give new lower and upper bounds on the secret-key rate which only involve entropies of two-qubit density operators and which are thus easy to compute. As an illustration of our results, we analyze the Bennett-Brassard 1984, the six-state, and the Bennett 1992 protocols with one-way error correction and privacy amplification. Surprisingly, the performance of these protocols is increased if one of the parties adds noise to the measurement data before the error correction. In particular, this additional noise makes the protocols more robust against noise in the quantum channel.

arXiv:quant-ph/0502064•Physical Review A•Jul 25, 2005•521 citations
Abstract. After carrying out a protocol for quantum key agreement over a noisy quantum channel, the parties Alice and Bob must process the raw key in order to end up with identical keys about which the adversary has virtually no information. In principle, both classical and quantum protocols can be used for this processing. It is a natural question which type of protocols is more powerful. We show that the limits of tolerable noise are identical for classical and quantum protocols in many cases. More specifically, we prove that a quantum state between two parties is entangled if and only if the classical random variables resulting from optimal measurements provide some mutual classical information between the parties. In addition, we present evidence which strongly suggests that the potentials of classical and of quantum protocols are equal in every situation. An important consequence, in the purely classical regime, of such a correspondence would be the existence of a classical counterpart of so-called bound entanglement, namely “bound information” that cannot be used for generating a secret key by any protocol. This stands in sharp contrast to what was previously believed. Keywords. Secret-key agreement, intrinsic information, secret-key rate, quantum privacy amplification, purification, entanglement. 1
After carrying out a protocol for quantum key agreement over a noisy quantum channel, the parties Alice and Bob must process the raw key in order to end up with identical keys about which the adversary has virtually no information. In principle, both classical and quantum protocols can be used for this processing. It is a natural question which type of protocols is more powerful. We prove for general states but under the assumption of incoherent eavesdropping that Alice and Bob share some so-called intrinsic information in their classical random variables, resulting from optimal measurements, if and only if the parties' quantum systems are entangled. In addition, we provide evidence that the potentials of classical and of quantum protocols are equal in every situation. Consequently, many techniques and results from quantum information theory directly apply to problems in classical information theory, and vice versa. For instance, it was previously believed that two parties can carry out unconditionally secure key agreement as long as they share some intrinsic information in the adversary's view. The analysis of this purely classical problem from the quantum information-theoretic viewpoint shows that this is true in the binary case, but false in general. More explicitly, bound entanglement, i.e., entanglement that cannot be purified by any quantum protocol, has a classical counterpart. This "bound intrinsic information" cannot be distilled to a secret key by any classical protocol. As another application we propose a measure for entanglement based on classical information-theoretic quantities.
It was recently pointed out that there is a close connection between information-theoretic key agreement and quantum entanglement purification. This suggests that the concept of bound entanglement (entanglement which cannot be purified) has a classical counterpart: bound information, which cannot be used to generate a secret key by any protocol. We analyse a probability distribution which results when a specific bound entangled quantum state is measured. We show strong evidence for the fact that the corresponding mutual information is indeed bound. The probable existence of such information stands in contrast to previous beliefs in classical information theory. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
When the 4-state or the 6-state protocol of quantum cryptography is carried out on a noisy quantum channel, then the raw key has to be processed to reduce the information of a spy down to an arbitrarily low value, providing Alice and Bob with a secret key. In principle, quantum algorithms as well as classical algorithms can be used for this processing. A natural question is: Up to which error rate on the raw key is a secret-key agreement at all possible? Under the assumption of incoherent eavesdropping, we find that the quantum and classical limits are precisely the same: As long as Alice and Bob share some entanglement, both quantum and classical protocols provide secret keys.
Entanglement is a fundamental resource for quantum information processing. In its pure form, it allows quantum teleportation and sharing classical secrets. Realistic quantum states are noisy and their usefulness is only partially understood. Bound-entangled states are central to this question--they have no distillable entanglement, yet sometimes still have a private classical key. We present a construction of bound-entangled states with a private key based on classical probability distributions. From this emerge states possessing a new classical analogue of bound entanglement, distinct from the long-sought bound information. We also find states of smaller dimensions and higher key rates than previously known. Our construction has implications for classical cryptography: we show that existing protocols are insufficient for extracting private key from our distributions due to their "bound-entangled" nature. We propose a simple extension of existing protocols that can extract a key from them.
We have now seen in Chapters 20–22 how Alice can communicate classical or quantum information to Bob, perhaps even with the help of shared entanglement. One might argue that these communication tasks are the most fundamental tasks in quantum Shannon theory, given that they have furthered our understanding of the nature of information transmission over quantum channels. However, when discussing the communication of classical information, we made no stipulation as to whether this classical information should be public, so that any third party might have partial or full access to it, or private, so that no third party has access. This chapter establishes the private classical capacity theorem, which gives the maximum rate at which Alice can communicate classical information privately to Bob without anyone else in the universe knowing what she sent to him. A variation of the information-processing task corresponding to this theorem was one of the earliest studied in quantum information theory, with the Bennett– Brassard-84 quantum key distribution protocol being the first proposed protocol for exploiting quantum mechanics to establish a shared secret key between two parties. The private classical capacity theorem is important for quantum key distribution because it establishes the maximum rate at which two parties can generate a shared secret key. Another equally important, but less obvious utility of private classical communication is in establishing a protocol for quantum communication at the coherent information rate. Section 22.2 demonstrated a somewhat roundabout way of arriving at the conclusion that it is possible to communicate quantum information reliably at the coherent information rate—recall that we “coherified” the entanglement-assisted classical capacity theorem and then exploited the coherent communication identity and catalytic use of entanglement. Establishing achievability of the coherent information rate via private classical coding is another way of arriving at the same result, with the added benefit that the resulting protocol does not require the catalytic use of entanglement. The intuition for quantum communication via privacy arises from the nocloning theorem. Suppose that Alice is able to communicate private classical messages to Bob, so that the channel's environment (Eve) is not able to distinguish which message Alice is transmitting to Bob.
We present a technique for proving the security of quantum-key-distribution (QKD) protocols. It is based on direct information-theoretic arguments and thus also applies if no equivalent entanglement purification scheme can be found. Using this technique, we investigate a general class of QKD protocols with one-way classical post-processing. We show that, in order to analyze the full security of these protocols, it suffices to consider collective attacks. Indeed, we give new lower and upper bounds on the secret-key rate which only involve entropies of two-qubit density operators and which are thus easy to compute. As an illustration of our results, we analyze the Bennett-Brassard 1984, the six-state, and the Bennett 1992 protocols with one-way error correction and privacy amplification. Surprisingly, the performance of these protocols is increased if one of the parties adds noise to the measurement data before the error correction. In particular, this additional noise makes the protocols more robust against noise in the quantum channel.