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 ‘Fully device-independent conference key agreement' ”

Jérémy Ribeiro, Gláucia Murta, Stephanie Wehner

Published Aug 26, 2019• 18 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.100.026302

Related papers

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

Giuseppe Vallone, Giovanni Di Giuseppe, Paolo Mataloni +2 more

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)].

Physical Review A•Jun 27, 2016•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum dense key distribution’ ”

Ivo Pietro Degiovanni, Ivano Ruo Berchera, Stefania Castelletto +4 more

In this Reply we propose a modified security proof of the quantum dense key distribution protocol, detecting also the eavesdropping attack proposed by W\'ojcik in his Comment [W\'ojcik, Phys. Rev. A 71, 016301 (2005)].

arXiv:quant-ph/0410221•Physical Review A•Jan 28, 2005•12 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

Reply to Comment on

Jesni Shamsul Shaari, Marco Lucamarini, Asmaʼ Ahmad Bahari

We reply to the Comment made in arXiv:1107.4435v1 [quant-ph] (Phys. Lett. A \textbf{374} (2010) 1097) by noting some erroneous considerations therein resulting in a misleading view of the quantum key distribution protocol in question. We then correct the rates provided for the Intercept-and-Resend attack and we complete the analysis of Eve's attack based on a double CNOT gate.

•Oct 6, 2011•0 citations

Fully device-independent conference key agreement

Jérémy Ribeiro, Gláucia Murta, Stephanie Wehner

We present a security analysis of conference key agreement (CKA) in the most adversarial model of device independence (DI). Our protocol can be implemented by any experimental setup that is capable of performing Bell tests [specifically, the Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko (MABK) inequality], and security can in principle be obtained for any violation of the MABK inequality that detects genuine multipartite entanglement among the $N$ parties involved in the protocol. As our main tool, we derive a direct physical connection between the $N$-partite MABK inequality and the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, showing that certain violations of the MABK inequality correspond to a violation of the CHSH inequality between one of the parties and the other $N\ensuremath{-}1$. We compare the asymptotic key rate for device-independent conference key agreement (DICKA) to the case where the parties use $N\ensuremath{-}1$ device-independent quantum key distribution protocols in order to generate a common key. We show that for some regime of noise the DICKA protocol leads to better rates.

arXiv:1708.00798•Physical Review A•Feb 6, 2018•102 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Quantum dense key distribution'" (4 pages)

Ivo Pietro Degiovanni

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 2005•1 citation
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.
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)].
We present a security analysis of conference key agreement (CKA) in the most adversarial model of device independence (DI). Our protocol can be implemented by any experimental setup that is capable of performing Bell tests [specifically, the Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko (MABK) inequality], and security can in principle be obtained for any violation of the MABK inequality that detects genuine multipartite entanglement among the NNN parties involved in the protocol. As our main tool, we derive a direct physical connection between the NNN-partite MABK inequality and the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, showing that certain violations of the MABK inequality correspond to a violation of the CHSH inequality between one of the parties and the other $N\ensuremath{-}1$. We compare the asymptotic key rate for device-independent conference key agreement (DICKA) to the case where the parties use $N\ensuremath{-}1$ device-independent quantum key distribution protocols in order to generate a common key. We show that for some regime of noise the DICKA protocol leads to better rates.