4.6 Article

Fundamental limitations on the device-independent quantum conference key agreement

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
Volume 105, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022604

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Foundation for Polish Science (IRAP Project ICTQT - EU within Smart Growth Operational Programme) [MAB/2018/5]
  2. European Union from Smart Growth Operational Programme, axis IV: Increasing the research potential (Measure 4.3) [MAB/2018/5]
  3. National Science Center [2015/18/E/ST2/00327]
  4. Universite libre de Bruxelles
  5. European Union [801505]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, several general upper bounds on the rate of a key secure against a quantum adversary in the device-independent conference key agreement (DI-CKA) scenario are provided. These bounds include reduced entanglement measures and multipartite secrecy monotones such as reduced c-squashed entanglement. The comparison between the DI-CKA rate and the device-dependent rate is discussed, with examples demonstrating the strict gap inherited from the bipartite gap between device-independent and device-dependent key rates.
We provide several general upper bounds on the rate of a key secure against a quantum adversary in the device-independent conference key agreement (DI-CKA) scenario. They include bounds by reduced entanglement measures and those based on multipartite secrecy monotones such as a multipartite squashed entanglement-based measure, which we refer to as reduced c-squashed entanglement. We compare the latter bound with the known lower bound for the protocol of conference key distillation based on the parity Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt game. We also show that the gap between the DI-CKA rate and the device-dependent rate is inherited from the bipartite gap between device-independent and device-dependent key rates, giving examples that exhibit the strict gap.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available