Paper detail

Quantum Versus Classical Advantages in Secret Key Distillation (and Their Links to Quantum Entanglement)

We consider the extraction of shared secret key from correlations that are generated by either a classical or quantum source. In the classical setting, two honest parties (Alice and Bob) use public discussion and local randomness to distill secret key from some distribution $p_{XYZ}$ that is shared with an unwanted eavesdropper (Eve). In the quantum settings, the correlations $p_{XYZ}$ are delivered to the parties as either an \textit{incoherent} mixture of orthogonal quantum states or as \textit{coherent} superposition of such states; in both cases, Alice and Bob use public discussion and local quantum operations to distill secret key. While the power of quantum mechanics increases Alice and Bob's ability to generate shared randomness, it also equips Eve with a greater arsenal of eavesdropping attacks. Therefore, it is not obvious who gains the greatest advantage for distilling secret key when replacing a classical source with a quantum one. In this paper we first demonstrate that the classical key rate is equivalent to the quantum key rate when the correlations are generated incoherently in the quantum setting. For coherent sources, we next show that the rates are incomparable, and in fact, their difference can be arbitrarily large in either direction. However, we identify a large class of non-trivial distributions $p_{XYZ}$ that possess the following properties: (i) Eve's advantage is always greater in the quantum source than in its classical counterpart, and (ii) for the quantum entanglement shared between Alice and Bob in the coherent source, the so-called entanglement cost/squashed entanglement/relative entropy of entanglement can all be computed. With property (ii), we thus present a rare instance in which the various entropic entanglement measures of a quantum state can be explicitly calculated.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.