Generalized Self-testing and the Security of the 6-State Protocol

  • Matthew McKague
  • Michele Mosca
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6519)


Self-tested quantum information processing provides a means for doing useful information processing with untrusted quantum apparatus. Previous work was limited to performing computations and protocols in real Hilbert spaces, which is not a serious obstacle if one is only interested in final measurement statistics being correct (for example, getting the correct factors of a large number after running Shor’s factoring algorithm). This limitation was shown by McKague et al. to be fundamental, since there is no way to experimentally distinguish any quantum experiment from a special simulation using states and operators with only real coefficients.

In this paper, we show that one can still do a meaningful self-test of quantum apparatus with complex amplitudes. In particular, we define a family of simulations of quantum experiments, based on complex conjugation, with two interesting properties. First, we are able to define a self-test which may be passed only by states and operators that are equivalent to simulations within the family. This extends work of Mayers and Yao and Magniez et al. in self-testing of quantum apparatus, and includes a complex measurement. Second, any of the simulations in the family may be used to implement a secure 6-state QKD protocol, which was previously not known to be implementable in a self-tested framework.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BBBW84]
    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Breidbart, S., Wiesner, S.: Eavesdrop-detecting quantum communications channel. IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin 26(8), 4363–4366 (1984)Google Scholar
  2. [Bru98]
    Bruß, D.: Optimal eavesdropping in quantum cryptography with six states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(14), 3018–3021 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Gis07]
    Gisin, N.: Bell inequalities: many questions, a few answers (2007)Google Scholar
  4. [MMG09]
    McKague, M., Mosca, M., Gisin, N.: Simulating quantum systems using real Hilbert spaces. Physical Review Letters 102(2), 20505 (2009),, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.020505MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [MMMO06]
    Magniez, F., Mayers, D., Mosca, M., Ollivier, H.: Self-testing of quantum circuits. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  6. [MY98]
    Mayers, D., Yao, A.: Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus. In: FOCS, pp. 503–509 (September 1998),
  7. [MY04]
    Mayers, D., Yao, A.: Self testing quantum apparatus. QIC 4(4), 273–286 (2004), MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [vMMS00]
    van Dam, W., Magniez, F., Mosca, M., Santha, M.: Self-testing of universal and fault-tolerant sets of quantum gates. In: STOC 2000: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 688–696. ACM, New York (2000), doi:10.1145/335305.335402Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew McKague
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michele Mosca
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Quantum ComputingUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of CombinatoricsUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Perimeter Institute for Theoretical PhysicsWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations