Advertisement

Quantum bit commitment from a physical assumption

  • Louis Salvail
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1462)

Abstract

Mayers and independently Lo and Chau have shown that unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible. In this paper we show that under the assumption that the sender is not able to perform generalized measurements involving more than n qubits coherently (n-coherent measurements) then quantum bit commitment is possible. A commitment scheme is δ-binding if for each execution there is an \(\tilde x \in \{ 0,{\mathbf{ }}1\}\) that cannot be unveiled with probability of success better than δ. Our bit commitment scheme requires the transmission of N qubits and is δ-binding, for any δ > 0, if the committer can only carry out n-coherent measurements for some nΩ(N). For some α > 0, the scheme is 2aN -binding against n-coherent measurements for some nΩ(√N). The security against malicious receivers is unconditional.

Keywords

Quantum Channel Partial Outcome Binding Condition Physical Review Letter Commitment Scheme 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Aspect, A, P. Grangibr and G. Roger, “Experimental realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell's inequalities”, Physical Review Letters, vol. 49, no. 2, 1982, pp. 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, J.S., “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”, Physics, vol. 1, no. 1, 1964, p. 195.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, C.H. and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing”, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, December 1984, pp. 175–179.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, C.H., G. Brassard, C. Crépeau and U. Maurer, “Generalized Privacy Amplification”, IEEE Transaction on Information Theory, vol. 41, 1995, pp. 1915–1923.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett, C.H., G. Brassard, C. Crépeau and M.-H. Skubiszewska, “Practical quantum oblivious transfer”, Advances in Cryptology — Proceedings of Crypto '91, August 1991, Springer-Verlag, pp. 351–366.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett, C.H., G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W.K. Wootters, “Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and EPR Channels”, Physical Review Letters, vol.70, no. 13, 1993, pp. 1895–1899.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biham, E, G. Brassard, M. Boyer, J. van de Graaf and T. Mor, “Security of Quantum Key Distribution Against All Collective Attacks”, Los Alamos preprint archive quant-ph/9801022, January 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouwmeester, D, J.W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental Quantum Teleportation”, Nature, vol.390, 1997, p.575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brassard, G. and C. Crépeau, “Quantum bit commitment and coin tossing protocols”, Advances in Cryptology — Proceedings of Crypto '90, August 1990, Springer-Verlag, pp. 49–61.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brassard, G., C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa and D. Langlois, “A quantum bit commitment scheme provably unbreakable by both parties”, Proceedings of 34th Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, November 1993, pp. 362–371.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brassard, G., C. Crépeau, D. Mayers and L. Salvail, “A Brief Review on the Impossibility of Quantum Bit Commitment”, Los Alamos preprint archive quant-ph/9712023, December 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cachin, C. and U. Maurer, “Linking Information Reconciliation and Privacy Amplification”, Journal of Cryptology, vol. 10, no. 2, 1997, pp. 97–110.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crépeau, C, “What is going on with quantum bit commitment?”, Proceedings of Pragocrypt '96: 1st International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptology, Prague, October 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crépeau, C. and L. Salvail, “Quantum oblivious mutual identification”, Advances in Cryptology — Proceedings of Eurocrypt '95, May 1995, Springer-Verlag, pp. 133–146.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crépeau, C, J. van de Graaf and A. Tapp, “Committed Oblivious Transfer and Private Multi-Party Computation”, in Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of Crypto '95 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995), Vol. 963, pp. 110–123.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Einstein A., B. Podolski and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, no. 47, 1935, pp. 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hughes, R.J., D.F.V. James, J.J. Gomez, M.S. Gulley, M.H. Holzscheites, P.G. Kwiat, S.K. Lamoreaux, C.G. Peterson, V.D. Sandberg, M.M. Schauer, C.M. Simmons, C.E. Thorburn, D. Tupa, P.Z. Wang and A.G. White, “The Los Alamos Trapped Ion Quantum Computer Experiment”, Los Alamos preprint archive quant-ph/9708050, August 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hughston, L. P., R. Jozsa, and W.K. Wootters, “A complete classification of quantum ensembles having a given density matrix”, Physics Letters A, vol. 183, 1993, pp. 14–18.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Impagliazzo, R. and M. Luby, “One-way Functions are Essential for Complexity Based Cryptography”, Proceedings of 21th Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 1989, pp. 230–235.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kilian, J., Founding Cryptography on Oblivious Transfer, in the proceeding of 20th Symposium on Theory of Computation, Chicago, 1988, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kranakis, E., “Primality and Cryptography”, John Wiley and Sons, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lo, H.-K. and H.F. Chau, “Is quantum bit commitment really possible?”, preprint archive http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/quant-ph/9603004, March 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacWilliams, F.J. and N.J.A. Sloane, “The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes”, North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mattle, K., H. Weinfurter, P.G. Kwiat and A. Zeilinger, “Dense coding in experimental quantum communication”, Physical Review Letters, vol. 76, 1996, pp. 4656–4659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayers, D., On the security of the quantum oblivious transfer and key distribution protocols, Advances in Cryptology: Proceeding of Crypto '95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayers, D., “The trouble with quantum bit commitment”, Presented at a workshop on quantum information theory, Montréal, October 1995. Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/quant-ph/9603015, March 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayers, D., “La sécurité des protocoles de la cryptographie quantique”, PhD dissertation, Université de Montréal, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mayers, D., “Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible”, presented in the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Computation — PhysComp '96, Boston, November 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mayers, D., “Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible”, Physical Review Letters, vol 78, 1997, pp. 3414–3417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mayers, D. and L. Salvail, “Quantum oblivious transfer is secure against all individual measurements”, Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Physics and Computation — PhysComp '94, Dallas, November 1994, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 69–77.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michler, M., K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger, “Interferometric Bell-state analysis”, Physical Review Letters, vol. 53, 1996, pp. 1209–1212.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rabin, M. O., “How to exchange secrets by oblivious transfer”, Technical Memo TR-81, Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University, 1981.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schumacher, B., ”Sending quantum entanglement through noisy channels”, Los Alamos preprint archive http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/quant-ph/9604023, April 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wiesner, S., “Conjugate coding”, Sigact News, Vol. 15, no. 1, 1983, pp. 78–88; original manuscript written circa 1969.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yao, A. C.-C, “Security of quantum protocols against coherent measurements”, Proceedings of 26th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1995, pp. 67–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Salvail
    • 1
  1. 1.BRICS, Basic Research in Computer Science of the Danish National Research Foundation, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Århusårhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations