Quantum Diffie-Hellman key exchange

Georgios M. Nikolopoulos

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Diffie-Hellman key exchange

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A quantum version of Diffie-Hellman key exchange can be built by encoding integers as weak coherent states, and for mean photon numbers below about 0.02 the encoding hides the shared key from an eavesdropper's best analyzed attack.

desk verdict A genuinely new coherent-state key-exchange protocol with careful attack analysis, whose full security claim rests on a conjecture the author openly states. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09568 v1 pith:4AVCEHMO submitted 2025-01-16 quant-ph cs.CRphysics.optics

Georgios M. Nikolopoulos This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.CRphysics.optics MSC 81P9494A60 PACS 03.67.Dd

keywords quantumkeyexchangeDiffie-Hellmanone-wayfunctioncoherentstatesminimum-errordiscriminationphoton-number-splittingattackmin-entropytwin-fieldQKD

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Diffie-Hellman key exchange is the workhorse of ephemeral secret-key agreement: two parties each send a public value derived from their private exponent, and commutation of exponentials lets both compute the same shared key. This paper asks whether the same logic can be moved into the quantum domain, where the 'exponent' is a random integer encoded in the phase of a coherent state and the 'commutation' is the fact that phase-shift operators commute. The central claim is that the map from integers to a set of N symmetric coherent states with mean photon number μ is a quantum one-way function when μ is small (≲0.02) and N is large enough: preparing the state is easy, but inverting it with the optimal minimum-error measurement is within 2% of random guessing. For these parameters the proposed protocol gives Alice and Bob a shared quantum state that neither knows, and an encoded bit that Eve's best analyzed attack—independent minimum-error discrimination of the two intercepted states—can guess only with probability close to 1/2. The paper therefore identifies a concrete, experimentally accessible regime in which a Diffie-Hellman-style quantum key exchange can offer information-theoretic protection of the encoded bit against the attacks it considers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set S_N of N symmetric single-mode coherent states |ψ_x⟩ = |√μ $e^{{i x 2π/N}}$⟩, together with the elementary phase-shift operator U = $e^{{i 2π a†a/N}}$. The map x ↦ |ψ_x⟩ is the proposed quantum one-way function; the operators U^x form a cyclic group that commutes and adds modulo N, providing the quantum analogue of exponentiation modulo a prime. The security analysis hinges on the minimum-error probability of the square-root measurement for these states, computed from the Poisson photon statistics and leading to the criterion D ≤ ε for closeness to an ideal one-way function.

What would settle it

Find a concrete joint or collective measurement on Eve's collected copies of |ψ_a⟩ and |ψ_b⟩ from many rounds that achieves a guessing probability for s_j exceeding $2^{{-H_min}}$ at μ = 0.02, N = 20; a numerical search over joint POVMs on the tensor-product states would settle whether the conjectured optimality holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the algebraic structure of phase-shift operations on a fixed coherent state replicates the two properties that make classical Diffie-Hellman work: any two phase shifts commute, and their combined action adds modulo N. Encoding Alice's and Bob's private integers as states |ψ_x⟩ = U^x|ψ_0⟩ drawn from the publicly known set S_N of symmetric coherent states, the protocol lets each user apply their own shift to the state received from the other, so both arrive at the common state |ψ_{a⊕b}⟩ with neither knowing the key value. The security claim is that for μ ≲ 0.02 and N ≥ N*(μ) the encoding acts as a quantum one-way function: the square-root measurement, which is optimal for minimum-error discrimination of these states, yields a success probability that is within ε = 2×$10^{{-2}}$ of random guessing, and the conditional min-entropy of the encoded bit against this attack satisfies H_min(s_j|s~_j) ≥ 0.96 bits. The paper further argues that the photon-number-splitting attack is not a threat, because Eve would need multiphoton pulses from both exchanged states (probability at most $μ^{4}$/4) and would then face the same discrimination problem. On this basis it conjectures that the best eavesdropping strategy is the independent minimum-error-discrimination attack, and derives a secret-key length via the leftover-hash bound.

Load-bearing premise

Eve's optimal attack is the individual minimum-error-discrimination measurement on each intercepted state, so the guessing probability p_E(cor) used in the min-entropy bound is maximal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For μ ≲ 0.02 and N ≥ N*, an eavesdropper using the minimum-error-discrimination attack can guess the encoded bit with probability close to 1/2, giving a conditional min-entropy of at least 0.96 bits per raw bit.
At these parameters, a minimum-error-discrimination attack drives the error rate in Alice's and Bob's sifted keys to roughly 0.5, so a threshold of P_err_max = 0.2 provides a clear detection signal.
The photon-number-splitting attack is ineffective because it succeeds only when both intercepted states contain at least two photons (probability at most μ^4/4), and even then it reduces to the same minimum-error-discrimination problem.
The protocol does not require a third party and can be implemented with existing coherent-state technology, including phase modulators, beam splitters, and single-photon detectors.
The security parameter ε = 2×10^{-2} defines the threshold N*(μ), which grows with μ; for μ = 0.02, N = 20 lies within the secure regime.
If the conjectured optimality of the independent minimum-error-discrimination attack holds, the protocol yields a secret-key length governed by the leftover-hash bound, with the min-entropy term essentially equal to the raw key length.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves open the security against collective or joint measurements across multiple intercepted states; a proof that such measurements do not beat the independent minimum-error-discrimination guessing probability would turn the conjectured optimality into a theorem, but no such proof is given.
The protocol's dependence on a common phase reference and low phase drift means its secure distance is limited by phase coherence; phase-stabilization techniques from twin-field QKD could extend the reach, though the paper does not quantify this.
A natural generalization is to encode more than one bit per state (for example by using multiple phase-shift values for the bit), with the per-round min-entropy then set by the discrimination error; the framework presented here could be extended in that direction.
If the central security claim holds, the same coherent-state map could serve as a building block for other public-key-style quantum protocols, since it provides a physical one-way function with a clear group structure.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

Claim #1: The paper's central discovery is that the algebraic structure of phase-shift operations on a fixed coherent state replicates the two properties that make classical Diffie-Hellman work: any two phase shifts commute, and their combined action adds modulo N. Encoding Alice's and Bob's private integers as states |ψ_x⟩ = U^x|ψ_0⟩ drawn from the publicly known set S_N of symmetric coherent states, the p

/-- @claim 1 The paper's central discovery is that the algebraic structure of phase-shift operations on a fixed coherent state replicates the two properties that make classical Diffie-Hellman work: any two phase shifts commute, and their combined action adds modulo N. Encoding Alice's and Bob's private integers as states |ψ_x⟩ = U^x|ψ_0⟩ drawn from the publicly known set S_N of symmetric coherent states, the p -/
def central_claim : Prop :=

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the short version: the paper is a real construction, not a repackaging. It defines a quantum analogue of Diffie-Hellman using symmetric coherent states, where Alice and Bob each apply a random phase shift and the shared key is the sum of their secrets. The analysis of the two specific attacks—minimum-error discrimination and photon-number splitting—is careful and internally consistent. The derivations of detection probabilities and error rates check out, and the parameter regime where the mapping behaves as a quantum one-way function is quantified with a concrete criterion.

The main soft spot is exactly where the author puts it: the security analysis is conditional on the conjecture that the individual minimum-error discrimination attack is optimal for Eve. This conjecture is load-bearing. The secret-key length in Eq. (35) uses H_min based on the guessing probability from that attack. If a joint measurement on the two intercepted states can estimate a⊕b directly, without first committing to estimates of a and b, the guessing probability could be higher, and the min-entropy would drop. The paper's argument that independent preparation makes collective attacks useless is not a proof; independence of a and b does not prevent a joint POVM on the pair. The author explicitly acknowledges this conjecture in Sec. III D and again in the conclusions, so the limitation is not hidden. But it means the central security claim is not yet established.

The practical side is also modest: small mean photon number gives low key rate, and the error-rate threshold limits range to tens of kilometers. The paper acknowledges these constraints. The citation pattern is fine; prior quantum DH protocols are cited and their lack of security analysis is noted.

Who should read it: researchers working on continuous-variable QKD and proposals for quantum key exchange with weak coherent states. The construction is worth discussing, and the honest treatment of its own limitation is a point in its favor. My recommendation: send it to peer review. The referee should ask for either a proof of the optimality conjecture or a revised claim that limits security to the specific attacks analyzed. The paper is a fair candidate for publication after that condition is addressed.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum version of Diffie-Hhellman key exchange. Alice and Bob independently choose random integers a_j and b_j, encode them as symmetric coherent states |ψ_a⟩ and |ψ_b⟩, and exchange them. Each party applies his/her own phase shift to the received state, obtaining a common quantum key |ψ_{a⊕b}⟩. Alice then encodes a secret bit s_j by a phase flip and sends the cipher state to Bob, who compares it with his local key by interference on a beam splitter. The paper analyzes the protocol's operation under realistic losses and phase drift, introduces a quantitative criterion for when the map x ↦ |ψ_x⟩ acts as a quantum one-way function, and studies two attacks: a minimum-error-discrimination attack and a photon-number-splitting attack. It concludes that for mean photon number μ ≲ 0.02 and sufficiently many phase slices N, the encoded bit s_j is well protected (H_min ≥ 0.96) and any such attack induces a high error rate (~0.5) in the sifted key, so the protocol would abort.

Significance. If rigorously established, the protocol would be a genuinely new construction: a Diffie-Hellman-like key agreement whose security is based on a quantum one-way function rather than on standard QKD principles. The paper contains useful concrete results: a quantitative QOWF criterion (Eq. (7) with D ≤ ε), analytical formulas for the detection and error probabilities (Eqs. (19)-(26), (30)-(33)), and a clear analysis of why the PNS attack is not directly useful. The numerical simulations and figures are reproducible from the given formulas. However, the strongest security claim is explicitly conditional on a conjecture about the optimality of the analyzed attack. Because this conjecture is load-bearing for the central claim, the current manuscript does not yet provide a complete security proof but does supply a substantial analytic and numerical basis for the protocol's behavior under specific attacks.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III D, Eqs. (35)-(36)] The central claim that the encoded bit is well protected, quantified by H_min(s_j|tilde s_j) ≈ 1 and hence by a secret-key length close to |s| in Eq. (35), relies on the conjecture stated in the text that the two-stage minimum-error-discrimination attack of Sec. III B maximizes p_E(cor). This conjecture is load-bearing. The supporting argument that independent preparation of a_j and b_j makes collective attacks useless is not a proof: the relevant quantity is k_j = a_j ⊕ b_j, which is a function of the joint state |ψ_a⟩⊗|ψ_b⟩. A joint POVM could estimate k_j directly, or decide s_j after seeing the cipher state, without first committing to individual estimates of a_j and b_j. The Holevo and Fano bounds in Sec. II bound the information about a single state, not about a function of a pair of states. Nothing in the manuscript rules out such a joint measurement, so the numerical values in Fig. 7 and the key-length estimate in Eq. (35) are conditional on an unproven optimality statement.
[Sec. III B and Step 8 of Definition 1] The security analysis does not establish the trade-off between Eve's information and the induced error rate, which is the basis for the abort decision. The paper computes p_E(cor) and H_min for a specific, unconstrained attack, and separately computes the error rate (~0.5) that this attack induces. It does not show that any attack that is consistent with the observed error rate (i.e., q ≤ P_err^max = 0.2) leaves H_min at the values used in Eq. (35). For example, Eve could deliberately guess s_j less aggressively, or use a correlated strategy across rounds, to reduce the induced error rate while still gaining some information about s_j. Without a bound of the form H_min ≥ f(q) relating the min-entropy to the observed error rate, the protocol's secret-key length is not proven secure even against the family of attacks considered.
[Sec. III D, line after Eq. (35)] The equality H_min(s|tilde s) = |s| H_min(s_j|tilde s_j) is stated without proof and is not generally exact for conditional min-entropy of finite-size strings. For i.i.d. rounds, the conditional min-entropy of the joint string is only asymptotically equal to n times the single-round value, up to smoothing and finite-size corrections. The Chernoff-bound sample size in Eq. (34) is not connected to the key-length estimate in Eq. (35). As written, the extractable key length may be overstated. The authors should either state that Eq. (35) is an asymptotic expression (with corrections) or perform a proper finite-key analysis.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III D, first paragraph] There is an empty citation after 'the secure key length that can be extracted from s' (the brackets contain no reference).
[Fig. 5 caption] The caption lists '(b) μ = 0.02, N = 20. (c) μ = 0.05, N = 20. (b) μ = 0.1, N = 20'; the last panel should be labeled (d).
[Throughout] The notation ⊖ for subtraction modulo N is used in some equations (e.g., Eq. (8d)) but not defined as explicitly as ⊕; a short notational clarification would improve readability.
[Sec. II B and Fig. 1] The choice ε = 2 × 10^{-2} is presented as a security parameter, but the paper does not discuss how this value relates to a concrete security level (e.g., a lower bound on the adversary's error probability). A brief remark that ε is a design choice and what its magnitude implies would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central security claim rests on an explicitly conjectured optimality of Eve's attack, which is a correctness risk but not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The QOWF criterion D≤ε in Eq. (7) is a definitional threshold, not an assumption of the result; the minimum-error probabilities and p_E(cor) are computed from the standard square-root measurement for symmetric coherent states (cited to external state-discrimination literature [9,10]) and from the beam-splitter detection model of Sec. III A, rather than being fitted to force Hmin≥0.96. The central security claim is explicitly conditional on a conjecture in Sec. III D: 'we conjecture that the probability p_E(cor) ... is also maximal', and similarly in Sec. III C: 'we conjecture that the best option for Eve to attack the proposed QDH protocol is the minimum-error-discrimination attack'. These are unproven optimality assumptions and therefore a genuine limitation: if a joint measurement across the two intercepted states gave a higher correct-guessing probability than p_E(cor), the min-entropy in Eq. (36) and the secret-key length in Eq. (35) would shrink. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because the paper does not define p_E(cor) to be optimal by construction, nor does it derive Eq. (36) by assuming the conclusion. Self-citations [7,8] motivate the coherent-state encoding setup but do not carry the load-bearing security argument, which relies on standard Holevo, Fano, state-discrimination, and finite-key results. The exponential fit Hmin≈e^{-2.1μ} is descriptive of the computed data, not an input used to produce the security claim. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol's security depends on a set of heuristic thresholds (ε, μ ≤ 0.02, Perr_max) chosen from simulations and engineering judgment rather than derived from a security proof. The QOWF concept is grounded in standard quantum measurement theory, but the claim that the considered attacks are optimal is an unproven domain assumption.

free parameters (4)

QOWF security parameter ε = 0.02
Chosen by hand to define D ≤ ε as the criterion for the map to be a quantum one-way function (Sec. II A). No security proof connects ε to final key secrecy.
Mean photon number threshold μ ≤ 0.02 = 0.02
Chosen from numerical simulations (Fig. 5) where P(s̃|s) ≈ 0.5, i.e., Eve's guess is random. Not derived analytically; a design threshold.
Error-rate threshold Perr_max = 0.2
Chosen as 'reasonable' (Sec. III B) to balance detection of eavesdropping (which causes ~0.5 errors) and achievable distances (~50 km). Ad hoc.
Sample-size parameters ε and ξ for Chernoff bound = ε=0.02, ξ=10^-6
Chosen in Eq. (34) to set M_th ≈ 10^5; arbitrary but conventional.

assumptions (5)

standard math Square-root measurement is the minimum-error measurement for symmetric coherent states, giving p_min^err (Ref. [10]).
Invoked in Sec. II B to compute the QOWF criterion and conditional probabilities.
standard math Holevo bound and Fano inequality bound the information extractable from a quantum state.
Used in Sec. II to establish the QOWF condition (Eq. 4) and the error-probability lower bound (Eq. 6).
domain assumption Random phase drift φ follows a normal distribution N(0, σ_φ) with σ_φ = √(DL).
Adopted in Sec. III A from fiber-optic phase-noise measurements (Ref. [13]); used to compute marginal error probabilities.
ad hoc to paper Eve does not gain by collective attacks on the independently prepared states.
Stated in Sec. III B as 'reasonable to assume'; the security analysis only treats individual attacks.
ad hoc to paper The minimum-error-discrimination attack is the optimal attack for Eve (conjectured).
Stated in Sec. III D; the secret-key length (Eq. 35) uses the resulting guessing probability as if it were the optimal one.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Diffie-Hellman key exchange." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AVCEHMO

@misc{pith2026250109568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Diffie-Hellman key exchange},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AVCEHMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09568}
}

read the original abstract

The Diffie-Hellman key exchange plays a crucial role in conventional cryptography, as it allows two legitimate users to establish a common, usually ephemeral, secret key. Its security relies on the discrete-logarithm problem, which is considered to be a mathematical one-way function, while the final key is formed by random independent actions of the two users. In the present work we investigate the extension of Diffie-Hellman key exchange to the quantum setting, where the two legitimate users exchange independent random quantum states. The proposed protocol relies on the bijective mapping of integers onto a set of symmetric coherent states, and we investigate the regime of parameters for which the map behaves as a quantum one-way function. Its security is analyzed in the framework of minimum-error-discrimination and photon-number-splitting attacks, while its performance and the challenges in a possible realization are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09568 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) Conditional probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Color online) Schematic representation of the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) The marginal probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) (a) Conditional probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) Probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) (a) The probability of correct and wrong guessing of the encoded bit value, and the corresponding min-entropy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Quantum One-Way Functions and Related Cryptographic Primitives
quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A topical review that clarifies the relationships and differences among quantum one-way functions, OWSGs, PRSGs, and EFI pairs, emphasizing physical realizability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Menezes, P

A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot and S. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography (CRC Press, 1996)

1996
[2]

K. M. Martin, Everyday Cryptography: Fundamental Prin- ciples and Applications (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012)

work page 2012
[3]

A Three-Stage Quantum Cryptography Protocol,

S. Kak, "A Three-Stage Quantum Cryptography Protocol," Found. Phys. Lett. 19, 293 (2006)

work page 2006
[4]

A quantum Diffie-Hellman protocol,

P. Subramaniam, and A. Parakh, "A quantum Diffie-Hellman protocol," International Journal of Security and Networks 11, 213–223 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Quantum Diffie–Hellman Extended to Dynamic Quantum Group Key Agreement for e-Healthcare Multi-Agent Systems in Smart Cities,

V .S. Naresh, M.M. Nasralla, S. Reddi, I. García-Magariño, "Quantum Diffie–Hellman Extended to Dynamic Quantum Group Key Agreement for e-Healthcare Multi-Agent Systems in Smart Cities," Sensors 20, 3940 (2020) 13

work page 2020
[6]

Experimentally realizable quantum comparison of coherent states and its applications,

E. Andersson, M. Curty, and I. Jex, "Experimentally realizable quantum comparison of coherent states and its applications," Phys. Rev. A 74, 022304 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Applications of single-qubit rotations in quantum public-key cryptography,

G. M. Nikolopoulos, "Applications of single-qubit rotations in quantum public-key cryptography," Phys. Rev. A 77, 032348 (2008); 78, 019903 (2008)

work page 2008
[8]

Deterministic quantum-public-key encryption: Forward search attack and randomization,

G. M. Nikolopoulos and L. M. Ioannou, "Deterministic quantum-public-key encryption: Forward search attack and randomization," Phys. Rev. A 79, 042327 (2009)

work page 2009

Show all 27 references

[9]

Quantum state discrimination,

S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, "Quantum state discrimination," Advances in Optics and Photonics 1, 238–278 (2009)

2009
[10]

Opti- mum measurements for discrimination among symmetric states and parameter estimation,

M. Ban, K. Kurokawa, R. Momose, and O. Hirota, “Opti- mum measurements for discrimination among symmetric states and parameter estimation,” IEEE Transl. J. Magn. Jpn. 36, 1269–1288 (1997)

1997
[11]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, England, 2000)

2000
[12]

Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribu- tion without quantum repeaters,

M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes and A. J. Shields, "Overcoming the rate–distance limit of quantum key distribu- tion without quantum repeaters," Nature 557, 400 (2018)

2018
[13]

Phase-noise measurements in long-fiber interferometers for quantum-repeater applications,

J. Miná ˇr, H. de Riedmatten, C. Simon, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, "Phase-noise measurements in long-fiber interferometers for quantum-repeater applications," Phys. Rev. A 77, 052325 (2008)

2008
[14]

Twin-field quantum key distribution with large misalignment error,

X. B. Wang, Z. W. Yu, and X. L. Hu, "Twin-field quantum key distribution with large misalignment error," Phys. Rev. A 98, 062323 (2018)

2018
[15]

Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeaterless secret key capacity,

M. Minder, M. Pittaluga, G. L. Roberts, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, Z. L. Yuan and A. J. Shields, "Experimental quantum key distribution beyond the repeaterless secret key capacity," Nature Photonics 13, 334–338 (2019)

2019
[16]

Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribution without Phase Locking,

W. Li, L. Zhang, Y . Lu, Z.-P. Li, C. Jiang, Y . Liu, J. Huang, H. Li, and Z. Wang, X.-B. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. You, F. Xu, and J.- W. Pan, "Twin-Field Quantum Key Distribution without Phase Locking," Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 250802 (2023)

2023
[17]

Error Reconcil- iation in Quantum Key Distribution Protocols,

M. Mehic, M. Niemiec, H. Siljak, M. V oznak, "Error Reconcil- iation in Quantum Key Distribution Protocols," In: Reversible Computation: Extending Horizons of Computing , Edited by I. Ulidowski, I. Lanese, U. Schultz, C. Ferreira, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 12070, pp. 2...

2020
[18]

Privacy amplifi- cation by public discussion,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and J.-M. Robert, "Privacy amplifi- cation by public discussion," SIAM J. Comput.,17, 210 (1988)

1988
[19]

Generalized privacy amplification,

C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, and U. M. Maurer, "Generalized privacy amplification," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 41, 1915 (1995)

1995
[20]

Continuous-variable quantum authentication of physical unclonable keys,

G. M. Nikolopoulos, and E. Diamanti, "Continuous-variable quantum authentication of physical unclonable keys," Sci. Rep. 7, 46047 (2017)

2017
[21]

Limi- tations on practical quantum cryptography,

G. Brassard, N. Lütkenhaus, T. Mor and B. C. Sanders, "Limi- tations on practical quantum cryptography," Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1330 (2000)

2000
[22]

Left- over Hashing Against Quantum Side Information,

M. Tomamichel, C. Schaffner, A. Smith, and R. Renner, "Left- over Hashing Against Quantum Side Information," IEEE Trans. Inf. Th. 57, 5524 (2011)

2011
[23]

Min- entropy and quantum key distribution: Nonzero key rates for “small

S. Bratzik, M. Mertz, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruss, "Min- entropy and quantum key distribution: Nonzero key rates for “small” numbers of signals," Phys. Rev. A 83, 022330 (2011)

2011
[24]

Nu- merical finite-key analysis of quantum key distribution,

D. Bunandar, L. C. G. Govia, H. Krovi, and D. Englund, "Nu- merical finite-key analysis of quantum key distribution," npj Quantum Information 6, 104 (2020)

2020
[25]

Abidin, Authentication in Quantum Key Distribution: Se- curity Proof and Universal Hash Functions, Ph.D

A. Abidin, Authentication in Quantum Key Distribution: Se- curity Proof and Universal Hash Functions, Ph.D. Thesis, Linköping University, Sweden, 2013

2013
[26]

Experimental authentication of quantum key distribution with post-quantum cryptography,

L.-J. Wang, K.-Y . Zhang, J.-Y . Wang, J. Cheng, Y .-H. Yang, S.- B. Tang, D. Yan, Y .-L. Tang, Z. Liu, Y . Yu, Q. Zhang, and J.-W. Pan, "Experimental authentication of quantum key distribution with post-quantum cryptography," npj Quant. Inf. 7, 67 (2021)

2021
[27]

Quantum Key Distribu- tion with Post-Processing Driven by Physical Unclonable Func- tions,

G. M. Nikolopoulos and M. Fischlin, "Quantum Key Distribu- tion with Post-Processing Driven by Physical Unclonable Func- tions," Appl. Sci. 14, 464 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Menezes, P

A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot and S. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography (CRC Press, 1996)

1996

[2] [2]

K. M. Martin, Everyday Cryptography: Fundamental Prin- ciples and Applications (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

A Three-Stage Quantum Cryptography Protocol,

S. Kak, "A Three-Stage Quantum Cryptography Protocol," Found. Phys. Lett. 19, 293 (2006)

work page 2006

[4] [4]

A quantum Diffie-Hellman protocol,

P. Subramaniam, and A. Parakh, "A quantum Diffie-Hellman protocol," International Journal of Security and Networks 11, 213–223 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Quantum Diffie–Hellman Extended to Dynamic Quantum Group Key Agreement for e-Healthcare Multi-Agent Systems in Smart Cities,

V .S. Naresh, M.M. Nasralla, S. Reddi, I. García-Magariño, "Quantum Diffie–Hellman Extended to Dynamic Quantum Group Key Agreement for e-Healthcare Multi-Agent Systems in Smart Cities," Sensors 20, 3940 (2020) 13

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Experimentally realizable quantum comparison of coherent states and its applications,

E. Andersson, M. Curty, and I. Jex, "Experimentally realizable quantum comparison of coherent states and its applications," Phys. Rev. A 74, 022304 (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Applications of single-qubit rotations in quantum public-key cryptography,

G. M. Nikolopoulos, "Applications of single-qubit rotations in quantum public-key cryptography," Phys. Rev. A 77, 032348 (2008); 78, 019903 (2008)

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Deterministic quantum-public-key encryption: Forward search attack and randomization,

G. M. Nikolopoulos and L. M. Ioannou, "Deterministic quantum-public-key encryption: Forward search attack and randomization," Phys. Rev. A 79, 042327 (2009)

work page 2009