Cited by 1,373Quantum Information and CryptographyCryptography and Data SecurityQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture

How to Share a Quantum Secret

Open access
Cleve, Richard, Gottesman, Daniel, Lo, Hoi-Kwong·1999·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

We investigate the concept of quantum secret sharing. In a $(k,n)$ threshold scheme, a secret quantum state is divided into $n$ shares such that any $k$ of those shares can be used to reconstruct the secret, but any set of $k\ensuremath{-}1$ or fewer shares contains absolutely no information about the secret. We show that the only constraint on the existence of threshold schemes comes from the quantum ``no-cloning theorem,'' which requires that $n<2k$, and we give efficient constructions of all threshold schemes. We also show that, for $k\ensuremath{\le}n<2k\ensuremath{-}1$, then any $(k,n)$ threshold scheme must distribute information that is globally in a mixed state.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.83.648

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There exist encoded operators that have support only on two of the three qutrits, and sets of encoded operators that have the same action on the codespace but nontrivial support on different pairs of qutrits.

    “The unique feature of this specific code is that there exist encoded operators (also referred to as logical operators in the literature) that have support only on two of the three qutrits that constitute the encoded space.Furthermore, it is then possible to identify sets of encoded operators that have the same action on the codespace, but have nontrivial support on different pairs of qutrits.”
  • The 3-qutrit code's erasure-correcting property ensures that any three-qutrit state within the codespace can be reconstructed even if one of the three qutrits is lost or erased.

    “The erasure-correcting property of this code ensures that any three-qutrit state within the codespace can be reconstructed even if one of the three qutrits is lost or erased.”
  • In the three-qutrit code, from any two of the qutrits Bob can reconstruct the state.

    “Secondly, from any two of the qutrits Bob can reconstruct the state.”

    From Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT (2015) · cites this paper as [25]

  • In the three-qutrit code, for any encoded state, the reduced density matrix on any one of the qutrits is maximally mixed.

    “First of all for any state | ˜ ψ 〉 , the reduced density matrix on any one of the qutrits is maximally mixed.”

    From Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT (2015) · cites this paper as [25]

  • 3 and 15 analyzer settings are respectively required to obtain the single- and two-photon Stokes parameters.

    “Thus 3 and 15 analyzer settings are respectively required to obtain the single- [28] and two-photon Stokes parameters.”

    From Nonmaximally Entangled States: Production, Characterization, and Utilization (1999) · cites this paper as [28]

    The citation is attached to the single-photon part of the sentence. Our copy discusses quantum secret sharing and qubits (pp. 1–2), but the passages found when searching for Stokes parameters and analyzer settings do not address the three-setting requirement. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cleve, R., Gottesman, D., & Lo, H.-K.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • Hewlett-Packard (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
1999-07-19
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
648-651
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2083019346
Cited by
1,373
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 65
FWCI
14.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Keywords
quantum secret sharing, threshold schemes, no-cloning theorem, quantum information, secret reconstruction, mixed states, quantum cryptography, information distribution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review