The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Privacy Amplification by Public Discussion
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate how the use of a channel with perfect authenticity but no privacy can be used to repair the defects of a channel with imperfect privacy but no authenticity. More precisely, let us assume that Alice and Bob wish to agree on a secret random bit string, and have at their disposal an imperfect private channel and a perfect public channel. The private channel is imperfect in various ways: transmission errors can occur, and partial information can leak to an eavesdropper, Eve, who also has the power to suppress, inject, and modify transmissions arbitrarily. On the other hand, the public channel transmits information accurately, and these transmissions cannot be modified or suppressed by Eve, but their entire contents becomes known to her. We consider the situation in which a random bit string x has already been transmitted from Alice to Bob over the private channel, and we describe interactive public channel protocols that allow them, with high probability: (1) to assess the extent to which the private channel transmission has been corrupted by tampering and channel noise; and (2) if this corruption is not too severe, to repair Bob’s partial ignorance of the transmitted string and Eve’s partial knowledge of it by distilling from the transmitted and received versions of the string another string, in general shorter than x, upon which Alice and Bob have perfect information, while Eve has nearly no information (or in some cases exactly none), except for its length. These protocols remain secure against unlimited computing power.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems
Rivest, R. L., Shamir, A., & Adleman, L. (1978) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/359340.359342 · Cited by 13,462
New hash functions and their use in authentication and set equality
Wegman, M. N., & Carter, J. L. (1981) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/0022-0000(81)90033-7 · Cited by 1,402
Cited by
Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W., & Zbinden, H. (2002) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.145 · Cited by 8,515
Invited Review Article: Single-photon sources and detectors
Eisaman, M. D., Fan, J., Migdall, A., & Polyakov, S. V. (2011) · Review of Scientific Instruments · doi:10.1063/1.3610677 · Cited by 1,358
Quantum Privacy Amplification and the Security of Quantum Cryptography over Noisy Channels
Deutsch, D., Ekert, A., Jozsa, R., Macchiavello, C., Popescu, S., & Sanpera, A. (1996) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.2818 · Cited by 1,268
Entanglement-based quantum communication over 144 km
Ursin, R., Tiefenbacher, F., Schmitt-Manderbach, T., Weier, H., Scheidl, T., Lindenthal, M., Blauensteiner, B., Jennewein, T., Perdigues, J., Trojek, P., et al. (2007) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys629 · Cited by 1,210
Lounis, B., & Orrit, M. (2005) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/5/r04 · Cited by 908
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., & Robert, J.-M.
- Venue
- SIAM Journal on Computing
- Published
- 1988-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 210-229
- ISSN
- 0097-5397 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-7111
- OpenAlex
- W2007661134
- Cited by
- 867
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Privacy Amplification by Public Discussion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1137/0217014
- The paper
- Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., & Robert, J.-M. (1988). Privacy Amplification by Public Discussion. SIAM Journal on Computing. https://doi.org/10.1137/0217014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.