The quantum uncertainty principle famously predicts that there exist measurements that are inherently incompatible, in the sense that their outcomes cannot be predicted simultaneously. In contrast, no such uncertainty exists in the classical domain, where all uncertainty results from ignorance about the exact state of the physical system. Here, we critically examine the concept of preparation uncertainty and ask whether similarly in the quantum regime, some of the uncertainty that we observe can actually also be understood as a lack of information (LOI), albeit a lack of quantum information. We answer this question affirmatively by showing that for the well known measurements employed in BB84 quantum key distribution (Bennett and Brassard 1984 Int. Conf. on Computer System and Signal Processing), the amount of uncertainty can indeed be related to the amount of available information about additional registers determining the choice of the measurement. We proceed to show that also for other measurements the amount of uncertainty is in part connected to a LOI. Finally, we discuss the conceptual implications of our observation to the security of cryptographic protocols that make use of BB84 states.

@en

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle forms a fundamental element of quantum mechanics. Uncertainty relations in terms of entropies were initially proposed to deal with conceptual shortcomings in the original formulation of the uncertainty principle and, hence, play an important role in quantum foundations. More recently, entropic uncertainty relations have emerged as the central ingredient in the security analysis of almost all quantum cryptographic protocols, such as quantum key distribution and two-party quantum cryptography. This review surveys entropic uncertainty relations that capture Heisenberg's idea that the results of incompatible measurements are impossible to predict, covering both finite- and infinite-dimensional measurements. These ideas are then extended to incorporate quantum correlations between the observed object and its environment, allowing for a variety of recent, more general formulations of the uncertainty principle. Finally, various applications are discussed, ranging from entanglement witnessing to wave-particle duality to quantum cryptography.

@en

A central assumption in quantum key distribution (QKD) is that Eve has no knowledge about which rounds will be used for parameter estimation or key distillation. Here we show that this assumption is violated for iterative sifting, a sifting procedure that has been employed in some (but not all) of the recently suggested QKD protocols in order to increase their efficiency. We show that iterative sifting leads to two security issues: (1) some rounds are more likely to be key rounds than others, (2) the public communication of past measurement choices changes this bias round by round. We analyze these two previously unnoticed problems, present eavesdropping strategies that exploit them, and find that the two problems are independent. We discuss some sifting protocols in the literature that are immune to these problems. While some of these would be inefficient replacements for iterative sifting, we find that the sifting subroutine of an asymptotically secure protocol suggested by Lo et al (2005 J. Cryptol. 18 133–65), which we call LCA sifting, has an efficiency on par with that of iterative sifting. One of our main results is to show that LCA sifting can be adapted to achieve secure sifting in the finite-key regime. More precisely, we combine LCA sifting with a certain parameter estimation protocol, and we prove the finite-key security of this combination. Hence we propose that LCA sifting should replace iterative sifting in future QKD implementations. More generally, we present two formal criteria for a sifting protocol that guarantee its finite-key security. Our criteria may guide the design of future protocols and inspire a more rigorous QKD analysis, which has neglected sifting-related attacks so far..@en

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle implies that if one party (Alice) prepares a system and randomly measures one of two incompatible observables, then another party (Bob) cannot perfectly predict the measurement outcomes. This implication assumes that Bob does not possess an additional system that is entangled to the measured one; indeed, the seminal paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) showed that maximal entanglement allows Bob to perfectly win this guessing game. Although not in contradiction, the observations made by EPR and Heisenberg illustrate two extreme cases of the interplay between entanglement and uncertainty. On the one hand, no entanglement means that Bob's predictions must display some uncertainty. Yet on the other hand, maximal entanglement means that there is no more uncertainty at all. Here we follow an operational approach and give an exact relation—an equality—between the amount of uncertainty as measured by the guessing probability and the amount of entanglement as measured by the recoverable entanglement fidelity. From this equality, we deduce a simple criterion for witnessing bipartite entanglement and an entanglement monogamy equality.@en