Censorship of Quantum Resources Against Catalytic Account Sharing

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.12876
• Title: Censorship of quantum resources against catalytic account sharing
• Authors: Julien Pinske, Klaus Mølmer (Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen)
• Classification: quant-ph
• Publication Date: October 16, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12876

Abstract

In quantum censorship, institutional authorities regulate quantum communication in public quantum networks, restricting user communications to free states within quantum resource theory (QRT). Although quantum correlations are fragile, realistic censorship protocols leave residual quantum properties, raising concerns that censorship could be circumvented through quantum resource revival or distillation. This paper introduces censorship protocols that do not require complete erasure of quantum resources, but instead deem censorship successful when users cannot recover the original quantum state using free operations. The paper investigates under what conditions censorship is secure and when it may fail. Additionally, it addresses the account sharing problem in quantum networks, wherein independent parties assist in transmitting quantum resources to censored users. This connects resource censorship with popular topics such as quantum catalysis and resource-assisted communication.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Questions

1. New Security Challenges in Quantum Networks: As quantum internet develops, how to restrict access to certain quantum resources in public quantum networks becomes an important issue
2. Limitations of Existing Censorship Methods: Traditional quantum censorship requires complete erasure of quantum resources, but residual quantum properties always remain in practice
3. Collaborative Attack Threats: Users may circumvent censorship through collaboration or "account sharing" with independent parties

Significance

• In commercial quantum networks, operators may need to provide tiered services to different users (e.g., restricting ordinary users to classical communication only)
• Provides a novel network security perspective distinct from quantum cryptography and post-quantum cryptography
• Connects quantum resource theory, quantum catalysis, and other cutting-edge theoretical research

Limitations of Existing Approaches

• Perfect resource erasure is difficult to achieve in practice (e.g., non-Markovian coherence revival, thermodynamic reset costs)
• Lacks systematic analysis of multi-user collaborative attacks
• Does not consider scenarios where independent parties assist in circumventing censorship through quantum catalysis

Core Contributions

1. Proposes an Operational Resource Censorship Framework: Does not require perfect filtering, but defines censorship success based on state irrecoverability
2. Introduces Resource-Reducing Channels: Formally describes operations that preserve free states while degrading resource states
3. Systematically Analyzes Collaborative Attacks: Studies conditions under which multi-user joint operations circumvent censorship
4. Addresses Account Sharing Problem: Analyzes the impact of independent parties assisting through quantum catalysis
5. Concrete Application to Quantum Coherence: Provides complete security analysis for quantum coherence censorship

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Quantum states from N senders: $\rho_{A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \rho_{A_N}$Output: Quantum state received by recipients after censorship Constraint: Censorship authority only permits transmission of free states in quantum resource theory

Core Concepts

1. Resource-Reducing Channels

Definition 2: A free operation $\Omega \in \mathcal{O}(A \to B)$ satisfies:

• (i) $\forall\rho \notin \mathcal{F}(A) : \Omega(\rho) \not\to \rho$ (resource reduction property)
• (ii) $\forall\sigma \in \mathcal{F}(A) : \Omega(\sigma) = \sigma$ (free state preservation property)

2. Secure Censorship Definition

Definition 3: Censorship is secure when the following condition holds: $\forall\rho \notin \mathcal{F}(A_1 \ldots A_N) : \Omega^{\otimes N}(\rho) \not\to \rho$

Model Architecture

Basic Censorship Protocol

A₁ → Ω → B₁
⋮     ⋮    ⋮
Aₙ → Ω → Bₙ

Collaborative Attack Model

A₁ → Ω →   ┌─ B₁
⋮     ⋮  → Λ → ⋮
Aₙ → Ω →   └─ Bₙ

where $\Λ \in \mathcal{O}(B_1 \ldots B_N)$ is the recipients' joint free operation.

Account Sharing Model

A₁ → Ω →   ┌─ B₁
⋮     ⋮  → Λ → ⋮
Aₙ → Ω →   │   Bₙ
C₁ ────→   │   ⊗ (traced out)
⋮          │   ⋮
Cₘ ────→   └─ ⊗ (traced out)

Technical Innovations

1. Weakened Censorship Conditions: Transitions from perfect resource erasure to operational definitions based on irrecoverability
2. Catalytic Transformation Analysis: Systematically studies the impact of independent parties providing catalysts
3. Tensor Product Structure Utilization: Leverages tensor product properties of quantum resource theory to prove security theorems

Theoretical Results

Main Theorems

Theorem 1: Basic Security

For quantum resource theories satisfying:

• $\mathcal{F}(A_1 \ldots A_N) = \mathcal{F}(A_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{F}(A_N)$
• $\mathcal{O}(B_1 \ldots B_N) = \mathcal{O}(B_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{O}(B_N)$

Censorship is secure.

Theorem 2: Threat of Swap Operations

If $\Phi_S \in \mathcal{O}(B_1 \ldots C_M)$ is a free swap operation, then censorship can be broken through account sharing.

Quantum Coherence Application

Coherence-Reducing Channels

Proposition 1: Coherence-reducing channels are of the form: $\Omega(\rho) = \epsilon\rho + (1-\epsilon)\Delta(\rho)$ where $\epsilon \in [0,1)$ and $\Delta(\rho) = \sum_a |a\rangle\langle a|\rho|a\rangle\langle a|$

Security Analysis

Theorem 3: Basic Coherence Censorship Security

Coherence censorship $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{O}_{IO})$ is secure.

Theorem 4: Account Sharing Breaks Coherence Censorship

Coherence censorship $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{CO}_{IO})$ is breakable under account sharing.

Theorem 5: Security Under Restricted Operations

Under separable incoherent operations $\mathcal{O}_{SIO}$, coherence censorship $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{CO}_{SIO})$ is secure against account sharing.

Experimental Findings

Key Insights

1. Necessity of Collaboration: Individual users cannot break censorship; collaboration is required
2. Danger of Swap Operations: Seemingly harmless quantum state swaps can completely break censorship
3. Importance of Operation Restrictions: Restricting recipients to local operations and classical communication can restore security

Security Boundary Analysis

• Secure Region: States where $\Omega^{\otimes N}(\rho)$ has fewer resources than $\rho$
• Vulnerable Region: States that can be recovered to $\rho$ through free operations
• Inaccessible Region: States that cannot appear because $\Omega^{\otimes N}$ is a free operation

Related Work

Foundations of Quantum Resource Theory

• Built upon Chitambar and Gour's comprehensive survey of quantum resource theory
• Extends the concept of resource-destroying maps by Liu et al.

Pioneer Work in Quantum Censorship

• Based on the authors' previous work on quantum censorship 3,4
• Fundamentally differs from existing perfect censorship protocols

Quantum Catalysis Theory

• Connects to Jonathan and Plenio's entanglement-assisted operations
• Related to Lipka-Bartosik et al.'s comprehensive survey on catalysis theory

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Operational Censorship Framework is Feasible: Effective censorship can be achieved without perfect resource erasure
2. Collaborative Attacks are Controllable: Under appropriate operation restrictions, multi-user collaboration cannot break censorship
3. Account Sharing Threat is Real: Catalytic assistance from independent parties can indeed break censorship
4. Security Boundaries are Clear: Conditions for secure and breakable censorship can be clearly delineated

Limitations

1. Idealized Assumptions: Assumes perfect quantum channels and operations
2. Resource Theory Specificity: Primarily analyzes coherence; other resources may behave differently
3. Operation Restriction Dependence: Security heavily depends on restrictions on user operational capabilities

Future Directions

1. Extension to Noisy Environments: Consider the impact of realistic noise on censorship protocols
2. Other Quantum Resources: Extend to entanglement, non-Gaussianity, and other quantum resources
3. Practical Implementation: Investigate physical implementation schemes for censorship protocols
4. Dynamic Networks: Consider network scenarios with dynamic user participation

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Theoretical Innovation: First systematic study of security in imperfect quantum censorship
2. High Mathematical Rigor: All theorems have complete mathematical proofs
3. Significant Practical Value: Provides new theoretical foundations for future quantum network security
4. Comprehensive and In-Depth Analysis: Complete analytical chain from single users to multi-user collaboration to account sharing

Weaknesses

1. Lack of Experimental Verification: Pure theoretical work without experimental validation
2. Limited Application Scenarios: Primarily focuses on quantum coherence; universality for other resources remains to be verified
3. Implementation Complexity Underexplored: Technical challenges in practical deployment are insufficiently discussed

Impact

1. Pioneering Contribution: Opens a new research direction in quantum network security
2. High Theoretical Value: Bridges quantum resource theory and network security
3. Inspiring Future Research: Provides theoretical foundation for security protocol design in the quantum internet era

Applicable Scenarios

1. Commercial Quantum Networks: Scenarios where operators need to provide tiered quantum services
2. Quantum Cloud Computing: Cloud platforms that need to restrict ordinary users' access to quantum resources
3. Quantum Communication Regulation: Scenarios where governments or institutions need to regulate quantum communication

References

The paper cites 63 related references, covering important works in quantum resource theory, quantum information, quantum network security, and other fields, demonstrating the depth and breadth of the research.