MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1656253992 · doi:10.26421/qic7.3-5

Optimal fingerprinting strategies with one-sided error

2007· article· en· W1656253992 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Information and Computation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFingerprint (computing)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Message passingProbability of errorQuantumAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsDistributed computingComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fingerprinting enables two parties to infer whether the messages they hold are the same or different when the cost of communication is high: each message is associated with a smaller fingerprint and comparisons between messages are made in terms of their fingerprints alone. In the simultaneous message passing model, it is known that fingerprints composed of quantum information can be made exponentially smaller than those composed of classical information. For small message lengths, we present constructions of optimal classical fingerprinting strategies with one-sided error, in both the one-way and simultaneous message passing models, and provide bounds on the worst-case error probability with the help of extremal set theory. The performance of these protocols is then compared to that for quantum fingerprinting strategies constructed from spherical codes, equiangular tight frames and mutually unbiased bases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it