MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008420411 · doi:10.1126/science.1214707

Demonstration of Blind Quantum Computing

2012· article· en· W2008420411 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

VenueScience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsQuantum computerDelegateComputer scienceComputationQubitExploitTheoretical computer scienceQuantum algorithmQuantumComputer engineeringComputational scienceDistributed computingAlgorithmComputer securityPhysicsQuantum mechanicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum computers, besides offering substantial computational speedups, are also expected to preserve the privacy of a computation. We present an experimental demonstration of blind quantum computing in which the input, computation, and output all remain unknown to the computer. We exploit the conceptual framework of measurement-based quantum computation that enables a client to delegate a computation to a quantum server. Various blind delegated computations, including one- and two-qubit gates and the Deutsch and Grover quantum algorithms, are demonstrated. The client only needs to be able to prepare and transmit individual photonic qubits. Our demonstration is crucial for unconditionally secure quantum cloud computing and might become a key ingredient for real-life applications, especially when considering the challenges of making powerful quantum computers widely available.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · 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