Entangled quantum key distribution with a biased basis choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate a quantum key distribution (QKD) scheme that utilizes a biased basis choice in order to increase the efficiency of the scheme. The optimal bias between the two measurement bases, a more refined error analysis and finite key size effects are all studied in order to assure the security of the final key generated with the system. We then implement the scheme in a local entangled QKD system that uses polarization entangled photon pairs to securely distribute the key. A 50/50 non-polarizing beamsplitter (BS) with different optical attenuators is used to simulate a variable BS in order to allow us to study the operation of the system for different biases. Over 6 h of continuous operation with a total bias of 0.9837/0.0163 ( Z / X ), we were able to generate 0.4567 secure key bits per raw key bit as compared to 0.2550 secure key bits per raw key bit for the unbiased case. This represents an increase in the efficiency of the key generation rate by 79%.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".