MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034744138 · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.040503

Unconditional Security of a Three State Quantum Key Distribution Protocol

2005· article· en· W2034744138 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Christian Boileau, Kiyoshi Tamaki, J. Batuwantudawe, Raymond Laflamme, Joseph M. Renes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum key distributionBB84EavesdroppingComputer scienceQuantum cryptographyProtocol (science)Key (lock)Cryptographic protocolCode (set theory)Theoretical computer scienceCryptographyQuantumComputer networkAlgorithmQuantum mechanicsComputer securityPhysicsQuantum information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols are cryptographic techniques with security based only on the laws of quantum mechanics. Two prominent QKD schemes are the Bennett-Brassard 1984 and Bennett 1992 protocols that use four and two quantum states, respectively. In 2000, Phoenix et al. proposed a new family of three-state protocols that offers advantages over the previous schemes. Until now, an error rate threshold for security of the symmetric trine spherical code QKD protocol has been shown only for the trivial intercept-resend eavesdropping strategy. In this Letter, we prove the unconditional security of the trine spherical code QKD protocol, demonstrating its security up to a bit error rate of 9.81%. We also discuss how this proof applies to a version of the trine spherical code QKD protocol where the error rate is evaluated from the number of inconclusive events.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207