MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066040291 · doi:10.1142/s0129626410000193

KEY DISTRIBUTION VERSUS KEY ENHANCEMENT IN QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY

2010· article· en· W2066040291 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

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum cryptographyQuantum key distributionComputer scienceCryptographyKey distributionKey (lock)ID-based cryptographyPublic-key cryptographyTheoretical computer scienceFinancial cryptographyShared secretLattice-based cryptographyPKCS #1Quantum informationComputer securityQuantumEncryptionQuantum mechanicsPhysicsCryptosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been said that quantum cryptography in general offers a secure solution to the problem of key enhancement. This means that two parties who already share a small secret key, can use quantum protocols to establish a new large secret key. This large secret key can be arbitrarily long and is unbreakable. Thus, to date, the main contribution of quantum cryptography has been believed to be quantum key enhancement. This paper shows that quantum cryptography can do significantly more. The quantum protocol described here distributes an unbreakable secret key to the two parties by relying on public information only. This is the first time that quantum cryptography is shown to be able to produce secret information using only public information. This contribution is also unique for cryptography in general, classical and quantum.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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