MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118611748 · doi:10.1103/physreva.91.042304

Quantum digital signatures with quantum-key-distribution components

2015· article· en· W2118611748 on OpenAlexafffund
Petros Wallden, Vedran Dunjko, Adrian Kent, Erika Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaEuropean Cooperation in Science and TechnologyGovernment of CanadaFoundational Questions Institute
KeywordsQuantum key distributionDigital signatureComputer scienceKey (lock)Quantum cryptographySignature (topology)Computer securityTheoretical computer scienceQuantumQuantum informationQuantum mechanicsMathematicsPhysicsHash function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital signatures guarantee the authenticity and transferability of messages and are widely used in modern communication. The security of currently used classical digital signature schemes, however, relies on computational assumptions. In contrast, quantum digital signature (QDS) schemes offer information-theoretic security guaranteed by the laws of quantum mechanics. We present two QDS protocols which have the same experimental requirements as quantum key distribution, which is already commercially available. We also give a security proof for the presented QDS schemes against coherent forging attacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations135
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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