MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166062840 · doi:10.1103/physreva.83.022301

Practical private database queries based on a quantum-key-distribution protocol

2011· article· en· W2166062840 on OpenAlexaff
Markus Jakobi, Christoph Simon, Nicolas Gisin, Jean-Daniel Bancal, Cyril Branciard, Nino Walenta, Hugo Zbinden

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuantum key distributionProtocol (science)Private information retrievalElement (criminal law)Key (lock)Database securityKey distributionDatabaseScope (computer science)Computer securityLimitingQuantumPublic-key cryptographyTheoretical computer scienceEncryptionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Private queries allow a user, Alice, to learn an element of a database held by a provider, Bob, without revealing which element she is interested in, while limiting her information about the other elements. We propose to implement private queries based on a quantum-key-distribution protocol, with changes only in the classical postprocessing of the key. This approach makes our scheme both easy to implement and loss tolerant. While unconditionally secure private queries are known to be impossible, we argue that an interesting degree of security can be achieved by relying on fundamental physical principles instead of unverifiable security assumptions in order to protect both the user and the database. We think that the scope exists for such practical private queries to become another remarkable application of quantum information in the footsteps of quantum key distribution.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations228
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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