A kind of universal quantum secret sharing protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universality is an important feature, but less researched in quantum communication protocols. In this paper, a kind of universal quantum secret sharing protocol is investigated. Firstly, we design a quantum secret sharing protocol based on the Borras-Plastino-Batle (BPB) state. Departing from previous research, our protocol has a salient feature in that participants in our protocol only need projective measurement instead of any unitary operations. It makes our protocol more flexible. Secondly, universality of quantum communication protocols is studied for the first time. More specifically, module division of quantum communication protocols and coupling between different modules are discussed. Our aforementioned protocol is analyzed as an example. On one hand, plenty of quantum states (the BPB-class states and the BPB-like-class states, which are proposed in this paper) could be used as carrier to perform our protocol. On the other hand, our protocol also could be regarded as a quantum private comparison protocol with a little revision. These features are rare for quantum communication protocols, and make our protocol more robust. Thirdly, entanglements of the BPB-class states are calculated in the Appendix.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".