Quantum preparation uncertainty and lack of information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The quantum uncertainty principle famously predicts that there exist measurements that are inherently incompatible, in the sense that their outcomes cannot be predicted simultaneously. In contrast, no such uncertainty exists in the classical domain, where all uncertainty results from ignorance about the exact state of the physical system. Here, we critically examine the concept of preparation uncertainty and ask whether similarly in the quantum regime, some of the uncertainty that we observe can actually also be understood as a lack of information (LOI), albeit a lack of quantum information. We answer this question affirmatively by showing that for the well known measurements employed in BB84 quantum key distribution (Bennett and Brassard 1984 Int. Conf. on Computer System and Signal Processing), the amount of uncertainty can indeed be related to the amount of available information about additional registers determining the choice of the measurement. We proceed to show that also for other measurements the amount of uncertainty is in part connected to a LOI. Finally, we discuss the conceptual implications of our observation to the security of cryptographic protocols that make use of BB84 states.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".