MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Blind Quantum Computing for a Classical Client

2017· article· en· W2724637409 on OpenAlexafffund
He-Liang Huang, Qi Zhao, Xiongfeng Ma, Chang Liu, Zu-En Su, Xi‐Lin Wang, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Barry C. Sanders, Chao‐Yang Lu, Jian-Wei Pan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsChinese Academy of SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsServerComputer scienceCorrectnessQuantum computerQuantum entanglementProtocol (science)QuantumTheoretical computer scienceHonestyPhysicsQuantum mechanicsComputer networkAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, blind quantum computing demonstrations require clients to have weak quantum devices. Here we implement a proof-of-principle experiment for completely classical clients. Via classically interacting with two quantum servers that share entanglement, the client accomplishes the task of having the number 15 factorized by servers who are denied information about the computation itself. This concealment is accompanied by a verification protocol that tests servers' honesty and correctness. Our demonstration shows the feasibility of completely classical clients and thus is a key milestone towards secure cloud quantum computing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations97
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207