Quantum process tomography of a high-dimensional quantum communication channel
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characterization of quantum processes, e.g. communication channels, is an essential ingredient for establishing quantum information systems. For quantum key distribution protocols, the amount of overall noise in the channel determines the rate at which secret bits are distributed between authorized partners. In particular, tomographic protocols allow for the full reconstruction, and thus characterization, of the channel. Here, we perform quantum process tomography of high-dimensional quantum communication channels with dimensions ranging from 2 to 5. We can thus explicitly demonstrate the effect of an eavesdropper performing an optimal cloning attack or an intercept-resend attack during a quantum cryptographic protocol. Moreover, our study shows that quantum process tomography enables a more detailed understanding of the channel conditions compared to a coarse-grained measure, such as quantum bit error rates. This full characterization technique allows us to optimize the performance of quantum key distribution under asymmetric experimental conditions, which is particularly useful when considering high-dimensional encoding schemes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it