Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let $\ket{\0}$ and $\ket{\1}$ be two states that are promised to come from known subsets of orthogonal subspaces, but are otherwise unknown. Our paper probes the question of what can be achieved with respect to the basis $\{\ket{\0},\ket{\1}}^{\otimes n}$ of $n$ logical qubits, given only a few copies of the unknown states $\ket{\0}$ and $\ket{\1}$. A phase-invariant operator is one that is unchanged under the relative phase-shift $\ket{\1} \mapsto e^{i θ}\ket{\1}$, for any $θ$, of all of the $n$ qubits. We show that phase-invariant unitary operators can be implemented exactly with no copies and that phase-invariant states can be prepared exactly with at most $n$ copies each of $\ket{\0}$ and $\ket{\1}$; we give an explicit algorithm for state preparation that is efficient for some classes of states (e.g. symmetric states). We conjecture that certain non-phase-invariant operations are impossible to perform accurately without many copies. Motivated by optical implementations of quantum computers, we define ``quantum computation in a hidden basis'' to mean executing a quantum algorithm with respect to the phase-shifted hidden basis $\{\ket{\0}, e^{iθ}\ket{\1}\}$, for some potentially unknown $θ$; we give an efficient approximation algorithm for this task, for which we introduce an analogue of a coherent state of light, which serves as a bounded quantum phase reference frame encoding $θ$. Our motivation was quantum-public-key cryptography, however the techniques are general. We apply our results to quantum-public-key authentication protocols, by showing that a natural class of digital signature schemes for classical messages is insecure. We also give a protocol for identification that uses many of the ideas discussed and whose security relates to our conjecture (but we do not know if it is secure).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".