MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978124974 · doi:10.1109/icdis.2019.00039

A Survey on the Impacts of Quantum Computers on Information Security

2019· article· en· W2978124974 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuantum computerQuantum informationQuantum entanglementInformation securityQubitNISTQuantumTheoretical computer scienceComputer securityQuantum cryptographyQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum computers differ from traditional computers because unlike traditional computers that use and process information in bits (0 or 1), the unit of information in quantum computers is the quantum bit, or qubit, that can represent additional states beyond ones and zeros at the same time. The additional states called superimposition and entanglement facilitate phenomenal processing speed of quantum computers. The emergence of quantum computers has raised many concerns in various areas of information security. This paper employs a literature survey methodology to elucidate the positive and negative impacts of quantum computers on information security. This paper further addresses the concern that quantum computers will negatively impact information security by examining all recommended information security and privacy controls of the NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 catalog of controls. Furthermore, the paper briefly outlines the recent work towards quantum-resistant standards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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