MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Upper Bounds on Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution Rates in Static and Dynamic Scenarios

2022· article· en· W3182854691 on OpenAlexafffund
Eneet Kaur, Karol Horodecki, Siddhartha Das

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Applied · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsFundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej
KeywordsQuantum key distributionKey (lock)QuantumDistribution (mathematics)Computer scienceStatistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsComputer securityMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we develop upper bounds on key rates for device-independent quantum key distribution (DI-QKD) protocols and devices. We study the reduced $\mathrm{cc}$-squashed entanglement and show that it is a convex functional. As a result, we show that the convex hull of the currently known bounds is a tighter upper bound on the device-independent key rates of the standard Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH)-based protocol. We further provide tighter bounds for DI-QKD key rates achievable by any protocol applied to the CHSH-based device. This bound is based on reduced relative entropy of entanglement optimized over decompositions into local and nonlocal parts. In the dynamical scenario of quantum channels, we obtain upper bounds for device-independent private capacity for the CHSH-based protocols. We show that the device-independent private capacity for the CHSH-based protocols on depolarizing and erasure channels is limited by the secret key capacity of dephasing channels.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review AppliedSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207