Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum key distribution (QKD) allows two parties to communicate in absolute security based on the fundamental laws of physics. Up till now, it is widely believed that unconditionally secure QKD based on standard Bennett-Brassard (BB84) protocol is limited in both key generation rate and distance because of imperfect devices. Here, we solve these two problems directly by presenting new protocols that are feasible with only current technology. Surprisingly, our new protocols can make fiber-based QKD unconditionally secure at distances over 100km (for some experiments, such as GYS) and increase the key generation rate from O(η2) in prior art to O(η) where η is the overall transmittance. Our method is to develop the decoy state idea (first proposed by W.-Y. Hwang in "Quantum Key Distribution with High Loss: Toward Global Secure Communication", Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057901 (2003)) and consider simple extensions of the BB84 protocol. This part of work is published in "Decoy State Quantum Key Distribution", . We present a general theory of the decoy state protocol and propose a decoy method based on only one signal state and two decoy states. We perform optimization on the choice of intensities of the signal state and the two decoy states. Our result shows that a decoy state protocol with only two types of decoy states—a vacuum and a weak decoy state—asymptotically approaches the theoretical limit of the most general type of decoy state protocols (with an infinite number of decoy states). We also present a one-decoy-state protocol as a special case of Vacuum+Weak decoy method. Moreover, we provide estimations on the effects of statistical fluctuations and suggest that, even for long distance (larger than 100km) QKD, our two-decoy-state protocol can be implemented with only a few hours of experimental data. In conclusion, decoy state quantum key distribution is highly practical. This part of work is published in "Practical Decoy State for Quantum Key Distribution", . We also have done the first experimental demonstration of decoy state quantum key distribution, over 15km of Telecom fibers. This part of work is published in "Experimental Decoy State Quantum Key Distribution Over 15km", .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".