MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of State-Preparation Uncertainty in Quantum Key Distribution

2023· article· en· W4317214393 on OpenAlexafffund
Anqi Huang, Akihiro Mizutani, Hoi‐Kwong Lo, Vadim Makarov, Kiyoshi Tamaki

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Applied · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaMitacsUniversity of Hong KongRussian Science FoundationMinistry of Education and Science of the Russian FederationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Foundation for InnovationOrthopaedic Research Foundation
KeywordsQuantum key distributionKey (lock)Computer scienceCertificationProof of conceptIntensity (physics)Phase (matter)Key generationCharacterization (materials science)QuantumStatistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithmOpticsComputer securityCryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To achieve secure quantum key distribution, all imperfections in the source unit must be incorporated in a security proof and measured in the lab. Here we perform a proof-of-principle demonstration of the experimental techniques for characterizing the source phase and intensity fluctuation in commercial quantum key distribution systems. When we apply the measured phase-fluctuation intervals to the security proof that takes into account fluctuations in the state preparation, it predicts a key distribution distance of over $100\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}\mathrm{km}$ of fiber. The measured intensity fluctuation intervals are, however, so large that the proof predicts zero key, indicating a source improvement may be needed. Our characterization methods pave the way for a future certification standard.

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 score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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