Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we present an improved analysis for decoy-state methods, enhancing both achievable key rates and recovering analytical results for the single intensity scenario. Our primary focus is improving the shortcomings observed in current decoy-state methods, particularly recovering results when employing no decoy intensities. Our methods enable the continuous interpolation across varying numbers of intensity settings. Additionally, we extend decoy-state techniques to encompass scenarios where intensities vary depending on the signal state, thereby relaxing the constraints on experimental implementations. Our findings demonstrate that a minimum of two intensities are sufficient for high asymptotic secret key rates, thereby further softening experimental requirements. Additionally, we address inherent imperfections within detection setups like imperfect beamsplitters. We derive provable secure lower bounds on the subspace population estimation, which is required for certain squashing methods such as the flag-state squasher. These analytical bounds allow us to encompass arbitrary passive linear optical setups, and together with intensities varying with each signal state, lets us include a broad class of experimental setups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".