MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396817038 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.05069

Improved Decoy-state and Flag-state Squashing Methods

2024· preprint· en· W4396817038 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lars Kamin, Norbert Lütkenhaus

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicShip Hydrodynamics and Maneuverability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsFlag (linear algebra)DecoyState (computer science)Computer scienceMathematicsMedicineAlgorithmAlgebra over a fieldInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicShip Hydrodynamics and ManeuverabilityFrench-language works237,207