Counterfactual Quantum Protocols for Dialogue, Teleportation, and Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterfactual quantum communication enables communication between remote parties without transmitting any information-carrying particle. In this paper, we propose four protocols for secure quantum communication networks utilizing such communication. The first protocol, counterfactual quantum secure direct communication (CQSDC), enables a sender to securely and counterfactually communicate a secret message. The second protocol, counterfactual quantum secure dialogue (CQSD), allows legitimate parties to transmit secret messages in each direction simultaneously, securely and counterfactually. The third protocol, counterfactual controlled quantum teleportation (CCQT), facilitates a sender to counterfactually teleport a quantum state to a receiver under the supervision of a controller. Finally, the fourth protocol, counterfactual quantum private comparison (CQPC), capacitates a third party to compare the private states of the end parties without the actual knowledge of the counterfactually transmitted states. We devise the CQSDC and CQSD protocols by exploiting the counterfactual Swap, dual chained quantum Zeno (CQZ), and distributed controlled NOT gates. For CCQT and CQPC protocols, we utilize CQZ gates with a horizontally polarized photon input. We show that the security of CQSDC and CQSD relies on counterfactual entanglement swapping, while that of CCQT and CQPC depends on establishing secure counterfactual communication channels and security validation with decoy particles, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".