MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401766978 · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)152

Security of quantum position-verification limits Hamiltonian simulation via holography

2024· article· en· W4401766978 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Harriet Apel, Toby S. Cubitt, Patrick Hayden, Tamara Kohler, David Pérez-Garcı́a

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchUK Research and InnovationEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversidad Complutense de MadridU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum entanglementHamiltonian (control theory)HolographyQuantumTheoretical physicsScalingQuantum mechanicsPosition (finance)Statistical physicsClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We investigate the link between quantum position-verification (QPV) and holography established in [1] using holographic quantum error correcting codes as toy models. By inserting the “temporal” scaling of the AdS metric by hand via the bulk Hamiltonian interaction strength, we recover a toy model with consistent causality structure. This leads to an interesting implication between two topics in quantum information: if position-based verification is secure against attacks with small entanglement then there are new fundamental lower bounds for resources required for one Hamiltonian to simulate another.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207