Bibliographic record
Abstract
The famous no-cloning principle has been shown recently to enable a number of uncloneable cryptographic primitives, including the copy-protection of certain functionalities. Here we address for the first time unkeyed quantum uncloneablity, via the study of a complexity-theoretic tool that enables a computation, but that is natively unkeyed: quantum advice. Remarkably, this is an application of the no-cloning principle in a context where the quantum states of interest are not chosen by a random process. We establish unconditional constructions for promise problems admitting uncloneable quantum advice and, assuming the feasibility of quantum copy-protecting certain functions, for languages with uncloneable advice. Along the way, we note that state complexity classes, introduced by Rosenthal and Yuen (ITCS 2022) — which concern the computational difficulty of synthesizing sequences of quantum states — can be naturally generalized to obtain state cloning complexity classes. We make initial observations on these classes, notably obtaining a result analogous to the existence of undecidable problems. Our proof technique defines and constructs ingenerable sequences of finite bit strings, essentially meaning that they cannot be generated by any uniform circuit family with non-negligible probability. We then prove a generic result showing that the difficulty of accomplishing a computational task on uniformly random inputs implies its difficulty on any fixed, ingenerable sequence. We use this result to derandomize quantum cryptographic games that relate to cloning, and then incorporate a result of Kundu and Tan (arXiv 2022) to obtain uncloneable advice. Applying this two-step process to a monogamy-of-entanglement game yields a promise problem with uncloneable advice, and applying it to the quantum copy-protection of pseudorandom functions with super-logarithmic output lengths yields a language with uncloneable advice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".