MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403868749 · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.040315

Postselection Technique for Optical Quantum Key Distribution with Improved de Finetti Reductions

2024· article· en· W4403868749 on OpenAlexaff
Shlok Nahar, Devashish Tupkary, Yuming Zhao, Norbert Lütkenhaus, Ernest Y.-Z. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenuePRX Quantum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Information and Cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostselectionKey (lock)Quantum key distributionComputer scienceStatistical physicsQuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum entanglementComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The postselection technique is an important proof technique for proving the security of quantum key distribution protocols against coherent attacks via the uplift of any security proof against independent identically distributed collective attacks. In this work, we go through multiple steps to rigorously apply the postselection technique to optical quantum key distribution protocols. First, we place the postselection technique on a rigorous mathematical foundation by fixing a technical flaw in the original postselection paper. Second, we extend the applicability of the postselection technique to prepare-and-measure protocols by using a de Finetti reduction with a fixed marginal. Third, we show how the postselection technique can be used for decoy-state protocols by tagging the source. Finally, we extend the applicability of the postselection technique to realistic optical setups by developing a new variant of the flag-state squasher. We also improve existing de Finetti reductions, which reduce the effect of using the postselection technique on the key rate. These improvements can be more generally applied to other quantum information processing tasks. As an example to demonstrate the applicability of our work, we apply our results to the time-bin-encoded three-state protocol. We observe that the postselection technique performs better than all other known proof techniques against coherent attacks. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRX QuantumSame topicQuantum Information and CryptographyFrench-language works237,207