MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406261855 · doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.10421

Demonstrating Quantum Homomorphic Encryption Through Simulation

2024· article· en· W4406261855 on OpenAlexafffund
Sohrab Ganjian, Connor Paddock, Anne Broadbent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicChaos-based Image/Signal Encryption
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomomorphic encryptionComputer scienceQuantumEncryptionHomomorphic secret sharingTheoretical computer scienceCryptographyComputer securityPhysicsSecure multi-party computationQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing allows clients with limited computational resources to offload computations to more powerful remote servers. In this paradigm, homomorphic encryption (HE) schemes enable a server to run any computation on a client's encrypted data. These schemes are widely used in cloud computing protocols such as delegated computing, two-party secure computation, and zero-knowledge proofs. Quantum homomorphic encryption (QHE) aims to achieve the objectives of HE with quantum data and quantum circuits, enabling cloud quantum servers to compute on encrypted quantum data uploaded by clients. In this work, we consider a scenario where a client has access to a quantum “encryption/decryption device”, which allows the encryption, transmission, reception, and decryption of quantum states, but not universal quantum computation. In this setting, we provide a proof-of-concept software simulation of quantum homomorphic encryption. Our code implements the “EPR scheme” of Broadbent and Jeffery, which allows for the execution of universal quantum circuits by the server at the cost of requiring shared EPR pairs between the client and server. Our implementation explores the near-term viability of the EPR scheme. Perhaps unsurprisingly, our experiments indicate that the additional cost of homomorphic circuit evaluation is minor in comparison to the simulation cost of the quantum operations. Our simulation toolkit is implemented in Python and is open-source.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChaos-based Image/Signal EncryptionFrench-language works237,207