Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We propose a quantum key distribution (QKD) protocol that is carried out in an indefinite causal order (ICO). In QKD, one considers a setup in which two parties, Alice and Bob, share a key with one another in such a way that they can detect whether an eavesdropper, Eve, has learnt anything about the key. To our knowledge, in all QKD protocols proposed until now, Eve is detected by publicly comparing a subset of Alice and Bob’s key and checking for errors. We find that a consequence of our protocol is that it is possible to detect eavesdroppers without publicly comparing any information about the key. Indeed, we prove that it is not possible for eavesdroppers, performing any individual attack, to extract useful information about the shared key without inducing a nonzero probability of being detected. We also prove the security of this protocol against a class of individual eavesdropping attacks. The role ICO plays in causing unusual phenomena in quantum technologies is an important question. By considering it we find a two-way QKD protocol that exhibits a similar private detection feature, albeit with some interesting differences. After noting some implications of these differences and discussing some of the practicalities of our protocol, we conclude that this work is best considered as a first step in applying quantum cryptographic ideas in an ICO.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".