Quantum Random Access Codes with Shared Randomness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a communication method, where the sender encodes n classical bits into 1 qubit and sends it to the receiver who performs a certain measurement depending on which of the initial bits must be recovered. This procedure is called (n,1,p) quantum random access code (QRAC) where p > 1/2 is its success probability. It is known that (2,1,0.85) and (3,1,0.79) QRACs (with no classical counterparts) exist and that (4,1,p) QRAC with p > 1/2 is not possible. \n \nWe extend this model with shared randomness (SR) that is accessible to both parties. Then (n,1,p) QRAC with SR and p > 1/2 exists for any n > 0. We give an upper bound on its success probability (the known (2,1,0.85) and (3,1,0.79) QRACs match this upper bound). We discuss some particular constructions for several small values of n. \n \nWe also study the classical counterpart of this model where n bits are encoded into 1 bit instead of 1 qubit and SR is used. We give an optimal construction for such codes and find their success probability exactly---it is less than in the quantum case. \n \nInteractive 3D quantum random access codes are available on-line at \nhttp://home.lanet.lv/~sd20008/racs
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".