Deterministic Secure Direct Communication Using Ping-pong Protocol without Public Channel”, quant-ph 0301048
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on an EPR pair of qubits and allowing asymptotically secure key distribution, a secure communication protocol is presented. Bob sends either of the EPR pair qubits to Alice. Alice receives the travel qubit. Then she can encode classical information by local unitary operations on this travel qubit. Alice send the qubit back to Bob. Bob can get Alice’s information by measurement on the two photons in Bell operator basis. If Eve in line, she has no access to Bob’s home qubit. All her operations are restricted to the travel qubit. In order to find out which opeartion Alice performs, Eve’s operation must include measurements. The EPR pair qubits are destroyed. Bob’s measurement on the two photons in Bell operator basis can help him to judge whether Eve exist in line or not. In this protocal, a public channel is not necessary. PACS numbers: 03.67.Hk, 03.65.Ud, 03.67.Dd The idea of quantum cryptography was first proposed in the 1970s by Stephen Wiesner [1] and by Charles H. Bennett of IBM and Gilles Brassard of The University of Montreal [5]. The motive that we build quantum-mechanical communications channels is not only to transmit information securely without being eavesdropped on but also to transmit information more efficiently. We consider that quantum channel is secure because that quantum physics establishes a set of negative rules stating things that cannot be done [2]: (1) One cannot take a measurement without
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".