Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userQuantum Lazy Sampling and Game-Playing Proofs for Quantum Indifferentiability
72
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Game-playing proofs constitute a powerful framework for non-quantum cryptographic security arguments, most notably applied in the context of indifferentiability. An essential ingredient in such proofs is lazy sampling of random primitives. We develop a quantum game-playing proof framework by generalizing two recently developed proof techniques. First, we describe how Zhandrys compressed quantum oracles~(Crypto19) can be used to do quantum lazy sampling of a class of non-uniform function distributions. Second, we observe how Unruhs one-way-to-hiding lemma~(Eurocrypt14) can also be applied to compressed oracles, providing a quantum counterpart to the fundamental lemma of game-playing. Subsequently, we use our game-playing framework to prove quantum indifferentiability of the sponge construction, assuming a random internal function.
rate research
Read More
Open quantum walks (OQWs) describe a quantum walker on an underlying graph whose dynamics is purely driven by dissipation and decoherence. Mathematically, they are formulated as completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) maps on the space of density matrices for the walker on the graph. Any microscopically derived OQW must include the possibility of remaining on the same site on the graph when the map is applied. We extend the CPTP map to describe a lazy OQW. We derive a central limit theorem for lazy OQWs on a $d$-dimensional lattice, where the distribution converges to a Gaussian. We show that the properties of this Gaussian computed using conventional methods agree with the general formulas derived from our central limit theorem.
The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: Upcoming generations of quantum computers might already be too large to be simulated classically. Is it possible to experimentally test that these systems perform as they should, if we cannot efficiently compute predictions for their behavior? Vazirani has asked: If predicting Quantum Mechanical systems requires exponential resources, is QM a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untrusted future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantum computation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions? To answer these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computational capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to few qubits. Our main theorem can be roughly stated as: Any language in BQP has a QPIP, and moreover, a fault tolerant one. We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. This QPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our second protocol uses polynomial codes QAS due to BCGHS, combined with quantum fault tolerance and multiparty quantum computation techniques. A slight modification of our constructions makes the protocol blind: the quantum computation and input are unknown to the prover. After we have derived the results, we have learned that Broadbent at al. have independently derived universal blind quantum computation using completely different methods. Their construction implicitly implies similar implications.
The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: if we cannot efficiently compute predictions for the behavior of quantum systems, how can we test their behavior? In other words, is quantum mechanics falsifiable? In cryptographic settings, how can a customer of a future untrusted quantum computing company be convinced of the correctness of its quantum computations? To provide answers to these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard interactive proofs the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computational capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to only a few qubits. Our main theorem states, roughly: Any language in BQP has a QPIP, which also hides the computation from the prover. We provide two proofs, one based on a quantum authentication scheme (QAS) relying on random Clifford rotations and the other based on a QAS which uses polynomial codes (BOCG+ 06), combined with secure multiparty computation methods. This is the journal version of work reported in 2008 (ABOE08) and presented in ICS 2010; here we have completed the details and made the proofs rigorous. Some of the proofs required major modifications and corrections. Notably, the claim that the polynomial QPIP is fault tolerant was removed. Similar results (with different protocols) were reported independently around the same time of the original version in BFK08. The initial independent works (ABOE08, BFK08) ignited a long line of research of blind verifiable quantum computation, which we survey here, along with connections to various cryptographic problems. Importantly, the problems of making the results fault tolerant as well as removing the need for quantum communication altogether remain open.
In a recent breakthrough, Mahadev constructed a classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC) protocol for a classical client to delegate decision problems in BQP to an untrusted quantum prover under computational assumptions. In this work, we explore further the feasibility of CVQC with the more general sampling problems in BQP and with the desirable blindness property. We contribute affirmative solutions to both as follows. (1) Motivated by the sampling nature of many quantum applications (e.g., quantum algorithms for machine learning and quantum supremacy tasks), we initiate the study of CVQC for quantum sampling problems (denoted by SampBQP). More precisely, in a CVQC protocol for a SampBQP problem, the prover and the verifier are given an input $xin {0,1}^n$ and a quantum circuit $C$, and the goal of the classical client is to learn a sample from the output $z leftarrow C(x)$ up to a small error, from its interaction with an untrusted prover. We demonstrate its feasibility by constructing a four-message CVQC protocol for SampBQP based on the quantum Learning With Error assumption. (2) The blindness of CVQC protocols refers to a property of the protocol where the prover learns nothing, and hence is blind, about the clients input. It is a highly desirable property that has been intensively studied for the delegation of quantum computation. We provide a simple yet powerful generic compiler that transforms any CVQC protocol to a blind one while preserving its completeness and soundness errors as well as the number of rounds. Applying our compiler to (a parallel repetition of) Mahadevs CVQC protocol for BQP and our CVQC protocol for SampBQP yields the first constant-round blind CVQC protocol for BQP and SampBQP respectively, with negligible completeness and soundness errors.
We present a classical interactive protocol that verifies the validity of a quantum witness state for the local Hamiltonian problem. It follows from this protocol that approximating the non-local value of a multi-player one-round game to inverse polynomial precision is QMA-hard. Our work makes an interesting connection between the theory of QMA-completeness and Hamiltonian complexity on one hand and the study of non-local games and Bell inequalities on the other.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
