The Quantum Cut-and-Choose Technique and Quantum Two-Party Computation

Kashefi, Elham; Music, Luka; Wallden, Petros

doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.03754

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second type of applications involves the family of protocols for which their quantum communication consists of random single qubits as the ones provided by QFactory, such as: quantum-key-distribution [BB84], quantum money [BOV + 18], quantum coin-flipping [PCDK11], quantum signatures [WDKA15], two-party quantum computation [KW17,KMW17], multiparty quantum computation [KP17], etc.…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A way forward: The ultimate goal would be to extent QFactory into a Quantum Universal Composable protocol [Unr10] in order to be able to compose it with any other protocol, or at least to proof the security against a malicious adversary. In classical protocols (and recently in quantum too [KMW17]), the way to boost the security from honest-but-curious to malicious is to introduce a "compiler" (e.g. using the construction in [GMW87] or a cut-and-choose technique) and boost the security by essentially enforcing the honest-but-curious behaviour to malicious adversaries (or abort).…”

Section: Issue 2 (Verification)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6. The verifiable blind quantum computation protocols in [Bro15], [FK12] or the two-party quantum computation protocols in [KW17], [KMW17], require the honest party to prepare single qubit states from the set of states {|0 , |1 , + kπ/4 }. While the QFactory primitive can output the + kπ/4 states, in order to make the honest party fully classical, we need to change the construction of QFactory in order to also be able to output the |0 and |1 states, and maintain the same guarantees in privacy as in the QFactory.…”

Section: Appendices a Psrqg Within Several Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the possibility of classical client blind quantum computing

Cojocaru,

Colisson,

Kashefi

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We define the functionality of delegated pseudo-secret random qubit generator (PSRQG), where a classical client can instruct the preparation of a sequence of random qubits at some distant party. Their classical description is (computationally) unknown to any other party (including the distant party preparing them) but known to the client. We emphasize the unique feature that no quantum communication is required to implement PSRQG. This enables classical clients to perform a class of quantum communication protocols with only a public classical channel with a quantum server. A key such example is the delegated universal blind quantum computing. Using our functionality one could achieve a purely classical-client computational secure verifiable delegated universal quantum computing (also referred to as verifiable blind quantum computation). We give a concrete protocol (QFactory) implementing PSRQG, using the Learning-With-Errors problem to construct a trapdoor one-way function with certain desired properties (quantum-safe, two-regular, collision-resistant). We then prove the security in the Quantum-Honest-But-Curious setting and briefly discuss the extension to the malicious case.

show abstract

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Issue 2 (Verification)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appendices a Psrqg Within Several Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the possibility of classical client blind quantum computing

Cojocaru,

Colisson,

Kashefi

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The case of a dishonest majority was thus far only considered for k = 2 parties, where one of the two players can be dishonest [DNS10, DNS12, KMW17] 1 . These protocols are based on different cryptographic techniques, in particular quantum authentication codes in conjunction with classical MPC [DNS10,DNS12] and quantum-secure bit commitment and oblivious transfer [KMW17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secure Multi-party Quantum Computation with a Dishonest Majority

Dulek,

Grilo,

Jeffery

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cryptographic task of secure multi-party (classical) computation has received a lot of attention in the last decades. Even in the extreme case where a computation is performed between k mutually distrustful players, and security is required even for the single honest player if all other players are colluding adversaries, secure protocols are known. For quantum computation, on the other hand, protocols allowing arbitrary dishonest majority have only been proven for k = 2. In this work, we generalize the approach taken by Dupuis, Nielsen and Salvail (CRYPTO 2012) in the two-party setting to devise a secure, efficient protocol for multi-party quantum computation for any number of players k, and prove security against up to k − 1 colluding adversaries. The quantum round complexity of the protocol for computing a quantum circuit with g gates acting on w qubits is O((w + g)k). To achieve efficiency, we develop a novel public verification protocol for the Clifford authentication code, and a testing protocol for magic-state inputs, both using classical multi-party computation.

show abstract

“…This is very much in the spirit of a cryptographic technique known as cut-and-choose[62], which has also been used in the context of testing quantum states[63].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification of Quantum Computation: An Overview of Existing Approaches

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantum computers promise to efficiently solve not only problems believed to be intractable for classical computers, but also problems for which verifying the solution is also considered intractable. This raises the question of how one can check whether quantum computers are indeed producing correct results. This task, known as quantum verification, has been highlighted as a significant challenge on the road to scalable quantum computing technology. We review the most significant approaches to quantum verification and compare them in terms of structure, complexity and required resources. We also comment on the use of cryptographic techniques which, for many of the presented protocols, has proven extremely useful in performing verification. Finally, we discuss issues related to fault tolerance, experimental implementations and the outlook for future protocols. arXiv:1709.06984v2 [quant-ph] 9 Jul 2018Problem 1 (Verifiability of BQP computations). Does every problem in BQP admit an interactive-proof system in which the prover is restricted to BQP computations?As mentioned, this complexity theoretic formulation of the problem was considered by Gottesman, Aaronson and Vazirani [10,11] and, in fact, Aaronson has offered a 25$ prize for its resolution [10]. While, as of yet, the question remains open, one does arrive at a positive answer through slight alterations of the 4 BPP and MA are simply the probabilistic versions of the more familiar classes P and NP. Under plausible derandomization assumptions, BPP = P and MA = NP [13]. 5 Even if this were the case, i.e. BQP ⊆ MA, for this to be useful in practice one would require that computing the witness can also be done in BQP. In fact, there are candidate problems known to be in both BQP and MA, for which computing the witness is believed to not be in BQP (a conjectured example is [17]). 6 MA can be viewed as an interactive-proof system where only one message is sent from the prover (Merlin) to the verifier (Arthur).consideration for any realistic implementation of a verification protocol. Finally, in Subsection 5.3 we outline some of the existing experimental implementations of these protocols. Throughout the review, we are assuming familiarity with the basics of quantum information theory and some elements of complexity theory. However, we provide a brief overview of these topics as well as other notions that are used in this review (such as measurement-based quantum computing) in the appendix, Section 7. Note also, that we will be referencing complexity classes such as BQP, QMA, QPIP and MIP * . Definitions for all of these are provided in Subsection 7.3 of the appendix. We begin with a short overview of blind quantum computing. Blind quantum computingThe concept of blind computing is highly relevant to quantum verification. Here, we simply give a succinct outline of the subject. For more details, see this review of blind quantum computing protocols by Fitzsimons [34] as well as [35][36][37][38][39]. Note that, while the review of Fitzsimons covers all of the material ...

show abstract

The Quantum Cut-and-Choose Technique and Quantum Two-Party Computation

Cited by 5 publications

References 27 publications

On the possibility of classical client blind quantum computing

On the possibility of classical client blind quantum computing

Secure Multi-party Quantum Computation with a Dishonest Majority

Verification of Quantum Computation: An Overview of Existing Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About