Computationally-Secure and Composable Remote State Preparation

We introduce a protocol between a classical polynomial-time verifier and a quantum polynomial-time prover that allows the verifier to securely delegate to the prover the preparation of certain single-qubit quantum states The prover is unaware of which state he received and moreover, the verifier can check with high confidence whether the preparation was successful. The delegated preparation of single-qubit states is an elementary building block in many quantum cryptographic protocols. We expect our implementation of "random remote state preparation with verification", a functionality first defined in (Dunjko and Kashefi 2014), to be useful for removing the need for quantum communication in such protocols while keeping functionality. The main application that we detail is to a protocol for blind and verifiable delegated quantum computation (DQC) that builds on the work of (Fitzsimons and Kashefi 2018), who provided such a protocol with quantum communication. Recently, both blind an verifiable DQC were shown to be possible, under computational assumptions, with a classical polynomial-time client (Mahadev 2017, Mahadev 2018). Compared to the work of Mahadev, our protocol is more modular, applies to the measurement-based model of computation (instead of the Hamiltonian model) and is composable. Our proof of security builds on ideas introduced in (Brakerski et al. 2018).

[1]  Dominique Unruh,et al.  Computationally Binding Quantum Commitments , 2016, EUROCRYPT.

[2]  Armin Tavakoli,et al.  Self-testing quantum states and measurements in the prepare-and-measure scenario , 2018, Physical Review A.

[3]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  Classical command of quantum systems , 2013, Nature.

[4]  Urmila Mahadev,et al.  Classical Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits , 2017, 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[5]  Ron Rothblum,et al.  Delegating Computations with (Almost) Minimal Time and Space Overhead , 2018, 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[6]  Andrew M. Childs.  Secure assisted quantum computation , 2001, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[7]  Yael Tauman Kalai,et al.  Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles , 2008, STOC.

[8]  Mikhail N. Vyalyi,et al.  Classical and Quantum Computation , 2002, Graduate studies in mathematics.

[9]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  SNARKs for C: Verifying Program Executions Succinctly and in Zero Knowledge , 2013, CRYPTO.

[10]  Zvika Brakerski,et al.  A Cryptographic Test of Quantumness and Certifiable Randomness from a Single Quantum Device , 2018, 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[11]  Jens Groth,et al.  Short Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge Proofs , 2010, ASIACRYPT.

[12]  Ueli Maurer,et al.  Abstract Cryptography , 2011, ICS.

[13]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  Universal Blind Quantum Computation , 2008, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[14]  Petros Wallden,et al.  Optimised resource construction for verifiable quantum computation , 2015 .

[15]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  Delegated Pseudo-Secret Random Qubit Generator , 2018, ArXiv.

[16]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  Robustness and device independence of verifiable blind quantum computing , 2015, 1502.02571.

[17]  E. Kashefi,et al.  Unconditionally verifiable blind quantum computation , 2012, 1203.5217.

[18]  Craig Gentry,et al.  Quadratic Span Programs and Succinct NIZKs without PCPs , 2013, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[19]  Ivan Damgård,et al.  Linear zero-knowledge—a note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments , 1997, STOC '97.

[20]  T. H. Yang,et al.  Robust self-testing of the singlet , 2012, 1203.2976.

[21]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  Multiparty Delegated Quantum Computing , 2016, Cryptogr..

[22]  Urmila Mahadev,et al.  Classical Verification of Quantum Computations , 2018, 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[23]  Elad Eban,et al.  Interactive Proofs For Quantum Computations , 2017, 1704.04487.

[24]  R. Raz,et al.  How to delegate computations: the power of no-signaling proofs , 2014, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[25]  Maris Ozols,et al.  Quantum Random Access Codes with Shared Randomness , 2008, 0810.2937.

[26]  Johannes Bausch,et al.  Analysis and limitations of modified circuit-to-Hamiltonian constructions , 2016, Quantum.

[27]  R. Cramer,et al.  Linear Zero-Knowledgde. A Note on Efficient Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Arguments , 1996 .

[28]  Masahito Hayashi,et al.  Verifiable Measurement-Only Blind Quantum Computing with Stabilizer Testing. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[29]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  Blind quantum computing with two almost identical states , 2016, ArXiv.

[30]  Andreas J. Winter,et al.  Coding theorem and strong converse for quantum channels , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[31]  Anne Broadbent,et al.  How to Verify a Quantum Computation , 2015, Theory Comput..

[32]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  Verification of Quantum Computation: An Overview of Existing Approaches , 2017, Theory of Computing Systems.

[33]  Jörn Müller-Quade,et al.  Composability in quantum cryptography , 2009, ArXiv.

[34]  Gus Gutoski,et al.  Toward a general theory of quantum games , 2006, STOC '07.

[35]  Joseph Fitzsimons,et al.  Composable Security of Delegated Quantum Computation , 2013, ASIACRYPT.

[36]  Ran Canetti,et al.  Universally composable security: a new paradigm for cryptographic protocols , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

[37]  Joseph Fitzsimons,et al.  Post hoc verification of quantum computation , 2015, Physical review letters.

[38]  Zvika Brakerski,et al.  Certifiable Randomness from a Single Quantum Device , 2018, ArXiv.