Quantum coin hedging, and a counter measure

A quantum board game is a multi-round protocol between a single quantum player against the quantum board. Molina and Watrous discovered quantum hedging. They gave an example for perfect quantum hedging: a board game with winning probability < 1, such that the player can win with certainty at least 1-out-of-2 quantum board games played in parallel. Here we show that perfect quantum hedging occurs in a cryptographic protocol – quantum coin flipping. For this reason, when cryptographic protocols are composed in parallel, hedging may introduce serious challenges into their analysis. We also show that hedging cannot occur when playing two-outcome board games in sequence. This is done by showing a formula for the value of sequential two-outcome board games, which depends only on the optimal value of a single board game; this formula applies in a more general setting of possible target functions, in which hedging is only a special case.

[1]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Multiparty quantum coin flipping , 2003, Proceedings. 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004..

[2]  C. Mochon.  Quantum weak coin flipping with arbitrarily small bias , 2007, 0711.4114.

[3]  Iordanis Kerenidis,et al.  Practical Quantum Coin Flipping , 2011 .

[4]  Carlos Mochon.  Quantum weak coin-flipping with bias of 0.192 , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  Ran Raz,et al.  A parallel repetition theorem , 1995, STOC '95.

[6]  Hirotada Kobayashi,et al.  General Properties of Quantum Zero-Knowledge Proofs , 2007, TCC.

[7]  Iordanis Kerenidis,et al.  Optimal Quantum Strong Coin Flipping , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[8]  Manuel Blum,et al.  Coin flipping by telephone a protocol for solving impossible problems , 1983, SIGA.

[9]  E. Diamanti,et al.  Experimental plug and play quantum coin flipping , 2013, Nature Communications.

[10]  Mario Szegedy,et al.  Product Rules in Semidefinite Programming , 2007, FCT.

[11]  Iordanis Kerenidis,et al.  Optimal Bounds for Quantum Bit Commitment , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[12]  Iordanis Kerenidis,et al.  A Simpler Proof of the Existence of Quantum Weak Coin Flipping with Arbitrarily Small Bias , 2014, SIAM J. Comput..

[13]  Richard Cleve,et al.  Limits on the security of coin flips when half the processors are faulty , 1986, STOC '86.

[14]  Srinivasan Arunachalam,et al.  Quantum hedging in two-round prover-verifier interactions , 2013, TQC.

[15]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  A new protocol and lower bounds for quantum coin flipping , 2001, STOC '01.

[16]  Abel Molina,et al.  Hedging bets with correlated quantum strategies , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[17]  Gus Gutoski,et al.  Quantum Interactive Proofs with Competing Provers , 2004, STACS.

[18]  A. Jamiołkowski.  Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators , 1972 .

[19]  Abel Molina,et al.  Parallel Repetition of Prover-Verifier Quantum Interactions , 2012, ArXiv.

[20]  Gus Gutoski,et al.  Optimal bounds for semi-honest quantum oblivious transfer , 2013, Chic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Florence March,et al.  2016 , 2016, Affair of the Heart.

[22]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Quantum bit escrow , 2000, STOC '00.

[23]  M. Handzic.  5 , 1824, The Banality of Heidegger.

[24]  Man-Duen Choi.  Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices , 1975 .

[25]  Rahul Jain,et al.  Two-Message Quantum Interactive Proofs Are in PSPACE , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[26]  T. Rudolph,et al.  Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols , 2001, quant-ph/0106019.

[27]  John Watrous,et al.  The Theory of Quantum Information , 2018 .