DOCSLIB.ORG

Combinatorial Structures in Quantum Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Combinatorial Structures in Quantum Information University College London Joshua Lockhart 2 For Sarah. Declaration I, Joshua Lockhart confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 3 4 My appreciation to Simone Severini for his advice, candour and friendship throughout the PhD. Thanks to Otfried Gühne for his insight on all things entanglement. Thanks to David Roberson and Laura Manˇcinska for their encouragement, mentorship, and hospitality. Many thanks also to Toby Cubitt for his open office door, and to Carlos González-Guillén for his supply of counter-examples to conjectures. Thanks to Scott Aaronson, Aram Harrow, Ashley Montanaro, Fernando Brandão, László Babai, Andreas Winter, Giannicola Scarpa, and Will Matthews for help- ful discussions. To all those I have shared an office with, Dan Dervovic, Dimitris Stamos, Giu- lia Luise, Alexander Botev, Nadish de Silva, Leonard Wossnig, Smudge the rabbit, Andrea Rochetto, James Watson, Ed Grant, Carlo Sparaciari, Thomas Galley, Alexandru Paraschiv and Octavio Zapata: thank you for all the good times. Thanks to Dan in particular for going above and beyond to maintain the cookie culture in Research Office 3.14. Big thanks to Cohort One of UCL’s Delivering Quantum Technologies CDT for your support and friendship. Finally, I thank Sarah Lockhart for her unwavering support over these four years. Contents 1 Introduction 13 1.1 Quantum preliminaries . 19 2 Quantum state isomorphism 25 2.1 Graph isomorphism . 28 2.2 Probabilistic and interactive proofs . 32 2.2.1 Proofs with private coins . 35 2.2.2 Proofs with public coins . 37 2.3 Isomorphisms of strings and states . 41 2.3.1 Permutations and S TRING I SOMORPHISM ........ 42 2.3.2 Permutations of quantum states and S TATE I SOMORPHISM 43 2.3.3 Quantum complexity theory . 45 2.3.4 Quantum interactive proofs and zero knowledge . 54 2.3.5 Statistical zero knowledge . 58 2.4 Summary . 63 3 Grid states 67 3.1 Chapter Overview . 69 3.2 Graphs and quantum entanglement . 73 3.2.1 Subsequent work . 78 3.2.2 Discussion of literature . 81 3.3 Preliminaries . 82 3.3.1 Grid-labelled graphs and grid-states . 83 3.3.2 Local isomorphism . 84 3.3.3 Local operations and classical communication . 88 5 6 CONTENTS 3.4 The Degree Criterion . 92 3.4.1 Extensions and LE-isomorphism . 99 3.4.2 Decompositions . 101 3.5 3 × 3 graphs that satisfy the degree criterion . 105 3.5.1 Edge contributions . 108 3.5.2 3 × 3 degree criterion with 2 diagonal edges . 111 3.5.3 3 × 3 degree criterion with 3 diagonal edges . 113 3.5.4 3 × 3 degree criterion with 4 and 5 diagonal edges . 114 3.5.5 Bound entanglement . 121 3.6 Matrix Realignment Criterion . 123 3.6.1 Realignment of combinatorial Laplacian matrices . 124 3.6.2 Failure of the matrix realignment criterion . 131 3.6.3 Applying the matrix realignment criterion to B4 and B5.. 135 3.7 Range criterion . 137 3.7.1 Row and column surgery . 137 3.7.2 Bound entangled graphs via the range criterion . 141 3.8 Summary . 149 4 Discussion 153 A Grid States Miscellany 181 A.1 Entanglement of B5 .......................... 181 A.2 Counting graphs that satisfy the degree criterion . 185 A.3 Proof of 6; 7; 8; 9 edge lemma . 191 Abstract This work is an exploration of how graphs and permutations can be applied in the context of quantum information processing. In Chapter 2 we consider problems about the permutations of the subsystems of a quantum system. Explicitly, we attempt to understand the problem of determining if two quantum states of N qubits are isomorphic: if one can be obtained from the other by permuting its subsystems. We show that the well known graph isomorphism problem is a special case of state isomorphism. We also show that the complement of state isomorphism, the problem of determining if two states are not isomorphic, can be verified by a quantum interactive proof system, and that this proof system can be made statistical zero knowledge. We also consider the complexity of isomorphism problems for stabilizer states, and mixed states. In Chapter 3 we work with a special class of quantum states called grid states, in an effort to develop a toy model for mixed state entanglement. The key idea with grid states is that they can be represented by what we call a grid-labelled graph, literally, a graph forced to have vertices on a two dimensional grid. We show that whether or not a grid state is entangled can sometimes be determined solely from the structural properties of its corresponding grid-labelled graph. We use the grid state framework to build families of bound entangled states, suggesting that even in this restricted setting detecting entanglement is non-trivial and will require more than a single entanglement criterion. 7 8 CONTENTS Impact Statement The thesis focuses on two ways in which mathematical tools more traditionally associated with classical computer science can be brought to bear on questions to do with quantum computing. Quantum computers are known to provide exponential speed up over the best known classical algorithms for a number of well known problems including integer factorisation and solving linear systems of equations. The first section is immersed in the theory of quantum computational complexity, with the aim of bringing to it fresh ideas from classical computer science. We consider a quantum generalisation of the graph isomorphism problem: the prob- lem of determining if two quantum states are equivalent up to rearrangements of their constituent subsystems. We show that this problem, which we call the state isomorphism problem, has a number of similarities to its classical counterpart in terms of its complexity classification. This work was presented as a poster at a number of quantum computing conferences, with highlights being QIP and TQC, suggesting that it is of interest to the broader theoretical quantum computing community. It is not clear which aspect of quantum mechanics is responsible for quantum algorithmic speed up. One candidate phenomena is quantum entanglement, the so called “spooky” way in which quantum particles can be correlated with one another, and affect each others state despite potentially being astronomically far apart. In this latter part of the thesis, we consider a special class of quantum states that can be represented by graphs on a grid. We show that properties relating to the entanglement of such a state can be deduced by considering structural properties of its corresponding graph. The work in this direction has resulted in a publication in Physical Review A. The work is intended to be inter-disciplinary, 9 10 CONTENTS with the aim of fostering collaboration between the quantum information and combinatorics communities. The work was presented as a talk at Eurocomb 2017 and the British Colloquium for Theoretical Computer Science. Complexity Class Glossary P: Polynomial time NP: Non-deterministic Polynomial time PSPACE: Polynomial Space BPP: Bounded error Probabilistic Polynomial time BQP: Bounded error Quantum Polynomial time QMA: Quantum Merlin Arthur QCMA: Quantum Merlin Arthur with classical certificate QAM: Quantum Arthur Merlin QCAM: Quantum Arthur Merlin with classical certificate IP: Interactive Proofs QIP: Quantum Interactive Proofs QSZK: Quantum Statistical Zero Knowledge QCSZK: Quantum Statistical Zero Knowledge with classical communication MA: Merlin Arthur AM: Arthur Merlin 11 12 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction A computer that can access advanced processing power by tapping into the realm of quantum physics is an idea that could have come straight from the pages of a science fiction novel. However, at the time of writing a Canadian startup have received $9 million in funding to investigate quantum machine learning [1], China and the USA are engaged in what Bloomberg calls a “Quantum Computing Arms Race” [2], and Microsoft have just released a Visual Studio plugin for Q#, their quantum programming language [3]. It appears that science fiction is well on its way to becoming fact. Despite this recent explosion of activity, this field is not a new one. The idea of a quantum computer is rooted in Feynman’s 1981 talk “Simulating Physics with Computers” [4], in which he proposes that in order to provide an accurate simulation of a quantum mechanical system, a computer must operate according to quantum laws. Four years later, David Deutsch mapped out some of the the- oretical underpinnings of such a computing device [5], before showing in 1992 with Richard Jozsa [6] that they could outperform classical computers at certain, rather contrived, tasks. It wasn’t until 1994, when Peter Shor [7] came up with a quantum algorithm that could efficiently find the prime factors of large numbers, that the broader scientific community started to pay attention. Here was a new kind of computing device that, if built, would allow its users to break the RSA cryptosystem [8], built on the assumption that this exact task was impractical. RSA formed, and 13 14 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION still forms, the backbone of secure Internet communications, so the implications of such a device being built would be catastrophic. Another key result came in 1996, when Lov Grover [9] showed that quantum computers are inherently better than classical computers at a foundational problem in information processing: searching through unordered lists of data. Suppose you have a list of N elements, and you are tasked with finding the location of a particular item on that list. In the worst case, the marked item could be the last element: this would require you to check all entries of the list, O(N) queries.
Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1803.04114V2 [Quant-Ph] 16 Nov 2018

    Arxiv:1803.04114V2 [Quant-Ph] 16 Nov 2018

    Learning the quantum algorithm for state overlap Lukasz Cincio,1 Yiğit Subaşı,1 Andrew T. Sornborger,2 and Patrick J. Coles1 1Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA. 2Information Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA. Short-depth algorithms are crucial for reducing computational error on near-term quantum com- puters, for which decoherence and gate infidelity remain important issues. Here we present a machine-learning approach for discovering such algorithms. We apply our method to a ubiqui- tous primitive: computing the overlap Tr(ρσ) between two quantum states ρ and σ. The standard algorithm for this task, known as the Swap Test, is used in many applications such as quantum support vector machines, and, when specialized to ρ = σ, quantifies the Renyi entanglement. Here, we find algorithms that have shorter depths than the Swap Test, including one that has a constant depth (independent of problem size). Furthermore, we apply our approach to the hardware-specific connectivity and gate sets used by Rigetti’s and IBM’s quantum computers and demonstrate that the shorter algorithms that we derive significantly reduce the error - compared to the Swap Test - on these computers. I. INTRODUCTION hyperparameters, we optimize the algorithm in a task- oriented manner, i.e., by minimizing a cost function that quantifies the discrepancy between the algorithm’s out- Quantum supremacy [1] may be coming soon [2]. put and the desired output. The task is defined by a While it is an exciting time for quantum computing, de- training data set that exemplifies the desired computa- coherence and gate fidelity continue to be important is- tion.
  • Signing Perfect Currency Bonds

    Signing Perfect Currency Bonds

    Signing Perfect Currency Bonds Subhayan Roy Moulick∗ and Prasanta K. Panigrahiy Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur 741246, West Bengal, India (Dated: May 23, 2019) We propose the idea of a Quantum Cheque Scheme, a cryptographic protocol in which any legiti- mate client of a trusted bank can issue a cheque, that cannot be counterfeited or altered in anyway, and can be verified by a bank or any of its branches. We formally define a Quantum Cheque and present the first Unconditionally Secure Quantum Cheque Scheme and show it to be secure against any no-signaling adversary. The proposed Quantum Cheque Scheme can been perceived as the quantum analog of Electronic Data Interchange, as an alternate for current e-Payment Gateways. PACS numbers: 03.67.Dd, 03.67.Hk, 03.67.Ac I. INTRODUCTION in addition to security against counterfeiters, owing its origin to the pioneering works of Mosca and Stebila [11]. Replication of classical information is a significant nui- They proposed a scheme based on blind quantum com- sance in copy-protection. Any physical entity created putation that required a verifier to do an obfuscated ver- classically can be, in principle, copied. Currency bonds, ification with the bank and learn only the validity of the printed on textile and paper, are no exception, and any quantum coin. This however is a private key protocol adversary, given sufficient time and resources, can be and requires communication with the bank. able to counterfeit currency bonds. However, the quan- In this paper we propose the idea of Quantum Cheques tum regime can circumvent this problem, exploiting the and present a construction of an Quantum Cheque `No Cloning Theorem' [1], and pave way for unforgeable Scheme with Perfect Security against any No-Signaling Quantum Currency that are impossible to counterfeit adversary.
  • Quantum Information & Quantum Computation

    Quantum Information & Quantum Computation

    CS290A, Spring 2005: Quantum Information & Quantum Computation Wim van Dam Engineering 1, Room 5109 vandam@cs http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~vandam/teaching/CS290/ Administrative • The Final Examination will be: Monday June 6, 12:00–15:00, PHELPS 1401 • New Exercises are posted Try to answer Question 2 before Thursday. Last Week / This Week • Last week we looked at quantum money and quantum cryptography, which uses the qubit states 0,1,+,–. • This week we will extend this idea to describe “quantum fingerprinting”. • Also this week: superdense quantum coding and quantum teleportation of quantum states. Fingerprinting Assume two parties A and B that each have data in the form of a (long) string x and y ∈{0,1} N. A and B want to check if they have the same data, without revealing a priori to the other their strings. They do this by sending (publicly) information about their strings (x and y) to a trusted third party C, who decides. Sending the whole strings is not allowed because the strings are too long / risk of eavesdropping. A and B want to have a way of fingerprinting their strings. Quantum Fingerprinting “Quantum Fingerprinting” refers to a way of mapping the ∈ N strings x,y {0,1} to quantum states | φx〉 and | φy〉, that live in a ‘much smaller than 2 N’-dimensional Hilbert space, such that from ψ and φ we can tell decide whether x=y. ∈ N The set { |φx〉 : x {0,1} } cannot be mutually orthogonal. Instead we will have to work with near orthogonal states. ∈ N Central Idea: Encode x {0,1} into m qubit state |φx〉 (with m much smaller than N).
  • Lecture 25: QMA(2) 1 Introduction 2 QMA(2): the 2-Prover

    Lecture 25: QMA(2) 1 Introduction 2 QMA(2): the 2-Prover

    Quantum Computation (CMU 18-859BB, Fall 2015) Lecture 25: QMA(2) December 7, 2015 Lecturer: Ryan O'Donnell Scribe: Yongshan Ding 1 Introduction So far, we have seen two major quantum complexity classes, namely BQP and QMA. They are the quantum analogue of two famous classical complexity classes, P (or more precisely BPP) and NP, respectively. In today's lecture, we shall extend to a generalization of QMA that only arises in the Quantum setting. In particular, we denote QMA(k) for the case that quantum verifier uses k quantum certificates. Before we study the new complexity class, recall the following \swap test" circuit from homework 3: qudit SWAP qudit qubit j0i H • H Accept if j0i When we measure the last register, we \accept" if the outcome is j0i and \reject" if the outcome is j1i. We have shown that this is \similarity test". In particular we have the following: 1 1 2 1 2 • Pr[Accept j i ⊗ j'i] = 2 + 2 j h j'i j = 1 − 2 dtr(j i ; j'i) 1 1 Pd 2 • Pr[Accept ρ ⊗ ρ] = 2 + 2 i=1 pi , if ρ = fpi j iig. 2 QMA(2): The 2-Prover QMA Recall from last time, we introduced the QMA class where there is a prover who is trying to prove some instance x is in the language L, regardless of whether it is true or not. Figure. 1 is a simple picture that describes this. The complexity class we are going to look at today involves multiple provers. Kobayashi et al.
  • Practical Quantum Digital Signature

    Practical Quantum Digital Signature

    Practical Quantum Digital Signature 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, Hua-Lei Yin, ∗ Yao Fu, † and Zeng-Bing Chen ‡ 1Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences at Microscale and Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China 2The CAS Center for Excellence in QIQP and the Synergetic Innovation Center for QIQP, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China (Dated: September 5, 2018) Guaranteeing non-repudiation, unforgeability as well as transferability of a signature is one of the most vital safeguards in today’s e-commerce era. Based on fundamental laws of quantum physics, quantum digital signature (QDS) aims to provide information-theoretic security for this crypto- graphic task. However, up to date, the previously proposed QDS protocols are impractical due to various challenging problems and most importantly, the requirement of authenticated (secure) quan- tum channels between participants. Here, we present the first quantum digital signature protocol that removes the assumption of authenticated quantum channels while remaining secure against the collective attacks. Besides, our QDS protocol can be practically implemented over more than 100 km under current mature technology as used in quantum key distribution. PACS numbers: 03.67.Dd, 03.67.Hk, 03.67.Ac I. INTRODUCTION The authenticated quantum channels are equivalent to the secure quantum channels that do not allow any eaves- Digital signatures aim to certify the provenance and dropping. Recall that while quantum key distribution identity of a message as well as the authenticity of a (QKD) [11, 12] requires authenticated classical channels, signature. They are widely applied in e-mails, financial it does not require authenticated (secure) quantum chan- transactions, electronic contracts, software distribution nels because of potential eavesdropping.
  • Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes

    Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes

    Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes Ronald de Wolf Preface These lecture notes were formed in small chunks during my “Quantum computing” course at the University of Amsterdam, Feb-May 2011, and compiled into one text thereafter. Each chapter was covered in a lecture of 2 45 minutes, with an additional 45-minute lecture for exercises and × homework. The first half of the course (Chapters 1–7) covers quantum algorithms, the second half covers quantum complexity (Chapters 8–9), stuff involving Alice and Bob (Chapters 10–13), and error-correction (Chapter 14). A 15th lecture about physical implementations and general outlook was more sketchy, and I didn’t write lecture notes for it. These chapters may also be read as a general introduction to the area of quantum computation and information from the perspective of a theoretical computer scientist. While I made an effort to make the text self-contained and consistent, it may still be somewhat rough around the edges; I hope to continue polishing and adding to it. Comments & constructive criticism are very welcome, and can be sent to [email protected] Attribution and acknowledgements Most of the material in Chapters 1–6 comes from the first chapter of my PhD thesis [71], with a number of additions: the lower bound for Simon, the Fourier transform, the geometric explanation of Grover. Chapter 7 is newly written for these notes, inspired by Santha’s survey [62]. Chapters 8 and 9 are largely new as well. Section 3 of Chapter 8, and most of Chapter 10 are taken (with many changes) from my “quantum proofs” survey paper with Andy Drucker [28].
  • 4. Quantum Computing

    4. Quantum Computing

    4. QUANTUM COMPUTING Jozef Gruska Faculty of Informatics Brno Czech Republic October 11, 2013 Quantum Computing 4 - Quantum Gates and Circuits - 2013 4. QUANTUM CIRCUITS Quantum circuits are the most easy to deal with model of quantum computations. Several simple quantum gates form elementary building blocks from which any quantum circuit can be built. Jozef Gruska October 11, 2013 1 Quantum Computing 4 - Quantum Gates and Circuits - 2013 PART I - MOTIVATION Jozef Gruska October 11, 2013 2 Quantum Computing 4 - Quantum Gates and Circuits - 2013 MOTTO I. Progress in science is often done by pessimists. Progress in technology is always done by optimists. Jozef Gruska October 11, 2013 3 Quantum Computing 4 - Quantum Gates and Circuits - 2013 MOTTO II. Progress in science is often done by pessimists. Progress in technology is always done by knowledgeable and experienced optimists. Jozef Gruska October 11, 2013 4 Quantum Computing 4 - Quantum Gates and Circuits - 2013 TWO STORIES TO REMEMBER • The proposal to build Collosus, the first electronic computer for cryptanalysis purposes, was during the 2WW rejected by a committee of prominent specialists as impossible to make, in spite of the fact that British cryptanalysts needed it badly to crack communication between Hitler and his generals. • Collosus was then built by an ingenious optimist, Tommy Flowers, within 10 months in a Post office laboratory, and worked from the beginning successfully to break Lorenz cipher, starting January 1944. • The key point was that Flowers realized that velvets were reliable provided they were never switched on and off. (Of course, nobody believed him.) • The idea that 30m long ENIAC with 19000 vacuum tubes could work looked also crazy, for scientists, but it worked.
  • The Power of Unentanglement

    The Power of Unentanglement

    The Power of Unentanglement Scott Aaronson∗ Salman Beigi Andrew Drucker Bill Fefferman MIT MIT MIT University of Chicago Peter Shor MIT Abstract The class QMA (k), introduced by Kobayashi et al., consists of all languages that can be verified using k unentangled quantum proofs. Many of the simplest questions about this class have remained embarrassingly open: for example, can we give any evidence that k quantum proofs are more powerful than one? Does QMA (k) = QMA (2) for k 2? Can QMA (k) protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? ≥ In this paper, we make progress on all of the above questions. We give a protocol by which a verifier can be convinced that a 3Sat formula of size m is • satisfiable, with constant soundness, given O (√m) unentangled quantum witnesses with O (log m) qubits each. Our protocol relies on the existence of very short PCPs. We show that assuming a weak version of thee Additivity Conjecture from quantum infor- • mation theory, any QMA (2) protocol can be amplified to exponentially small error, and QMA (k)= QMA (2) for all k 2. ≥ We prove the nonexistence of “perfect disentanglers” for simulating multiple Merlins with • one. 1 Introduction Quantum entanglement is often described as a complicated, hard-to-understand resource. But ironically, many questions in quantum computing are easiest to answer assuming unlimited entan- glement, and become much more difficult if entanglement is not allowed! One way to understand this is that Hilbert space—the space of all quantum states—has extremely useful linear-algebraic properties, and when we restrict to the set of separable states we lose many of those properties.
  • QMA(2) Workshop— Tutorial 1 Bill Fefferman (Quics) Agenda

    QMA(2) Workshop— Tutorial 1 Bill Fefferman (Quics) Agenda

    QMA(2) workshop— Tutorial 1 Bill Fefferman (QuICS) Agenda I. Basics II. Known results III. Open questions/Next tutorial overview I. Basics I.1 Classical Complexity Theory • P • Class of problems efficiently solved on classical computer • NP • Class of problems with efficiently verifiable solutions P • Characterized by 3SAT • Input: Ψ:{0,1}n→{0,1} NP • n-variable 3-CNF formula • E.g., (x1∨x2∨x3)∧(x1∨−x2∨x6)∧... • Problem: ∃x1,x2,...,xn so that Ψ(x)=1? • Could use a box solving 3SAT to solve any problem in NP 4 I.2 Merlin-Arthur �∈{0,1}p(n) • “Randomized generalization” of NP • Can think of a game between all-knowing but potentially dishonest Merlin trying to prove statement to efficient randomized classical computer (Arthur) • If statement is true, there exists a polynomial length classical bitstring or “witness” to convince Arthur to accept with high probability (Completeness) • If statement is false, then every “witness” is rejected by Arthur with high probability (Soundness) • Under commonly believed derandomization hypothesis MA=NP 5 I.3 Quantum Merlin-Arthur • QMA: Same setup, now Arthur is BQP machine, |ψ⟩ witness is polynomial qubit quantum state • Formally: QMAm is the class of promise problems L=(Lyes,Lno) so that: • There exists a uniform verifier {�#}#∈{&,(}* of polynomial size that acts on O(m(|x|)+k(|x|)) qubits (for k∈poly(n)): k k x Lyes 0 Vx† 1 1 outVx 0 2/3 2 )9| i h | ⌦h k | | ih | | i⌦| k i ≥ x L 0 V † 1 1 V 0 1/3 2 no )8| i h | ⌦h | x | ih |out x | i⌦| i • “Quantum analogue” of NP • k-Local Hamiltonian problem is QMA-complete (when k≥2) [Kitaev ’02] / • Input: � = ∑.0( �., each term �.
  • Pseudorandom Quantum States

    Pseudorandom Quantum States

    Pseudorandom Quantum States Zhengfeng Ji1, Yi-Kai Liu2, and Fang Song3 1 Centre for Quantum Software and Information, School of Software, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia [email protected] 2 Joint Center for Quantum Information and Computer Science (QuICS), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, and University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA [email protected] 3 Computer Science Department, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA [email protected] Abstract. We propose the concept of pseudorandom quantum states, which appear random to any quantum polynomial-time adversary. It offers a computational approximation to perfectly random quantum states anal- ogous in spirit to cryptographic pseudorandom generators, as opposed to statistical notions of quantum pseudorandomness that have been studied previously, such as quantum t-designs analogous to t-wise independent distributions. Under the assumption that quantum-secure one-way functions exist, we present efficient constructions of pseudorandom states, showing that our definition is achievable. We then prove several basic properties of pseudorandom states, which show the utility of our definition. First, we show a cryptographic no-cloning theorem: no efficient quantum al- gorithm can create additional copies of a pseudorandom state, when given polynomially-many copies as input. Second, as expected for ran- dom quantum states, we show that pseudorandom quantum states are highly entangled on average. Finally, as a main application, we prove that any family of pseudorandom states naturally gives rise to a private-key quantum money scheme. 1 Introduction Pseudorandomness is a foundational concept in modern cryptography and theo- retical computer science.
  • Quantum Machine Learning

    Quantum Machine Learning

    Chapter 10 Quantum machine learning Quantum computing and machine learning are arguably two of the “hottest” topics in science at the moment. Here in Sweden, this is reflected in the fact that the two largest programs supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation are centered around quantum technologies and artificial intelligence. In this chapter, we will discuss efforts to combine the two fields into quantum machine learning. Since this is a course about quantum algorithms, we do not cover applications of classical machine learning to simulating and understanding quantum systems, but focus instead on how machine learning can be enhance by quantum computation. We begin with a brief overview of classical machine learning and then study some examples of quantum machine learning algorithms. 10.1 A brief overview of classical machine learning What is machine learning? With the success of, and hype around, machine learning in recent years, there are examples of companies and researchers calling many things “machine learning” that would have been called something else a few years ago. According to Wikipedia, “Machine learning is the scientific study of algorithms and statistical models that computer systems use to perform a specific task without using explicit instructions, relying on patterns and inference instead”. We like the following definition (source unknown): “Machine learning studies algorithms whose performance improves with data (‘learning from experience’)”. 10.1.1 Types of machine learning Broadly speaking, there are three paradigms in machine learning for extracting meaning from some data: Unsupervised learning: Learning structure in P (data) given samples from P (data). Here, the • machine learning is used to generate knowledge by analyzing unlabelled data.
  • Quantum Cryptography

    Quantum Cryptography

    QFFF DISSERTATION IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS Quantum Cryptography Author: Supervisor: Yoann PIÉTRI Jonathan HALLIWELL September 25, 2020 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science of Imperial College London. Abstract In this paper, we review how the laws of Quantum Mechanics allow creating unconditionally secure protocols in cryptography, i.e. protocols where the security is ensured by physical laws and bounds and not on some computationally hard problems. We first review the use of Quantum Mechanics to perform unconditionally secure secret key distribution, and we then extend the ideas to other cryptographic tasks including public-key cryptography, digital signatures, and fingerprinting. Acknowledgements I would like to thanks everyone in the Theoretical Physics group for this year. I have learned a lot and it was a good ending after two years of engineering school. I thank Jonathan HALLIWELL for supervising this dissertation. I also would like to thank my family for their endless support and their help which allowed me to study in the United Kingdom this year. And finally, special thanks to Nada KAFIA, without whom I wouldn’t have gotten over these difficult times. Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 1 Introduction 6 1.1 The beginnings of cryptography.............................6 1.2 Modern Cryptography..................................7 1.3 Quantum computer or the end of cryptography?....................9 1.4 Post-Quantum Cryptography............................... 10 2 Preliminaries 12 2.1 Notations......................................... 12 2.2 Quantum gates...................................... 13 2.3 Measurement....................................... 15 2.4 No-cloning theorem................................... 15 2.5 Conjugate coding.................................... 16 2.6 Entanglement, EPR paradox and BELL inequalities..................