Hardness vs. (Very Little) Structure in Cryptography: A Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs Perspective

The hardness of highly-structured computational problems gives rise to a variety of public-key primitives. On one hand, the structure exhibited by such problems underlies the basic functionality of public-key primitives, but on the other hand it may endanger public-key cryptography in its entirety via potential algorithmic advances. This subtle interplay initiated a fundamental line of research on whether structure is inherently necessary for cryptography, starting with Rudich\u27s early work (PhD Thesis \u2788) and recently leading to that of Bitansky, Degwekar and Vaikuntanathan (CRYPTO \u2717). Identifying the structure of computational problems with their corresponding complexity classes, Bitansky et al. proved that a variety of public-key primitives (e.g., public-key encryption, oblivious transfer and even functional encryption) cannot be used in a black-box manner to construct either any hard language that has $\mathsf{NP}$-verifiers both for the language itself and for its complement, or any hard language (and even promise problem) that has a statistical zero-knowledge proof system -- corresponding to hardness in the structured classes $\mathsf{NP} \cap \mathsf{coNP}$ or $\mathsf{SZK}$, respectively, from a black-box perspective. In this work we prove that the same variety of public-key primitives do not inherently require even very little structure in a black-box manner: We prove that they do not imply any hard language that has multi-prover interactive proof systems both for the language and for its complement -- corresponding to hardness in the class $\mathsf{MIP} \cap \mathsf{coMIP}$ from a black-box perspective. Conceptually, given that $\mathsf{MIP} = \mathsf{NEXP}$, our result rules out languages with very little structure. Additionally, we prove a similar result for collision-resistant hash functions, and more generally for any cryptographic primitive that exists relative to a random oracle. Already the cases of languages that have $\mathsf{IP}$ or $\mathsf{AM}$ proof systems both for the language itself and for its complement, which we rule out as immediate corollaries, lead to intriguing insights. For the case of $\mathsf{IP}$, where our result can be circumvented using non-black-box techniques, we reveal a gap between black-box and non-black-box techniques. For the case of $\mathsf{AM}$, where circumventing our result via non-black-box techniques would be a major development, we both strengthen and unify the proofs of Bitansky et al. for languages that have $\mathsf{NP}$-verifiers both for the language itself and for its complement and for languages that have a statistical zero-knowledge proof system

Predictable arguments of knowledge

We initiate a formal investigation on the power of predictability for argument of knowledge systems for NP. Specifically, we consider private-coin argument systems where the answer of the prover can be predicted, given the private randomness of the verifier; we call such protocols Predictable Arguments of Knowledge (PAoK). Our study encompasses a full characterization of PAoK, showing that such arguments can be made extremely laconic, with the prover sending a single bit, and assumed to have only one round (i.e., two messages) of communication without loss of generality. We additionally explore PAoK satisfying additional properties (including zero-knowledge and the possibility of re-using the same challenge across multiple executions with the prover), present several constructions of PAoK relying on different cryptographic tools, and discuss applications to cryptography

Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proof Systems with Limited Prior Entanglement

This paper gives the first formal treatment of a quantum analogue of multi-prover interactive proof systems. It is proved that the class of languages having quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems is necessarily contained in NEXP, under the assumption that provers are allowed to share at most polynomially many prior-entangled qubits. This implies that, in particular, if provers do not share any prior entanglement with each other, the class of languages having quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems is equal to NEXP. Related to these, it is shown that, in the case a prover does not have his private qubits, the class of languages having quantum single-prover interactive proof systems is also equal to NEXP.Comment: LaTeX2e, 19 pages, 2 figures, title changed, some of the sections are fully revised, journal version in Journal of Computer and System Science

Quantum Proofs

Quantum information and computation provide a fascinating twist on the notion of proofs in computational complexity theory. For instance, one may consider a quantum computational analogue of the complexity class \class{NP}, known as QMA, in which a quantum state plays the role of a proof (also called a certificate or witness), and is checked by a polynomial-time quantum computation. For some problems, the fact that a quantum proof state could be a superposition over exponentially many classical states appears to offer computational advantages over classical proof strings. In the interactive proof system setting, one may consider a verifier and one or more provers that exchange and process quantum information rather than classical information during an interaction for a given input string, giving rise to quantum complexity classes such as QIP, QSZK, and QMIP* that represent natural quantum analogues of IP, SZK, and MIP. While quantum interactive proof systems inherit some properties from their classical counterparts, they also possess distinct and uniquely quantum features that lead to an interesting landscape of complexity classes based on variants of this model. In this survey we provide an overview of many of the known results concerning quantum proofs, computational models based on this concept, and properties of the complexity classes they define. In particular, we discuss non-interactive proofs and the complexity class QMA, single-prover quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class QIP, statistical zero-knowledge quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class \class{QSZK}, and multiprover interactive proof systems and the complexity classes QMIP, QMIP*, and MIP*.Comment: Survey published by NOW publisher

Non-Cooperative Rational Interactive Proofs

Interactive-proof games model the scenario where an honest party interacts with powerful but strategic provers, to elicit from them the correct answer to a computational question. Interactive proofs are increasingly used as a framework to design protocols for computation outsourcing. Existing interactive-proof games largely fall into two categories: either as games of cooperation such as multi-prover interactive proofs and cooperative rational proofs, where the provers work together as a team; or as games of conflict such as refereed games, where the provers directly compete with each other in a zero-sum game. Neither of these extremes truly capture the strategic nature of service providers in outsourcing applications. How to design and analyze non-cooperative interactive proofs is an important open problem. In this paper, we introduce a mechanism-design approach to define a multi-prover interactive-proof model in which the provers are rational and non-cooperative - they act to maximize their expected utility given others\u27 strategies. We define a strong notion of backwards induction as our solution concept to analyze the resulting extensive-form game with imperfect information. We fully characterize the complexity of our proof system under different utility gap guarantees. (At a high level, a utility gap of u means that the protocol is robust against provers that may not care about a utility loss of 1/u.) We show, for example, that the power of non-cooperative rational interactive proofs with a polynomial utility gap is exactly equal to the complexity class P^{NEXP}

On the Power of Many One-Bit Provers

We study the class of languages, denoted by \MIP[k, 1-\epsilon, s], which have $k$-prover games where each prover just sends a \emph{single} bit, with completeness $1-\epsilon$ and soundness error $s$. For the case that $k=1$ (i.e., for the case of interactive proofs), Goldreich, Vadhan and Wigderson ({\em Computational Complexity'02}) demonstrate that \SZK exactly characterizes languages having 1-bit proof systems with"non-trivial" soundness (i.e., $1/2 < s \leq 1-2\epsilon$). We demonstrate that for the case that $k\geq 2$, 1-bit $k$-prover games exhibit a significantly richer structure: + (Folklore) When $s \leq \frac{1}{2^k} - \epsilon$, \MIP[k, 1-\epsilon, s] = \BPP; + When $\frac{1}{2^k} + \epsilon \leq s < \frac{2}{2^k}-\epsilon$, \MIP[k, 1-\epsilon, s] = \SZK; + When $s \ge \frac{2}{2^k} + \epsilon$, \AM \subseteq \MIP[k, 1-\epsilon, s]; + For $s \le 0.62 k/2^k$ and sufficiently large $k$, \MIP[k, 1-\epsilon, s] \subseteq \EXP; + For $s \ge 2k/2^{k}$, \MIP[k, 1, 1-\epsilon, s] = \NEXP. As such, 1-bit $k$-prover games yield a natural "quantitative" approach to relating complexity classes such as \BPP,\SZK,\AM, \EXP, and \NEXP. We leave open the question of whether a more fine-grained hierarchy (between \AM and \NEXP) can be established for the case when $s \geq \frac{2}{2^k} + \epsilon$

An Application of Quantum Finite Automata to Interactive Proof Systems

Quantum finite automata have been studied intensively since their introduction in late 1990s as a natural model of a quantum computer with finite-dimensional quantum memory space. This paper seeks their direct application to interactive proof systems in which a mighty quantum prover communicates with a quantum-automaton verifier through a common communication cell. Our quantum interactive proof systems are juxtaposed to Dwork-Stockmeyer's classical interactive proof systems whose verifiers are two-way probabilistic automata. We demonstrate strengths and weaknesses of our systems and further study how various restrictions on the behaviors of quantum-automaton verifiers affect the power of quantum interactive proof systems.Comment: This is an extended version of the conference paper in the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Implementation and Application of Automata, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Kingston, Canada, July 22-24, 200

Naor-Yung paradigm with shared randomness and applications

The Naor-Yung paradigm (Naor and Yung, STOC’90) allows to generically boost security under chosen-plaintext attacks (CPA) to security against chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA) for public-key encryption (PKE) schemes. The main idea is to encrypt the plaintext twice (under independent public keys), and to append a non-interactive zero-knowledge (NIZK) proof that the two ciphertexts indeed encrypt the same message. Later work by Camenisch, Chandran, and Shoup (Eurocrypt’09) and Naor and Segev (Crypto’09 and SIAM J. Comput.’12) established that the very same techniques can also be used in the settings of key-dependent message (KDM) and key-leakage attacks (respectively). In this paper we study the conditions under which the two ciphertexts in the Naor-Yung construction can share the same random coins. We find that this is possible, provided that the underlying PKE scheme meets an additional simple property. The motivation for re-using the same random coins is that this allows to design much more efficient NIZK proofs. We showcase such an improvement in the random oracle model, under standard complexity assumptions including Decisional Diffie-Hellman, Quadratic Residuosity, and Subset Sum. The length of the resulting ciphertexts is reduced by 50%, yielding truly efficient PKE schemes achieving CCA security under KDM and key-leakage attacks. As an additional contribution, we design the first PKE scheme whose CPA security under KDM attacks can be directly reduced to (low-density instances of) the Subset Sum assumption. The scheme supports keydependent messages computed via any affine function of the secret ke