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

A Protocol for Generating Random Elements with their Probabilities

We give an AM protocol that allows the verifier to sample elements x from a probability distribution P, which is held by the prover. If the prover is honest, the verifier outputs (x, P(x)) with probability close to P(x). In case the prover is dishonest, one may hope for the following guarantee: if the verifier outputs (x, p), then the probability that the verifier outputs x is close to p. Simple examples show that this cannot be achieved. Instead, we show that the following weaker condition holds (in a well defined sense) on average: If (x, p) is output, then p is an upper bound on the probability that x is output. Our protocol yields a new transformation to turn interactive proofs where the verifier uses private random coins into proofs with public coins. The verifier has better running time compared to the well-known Goldwasser-Sipser transformation (STOC, 1986). For constant-round protocols, we only lose an arbitrarily small constant in soundness and completeness, while our public-coin verifier calls the private-coin verifier only once

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}

Pseudo-Deterministic Proofs

We introduce pseudo-deterministic interactive proofs (psdIP): interactive proof systems for search problems where the verifier is guaranteed with high probability to output the same output on different executions. As in the case with classical interactive proofs, the verifier is a probabilistic polynomial time algorithm interacting with an untrusted powerful prover. We view pseudo-deterministic interactive proofs as an extension of the study of pseudo-deterministic randomized polynomial time algorithms: the goal of the latter is to find canonical solutions to search problems whereas the goal of the former is to prove that a solution to a search problem is canonical to a probabilistic polynomial time verifier. Alternatively, one may think of the powerful prover as aiding the probabilistic polynomial time verifier to find canonical solutions to search problems, with high probability over the randomness of the verifier. The challenge is that pseudo-determinism should hold not only with respect to the randomness, but also with respect to the prover: a malicious prover should not be able to cause the verifier to output a solution other than the unique canonical one. The IP=PSPACE characterization implies that psdIP = IP. The challenge is to find constant round pseudo-deterministic interactive proofs for hard search problems. We show a constant round pseudo-deterministic interactive proof for the graph isomorphism problem: on any input pair of isomorphic graphs (G_0,G_1), there exist a unique isomorphism phi from G_0 to G_1 (although many isomorphism many exist) which will be output by the verifier with high probability, regardless of any dishonest prover strategy. In contrast, we show that it is unlikely that psdIP proofs with constant rounds exist for NP-complete problems by showing that if any NP-complete problem has a constant round psdIP protocol, then the polynomial hierarchy collapses

Rational Proofs with Multiple Provers

Interactive proofs (IP) model a world where a verifier delegates computation to an untrustworthy prover, verifying the prover's claims before accepting them. IP protocols have applications in areas such as verifiable computation outsourcing, computation delegation, cloud computing. In these applications, the verifier may pay the prover based on the quality of his work. Rational interactive proofs (RIP), introduced by Azar and Micali (2012), are an interactive-proof system with payments, in which the prover is rational rather than untrustworthy---he may lie, but only to increase his payment. Rational proofs leverage the provers' rationality to obtain simple and efficient protocols. Azar and Micali show that RIP=IP(=PSAPCE). They leave the question of whether multiple provers are more powerful than a single prover for rational and classical proofs as an open problem. In this paper, we introduce multi-prover rational interactive proofs (MRIP). Here, a verifier cross-checks the provers' answers with each other and pays them according to the messages exchanged. The provers are cooperative and maximize their total expected payment if and only if the verifier learns the correct answer to the problem. We further refine the model of MRIP to incorporate utility gap, which is the loss in payment suffered by provers who mislead the verifier to the wrong answer. We define the class of MRIP protocols with constant, noticeable and negligible utility gaps. We give tight characterization for all three MRIP classes. We show that under standard complexity-theoretic assumptions, MRIP is more powerful than both RIP and MIP ; and this is true even the utility gap is required to be constant. Furthermore the full power of each MRIP class can be achieved using only two provers and three rounds. (A preliminary version of this paper appeared at ITCS 2016. This is the full version that contains new results.)Comment: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. ACM, 201

3-Message Zero Knowledge Against Human Ignorance

The notion of Zero Knowledge has driven the field of cryptography since its conception over thirty years ago. It is well established that two-message zero-knowledge protocols for NP do not exist, and that four-message zero-knowledge arguments exist under the minimal assumption of one-way functions. Resolving the precise round complexity of zero-knowledge has been an outstanding open problem for far too long. In this work, we present a three-message zero-knowledge argument system with soundness against uniform polynomial-time cheating provers. The main component in our construction is the recent delegation protocol for RAM computations (Kalai and Paneth, TCC 2016B and Brakerski, Holmgren and Kalai, ePrint 2016). Concretely, we rely on a three-message variant of their protocol based on a key-less collision-resistant hash functions secure against uniform adversaries as well as other standard primitives. More generally, beyond uniform provers, our protocol provides a natural and meaningful security guarantee against real-world adversaries, which we formalize following Rogaway’s “human-ignorance” approach (VIETCRYPT 2006): in a nutshell, we give an explicit uniform reduction from any adversary breaking the soundness of our protocol to finding collisions in the underlying hash function.National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Award CNS-1350619)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Award CNS-1413964