Perfect zero knowledge for quantum multiprover interactive proofs

In this work we consider the interplay between multiprover interactive proofs, quantum entanglement, and zero knowledge proofs - notions that are central pillars of complexity theory, quantum information and cryptography. In particular, we study the relationship between the complexity class MIP$^*$, the set of languages decidable by multiprover interactive proofs with quantumly entangled provers, and the class PZKMIP$^*$, which is the set of languages decidable by MIP$^*$ protocols that furthermore possess the perfect zero knowledge property. Our main result is that the two classes are equal, i.e., MIP$^* =$ PZKMIP$^*$. This result provides a quantum analogue of the celebrated result of Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian, and Wigderson (STOC 1988) who show that MIP $=$ PZKMIP (in other words, all classical multiprover interactive protocols can be made zero knowledge). We prove our result by showing that every MIP$^*$ protocol can be efficiently transformed into an equivalent zero knowledge MIP$^*$ protocol in a manner that preserves the completeness-soundness gap. Combining our transformation with previous results by Slofstra (Forum of Mathematics, Pi 2019) and Fitzsimons, Ji, Vidick and Yuen (STOC 2019), we obtain the corollary that all co-recursively enumerable languages (which include undecidable problems as well as all decidable problems) have zero knowledge MIP$^*$ protocols with vanishing promise gap

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

Concurrently Non-Malleable Zero Knowledge in the Authenticated Public-Key Model

We consider a type of zero-knowledge protocols that are of interest for their practical applications within networks like the Internet: efficient zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge that remain secure against concurrent man-in-the-middle attacks. In an effort to reduce the setup assumptions required for efficient zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge that remain secure against concurrent man-in-the-middle attacks, we consider a model, which we call the Authenticated Public-Key (APK) model. The APK model seems to significantly reduce the setup assumptions made by the CRS model (as no trusted party or honest execution of a centralized algorithm are required), and can be seen as a slightly stronger variation of the Bare Public-Key (BPK) model from \cite{CGGM,MR}, and a weaker variation of the registered public-key model used in \cite{BCNP}. We then define and study man-in-the-middle attacks in the APK model. Our main result is a constant-round concurrent non-malleable zero-knowledge argument of knowledge for any polynomial-time relation (associated to a language in $\mathcal{NP}$), under the (minimal) assumption of the existence of a one-way function family. Furthermore,We show time-efficient instantiations of our protocol based on known number-theoretic assumptions. We also note a negative result with respect to further reducing the setup assumptions of our protocol to those in the (unauthenticated) BPK model, by showing that concurrently non-malleable zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge in the BPK model are only possible for trivial languages

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}

A Vernacular for Coherent Logic

We propose a simple, yet expressive proof representation from which proofs for different proof assistants can easily be generated. The representation uses only a few inference rules and is based on a frag- ment of first-order logic called coherent logic. Coherent logic has been recognized by a number of researchers as a suitable logic for many ev- eryday mathematical developments. The proposed proof representation is accompanied by a corresponding XML format and by a suite of XSL transformations for generating formal proofs for Isabelle/Isar and Coq, as well as proofs expressed in a natural language form (formatted in LATEX or in HTML). Also, our automated theorem prover for coherent logic exports proofs in the proposed XML format. All tools are publicly available, along with a set of sample theorems.Comment: CICM 2014 - Conferences on Intelligent Computer Mathematics (2014

On the power quantum computation over real Hilbert spaces

We consider the power of various quantum complexity classes with the restriction that states and operators are defined over a real, rather than complex, Hilbert space. It is well know that a quantum circuit over the complex numbers can be transformed into a quantum circuit over the real numbers with the addition of a single qubit. This implies that BQP retains its power when restricted to using states and operations over the reals. We show that the same is true for QMA(k), QIP(k), QMIP, and QSZK.Comment: Significant improvements from previous version, in particular showing both containments (eg. QMA_R is in QMA and vice versa

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 $s \geq \frac{2}{2^k} + \epsilon$

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

Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems for QMA

© 2016 IEEE. Prior work has established that all problems in NP admit classical zero-knowledge proof systems, and under reasonable hardness assumptions for quantum computations, these proof systems can be made secure against quantum attacks. We prove a result representing a further quantum generalization of this fact, which is that every problem in the complexity class QMA has a quantum zero-knowledge proof system. More specifically, assuming the existence of an unconditionally binding and quantum computationally concealing commitment scheme, we prove that every problem in the complexity class QMA has a quantum interactive proof system that is zero-knowledge with respect to efficient quantum computations. Our QMA proof system is sound against arbitrary quantum provers, but only requires an honest prover to perform polynomial-time quantum computations, provided that it holds a quantum witness for a given instance of the QMA problem under consideration