Document Open Access Logo

Distributed Merlin-Arthur Synthesis of Quantum States and Its Applications

Authors François Le Gall, Masayuki Miyamoto, Harumichi Nishimura

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.MFCS.2023.63.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.71 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

François Le Gall
  • Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Japan
Masayuki Miyamoto
  • Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Japan
Harumichi Nishimura
  • Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Japan

Funding

FLG was supported by the JSPS KAKENHI grants JP16H01705, JP19H04066, JP20H00579, JP20H04139, JP20H05966, JP21H04879 and by the MEXT Q-LEAP grants JPMXS0118067394 and JPMXS0120319794. MM would like to take this opportunity to thank the “Nagoya University Interdisciplinary Frontier Fellowship” supported by Nagoya University and JST, the establishment of university fellowships towards the creation of science technology innovation, Grant Number JPMJFS212. HN was supported by the JSPS KAKENHI grants JP19H04066, JP20H05966, JP21H04879, JP22H00522 and by the MEXT Q-LEAP grants JPMXS0120319794.

Cite AsGet BibTex

François Le Gall, Masayuki Miyamoto, and Harumichi Nishimura. Distributed Merlin-Arthur Synthesis of Quantum States and Its Applications. In 48th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 272, pp. 63:1-63:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2023.63

Abstract

The generation and verification of quantum states are fundamental tasks for quantum information processing that have recently been investigated by Irani, Natarajan, Nirkhe, Rao and Yuen [CCC 2022], Rosenthal and Yuen [ITCS 2022], Metger and Yuen [QIP 2023] under the term state synthesis. This paper studies this concept from the viewpoint of quantum distributed computing, and especially distributed quantum Merlin-Arthur (dQMA) protocols. We first introduce a novel task, on a line, called state generation with distributed inputs (SGDI). In this task, the goal is to generate the quantum state U|ψ⟩ at the rightmost node of the line, where |ψ⟩ is a quantum state given at the leftmost node and U is a unitary matrix whose description is distributed over the nodes of the line. We give a dQMA protocol for SGDI and utilize this protocol to construct a dQMA protocol for the Set Equality problem studied by Naor, Parter and Yogev [SODA 2020], and complement our protocol by showing classical lower bounds for this problem. Our second contribution is a dQMA protocol, based on a recent work by Zhu and Hayashi [Physical Review A, 2019], to create EPR-pairs between adjacent nodes of a network without quantum communication. As an application of this dQMA protocol, we prove a general result showing how to convert any dQMA protocol on an arbitrary network into another dQMA protocol where the verification stage does not require any quantum communication.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
  • Theory of computation → Quantum computation theory
Keywords
  • distributed quantum Merlin-Arthur
  • distributed verification
  • quantum computation

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Related Versions

References

  1. Scott Aaronson. The complexity of quantum states and transformations: from quantum money to black holes, 2016. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.05256.
  2. Joran van Apeldoorn and Tijn de Vos. A framework for distributed quantum queries in the CONGEST model. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2022), pages 109-119, 2022. Google Scholar
  3. Heger Arfaoui and Pierre Fraigniaud. What can be computed without communications? SIGACT News, 45(3):82-104, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2670418.2670440.
  4. Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K. Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Physical Review Letters, 70:1895-1899, 1993. Google Scholar
  5. Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters, 87:167902, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902.
  6. Matias Christandl, Robert König, Graeme Mitchison, and Renato Renner. One-and-a-half quantum de finetti theorem. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 273:473-498, 2007. Google Scholar
  7. Pierluigi Crescenzi, Pierre Fraigniaud, and Ami Paz. Trade-offs in distributed interactive proofs. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2019), pages 13:1-13:17, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2019.13.
  8. Vasil S. Denchev and Gopal Pandurangan. Distributed quantum computing: a new frontier in distributed systems or science fiction? SIGACT News, 39(3):77-95, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1412700.1412718.
  9. Michael Elkin, Hartmut Klauck, Danupon Nanongkai, and Gopal Pandurangan. Can quantum communication speed up distributed computation? In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2014), pages 166-175, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. Pierre Fraigniaud, François Le Gall, Harumichi Nishimura, and Ami Paz. Distributed quantum proofs for replicated data. In Proceedings of the 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021), pages 28:1-28:20, 2021. Google Scholar
  11. Pierre Fraigniaud, Pedro Montealegre, Rotem Oshman, Ivan Rapaport, and Ioan Todinca. On distributed Merlin-Arthur decision protocols. In Proceedings of the 26th International Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO 2019), pages 230-245, 2019. Google Scholar
  12. Pierre Fraigniaud, Boaz Patt-Shamir, and Mor Perry. Randomized proof-labeling schemes. Distributed Computing, 32(3):217-234, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-018-0340-8.
  13. Cyril Gavoille, Adrian Kosowski, and Marcin Markiewicz. What can be observed locally? In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2009), pages 243-257, 2009. Google Scholar
  14. Mika Göös and Jukka Suomela. Locally checkable proofs in distributed computing. Theory of Computing, 12:19:1-19:33, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2016.v012a019.
  15. Masahito Hayashi and Tomoyuki Morimae. Verifiable measurement-only blind quantum computing with stabilizer testing. Physical Review Letters, 115:220502, 2015. Google Scholar
  16. Sandy Irani, Anand Natarajan, Chinmay Nirkhe, Sujit Rao, and Henry Yuen. Quantum search-to-decision reductions and the state synthesis problem. In Proceedings of the 37th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2022), pages 5:1-5:19, 2022. Google Scholar
  17. Taisuke Izumi and François Le Gall. Quantum distributed algorithm for the All-Pairs Shortest Path problem in the CONGEST-CLIQUE model. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2019), pages 84-93, 2019. Google Scholar
  18. Taisuke Izumi, François Le Gall, and Frédéric Magniez. Quantum distributed algorithm for triangle finding in the CONGEST model. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2020), pages 23:1-23:13, 2020. Google Scholar
  19. Benjamin Jauregui, Pedro Montealegre, and Ivan Rapaport. Distributed interactive proofs for the recognition of some geometric intersection graph classes. In Proceedings of 29th International Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO 2022), pages 212-233, 2022. Google Scholar
  20. Zhengfeng Ji, Yi-Kai Liu, and Fang Song. Pseudorandom quantum states. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Cryptology Conference (CRYPTO 2018), Part III, pages 126-152, 2018. Google Scholar
  21. Martin Kliesch and Ingo Roth. Theory of quantum system certification. PRX quantum, 2(1):010201, 2021. Google Scholar
  22. Gillat Kol, Rotem Oshman, and Raghuvansh R. Saxena. Interactive distributed proofs. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2018), pages 255-264, 2018. Google Scholar
  23. Amos Korman, Shay Kutten, and David Peleg. Proof labeling schemes. Distributed Computing, 22(4):215-233, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-010-0095-3.
  24. William Kretschmer. Quantum pseudorandomness and classical complexity. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2021), pages 2:1-2:20, 2021. Google Scholar
  25. François Le Gall and Frédéric Magniez. Sublinear-time quantum computation of the diameter in CONGEST networks. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2018), pages 337-346, 2018. Google Scholar
  26. François Le Gall, Masayuki Miyamoto, and Harumichi Nishimura. Distributed quantum interactive proofs. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2023), pages 42:1-42:21, 2023. Google Scholar
  27. François Le Gall, Harumichi Nishimura, and Ansis Rosmanis. Quantum advantage for the LOCAL model in distributed computing. In Proceedings of the 36th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2019), pages 49:1-49:14, 2019. Google Scholar
  28. Ke Li and Graeme Smith. Quantum de Finetti theorem under fully-one-way adaptive measurements. Physical Review Letters, 114:160503, 2015. Google Scholar
  29. Tony Metger and Henry Yuen. stateQIP = statePSPACE. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07730. Presented at the 26th Conference on Quantum Information Processing (QIP2023).
  30. Pedro Montealegre, Diego Ramírez-Romero, and Ivan Rapaport. Shared vs private randomness in distributed interactive proofs. In Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2020), pages 51:1-51:13, 2020. Google Scholar
  31. Pedro Montealegre, Diego Ramírez-Romero, and Ivan Rapaport. Compact distributed interactive proofs for the recognition of cographs and distance-hereditary graphs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Stabilizing, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems (SSS 2021), pages 395-409, 2021. Google Scholar
  32. Tomoyuki Morimae, Yuki Takeuchi, and Masahito Hayashi. Verification of hypergraph states. Physical Review A, 96:062321, 2017. Google Scholar
  33. Moni Naor, Merav Parter, and Eylon Yogev. The power of distributed verifiers in interactive proofs. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2020), pages 1096-115, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.67.
  34. Sam Pallister, Noah Linden, and Ashley Montanaro. Optimal verification of entangled states with local measurements. Physical Review Letters, 120:170502, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.170502.
  35. Gregory Rosenthal and Henry Yuen. Interactive proofs for synthesizing quantum states and unitaries. In Proceedings of the 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022), pages 112:1-112:4, 2022. Google Scholar
  36. Seiichiro Tani, Hirotada Kobayashi, and Keiji Matsumoto. Exact quantum algorithms for the leader election problem. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory, 4(1):1:1-1:24, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2141938.2141939.
  37. Xudong Wu and Penghui Yao. Quantum complexity of weighted diameter and radius in CONGEST networks. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2022), pages 120-130, 2022. Google Scholar
  38. Xiao-Dong Yu, Jiangwei Shang, and Otfried Gühne. Statistical methods for quantum state verification and fidelity estimation. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 5(5):2100126, 2022. Google Scholar
  39. Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Efficient verification of pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario. Physical Review Letters, 123:260504, 2019. Google Scholar
  40. Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. General framework for verifying pure quantum states in the adversarial scenario. Physical Review A, 100:062335, 2019. Google Scholar
  41. Huangjun Zhu and Masahito Hayashi. Optimal verification and fidelity estimation of maximally entangled states. Physical Review A, 99:052346, 2019. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact