- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Computational self-testing for entangled magic states

Akihiro Mizutani1, Yuki Takeuchi2, Ryo Hiromasa1, Yusuke Aikawa1, and Seiichiro Tani2

  • 1Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Information Technology R&D Center, 5-1-1 Ofuna, Kamakura-shi, Kanagawa, 247-8501 Japan
  • 2NTT Communication Science Laboratories, NTT Corporation, 3-1 Morinosato Wakamiya, Atsugi, Kanagawa 243-0198, Japan

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 106, L010601 – Published 25 July, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.L010601

Abstract

Can classical systems grasp quantum dynamics executed in an untrusted quantum device? Metger and Vidick answered this question affirmatively by proposing a computational self-testing protocol for Bell states that certifies generation of Bell states and measurements on them. Since their protocol relies on the fact that the target states are stabilizer states, it is highly nontrivial to reveal whether the other class of quantum states, nonstabilizer states, can be self-tested. Among nonstabilizer states, magic states are indispensable resources for universal quantum computation. Here, we show that a magic state for the CCZ gate can be self-tested while that for the T gate cannot. Our result is applicable to a proof of quantumness, where we can classically verify whether a quantum device generates a quantum state having nonzero magic.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (53)

  1. A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
  2. D. Mayers and A. Yao, in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1998), pp. 503–509.
  3. C. C. W. Lim, C. Portmann, M. Tomamichel, R. Renner, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. X 3, 031006 (2013).
  4. U. Vazirani and T. Vidick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140501 (2014).
  5. A. Ekert and R. Renner, Nature (London) 507, 443 (2014).
  6. R. Arnon-Friedman, F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, R. Renner, and T. Vidick, Nat. Commun. 9, 459 (2018).
  7. T. Metger, Y. Dulek, A. Coladangelo, and R. Arnon-Friedman, New J. Phys. 23, 123021 (2021).
  8. B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Nature (London) 496, 456 (2013).
  9. M. Hajdušek, C. A. Pérez-Delgado, and J. F. Fitzsimons, arXiv:1502.02563.
  10. D. Mayers and A. Yao, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 273 (2004).
  11. M. McKague, T. H. Yang, and V. Scarani, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 455304 (2012).
  12. A. Coladangelo, K. Goh, and V. Scarani, Nat. Commun. 8, 15485 (2017).
  13. I. Šupić and J. Bowles, Quantum 4, 337 (2020).
  14. T. Metger and T. Vidick, Quantum 5, 544 (2021).
  15. The LWE problem is to solve a noisy system of linear equations, and so far there exists no efficient quantum algorithm to solve this problem.
  16. O. Regev, J. ACM 56, 1(2009).
  17. Note that encrypted messages using classical public-key cryptography are decrypted once it becomes technologically feasible to break the underlying computational assumption. On the other hand, the LWE assumption supposed in [14] is only exploited to prevent the malicious prover from tricking the verifier into accepting the prover as honest. Hence, as long as the LWE assumption holds during the self-testing protocol, if this assumption is broken after the protocol, the results already obtained never be compromised.
  18. A. Broadbent and P. Yuen, arXiv:2111.08595.
  19. Z. Brakerski, Z. P. Christiano, U. Mahadev, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2018), pp. 320–331.
  20. U. Mahadev, in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2018), pp. 259–267.
  21. M. Rossi, M. Huber, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, New J. Phys. 15, 113022 (2013).
  22. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  23. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005).
  24. Y. Takeuchi, T. Morimae, and M. Hayashi, Sci. Rep. 9, 13585 (2019).
  25. J. Miller and A. Miyake, npj Quantum Inf. 2, 16036 (2016).
  26. M. Gachechiladze, C. Budroni, and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 070401 (2016).
  27. M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 080501 (2016).
  28. T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and M. Hayashi, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062321 (2017).
  29. Y. Takeuchi and T. Morimae, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021060 (2018).
  30. H. Zhu and M. Hayashi, Phys. Rev. Applied 12, 054047 (2019).
  31. Z. Brakerski, K. Venkata, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, arXiv:2005.04826.
  32. G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, S. Choi, U. Vazirani, and N. Y. Yao, arXiv:2104.00687.
  33. S. Hirahara and F. Le Gall, in Proceedings of the 46th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2021) (2021), pp. 59:1–59:15.
  34. Z. Liu and A. Gheorghiu, arXiv:2107.02163.
  35. G. Alagic, A. M. Childs, A. B. Grilo, and S.-H. Hung, in Theory of Cryptography: 18th International Conference, TCC 2020, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12552 (Springer, Cham, 2020), Part III, pp. 153–180.
  36. N.-H. Chia, K.-M. Chung, and T. Yamakawa, in Theory of Cryptography: 18th International Conference, TCC 2020, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12552 (Springer, Cham, 2020), Part III, pp. 181–206.
  37. K. Chung, Y. Lee, H. H. Lin, and X. Wu, arXiv:2012.04848.
  38. A. Gheorghiu and T. Vidick, in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2019), pp. 1024–1033.
  39. A. Cojocaru, L. Colisson, E. Kashefi, and P. Wallden, in ASIACRYPT 2019: International Conference on The Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security (IACR, Carson City, NV, 2019), pp. 615–645.
  40. T. Morimae and T. Yamakawa, arXiv:2102.09149.
  41. A. Coladangelo, T. Vidick, and T. Zhang, in CRYPTO 2020: International Cryptology Conference (IACR, Carson City, NV, 2020), Part III, pp. 799–828.
  42. T. Vidick and T. Zhang, Quantum 4, 266 (2020).
  43. When T|+〉 is measured in the Pauli-Z basis, the outcomes 0 and 1 are obtained with equal probability. On the other hand, if it is measured in the Pauli-X basis, they are obtained with probabilities (2+2)/4 and (2−2)/4, respectively. These statistics are the same for T†|+〉.
  44. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.L010601 for detailed information of the proofs of our theorems and Protocol 2.
  45. Note that we assume for simplicity that the outputs of the functions are elements of set Y, but, precisely, the outputs are probability distributions over Y. The rigorous definitions of ENTCF families are given in Sec. I of the Supplemental Material [44].
  46. Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, PRX Quantum 3, 020333 (2022).
  47. Note that as a related work to our proof of magic, the problem of asking whether a given state is any stabilizer state was studied in the device-dependent scenario [51]. Our protocol considers its opposite problem, i.e., asking whether a given state is not any stabilizer state, in the device-independent scenario.
  48. Note that the significant level is defined by the maximum probability of passing our protocol with a state having no magic.
  49. S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Quantum 3, 181 (2019).
  50. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  51. D. Gross, S. Nezami, and M. Walter, Commun. Math. Phys. 385, 1325 (2021).
  52. H. Fu, D. Wang, and Q. Zhao, arXiv:2201.13430 (2022).
  53. A. Gheorghiu, T. Metger, and A. Poremba, arXiv:2201.13445.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 106, L010601– Published 25 July, 2022
  • Received 5 November 2021
  • Revised 6 April 2022
  • Accepted 17 June 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation