- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Impossibility of adversarial self-testing and secure sampling

Akshay Bansal1,*, Atul Singh Arora2,3,*, Thomas Van Himbeeck4, and Jamie Sikora1

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 6, L032039 – Published 21 August, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.L032039

Abstract

Self-testing is the task where spatially separated Alice and Bob cooperate to deduce the inner workings of untrusted quantum devices by interacting with them in a classical manner. We examine the task above where Alice and Bob do not trust each other which we call adversarial self-testing. We show that adversarial self-testing implies secure sampling—a simpler task that we introduce where distrustful Alice and Bob wish to sample from a joint probability distribution with the guarantee that an honest party's marginal is not biased. By extending impossibility results in two-party quantum cryptography, we give a simple proof that both of these tasks are impossible in all but trivial settings.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (31)

  1. A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V. Scarani, All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested, Nat. Commun. 8, 15485 (2017).
  2. D. Mayers and A. Yao, Self testing quantum apparatus, Quantum Inf. Comput. 4, 273 (2004).
  3. S. Breiner, A. Kalev, and C. A. Miller, Parallel self-testing of the GHZ state with a proof by diagrams, EPTCS 287, 43 (2019).
  4. A. Coladangelo, Parallel self-testing of (tilted) EPR pairs via copies of (tilted) CHSH and the magic square game, Quantum Inf. Comput. 17, 831 (2017).
  5. A. Coladangelo, Generalization of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality self-testing maximally entangled states of any local dimension, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052115 (2018).
  6. J. Bowles, I. Šupić, D. Cavalcanti, and A. Acín, Device-independent entanglement certification of all entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 180503 (2018).
  7. C. A. Miller and Y. Shi, Optimal robust self-testing by binary nonlocal XOR games, in 8th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2013), Guelph, Canada, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 22 (Schloss Dagstuhl- Leibniz-Zentrum fur Informatik GmbH, Dagstuhl Publishing, 2013), pp. 254–262.
  8. J. Sikora, A. Varvitsiotis, and Z. Wei, Minimum dimension of a Hilbert space needed to generate a quantum correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060401 (2016).
  9. J. Bartusek, D. Khurana, and A. Srinivasan, Secure computation with shared EPR pairs (or: How to teleport in zero-knowledge), Annual International Cryptology Conference (Springer, 2023), pp. 224–257.
  10. T. Metger and T. Vidick, Self-testing of a single quantum device under computational assumptions, Quantum 5, 544 (2021).
  11. Z. Brakerski, A. Gheorghiu, G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, E. Porat, and T. Vidick, Simple tests of quantumness also certify qubits, arXiv:2303.01293.
  12. A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007).
  13. S. Pironio, A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V. Scarani, Device-independent quantum key distribution secure against collective attacks, New J. Phys. 11, 045021 (2009).
  14. M. Curty, F. Xu, W. Cui, C. C. W. Lim, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Finite-key analysis for measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, Nat. Commun. 5, 3732 (2014).
  15. U. Vazirani and T. Vidick, Fully device independent quantum key distribution, Commun. ACM 62, 133 (2019).
  16. A. S. Arora, J. Sikora, and T. V. Himbeeck, Improving device-independent weak coin flipping protocols, arXiv:2404.17079.
  17. J. Silman, A. Chailloux, N. Aharon, I. Kerenidis, S. Pironio, and S. Massar, Fully distrustful quantum bit commitment and coin flipping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 220501 (2011).
  18. G. Murta and F. Baccari, Self-testing with dishonest parties and device-independent entanglement certification in quantum communication networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 140201 (2023).
  19. D. Mayers, Unconditionally secure quantum bit commitment is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3414 (1997).
  20. H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Why quantum bit commitment and ideal quantum coin tossing are impossible, Physica D 120, 177 (1998).
  21. A. Chailloux and I. Kerenidis, Optimal bounds for quantum bit commitment, in Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Palm Springs, CA (IEEE Computer Society, Massachusetts Ave., Washington, DC, US, 2011), pp. 354–362.
  22. A. Kitaev, Quantum coin flipping. Unpublished result, Talk at the 6th Annual workshop on Quantum Information Processing, Berkeley, CA (QIP, 2003).
  23. A. Chailloux and I. Kerenidis, Optimal quantum strong coin flipping, in Proceedings of the 2009 50th Annual IEEE Sympo- sium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society, Massachusetts Ave., Washington, DC, US, 2009), pp. 527–533.
  24. N. Aharon and J. Silman, Quantum dice rolling: a multi-outcome generalization of quantum coin flipping, New J. Phys. 12, 033027 (2010).
  25. J. Sikora, Simple, near-optimal quantum protocols for die-rolling, Cryptography 1, 11 (2017).
  26. A. Chailloux, I. Kerenidis, and J. Sikora, Lower bounds for quantum oblivious transfer, Quantum Info. Comput. 13, 158 (2013).
  27. A. Chailloux, G. Gutoski, and J. Sikora, Optimal bounds for semi-honest quantum oblivious transfer, Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 22, 1 (2016).
  28. S. Kundu, J. Sikora, and E. Y.-Z. Tan, A device-independent protocol for XOR oblivious transfer, Quantum 6, 725 (2022).
  29. S. A. Osborn and J. Sikora, A constant lower bound for any quantum protocol for secure function evaluation, in 17th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2022), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 232 (Schloss Dagstuhl- Leibniz-Zentrum fur Informatik GmbH, Dagstuhl Publishing, 2022), pp. 8:1–8:14.
  30. H. Buhrman, M. Christandl, and C. Schaffner, Complete insecurity of quantum protocols for classical two-party computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160501 (2012).
  31. C. A. Miller and Y. Shi, Randomness in nonlocal games between mistrustful players, Quantum Inf. Comput. 17, 0595 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 6, L032039– Published 21 August, 2024
  • Received 29 October 2023
  • Accepted 9 July 2024
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