BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Abel Molina appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
In this note, we show that $O(\log (1/ε))$ rounds of parallel repetition with a threshold suffice to reduce completeness and soundness error to $ε$ for single-prover quantum interactive proof systems. This improves on a previous $O(\log (1/ε) \log \log (1/ε))$ bound from Hornby (2018), while also simplifying its proof. A key element in our proof is a concentration bound from Impagliazzo and Kabanets (2010).
We present an analysis of Wiesner's quantum money scheme, as well as some natural generalizations of it, based on semidefinite programming. For Wiesner's original scheme, it is determined that the optimal probability for a counterfeiter to create two copies of a bank note from one, where both copies pass the bank's test for validity, is (3/4)^n for n being the number of qubits used for each note. Generalizations in which other ensembles of states are substituted for the one considered by Wiesner are also discussed, including a scheme recently proposed by Pastawski, Yao, Jiang, Lukin, and Cirac, as well as schemes based on higher dimensional quantum systems. In addition, we introduce a variant of Wiesner's quantum money in which the verification protocol for bank notes involves only classical communication with the bank. We show that the optimal probability with which a counterfeiter can succeed in two independent verification attempts, given access to a single valid n-qubit bank note, is (3/4+sqrt(2)/8)^n. We also analyze extensions of this variant to higher-dimensional schemes.
In this thesis, we answer several questions about the behaviour of prover-verifier interactions under parallel repetition when quantum information is allowed, and the verifier acts independently in them. We first consider the case in which a value is associated with each of the possible outcomes of an interaction. We prove that it is not possible for the prover to improve on the optimum average value per repetition by repeating the protocol multiple times in parallel. We look then at games in which the outcomes are classified into two types, winning outcomes and losing outcomes. We ask what is the optimal probability for the prover of winning at least k times out of n parallel repetitions, given that the optimal probability of winning when only one repetition is considered is $p$. A reasonable conjecture for the answer would be \sum_{m \geq k} {n \choose m} p^m (1-p)^{n-m}, as that is the answer when it is optimal for the prover to act independently. This is known to be the correct answer when k=n, and also in the classical case. It is also correct in some generalizations of the classical case that we will discuss later. We will show how this cannot be extended to all cases, presenting an example of an interaction with k=1,n=2 in which p\approx 0.85, but it is possible to always win at least once. We will then give some upper bounds on the optimal probability for the prover of winning k times out of n parallel repetitions. These bounds are expressed as a function of p. Finally, we will connect our results to the study of error reduction for quantum interactive proofs using parallel repetition.
This paper studies correlations among independently administered hypothetical tests of a simple interactive type, and demonstrates that correlations arising in quantum information theoretic variants of these tests can exhibit a striking non-classical behavior. When viewed in a game-theoretic setting, these correlations are suggestive of a perfect form of hedging, where the risk of a loss in one game of chance is perfectly offset by one's actions in a second game. This type of perfect hedging is quantum in nature: it is not possible in classical variants of the tests we consider.