5
talks
2
posters
5
committee roles
0
leadership roles
2020–2025
years active
Contributions
QIP QCrypt TQC presenter award · △program ◇steering ○organising □local · filled = chair
Talks
| Title | Conference | Type | Co-authors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum Learning Algorithms Imply Circuit Lower Bounds | QIP 2021 | regular | Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tom Gur, Igor C. Oliveira, Aarthi Sundaram |
Abstract We establish the first general connection between the design of quantum algorithms and circuit lower bounds. Specifically, let C be a class of polynomial-size concepts, and suppose that C can be learned in the PAC model under the uniform distribution with membership queries, and with error 1/2 - c by a time T quantum algorithm. We prove that if (c^2 * T) << 2^n/n, then BQE is not contained in C, where BQE = BQTIME[2^{O(n)}] is an exponential-time analogue of BQP. This result is optimal in both c and T since it is not hard to learn any class C of functions in (classical) time T = 2^n (with no error) or in quantum time T = poly(n) with error at most 1/2 - \Omega(2^{-n/2}) via Fourier sampling. In other words, even a marginal improvement on these generic learning algorithms would lead to major consequences in complexity theory. Our proof builds on several works in learning theory, pseudorandomness, and computational complexity, and crucially, on a connection between non-trivial classical learning algorithms and circuit lower bounds established by Oliveira and Santhanam (CCC 2017). Extending their approach to quantum learning algorithms turns out to create significant challenges. To achieve that, we show among other results how pseudorandom generators imply learning-to-lower-bound connections in a generic fashion, construct the first conditional pseudorandom generator secure against uniform quantum computations, and extend the local list-decoding algorithm of Impagliazzo, Jaiswal, Kabanets and Wigderson (SICOMP 2010) to quantum circuits via a delicate analysis. We believe that these contributions are of independent interest and might find other applications. |
|||
| Secure Multi-party Quantum Computation with a Dishonest Majority | QCRYPT 2020 | regular | Yfke Dulek, Stacey Jeffery, Christian Majenz, Christian Schaffner |
| Non-interactive classical verification of quantum computation | QCRYPT 2020 | regular | Gorjan Alagic, Andrew Childs, Shih-Han Hung |
| Quantum zero-knowledge from Locally Simulatable Proofs | QCRYPT 2020 | invited ▸ presenter | — |
| Quantum hardness of learning shallow classical circuits | QIP 2020 | regular | Srinivasan Arunachalam, Aarthi Sundaram |
Posters
| Title | Conference | Co-authors |
|---|---|---|
| The role of piracy in quantum proofs | QIP 2025 | Anne Broadbent, Supartha Podder, Jamie Sikora |
| The Round Complexity of Proofs in the Bounded Quantum Storage Model | QCRYPT 2024 | Philippe Lamontagne |
The round complexity of interactive proof systems is a key question of practical and theoretical relevance in complexity theory and cryptography. Moreover, results such as QIP = QIP(3) (STOC’00) show that quantum resources significantly help in such a task. In this work, we initiate the study of round compression of protocols in the bounded quantum storage model (BQSM). In this model, the malicious parties have a bounded quantum memory and they cannot store the all the qubits that are transmitted in the protocol Our main results in this setting are the following: 1. There is a non-interactive (statistical) witness indistinguishable proof for any language in NP (and even QMA) in BQSM in the plain model. We notice that in this protocol, only the memory of the verifier is bounded. 2. Any classical proof system can be compressed in a two-message quan- tum proof system in BQSM. Moreover, if the original proof system is zero-knowledge, the quantum protocol is zero-knowledge too. In this result, we assume that the prover has bounded memory. Finally, we give evidence towards the “tightness” of our results. First, we show that NIZK in the plain model against BQS adversaries is unlikely with standard techniques. Second, we prove that without the BQS model there is no 2–message zero-knowledge quantum interactive proof, even under computational assumptions. |
||
Committee service
| Conference | Committee | Position | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| QIP 2024 | PC | member | — |
| QIP 2023 | PC | member | — |
| QIP 2022 | PC | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2021 | Local | member | — |
| QCRYPT 2020 | Local | member | — |
Collaborators
| Co-author | Joint talks |
|---|---|
| Aarthi Sundaram | 2 |
| Srinivasan Arunachalam | 2 |
| Andrew Childs | 1 |
| Anne Broadbent | 1 |
| Christian Majenz | 1 |
| Christian Schaffner | 1 |
| Gorjan Alagic | 1 |
| Igor C. Oliveira | 1 |
| Jamie Sikora | 1 |
| Philippe Lamontagne | 1 |
| Shih-Han Hung | 1 |
| Stacey Jeffery | 1 |
| Supartha Podder | 1 |
| Tom Gur | 1 |
| Yfke Dulek | 1 |