Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Why quantum state verification cannot be both efficient and secure: a categorical approach

arXiv
Authors: Fabian Wiesner, Ziad Chaoui, Diana Kessler, Anna Pappa, Martti Karvonen

Year

2024

Paper ID

37054

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

127

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The advantage of quantum protocols lies in the inherent properties of the shared quantum states. These states are sometimes provided by sources that are not trusted, and therefore need to be verified. Finding secure and efficient quantum state verification protocols remains a big challenge, and recent works illustrate trade-offs between efficiency and security for different groups of states in restricted settings. However, whether a universal trade-off exists for all quantum states and all verification strategies remains unknown. In this work, we instantiate the categorical composable cryptography framework to show a fundamental limit for quantum state verification for all cut-and-choose approaches used to verify arbitrary quantum states. Our findings show that the prevailing cut-and-choose techniques cannot lead to quantum state verification protocols that are both efficient and secure.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The advantage of quantum protocols lies in the inherent properties of the shared quantum states.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #37054

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.