Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Machine Learning
Quantum Merkle Trees
arXiv
Authors: Lijie Chen, Ramis Movassagh
Year
2021
Paper ID
40182
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
208
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Committing to information is a central task in cryptography, where a party (typically called a prover) stores a piece of information (e.g., a bit string) with the promise of not changing it. This information can be accessed by another party (typically called the verifier), who can later learn the information and verify that it was not meddled with. Merkle trees are a well-known construction for doing so in a succinct manner, in which the verifier can learn any part of the information by receiving a short proof from the honest prover. Despite its significance in classical cryptography, there was no quantum analog of the Merkle tree. A direct generalization using the Quantum Random Oracle Model (QROM) does not seem to be secure. In this work, we propose the quantum Merkle tree. It is based on what we call the Quantum Haar Random Oracle Model (QHROM). In QHROM, both the prover and the verifier have access to a Haar random quantum oracle G and its inverse. Using the quantum Merkle tree, we propose a succinct quantum argument for the Gap-k-Local-Hamiltonian problem. Assuming the Quantum PCP conjecture is true, this succinct argument extends to all of QMA. This work raises a number of interesting open research problems.
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.