Constructive Post-Quantum Reductions

March 04, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Nir Bitansky, Zvika Brakerski, Yael Tauman Kalai arXiv ID 2203.02314 Category quant-ph: Quantum Computing Cross-listed cs.CC, cs.CR Citations 7 Venue IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Is it possible to convert classical cryptographic reductions into post-quantum ones? It is customary to argue that while this is problematic in the interactive setting, non-interactive reductions do carry over. However, when considering quantum auxiliary input, this conversion results in a non-constructive post-quantum reduction that requires duplicating the quantum auxiliary input, which is in general inefficient or even impossible. This violates the win-win premise of provable cryptography: an attack against a cryptographic primitive should lead to an algorithmic advantage. We initiate the study of constructive quantum reductions and present positive and negative results for converting large classes of classical reductions to the post-quantum setting in a constructive manner. We show that any non-interactive non-adaptive reduction from assumptions with a polynomial solution space (such as decision assumptions) can be made post-quantum constructive. In contrast, assumptions with super-polynomial solution space (such as general search assumptions) cannot be generally converted. Along the way, we make several additional contributions: 1. We put forth a framework for reductions (or general interaction) with stateful solvers for a computational problem, that may change their internal state between consecutive calls. We show that such solvers can still be utilized. This framework and our results are meaningful even in the classical setting. 2. A consequence of our negative result is that quantum auxiliary input that is useful against a problem with a super-polynomial solution space cannot be generically ``restored'' post-measurement. This shows that the novel rewinding technique of Chiesa et al. (FOCS 2021) is tight in the sense that it cannot be extended beyond a polynomial measurement space.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Quantum Computing

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted