skip to main content
research-article

Locking the Design of Building Blocks for Quantum Circuits

Published:07 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The research community expects that quantum computers will give economical results for particular problems on which the classical computers break down. Examples include factoring of large numbers, searching in a big database, or simulating chemical reactions to design new drugs. Attempts are ongoing to build up a practical quantum computer. Users (clients) can implement quantum circuits to run on these quantum computers. However, before running the quantum circuit on the quantum computer, the users (clients) should compile, optimize, decompose, and technology map the quantum circuit. In the current embodiment, the resulting quantum circuit runs on a remote and untrusted quantum computer server -- introducing security risks. This study explores the risk of outsourcing the quantum circuit to the quantum computer by focusing on quantum oracles. Quantum oracles are pivotal building blocks and require specialized expertise and means to design. Hence, the designer may protect this proprietary quantum oracle intellectual property (IP) and hide his/her private information. We investigate how to manage that on a quantum computer server using the IBM project QX quantum computer and Qiskit tools as an exemplar.

References

  1. J. A. Smolin A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop and J. M. Gambetta. 2017. Open quantum assembly language. CoRR arXiv:1707.03429v2 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Oscar Boykin, Tal Mor, Matthew Pulver, Vwani Roychowdhury, and Farrokh Vatan. 2000. A new universal and fault-tolerant quantum basis. Inform. Process. Lett. 75, 3 (2000), 101--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Davide Castelvecchi. 2017. Quantum computers ready to leap out of the lab in 2017. Nature 541 (01 2017), 9--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/541009aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrew M. Childs. 2005. Secure assisted quantum computation. Quantum Info. Comput. 5, 6 (Sept. 2005), 456--466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. X. Cui, S. M. Saeed, A. Zulehner, R. Wille, K. Wu, R. Drechsler, and R. Karri. 2018. On the difficulty of inserting trojans in reversible computing architectures. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing (2018), 1--1. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2018.2823315Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Deb, R. Wille, R. Drechsler, and D. K. Das. 2015. An efficient reduction of common control lines for reversible circuit optimization. In International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic. 14--19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMVL.2015.26Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Drechsler and R. Wille. 2011. From truth tables to programming languages: Progress in the design of reversible circuits. In 2011 41st IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic. 78--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. K. Fazel, M. A. Thornton, and J. E. Rice. 2007. ESOP-based toffoli gate cascade generation. In IEEE PacRim. 206 --209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Joseph F. Fitzsimons. 2016. Private quantum computation: An introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols. CoRR abs/1611.10107 (2016). arxiv:1611.10107 http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.10107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. X. Fu, L. Riesebos, L. Lao, C. G. Almudever, F. Sebastiano, R. Versluis, E. Charbon, and K. Bertels. 2016. A heterogeneous quantum computer architecture. In International Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 323--330. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2903150.2906827Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lov K. Grover. 1996. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Theory of computing. 212--219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Thomas Haener, Mathias Soeken, Martin Roetteler, and Krysta M. Svore. 2018. Quantum circuits for floating-point arithmetic. In Reversible Computation, Jarkko Kari and Irek Ulidowski (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 162--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomas Häner, Martin Roetteler, and Krysta Marie Svore. 2017. Factoring using 2n+2 qubits with Toffoli based modular multiplication. Quantum Information and Computation 17 (2017), 673--684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cornelius Hempel, Christine Maier, Jonathan Romero, Jarrod Mcclean, Thomas Monz, Heng Shen, Petar Jurcevic, Ben P. Lanyon, Peter Love, Ryan Babbush, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and Christian Roos. 2018. Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-Ion quantum simulator. Physical Review X 8 (03 2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031022Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. IBM. 2017. IBM QX backend information. https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-backend-information.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Urmila Mahadev. 2017. Classical homomorphic encryption for quantum circuits. CoRR abs/1708.02130 (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02130v4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Atul Mantri, Tommaso F. Demarie, and Joseph F. Fitzsimons. 2017. Universality of quantum computation with cluster states and (X, Y)-plane measurements. Scientific Reports 7 (February 2017), 42861. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42861Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. M. Miller, D. Maslov, and G. W. Dueck. 2003. A transformation based algorithm for reversible logic synthesis. In Design Automation Conference. 318--323.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tomoyuki Morimae and Keisuke Fujii. 2013. Blind quantum computation protocol in which Alice only makes measurements. Phys. Rev. A 87 (May 2013), 050301. Issue 5. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.050301Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Giacomo Nannicini. 2017. An introduction to quantum computing, without the physics. CoRR abs/1708.03684 (2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Nielsen and I. Chuang. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge Univ. Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ben W. Reichardt, Falk Unger, and Umesh Vazirani. 2013. A classical leash for a quantum system: Command of quantum systems via rigidity of chsh games. In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 321--322. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2422436.2422473Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Samah Mohamed Saeed, Xiaotong Cui, Robert Wille, Alwin Zulehner, Kaijie Wu, Rolf Drechsler, and Ramesh Karri. 2017. Towards reverse engineering reversible logic. CoRR abs/1704.08397 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Samah Mohamed Saeed, Xiaotong Cui, Alwin Zulehner, Robert Wille, Rolf Drechsler, Kaijie Wu, and Ramesh Karri. 2018. IC/IP piracy assessment of reversible logic. In International Conference on Computer-Aided Design. Article 5, 8 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Samah Mohamed Saeed, Nithin Mahendran, Alwin Zulehner, Robert Wille, and Ramesh Karri. 2017. Identifying reversible circuit synthesis approaches to enable IP piracy attacks. In International Conference on Computer Design. 537--540. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCD.2017.93Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Samah Mohamed Saeed, Nithin Mahendran, Alwin Zulehner, Robert Wille, and Ramesh Karri. 2019. Identification of synthesis approaches for IP/IC piracy of reversible circuits. J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 15, 3, Article 23 (April 2019), 23:1--23:17 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Mehdi Saeedi and Igor L. Markov. 2013. Synthesis and optimization of reversible circuits - a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 45, 2 (2013), 21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Peter W. Shor. 1997. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 5 (Oct. 1997), 1484--1509. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795293172Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mathias Soeken, Gerhard W. Dueck, and D. Michael Miller. 2016. A fast symbolic transformation based algorithm for reversible logic synthesis. In International Conference on Reversible Computation. 307--321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mathias Soeken, Robert Wille, Oliver Keszocze, D. Michael Miller, and Rolf Drechsler. 2015. Embedding of large boolean functions for reversible logic. ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems 12, 4 (2015), 41:1--41:26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Weng Kit Tham, Hugo Ferretti, Kent Bonsma-Fisher, Aharon Brodutch, Barry C. Sanders, Aephraim M. Steinberg, Stacey Jeffery, and Edward S. Rogers. 2018. Experimental demonstration of quantum fully homomorphic encryption with application in a two-party secure protocol. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.02149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Kristan Temme Aram W. Harrow Jerry M. Chow Vojtech Havlicek, Antonio D. Córcoles and Jay M. Gambetta. 2018. Supervised learning with quantum enhanced feature spaces. Nature 567 (2018), 209--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. R. Wille and R. Drechsler. 2009. BDD-based synthesis of reversible logic for large functions. In Design Automation Conference. 270--275. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1629911.1629984Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. A. Zulehner and R. Wille. 2017. Make it reversible: Efficient embedding of non-reversible functions. In Proceedings of Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition. 458--463.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Alwin Zulehner and Robert Wille. 2018. One-pass design of reversible circuits: Combining embedding and synthesis for reversible logic. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 37, 5 (2018), 996--1008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Alwin Zulehner and Robert Wille. 2019. Compiling SU(4) quantum circuits to IBM QX architectures. In Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference. ACM, 185--190. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3287624.3287704Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Locking the Design of Building Blocks for Quantum Circuits

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!