skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Relational proofs for quantum programs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Relational verification of quantum programs has many potential applications in quantum and post-quantum security and other domains. We propose a relational program logic for quantum programs. The interpretation of our logic is based on a quantum analogue of probabilistic couplings. We use our logic to verify non-trivial relational properties of quantum programs, including uniformity for samples generated by the quantum Bernoulli factory, reliability of quantum teleportation against noise (bit and phase flip), security of quantum one-time pad and equivalence of quantum walks.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a21-barthe.webm

References

  1. Scott Aaronson and Guy N. Rothblum. 2019. Gentle Measurement of Quantum States and Differential Privacy. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 322–333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Samson Abramsky and Bob Coecke. 2004. A Categorical Semantics of Quantum Protocols. In 19th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2004), 14-17 July 2004, Turku, Finland, Proceedings. 415–425. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. V.S. Anil Kumar and H. Ramesh. 2001. Coupling vs. conductance for the Jerrum–Sinclair chain. Random Structures & Algorithms 18, 1 (2001), 1–17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ebrahim Ardeshir-Larijani, Simon J. Gay, and Rajagopal Nagarajan. 2013. Equivalence Checking of Quantum Protocols. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 19th International Conference, TACAS 2013, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24, 2013. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Nir Piterman and Scott A. Smolka (Eds.), Vol. 7795. Springer, 478–492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Gilles Barthe, Thomas Espitau, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, Léo Stefanesco, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2015. Relational Reasoning via Probabilistic Coupling. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning - 20th International Conference, LPAR-20 2015, Suva, Fiji, November 24-28, 2015, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Martin Davis, Ansgar Fehnker, Annabelle McIver, and Andrei Voronkov (Eds.), Vol. 9450. Springer, 387–401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gilles Barthe, Thomas Espitau, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2017. Proving uniformity and independence by self-composition and coupling. In LPAR-21, 21st International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, Maun, Botswana, 7-12th May 2017 (EPiC Series), Thomas Eiter and David Sands (Eds.), Vol. 46. EasyChair, 385–403. http://www.easychair.org/publications/paper/340344Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilles Barthe, Thomas Espitau, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2018. Proving expected sensitivity of probabilistic programs. PACMPL 2, POPL (2018), 57:1–57:29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gilles Barthe, Marco Gaboardi, Benjamin Grégoire, Justin Hsu, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2016. Proving Differential Privacy via Probabilistic Couplings. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS ’16, New York, NY, USA, July 5-8, 2016, Martin Grohe, Eric Koskinen, and Natarajan Shankar (Eds.). ACM, 749–758. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gilles Barthe, Benjamin Grégoire, and Santiago Zanella Béguelin. 2009. Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2009, Savannah, GA, USA, January 21-23, 2009, Zhong Shao and Benjamin C. Pierce (Eds.). ACM, 90–101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gilles Barthe, Justin Hsu, Mingsheng Ying, Nengkun Yu, and Li Zhou. 2019. Relational Proofs for Quantum Programs (Extended Version). CoRR abs/1901.05184 (2019). arXiv: 1901.05184 http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05184Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilles Barthe, Boris Köpf, Federico Olmedo, and Santiago Zanella Béguelin. 2012. Probabilistic relational reasoning for differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2012, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, January 22-28, 2012, John Field and Michael Hicks (Eds.). ACM, 97–110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gilles Barthe, Boris Köpf, Federico Olmedo, and Santiago Zanella-Béguelin. 2013. Probabilistic Relational Reasoning for Differential Privacy. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 35, 3, Article 9 (nov 2013), 49 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K. Wootters. 1993. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (Mar 1993), 1895–1899. Issue 13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. P. Oscar Boykin and Vwani Roychowdhury. 2003. Optimal encryption of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. A 67 (Apr 2003), 042317. Issue 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Rohit Chadha, Paulo Mateus, and Amílcar Sernadas. 2006. Reasoning About Imperative Quantum Programs. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 158 (2006), 19–39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Howard Dale, David Jennings, and Terry Rudolph. 2015. Provable quantum advantage in randomness processing. Nature communications 6 (2015), 8203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellie D’Hondt and Prakash Panangaden. 2006. Quantum weakest preconditions. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16, 3 (2006), 429–451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yuan Feng, Runyao Duan, Zheng-Feng Ji, and Mingsheng Ying. 2007. Proof rules for the correctness of quantum programs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 386, 1-2 (2007), 151–166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Yuan Feng and Mingsheng Ying. 2015. Toward Automatic Verification of Quantum Cryptographic Protocols. In 26th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 2015, Madrid, Spain, September 1.4, 2015 (LIPIcs), Luca Aceto and David de Frutos-Escrig (Eds.), Vol. 42. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 441–455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Justin Hsu. 2017. Probabilistic Couplings for Probabilistic Reasoning. CoRR abs/1710.09951 (2017). arXiv: 1710.09951 http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09951Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Shih-Han Hung, Kesha Hietala, Shaopeng Zhu, Mingsheng Ying, Michael Hicks, and Xiaodi Wu. 2018. Quantitative Robustness Analysis of Quantum Programs (Extended Version). CoRR abs/1811.03585 (2018). arXiv: 1811.03585 http: //arxiv.org/abs/1811.03585 To appear at POPL’19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Yoshihiko Kakutani. 2009. A Logic for Formal Verification of Quantum Programs. In Advances in Computer Science -ASIAN 2009. Information Security and Privacy, 13th Asian Computing Science Conference, Seoul, Korea, December 14-16, 2009. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Anupam Datta (Ed.), Vol. 5913. Springer, 79–93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. MS Keane and George L O’Brien. 1994. A Bernoulli factory. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 4, 2 (1994), 213–219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Julia Kempe. 2003. Quantum random walks: an introductory overview. Contemporary Physics 44, 4 (2003), 307–327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Takahiro Kubota, Yoshihiko Kakutani, Go Kato, Yasuhito Kawano, and Hideki Sakurada. 2013. Automated Verification of Equivalence on Quantum Cryptographic Protocols. In 5th International Symposium on Symbolic Computation in Software Science, SCSS 2013, Castle of Hagenberg, Austria (EPiC Series in Computing), Laura Kovács and Temur Kutsia (Eds.), Vol. 15. EasyChair, 64–69. http://www.easychair.org/publications/paper/143661Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Burkhard Kümmerer and Kay Schwieger. 2016. Diagonal couplings of quantum Markov chains. Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics 19, 2 (2016), 1650012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Yangjia Li and Dominique Unruh. 2019. Quantum Relational Hoare Logic with Expectations. CoRR abs/1903.08357 (2019). arXiv: 1903.08357 http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08357Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Torgny Lindvall. 2002. Lectures on the coupling method. Courier Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Michele Mosca, Alain Tapp, and Ronald de Wolf. 2000. Private quantum channels and the cost of randomizing quantum information. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0003101 (2000). https://arxiv.org/abs/quant- ph/0003101Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. 2002. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Peter Selinger. 2004a. A Brief Survey of Quantum Programming Languages. In Functional and Logic Programming, 7th International Symposium, FLOPS 2004, Nara, Japan, April 7-9, 2004, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Yukiyoshi Kameyama and Peter J. Stuckey (Eds.), Vol. 2998. Springer, 1–6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Peter Selinger. 2004b. Towards a quantum programming language. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14, 4 (2004), 527–586. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Volker Strassen. 1965. The existence of probability measures with given marginals. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (1965), 423–439. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoms/1177700153Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Hermann Thorisson. 2000. Coupling, Stationarity, and Regeneration. springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Dominique Unruh. 2019a. Quantum Hoare Logic with Ghost Variables. In 2019 34th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). 1–13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Dominique Unruh. 2019b. Quantum Relational Hoare Logic. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 3, POPL, Article 33 (Jan. 2019), 31 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Salvador Elías Venegas-Andraca. 2012. Quantum walks: a comprehensive review. Quantum Information Processing 11, 5 (2012), 1015–1106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Cédric Villani. 2008. Optimal transport: Old and new. springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Andreas Winter. 2016. Tight uniform continuity bounds for quantum entropies: conditional entropy, relative entropy distance and energy constraints. Communications in Mathematical Physics 347, 1 (2016), 291–313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Mingsheng Ying. 2011. Floyd-Hoare logic for quantum programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 33, 6 (2011), 19:1–19:49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Mingsheng Ying. 2016. Foundations of Quantum Programming. Morgan-Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mingsheng Ying, Nengkun Yu, Yuan Feng, and Runyao Duan. 2013. Verification of quantum programs. Sci. Comput. Program. 78, 9 (2013), 1679–1700. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Li Zhou, Shenggang Ying, Nengkun Yu, and Mingsheng Ying. 2019a. Strassen’s theorem for quantum couplings. Theoretical Computer Science (2019). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Li Zhou, Nengkun Yu, and Mingsheng Ying. 2019b. An Applied Quantum Hoare Logic. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI 2019). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1149–1162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Relational proofs for quantum programs

        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
        About Cookies On This Site

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

        Learn more

        Got it!