Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Quantum Bisimilarity via Barbs and Contexts: Curbing the Power of Non-deterministic Observers

Published: 05 January 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Past years have seen the development of a few proposals for quantum extensions of process calculi. The rationale is clear: with the development of quantum communication protocols, there is a need to abstract and focus on the basic features of quantum concurrent systems, like CCS and CSP have done for their classical counterparts. So far, though, no accepted standard has emerged, neither for the syntax nor for the behavioural semantics. Indeed, the various proposals do not agree on what should be the observational properties of quantum values, and as a matter of fact, the soundness of such properties has never been validated against the prescriptions of quantum theory.
To this aim, we introduce a new calculus, Linear Quantum CCS (lqCCS), and investigate the features of behavioural equivalences based on barbs and contexts. Our calculus can be thought of as an asynchronous, linear version of qCCS, which is in turn based on value-passing CCS. The combination of linearity and asynchronous communication fits well with the properties of quantum systems (e.g. the no-cloning theorem), since it ensures that each qubit is sent exactly once, precisely specifying which qubits of a process interact with the context.
We exploit contexts to examine how bisimilarities relate to quantum theory. We show that the observational power of general contexts is incompatible with quantum theory: roughly, they can perform non-deterministic moves depending on quantum values without measuring (hence perturbing) them.
Therefore, we refine the operational semantics in order to prevent contexts from performing unfeasible non-deterministic choices. This induces a coarser bisimilarity that better fits the quantum setting: (i) it lifts the indistinguishability of quantum states to the distributions of processes and, despite the additional constraints, (ii) it preserves the expressiveness of non-deterministic choices based on classical information. To the best of our knowledge, our semantics is the first one that satisfies the two properties above.

References

[1]
Charles H. Bennet and Gilles Brassard. 2014. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Theoretical Computer Science, 560 (2014), 7–11. issn:0304-3975 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025 Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Cryptography – celebrating 30 years of BB84
[2]
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 (1993), 1895–1899. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895
[3]
Charles H. Bennett and Stephen J. Wiesner. 1992. Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 69 (1992), Nov, 2881–2884. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881
[4]
Filippo Bonchi, Fabio Gadducci, and Giacoma Valentina Monreale. 2014. A General Theory of Barbs, Contexts, and Labels. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 15, 4 (2014), 1–27. issn:1529-3785, 1557-945X https://doi.org/10.1145/2631916
[5]
Filippo Bonchi, Alexandra Silva, and Ana Sokolova. 2017. The Power of Convex Algebras. In 28th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 2017), Roland Meyer, Uwe Nestmann, and Marc Herbstritt (Eds.) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 85). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 23:1–23:18. isbn:978-3-95977-048-4 issn:1868-8969 https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.CONCUR.2017.23
[6]
Lorenzo Ceragioli, Fabio Gadducci, Giuseppe Lomurno, and Gabriele Tedeschi. 2023. Quantum Bisimilarity via Barbs and Contexts: Curbing the Power of Non-Deterministic Observers. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.06116
[7]
Timothy A. S. Davidson. 2012. Formal Verification Techniques Using Quantum Process Calculus. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Warwick. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/51368/
[8]
Pierpaolo Degano and Corrado Priami. 2001. Enhanced operational semantics. ACM Computing Survey, 33, 2 (2001), 135–176. https://doi.org/10.1145/384192.384194
[9]
Yuxin Deng. 2018. Bisimulations for Probabilistic and Quantum Processes (Invited Paper). In 29th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR 2018, September 4-7, 2018, Beijing, China, Sven Schewe and Lijun Zhang (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 118). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2:1–2:14. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2018.2
[10]
Yuxin Deng and Yuan Feng. 2012. Open Bisimulation for Quantum Processes. In Theoretical Computer Science - 7th IFIP TC 1/WG 2.2 International Conference, TCS 2012, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 26-28, 2012. Proceedings, Jos C. M. Baeten, Thomas Ball, and Frank S. de Boer (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7604). Springer, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33475-7_9
[11]
Yuan Feng, Yuxin Deng, and Mingsheng Ying. 2014. Symbolic Bisimulation for Quantum Processes. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 15, 2 (2014), 14:1–14:32. issn:1529-3785 https://doi.org/10.1145/2579818
[12]
Yuan Feng, Runyao Duan, Zhengfeng Ji, and Mingsheng Ying. 2007. Probabilistic Bisimulations for Quantum Processes. Information and Computation, 205, 11 (2007), 1608–1639. issn:0890-5401 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2007.08.001
[13]
Yuan Feng, Runyao Duan, and Mingsheng Ying. 2012. Bisimulation for Quantum Processes. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 34, 4 (2012), 17:1–17:43. issn:0164-0925 https://doi.org/10.1145/2400676.2400680
[14]
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, Luca Aceto and David de Frutos-Escrig (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 42). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2015.441
[15]
Simon J. Gay and Rajagopal Nagarajan. 2005. Communicating quantum processes. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2005, Long Beach, California, USA, January 12-14, 2005, Jens Palsberg and Martín Abadi (Eds.). ACM, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1145/1040305.1040318
[16]
Simon J. Gay and Rajagopal Nagarajan. 2006. Types and Typechecking for Communicating Quantum Processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 16, 3 (2006), 375–406. issn:1469-8072, 0960-1295 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129506005263
[17]
Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. 2009. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations. Physical Review Letters, 103, 15 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502
[18]
Matthew Hennessy. 1991. A Proof System for Communicating Processes with Value-Passing. Formal Aspects of Computing, 3, 4 (1991), 346–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01642508
[19]
Matthew Hennessy. 2012. Exploring Probabilistic Bisimulations, Part I. Formal Aspects of Computing, 24, 4-6 (2012), 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00165-012-0242-7
[20]
H. J. Kimble. 2008. The Quantum Internet. Nature, 453, 7198 (2008), 1023–1030. issn:0028-0836, 1476-4687 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07127
[21]
Takahiro Kubota, Yoshihiko Kakutani, Go Kato, Yasuhito Kawano, and Hideki Sakurada. 2012. Application of a Process Calculus to Security Proofs of Quantum Protocols. In FCS’12. 141–147.
[22]
Marie Lalire. 2006. Relations among quantum processes: bisimilarity and congruence. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 16, 3 (2006), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096012950600524X
[23]
Marie Lalire and Philippe Jorrand. 2004. A Process Algebraic Approach to Concurrent and Distributed Quantum Computation: Operational Semantics. CoRR, quant-ph/0407005 (2004), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0407005
[24]
Robin Milner. 1992. Functions as Processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2, 2 (1992), 119–141. issn:0960-1295, 1469-8072 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129500001407
[25]
Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press. isbn:978-0-511-97666-7 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667
[26]
A. Poppe, A. Fedrizzi, T. Loruenser, O. Maurhardt, R. Ursin, H. R. Boehm, M. Peev, M. Suda, C. Kurtsiefer, H. Weinfurter, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger. 2004. Practical Quantum Key Distribution with Polarization-Entangled Photons. Optics Express, 12, 16 (2004), 3865. issn:1094-4087 https://doi.org/10.1364/OPEX.12.003865 arxiv:quant-ph/0404115.
[27]
Damien Pous and Davide Sangiorgi. 2011. Enhancements of the Bisimulation Proof Method. In Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction, Davide Sangiorgi and Jan Rutten (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 233–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792588.007
[28]
Roberto Segala. 1995. Modeling and verification of randomized distributed real-time systems. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/36560
[29]
Peter W. Shor. 1994. Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring. In 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 20-22 November 1994. IEEE Computer Society, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700
[30]
Ana Sokolova. 2011. Probabilistic Systems Coalgebraically: A Survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 412, 38 (2011), 5095–5110. issn:0304-3975 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2011.05.008
[31]
Seiichiro Tani, Hirotada Kobayashi, and Keiji Matsumoto. 2012. Exact Quantum Algorithms for the Leader Election Problem. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory, 4, 1 (2012), 1:1–1:24. issn:1942-3454 https://doi.org/10.1145/2141938.2141939
[32]
Mingsheng Ying, Yuan Feng, Runyao Duan, and Zhengfeng Ji. 2009. An Algebra of Quantum Processes. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 10, 3 (2009), 1–36. issn:1529-3785, 1557-945X https://doi.org/10.1145/1507244.1507249

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Quantum Bisimilarity Is a Congruence Under Physically Admissible SchedulersProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-981-97-8943-6_9(176-195)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Towards Quantum Multiparty Session TypesSoftware Engineering and Formal Methods10.1007/978-3-031-77382-2_22(385-403)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Testing Quantum ProcessesLeveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. REoCAS Colloquium in Honor of Rocco De Nicola10.1007/978-3-031-73709-1_9(132-151)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages  Volume 8, Issue POPL
January 2024
2820 pages
EISSN:2475-1421
DOI:10.1145/3554315
Issue’s Table of Contents
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 January 2024
Published in PACMPL Volume 8, Issue POPL

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Behavioural Equivalence
  2. Linear Process Calculi
  3. Probabilistic Bisimulation
  4. Quantum Communication

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • European Union Next-GenerationEU - National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) ? MISSION 4 COMPONENT 2, INVESTMENT N. 1.4

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)280
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)38
Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Quantum Bisimilarity Is a Congruence Under Physically Admissible SchedulersProgramming Languages and Systems10.1007/978-981-97-8943-6_9(176-195)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Towards Quantum Multiparty Session TypesSoftware Engineering and Formal Methods10.1007/978-3-031-77382-2_22(385-403)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Testing Quantum ProcessesLeveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. REoCAS Colloquium in Honor of Rocco De Nicola10.1007/978-3-031-73709-1_9(132-151)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Towards a Formal Testing Theory for Quantum ProcessesLeveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. REoCAS Colloquium in Honor of Rocco De Nicola10.1007/978-3-031-73709-1_8(111-131)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media