Skip to main content
Log in

Quantum leader election

  • Published:
Quantum Information Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A group of n individuals \(A_{1},\ldots A_{n}\) who do not trust each other and are located far away from each other, want to select a leader. This is the leader election problem, a natural extension of the coin flipping problem to n players. We want a protocol which will guarantee that an honest player will have at least \(\frac{1}{n}-\epsilon \) chance of winning (\(\forall \epsilon >0\)), regardless of what the other players do (whether they are honest, cheating alone or in groups). It is known to be impossible classically. This work gives a simple algorithm that does it, based on the weak coin flipping protocol with arbitrarily small bias derived by Mochon (Quantum weak coin flipping with arbitrarily small bias, arXiv:0711.4114, 2000) in 2007, and recently published and simplified in Aharonov et al. (SIAM J Comput, 2016). A protocol with linear number of coin flipping rounds is quite simple to achieve; we further provide an improvement to logarithmic number of coin flipping rounds. This is a much improved journal version of a preprint posted in 2009; the first protocol with linear number of rounds was achieved independently also by Aharon and Silman (New J Phys 12:033027, 2010) around the same time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ambainis, A., Buhrman, H., Dodis, Y., Roehrig, H.: Multiparty quantum coin flipping. arXiv:quant-ph/0304112 (2003)

  2. Aharon, N., Silman, J.: Quantum dice rolling: a multi-outcome generalization of quantum coin flipping. New J. Phys. 12(3), 033027 (2010)

  3. Aharonov, D., Chailloux, A., Ganz, M., Kerenidis, I., Magnin, L.: A simpler proof of existence of quantum weak coin flipping with arbitrarily small bias. SIAM J. Comput. 45(3), 663–679 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Aharonov, D., Ta-Shma, A., Vazirani, U., Yao, A.: Quantum bit escrow. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 705–714. ACM (2000)

  5. Chailloux, A., Kerenidis, I.: Optimal quantum strong coin flipping. arXiv:0904.1511 (2009)

  6. Cleve, R.: Limits on the security of coin flips when half the processors are faulty. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC (87), pp. 364–369

  7. Feige, U.: Noncryptographic selection protocols. In: 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1999, pp. 142–152. IEEE (1999)

  8. Ganz, M., Sattath, O.: Quantum coin hedging (2017, to be published)

  9. Mochon, C.: Quantum weak coin flipping with arbitrarily small bias. arXiv:0711.4114 (2000)

  10. Mochon, C.: Quantum weak coin-flipping with bias of 0.192. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 250–259 (2004)

  11. Mayers, D., Salvail, L., Chiba-Kohno, Y.: Unconditionally secure quantum coin tossing. In: Technical Report. arXiv:quant-ph/9904078 (1999)

  12. Molina, A., Watrous, J.: Hedging bets with correlated quantum strategies. Proc. R. Soc. A 468(2145), 2614–2629 (2012)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Tani, S., Kobayashi, H., Matsumoto, K.: Exact quantum algorithms for the leader election problem. arXiv.0712.4213 (2007)

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my adviser Prof. Dorit Aharonov for her support and guidance and for her remarks on this paper (in its many versions) and also thank Prof. Michael Ben–Or for his help.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maor Ganz.

Appendix: weak coin flipping

Appendix: weak coin flipping

Let P be a weak coin flipping protocol, with \(P_{B}^{*}\) the maximal cheating probability of Bob.

We want to run two instances of P, one after the other (not even at the same time).

We will define (see [3, 9] for full details) for P:

  • Let \(\mathcal {H=A\otimes M\otimes B}\) be the Hilbert space of the system.

  • \(\mid \psi _{0}>=\mid \psi _{A,0}>\mid \psi _{M,0}>\mid \psi _{B,0}>\) is the initial state of the system.

  • Let there be n (even) stages, and i denote the current stage.

  • On the odd stages i, Alice will apply a unitary \(U_{A,i}\) on \(\mathcal {A\otimes M}\).

  • On the even stages, Bob will apply a unitary \(U_{B,i}\) on \(\mathcal {M\otimes B}\).

  • Let \(\mid \psi _{i}>\) be the state of the system in the \(i_{th}\) stage.

  • Let \(\rho _{A,i}=Tr_{\mathcal {M\otimes B}}(\mid \psi _{i}> <\psi _{i}\mid )\) be the density matrix of Alice in the \(i_{th}\) stage.

  • Alice’s initial state (density matrix) is \(^{(i)}\rho _{A,0}=|\psi _{A,0}> <\psi _{A,0}|\).

  • For even state i, we have \(^{(ii)}\rho _{A,i}=\rho _{A,i-1}\).

  • Let \({\tilde{\rho }}_{A,i}\) be the state of \(\mathcal {A\otimes M}\) after Alice gets the \(i_{th}\) message.

  • For odd i: \(^{(iii)}\rho _{A,i}=Tr_{{\mathcal {M}}}({\tilde{\rho }}_{A,i})\), \(^{(iv)}\rho _{A,i}=Tr_{{\mathcal {M}}}(U_{A,i}{\tilde{\rho }}_{A,i-1}U_{A,i}^{\dagger })\).

We know that regardless of Bob’s actions (see [3, 9] for full proof):

$$\begin{aligned} P_{B}^{*}\le \max Tr[\Pi _{A,1}\rho _{A,n}] \end{aligned}$$
(1)

where the maximization is done over all density matrices \(\rho \) that satisfies the conditions (i)–(iv).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ganz, M. Quantum leader election. Quantum Inf Process 16, 73 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-017-1528-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-017-1528-8

Keywords

Navigation