skip to main content
10.1145/3583668.3594600acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Public Access

Brief Announcement: Improved Consensus in Quantum Networks

Published: 16 June 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Fault-tolerant consensus is about reaching agreement on some of the input values in a limited time by non-faulty autonomous processes, despite of failures of processes or communication medium. This problem is particularly challenging and costly against an adaptive adversary with full information. Bar-Joseph and Ben-Or [7] (PODC'98) were the first who proved an absolute lower bound [EQUATION] on expected time complexity of consensus in any classic (i.e., randomized or deterministic) message-passing network with n processes succeeding with probability 1 against such a strong adaptive adversary crashing processes.
Seminal work of Ben-Or and Hassidim [8] (STOC'05) broke the [EQUATION] barrier for consensus in classic (deterministic and randomized) networks by employing quantum computing. They showed an (expected) constant-time quantum algorithm for a linear number of crashes t < n/3.
In this paper, we improve upon that seminal work by reducing the number of quantum and communication bits to an arbitrarily small polynomial, and even more, to a polylogarithmic number - though, the latter in the cost of a slightly larger polylogarithmic time (still exponentially smaller than the time lower bound [EQUATION] for classic computation).*

References

[1]
I. Abraham, T.-H. Hubert Chan, D. Dolev, K. Nayak, R. Pass, L. Ren, and E. Shi. 2019. Communication Complexity of Byzantine Agreement, Revisited. In Proc.of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 317--326.
[2]
D. Alistarh, J. Aspnes, V. King, and J. Saia. 2018. Communication-efficient randomized consensus. Distributed Computing 31 (2018), 489--501.
[3]
S. Amdur, S. Weber, and V. Hadzilacos. 1992. On the message complexity of binary agreement under crash failures. Distributed Computing 5 (1992), 175--186.
[4]
J. Aspnes. 1998. Lower Bounds for Distributed Coin-Flipping and Randomized Consensus. J. ACM 45, 3 (1998), 415--450.
[5]
Hagit Attiya and Keren Censor. 2008. Tight bounds for asynchronous randomized consensus. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 55, 5 (2008), 1--26.
[6]
H. Attiya and J. Welch. 2004. Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics (2nd ed.). Wiley.
[7]
Z. Bar-Joseph and A M. Ben-Or. 1998. Tight Lower Bound for Randomized Synchronous Consensus. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 193--199.
[8]
M. Ben-Or and A. Hassidim. 2005. Fast quantum byzantine agreement. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC).
[9]
A. Broadbent and A. Tapp. 2008. Can quantum mechanics help distributed computing? SIGACT News 39, 3 (2008), 67--76.
[10]
B. S. Chlebus and D. R. Kowalski. 2006. Robust gossiping with an application to consensus. J. Comput. System Sci. 72 (2006), 1262--1281.
[11]
B. S. Chlebus, D. R. Kowalski, and M. Strojnowski. 2009. Fast scalable deterministic consensus for crash failures. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 111--120.
[12]
B. S. Chlebus, D. R. Kowalski, and M. Strojnowski. 2010. Scalable Quantum Consensus for Crash Failures. In Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC).
[13]
V. Cholvi. 2022. Quantum Byzantine Agreement for Any Number of Dishonest Parties. Quantum Inf. Process 21 (2022), 1--11.
[14]
B. Chor, M. Merritt, and D. B. Shmoys. 1989. Simple constant-time consensus protocols in realistic failure models. J. ACM 36, 3 (1989), 591--614.
[15]
D. Dolev and R. Reischuk. 1985. Bounds on information exchange for Byzantine agreement. J. ACM 32 (1985), 191--204.
[16]
C. Dwork, J. Halpern, and O. Waarts. 1998. Performing work efficiently in the presence of faults. SIAM J. Comput. 27 (1998), 1457--1491.
[17]
P. Feldman and S. Micali. 1997. An optimal probabilistic protocol for synchronous Byzantine agreement. SIAM J. Comput. 26 (1997), 873--933.
[18]
M. Fisher and A N. Lynch. 1982. lower bound for the time to assure interactive consistency. Inform. Process. Lett. 14 (1982), 183--186.
[19]
Z. Galil, A. Mayer, and M. Yung. 1995. Resolving message complexity of Byzantine agreement and beyond. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).
[20]
S. Gilbert and D. R. Kowalski. 2010. Distributed agreement with optimal communication complexity. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 965--977.
[21]
V. Hadzilacos and J. Y. Halpern. 1993. Message-optimal protocols for Byzantine agreement. Mathematical Systems Theory 26 (1993), 41--102.
[22]
M. Hajiaghayi, D. R. Kowalski, and J. Olkowski. 2022. Improved communication complexity of fault-tolerant consensus. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 488--501.
[23]
MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Dariusz R. Kowalski, and Jan Olkowski. 2023. Fault-Tolerant Consensus in Quantum Networks. arXiv:2305.10618 [cs.DS]
[24]
L. K. Helm. 2008. Quantum distributed consensus. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing (PODC).
[25]
Q. Luo, K. Feng, and M. Zheng. 2019. Quantum multi-valued byzantine agreement based on d-dimensional entangled states. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 58 (2019), 4025--4032.
[26]
M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport. 1980. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM 27 (1980), 228--234.
[27]
S. Tani, H. Kobayashi, and K. Matsumoto. 2012. Exact Quantum Algorithms for the Leader Election Problem. ACM Trans. on Computation Theory 4 (2012), 1--24.
[28]
Jared Saia Valerie King. 2011. Breaking the O(n2) bit barrier: Scalable byzantine agreement with an adaptive adversary. J. ACM 18, 24 (2011), 18--1.
[29]
J. van Apeldoorn and A T. de Vos. 2022. Framework for Distributed Quantum Queries in the CONGEST Model. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC).
[30]
X. Wu and P. Yao. 2022. Quantum Complexity of Weighted Diameter and Radius in CONGEST Networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC).

Index Terms

  1. Brief Announcement: Improved Consensus in Quantum Networks
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        PODC '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
        June 2023
        392 pages
        ISBN:9798400701214
        DOI:10.1145/3583668
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 16 June 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. distributed algorithms
        2. quantum algorithms
        3. adaptive adversary
        4. crash failures
        5. consensus
        6. quantum common coin
        7. approximate counting

        Qualifiers

        • Short-paper

        Funding Sources

        Conference

        PODC '23
        Sponsor:

        Acceptance Rates

        PODC '23 Paper Acceptance Rate 29 of 110 submissions, 26%;
        Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • 0
          Total Citations
        • 157
          Total Downloads
        • Downloads (Last 12 months)76
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
        Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Login options

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media