VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Daniel Gottesman
dblp:g/DanielGottesman
· DBLP profile ↗
13ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
0009-0002-2948-3395ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 10 · 2 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1Security and privacy · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Theoretical computer science
11 papers |
Quantum computing and quantum information · 75% Computational complexity · 22% Distributed computing theory · 2% | |
| Network and information security
6 papers |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 76% Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 17% Authentication and access control · 5% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 37, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum entanglement
entanglement concentration |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Streaming Universal Distortion-Free Entanglement Concentration · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2014 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum entanglement |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Streaming Universal Distortion-Free Entanglement Concentration · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2014 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum protocols |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Streaming Universal Distortion-Free Entanglement Concentration · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2014 |
Computational complexity
randomness extraction |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Streaming Universal Distortion-Free Entanglement Concentration · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2014 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum error correction |
0.2 | 3 | 2006 | The minimum distance problem for two-way entanglement purification · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2006 Secure Multiparty Quantum Computation with (Only) a Strict Honest Majority · FOCS 2006 Approximate Quantum Error-Correcting Codes and Secret Sharing Schemes · EUROCRYPT 2005 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum complexity theory
hamiltonian complexity |
0.2 | 2 | 2009 | The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian Problems · FOCS 2009 The Power of Quantum Systems on a Line · FOCS 2007 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum complexity theory |
0.2 | 2 | 2009 | The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian Problems · FOCS 2009 The Power of Quantum Systems on a Line · FOCS 2007 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum algorithms |
0.2 | 2 | 2014 | Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithms · STOC 2009 Streaming Universal Distortion-Free Entanglement Concentration · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2014 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secure multiparty computation |
0.1 | 3 | 2006 | Secure Multiparty Quantum Computation with (Only) a Strict Honest Majority · FOCS 2006 Secure multi-party quantum computation · STOC 2002 Detectable byzantine agreement secure against faulty majorities · PODC 2002 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secret sharing |
0.1 | 2 | 2006 | Secure Multiparty Quantum Computation with (Only) a Strict Honest Majority · FOCS 2006 Approximate Quantum Error-Correcting Codes and Secret Sharing Schemes · EUROCRYPT 2005 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum error correction
approximate quantum error correction |
0.1 | 2 | 2006 | Secure Multiparty Quantum Computation with (Only) a Strict Honest Majority · FOCS 2006 Approximate Quantum Error-Correcting Codes and Secret Sharing Schemes · EUROCRYPT 2005 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure multiparty computation
quantum multiparty computation |
0.1 | 2 | 2006 | Secure Multiparty Quantum Computation with (Only) a Strict Honest Majority · FOCS 2006 Secure multi-party quantum computation · STOC 2002 |
Computational complexity › query complexity
quantum query complexity |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithms · STOC 2009 |
Computational complexity › decidability
tiling problems |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian Problems · FOCS 2009 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secret sharing
quantum secret sharing |
0.1 | 2 | 2005 | Approximate Quantum Error-Correcting Codes and Secret Sharing Schemes · EUROCRYPT 2005 Secure multi-party quantum computation · STOC 2002 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
quantum cryptography |
0.1 | 2 | 2003 | Proof of security of quantum key distribution with two-way classical communications · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2003 Authentication of Quantum Messages · FOCS 2002 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum computational models
adiabatic quantum computation |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | The Power of Quantum Systems on a Line · FOCS 2007 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum complexity theory
QMA-completeness |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | The Power of Quantum Systems on a Line · FOCS 2007 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum entanglement
entanglement distillation |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | The minimum distance problem for two-way entanglement purification · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2006 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum error correction
quantum code bounds |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | The minimum distance problem for two-way entanglement purification · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2006 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key management › key distribution
quantum key distribution |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Proof of security of quantum key distribution with two-way classical communications · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2003 |
Authentication and access control › authentication
quantum authentication |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Authentication of Quantum Messages · FOCS 2002 |
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › quantum cryptography
quantum encryption |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Authentication of Quantum Messages · FOCS 2002 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secret sharing
verifiable secret sharing |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Secure multi-party quantum computation · STOC 2002 |
Distributed computing theory › fault tolerance › byzantine fault tolerance
byzantine agreement |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Detectable byzantine agreement secure against faulty majorities · PODC 2002 |
Computational complexity
complexity classes |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian Problems · FOCS 2009 |
Computational complexity
lower bounds |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithms · STOC 2009 |
Computational complexity › complexity classes › exponential time
NEXPTIME |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian Problems · FOCS 2009 |
Computational complexity
query complexity |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithms · STOC 2009 |
Coding theory › source coding › variable-length codes › prefix codes
huffman coding |
0.0 | 1 | 2000 | A quantum analog of huffman coding · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2000 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
schur transform · 0.2reversible algorithm · 0.2state purification · 0.1fault-tolerant quantum circuit · 0.1authentication scheme · 0.1two-way classical communication · 0.1hamiltonian simulation · 0.1unconditionally secure protocol · 0.1block-size analysis · 0.1entanglement purification · 0.0quantum information theory · 0.0quantum channels · 0.0quantum channel · 0.0lower bound · 0.0information-theoretic security · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Streaming Universal Distortion-Free Entanglement ConcentrationabstractThis paper presents a streaming (sequential) protocol for universal entanglement concentration at the Shannon bound. Alice and Bob begin with N identical (but unknown) two-qubit pure states, each containing E ebits of entanglement. They each run a reversible algorithm on their qubits, and end up with Y perfect EPR pairs, where Y=NE ± O(√(N)). Our protocol is streaming, so the N input systems are fed in one at a time, and perfect EPR pairs start popping out almost immediately. It matches the optimal block protocol exactly at each stage, so the average yield after n inputs is 〈 Y〉=nE-O(logn). So, somewhat surprisingly, there is no tradeoff between yield and lag-our protocol optimizes both. In contrast, the optimal N-qubit block protocol achieves the same yield, but since no EPR pairs are produced until the entire input block is read, its lag is O(N). Finally, our algorithm runs in O(log N) space, so a lot of entanglement can be efficiently concentrated using a very small (e.g., current or near-future technology) quantum processor. Along the way, we find an optimal streaming protocol for extracting randomness from classical i.i.d. sources and a more space-efficient implementation of the Schur transform. Robin Blume-Kohout, Sarah Croke, Daniel Gottesman |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory | 3 |
| 2009 | The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian ProblemsabstractWe study the complexity of a class of problems involving satisfying constraints which remain the same under translations in one or more spatial directions. In this paper, we show hardness of a classical tiling problem on an (N x N) 2-dimensional grid and a quantum problem involving finding the ground state energy of a 1-dimensional quantum system of N particles. In both cases, the only input is N, provided in binary. We show that the classical problem is NEXP-complete and the quantum problem is QMAEXP-complete. Thus, an algorithm for these problems that runs in time polynomial in N (exponential in the input size) would imply EXP = NEXP or BQEXP = QMAEXP, respectively. Although tiling in general is already known to be NEXP-complete, to our knowledge, all previous reductions require that either the set of tiles and their constraints or some varying boundary conditions be given as part of the input. In the problem considered here, these are fixed, constant-sized parameters of the problem. Instead, the problem instance is encoded solely in the size of the system. Daniel Gottesman, Sandy Irani |
FOCS | 1 |
| 2009 | Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithmsabstractThe continuous-time query model is a variant of the discrete query model in which queries can be interleaved with known operations (called "driving operations") continuously in time. We show that any quantum algorithm in this model whose total query time is T can be simulated by a quantum algorithm in the discrete-time query model that makes O(T log T / loglog T) subset O~(T) queries. This is the first such upper bound that is independent of the driving operations (i.e., it holds even if the norm of the driving Hamiltonian is very large). A corollary is that any lower bound of T queries for a problem in the discrete-time query model immediately carries over to a lower bound of Omega(T loglog T / log T) subset Omega~(T) in the continuous-time query model. Richard Cleve, Daniel Gottesman, Michele Mosca, Rolando D. Somma, David L. Yonge-Mallo |
STOC | 2 |
| 2007 | The Power of Quantum Systems on a LineabstractWe study the computational strength of quantum particles (each of finite dimensionality) arranged on a line. First, we prove that it is possible to perform universal adiabatic quantum computation using a one-dimensional quantum system (with 9 states per particle). Building on the same construction, but with some additional technical effort and 12 states per particle, we show that the problem of approximating the ground state energy of a system composed of a line of quantum' particles is QMA-complete; QMA is a quantum analogue of NP. This is in striking contrast to the analogous classical problem, one dimensional MAX-2-SAT with nearest neighbor constraints, which is in P.The proof of the QMA-completeness result requires an additional idea beyond the usual techniques in the area: Some illegal configurations cannot be ruled out by local checks, and are instead ruled out because they would, in the future, evolve into a state which can be seen locally to be illegal. Assuming BQP ne QMA, our construction gives a one-dimensional system which takes an exponential time to relax to its ground state at any temperature. This makes it a candidate for a one-dimensional spin glass. Dorit Aharonov, Daniel Gottesman, Sandy Irani, Julia Kempe |
FOCS | 2 |
| 2006 | Secure Multiparty Quantum Computation with (Only) a Strict Honest MajorityabstractSecret sharing and multiparty computation (also called "secure function evaluation") are fundamental primitives in modern cryptography, allowing a group of mutually distrustful players to perform correct, distributed computations under the sole assumption that some number of them will follow the protocol honestly. This paper investigates how much trust is necessary -- that is, how many players must remain honest -- in order for distributed quantum computations to be possible. We present a verifiable quantum secret sharing (VQSS) protocol, and a general secure multiparty quantum computation (MPQC) protocol, which can tolerate any \left[ {\frac{{n - 1}} {2}} \right] cheaters among n players. Previous protocols for these tasks tolerated \left[ {\frac{{n - 1}} {4}} \right] and \left[ {\frac{{n - 1}} {6}} \right] cheaters, respectively. The threshold we achieve is tight -- even in the classical case, "fair" multiparty computation is not possible if any set of n/2 players can cheat. Our protocols rely on approximate quantum errorcorrecting codes, which can tolerate a larger fraction of errors than traditional, exact codes. We introduce new families of authentication schemes and approximate codes tailored to the needs of our protocols, as well as new state purification techniques along the lines of those used in faulttolerant quantum circuits. Michael Ben-Or, Claude Crépeau, Daniel Gottesman, Avinatan Hassidim, Adam D. Smith 0001 |
FOCS | 3 |
| 2006 | The minimum distance problem for two-way entanglement purificationabstractEntanglement purification takes a number of noisy EPR pairs |00>+|11> and processes them to produce a smaller number of more reliable pairs. If this is done with only a forward classical side channel, the procedure is equivalent to using a quantum error-correcting code (QECC). We instead investigate entanglement purification protocols with two-way classical side channels (2-EPPs) for finite block sizes. In particular, we consider the analog of the minimum distance problem for QECCs, and show that 2-EPPs can exceed the quantum Hamming bound and the quantum Singleton bound. We also show that 2-EPPs can achieve the rate k/n=1-(t/n)log/sub 2/3-h(t/n)-O(1/n) (asymptotically reaching the quantum Hamming bound), where the EPP produces at least k good pairs out of n total pairs with up to t arbitrary errors, and h(x)=-xlog/sub 2/x-(1-x)log/sub 2/(1-x) is the usual binary entropy. In contrast, the best known lower bound on the rate of QECCs is the quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound k/n/spl ges/1-(2t/n)log/sub 2/3-h(2t/n). Indeed, in some regimes, the known upper bound on the asymptotic rate of good QECCs is strictly below our lower bound on the achievable rate of 2-EPPs. Andris Ambainis, Daniel Gottesman |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory | 2 |
| 2005 | Approximate Quantum Error-Correcting Codes and Secret Sharing Schemes
Claude Crépeau, Daniel Gottesman, Adam D. Smith 0001 |
EUROCRYPT | 2 |
| 2004 | Security of quantum key distribution with imperfect devicesabstractThis paper prove the security of the Bennett-Brassard (BB84) quantum key distribution protocol in the case where the source and detector are under the limited control of an adversary. This proof applies when both the source and the detector have small basis-dependent flaws, as is typical in practical implementations of the protocol. The estimation of the key generation rate in some special cases: sources that emit weak coherent states, detectors with basis-dependent efficiency, and misaligned sources and detectors. Daniel Gottesman, Hoi-Kwong Lo, Norbert Lütkenhaus, John Preskill |
ISIT | 1 |
| 2003 | Proof of security of quantum key distribution with two-way classical communicationsabstractShor and Preskill (see Phys. Rev. Lett., vol.85, p.441, 2000) have provided a simple proof of security of the standard quantum key distribution scheme by Bennett and Brassard (1984) by demonstrating a connection between key distribution and entanglement purification protocols (EPPs) with one-way communications. Here, we provide proofs of security of standard quantum key distribution schemes, Bennett and Brassard and the six-state scheme, against the most general attack, by using the techniques of two-way entanglement purification. We demonstrate clearly the advantage of classical post-processing with two-way classical communications over classical post-processing with only one-way classical communications in quantum key distribution (QKD). This is done by the explicit construction of a new protocol for (the error correction/detection and privacy amplification of) Bennett and Brassard that can tolerate a bit error rate of up to 18.9%, which is higher than what any Bennett and Brassard scheme with only one-way classical communications can possibly tolerate. Moreover, we demonstrate the advantage of the six-state scheme over Bennett and Brassard by showing that the six-state scheme can strictly tolerate a higher bit error rate than Bennett and Brassard. In particular, our six-state protocol can tolerate a bit error rate of 26.4%, which is higher than the upper bound of 25% bit error rate for any secure Bennett and Brassard protocol. Consequently, our protocols may allow higher key generation rate and remain secure over longer distances than previous protocols. Our investigation suggests that two-way entanglement purification is a useful tool in the study of advantage distillation, error correction, and privacy amplification protocols. Daniel Gottesman, Hoi-Kwong Lo |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory | 1 |
| 2002 | Authentication of Quantum MessagesabstractAuthentication is a well-studied area of classical cryptography: a sender A and a receiver B sharing a classical secret key want to exchange a classical message with the guarantee that the message has not been modified or replaced by a dishonest party with control of the communication line. In this paper we study the authentication of messages composed of quantum states. We give a formal definition of authentication in the quantum setting. Assuming A and B have access to an insecure quantum channel and share a secret, classical random key, we provide a non-interactive scheme that enables A to both encrypt and authenticate an m qubit message by encoding it into m+s qubits, where the error probability decreases exponentially in the security parameter s. The scheme requires a secret key of size 2m+O(s). To achieve this, we give a highly efficient protocol for testing the purity of shared EPR pairs. It has long been known that learning information about a general quantum state will necessarily disturb it. We refine this result to show that such a disturbance can be done with few side effects, allowing it to circumvent cryptographic protections. Consequently, any scheme to authenticate quantum messages must also encrypt them. In contrast, no such constraint exists classically. This reasoning has two important consequences: It allows us to give a lower bound of 2m key bits for authenticating m qubits, which makes our protocol asymptotically optimal. Moreover, we use it to show that digitally signing quantum states is impossible. Howard Barnum, Claude Crépeau, Daniel Gottesman, Adam D. Smith 0001, Alain Tapp |
FOCS | 3 |
| 2002 | Detectable byzantine agreement secure against faulty majoritiesabstractIt is well-known that n players, connected only by pairwise secure channels, can achieve Byzantine agreement only if the number t of cheaters satisfies t < n/3, even with respect to computational security. However, for many applications it is sufficient to achieve detectable broadcast. With this primitive, broadcast is only guaranteed when all players are non-faulty ("honest"), but all non-faulty players always reach agreement on whether broadcast was achieved or not. We show that detectable broadcast can be achieved regardless of the number of faulty players (i.e., for all t < n). We give a protocol which is unconditionally secure, as well as two more efficient protocols which are secure with respect to computational assumptions, and the existence of quantum channels, respectively.These protocols allow for secure multi-party computation tolerating any t < n, assuming only pairwise authenticated channels. Moreover, they allow for the setup of public-key infrastructures that are consistent among all participants --- using neither a trusted party nor broadcast channels.Finally, we show that it is not even necessary for players to begin the protocol at the same time step. We give a "detectable Firing Squad" protocol which can be initiated by a single user at any time and such that either all honest players end up with synchronized clocks, or all honest players abort. Matthias Fitzi, Daniel Gottesman, Martin Hirt, Thomas Holenstein, Adam D. Smith 0001 |
PODC | 2 |
| 2002 | Secure multi-party quantum computationabstractMulti-party computing, also called secure function evaluation, has been extensively studied in classical cryptography. We consider the extension of this task to computation with quantum inputs and circuits. Our protocols are information-theoretically secure, i.e. no assumptions are made on the computational power of the adversary. For the slightly weaker task of verifiable quantum secret sharing, we give a protocol which tolerates any t < n/4 cheating parties (out of n). This is shown to be optimal. We use this new tool to show how to perform any multi-party quantum computation as long as the number of dishonest players is less than n/6. Claude Crépeau, Daniel Gottesman, Adam D. Smith 0001 |
STOC | 2 |
| 2000 | A quantum analog of huffman codingabstractWe analyze a generalization of Huffman coding to the quantum case. In particular, we notice various difficulties in using instantaneous codes for quantum communication. Nevertheless, for the storage of quantum information, we have succeeded in constructing a Huffman coding inspired quantum scheme. The number of computational steps in the encoding and decoding processes of N quantum signals can be made to be of polylogarithmic depth by a massively parallel implementation of a quantum gate array. This is to be compared with the O(N/sup 3/) computational steps required in the sequential implementation by Cleve and DiVincenzo (see Phys. Rev., vol.A54, p.2636, 1996) of the well-known quantum noiseless block-coding scheme of Schumacher. We also show that O(N/sup 2/(log N)/sup a/) sequential computational steps are needed for the communication of quantum information using another Huffman coding inspired scheme where the sender must disentangle her encoding device before the receiver can perform any measurements on his signals. Samuel L. Braunstein, Christopher A. Fuchs, Daniel Gottesman, Hoi-Kwong Lo |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory | 3 |