Connections between Learning with Errors and the Dihedral Coset - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

connections between learning with errors and the dihedral
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Connections between Learning with Errors and the Dihedral Coset - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Connections between Learning with Errors and the Dihedral Coset Problem Elena Kirshanova joint work with Zvika Brakerski, Damien Stehl, and Weiqiang Wen LWE and DCP Dimension: n , modulus: q = poly( n ) LWE: Given ( a 1 , a 1 , s + e


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Connections between Learning with Errors and the Dihedral Coset Problem

Elena Kirshanova joint work with Zvika Brakerski, Damien Stehlé, and Weiqiang Wen

slide-2
SLIDE 2

LWE and DCP

Dimension: n, modulus: q = poly(n) LWE: Given (a1, a1,s + e1 mod q) . . . (am, am,s + em mod q) with e ≪ q, find s.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

LWE and DCP

Dimension: n, modulus: q = poly(n) LWE: Given (a1, a1,s + e1 mod q) . . . (am, am,s + em mod q) with e ≪ q, find s. DCP: Given |0, x1 + |1, x1 + s mod N . . . |0, xℓ + |1, xℓ + s mod N find s.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

LWE and DCP

Dimension: n, modulus: q = poly(n) LWE: Given (a1, a1,s + e1 mod q) . . . (am, am,s + em mod q) with e ≪ q, find s. ≤ [Regev’02] DCP: Given |0, x1 + |1, x1 + s mod N . . . |0, xℓ + |1, xℓ + s mod N find s.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

LWE and DCP

Dimension: n, modulus: q = poly(n) LWE: Given (a1, a1,s + e1 mod q) . . . (am, am,s + em mod q) with e ≪ q, find s. ≤ [Regev’02] DCP: Given |0, x1 + |1, x1 + s mod N . . . |0, xℓ + |1, xℓ + s mod N find s. Does not improve upon classical algorithms

slide-6
SLIDE 6

LWE and DCP

Dimension: n, modulus: q = poly(n) LWE: Given (a1, a1,s + e1 mod q) . . . (am, am,s + em mod q) with e ≪ q, find s. ≤ [Regev’02] DCP: Given |0, x1 + |1, x1 + s mod N . . . |0, xℓ + |1, xℓ + s mod N find s. Does not improve upon classical algorithms BKW / lattices: 2

O

log q (log q−log ei)2

  • Kuperberg:

2O(log ℓ+log N/ log ℓ) The reduction produces ℓ = poly(n), N = 2n2

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Inverse direction

Is DCP ≤ LWE?

◮ might give a strong evidence for quantum hardness of LWE ◮ DCP might be too ‘hard’ for LWE:

DCP ≤ SubsetSum1·c [Reg’02], but SubsetSum

1 log n ≤ LWE ≤ Vec. SubsetSum>log n

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Inverse direction

Is DCP ≤ LWE?

◮ might give a strong evidence for quantum hardness of LWE ◮ DCP might be too ‘hard’ for LWE:

DCP ≤ SubsetSum1·c [Reg’02], but SubsetSum

1 log n ≤ LWE ≤ Vec. SubsetSum>log n

No, but we show that EDCP ≤ LWE

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Extended DCP

EDCP DCP for a distr. D

  • j∈sup(D)

D(j) |j |x + j · s |0 |x + |1 |x + s

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Extended DCP

EDCP DCP for a distr. D

  • j∈sup(D)

D(j) |j |x + j · s |0 |x + |1 |x + s G-EDCP U-EDCP

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s M−1

j=0 |j |x + j · s

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Extended DCP

EDCP DCP for a distr. D

  • j∈sup(D)

D(j) |j |x + j · s |0 |x + |1 |x + s G-EDCP U-EDCP

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s M−1

j=0 |j |x + j · s

Main result:

LWE ⇐ ⇒ G-EDCP ⇐ ⇒ U-EDCP < DCP

⇐ ⇒ hides polynomial loses

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Extended DCP

EDCP DCP for a distr. D

  • j∈sup(D)

D(j) |j |x + j · s |0 |x + |1 |x + s G-EDCPn,q,r U-EDCPn,q,M

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s M−1

j=0 |j |x + j · s

LWEn,q,

q r·poly(n)

G-EDCPn,q,r U-EDCPn,q,c·r DCP2n log q LWEn,q,q/r G-EDCPn,q,r/√n

Dimension modulus

  • st. dev.
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Extended DCP

EDCP DCP for a distr. D

  • j∈sup(D)

D(j) |j |x + j · s |0 |x + |1 |x + s G-EDCPn,q,r U-EDCPn,q,M

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s M−1

j=0 |j |x + j · s

LWEn,q,

q r·poly(n)

G-EDCPn,q,r U-EDCPn,q,c·r DCP2n log q LWEn,q,q/r G-EDCPn,q,r/√n

Dimension modulus

  • st. dev.

Quantum rejection sampling, Ozols et al.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Results

LWEn,q,

q r·poly(n)

G-EDCPn,q,r U-EDCPn,q,c·r DCP2n log q[2n2 ]

via average case lattice problems [Reg02]+[LM09]

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Results

LWEn,q,

q r·poly(n)

G-EDCPn,q,r U-EDCPn,q,c·r DCP2n log q[2n2 ]

via average case lattice problems [Reg02]+[LM09]

1-dim UDCP was already considered in [Childs-van Dam’07]:

M−1

  • j=0

|j |x + j · s mod 2n 2 2n 2n/c poly(n) [CvD’07] 2

√n

poly(n) M Runtime LWE√n,2

√n, 2 √n M

LWE1,2n, 2n

M

G-EDCP1,2n,M U-EDCP1,2n,M [Brakerski et. al]

slide-16
SLIDE 16

G-EDCP ≤ LWE

QFT

  • e∈Zq

ρ 1

r

  • e

q

  • |a, s + e

QFT a

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s mod q

(1) (2)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

G-EDCP ≤ LWE

QFT

  • e∈Zq

ρ 1

r

  • e

q

  • |a, s + e

QFT a

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s mod q

(1) (2)

(1) :

  • a∈Zn

q

  • j∈Z

ω(x+j·s),a

q

· ρr(j) |j |a

slide-18
SLIDE 18

G-EDCP ≤ LWE

QFT

  • e∈Zq

ρ 1

r

  • e

q

  • |a, s + e

QFT a

  • j∈Z

ρr(j) |j |x + j · s mod q

(1) (2)

(1) :

  • a∈Zn

q

  • j∈Z

ω(x+j·s),a

q

· ρr(j) |j |a (2) :

  • b∈Zq
  • j∈Z

ωj·(a,s+b)

q

· ρr(j) |b

PSF

− − →

  • b∈Zq
  • j∈Z

ρ1/r

  • j + a, s + b

q

  • |b
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Open questions

◮ how to make use of several shifts (exact complexity of Kuperberg’s

algorithm with multiple shifts).

◮ trade samples vs. shifts: UDCP self-reduction allowing to trade ℓ for M? ◮ extend quantum rejection sampling to ring-lwe states