Score:1

Tensor product of Pseudorandom States

ky flag

I am reading the paper Pseudorandom Quantum States,where the following candidate was shown to be a Pseudorandom state, called the complex random phase state:
$\mathrm{PRF}_k:X → X$ be a keyed pseudorandom function where $X = \{0, 1, 2, . . . , N − 1\}$ and $N = 2^n$ with $n$ being the security parameter. The family of pseudorandom states is then defined to be $$|\phi_k\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{x\in X}\omega^{\mathrm{PRF}_k(x)}|x\rangle,\quad \omega = \exp(2\pi i/N).$$

My question is does the tensor product of two pseudorandom states remain pseudorandom? Given the above example , we can construct another PRS by letting $\omega = \exp(-2\pi i/N)$. If we then take their tensor product we get $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{x,y\in X}\omega^{\mathrm{PRF}_k(x)-\mathrm{PRF}_k(y)}|x,y\rangle,$$ thus a state whose $N$ out of $N^2$ co-ordinates are fixed to $1/N$. I do not know if this is a PRS or not.

Any help will be really appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Score:2
ru flag

This is not a PRS. As you note, the tensor product is superposition of $N^2$ possible states and so if it is a PRS it can only be interpreted be with respect to the set $X'=\{0,\ldots,N^2-1\}$ e.g. by associating the state $x,y$ with $Nx+y$. Likewise, the amplitudes of the states would have to be of the form $\omega'^j$ where $\omega'=\exp(2\pi i/N^2)$, with a pseudorandom function selecting the $j$ quasi-uniformly. Here the amplitudes all lie in a subset of size $N$ (they're all power of $\omega=\omega'^N$), and in particular (as you note) at least $N$ amplitudes that are $\omega'^0$. This is not close to having phases uniform in $X'$ and so is not a PRS.

This is also true even if we tensor $|\phi_k\rangle$ with $|\phi_k'\rangle$ with $k\neq k'$, or even if we tensor PRS drawn from different pseudo-random functions.

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.