Blind quantum computing enables a client, who does not have enough quantum technologies, to delegate her quantum computing to a remote quantum server in such a way that her privacy is protected against the server. Some blind quantum computing protocols can be made verifiable, which means that the client can check the correctness of server's quantum computing. Can any blind protocol always be made verifiable? In this paper, we answer to the open problem affirmatively. We propose a plug-in that makes any universal blind quantum computing protocol automatically verifiable. The idea is that the client blindly generates Feynman-Kitaev history states corresponding to the quantum circuit that solves client's problem and its complement circuit. The client can learn the solution of the problem and verify its correctness at the same time by measuring energies of local Hamiltonians on these states. Measuring energies of local Hamiltonians can be done with only single qubit measurements of Pauli operators.
Blind quantum computing enables a client, who does not have enough quantum technologies, to delegate her quantum computing to a remote quantum server in such a way that her privacy is protected against the server. Some blind quantum computing protocols can be made verifiable, which means that the client can check the correctness of server's quantum computing. Can any blind protocol always be made verifiable? In this paper, we answer to the open problem affirmatively. We propose a plug-in that makes any universal blind quantum computing protocol automatically verifiable. The idea is that the client blindly generates Feynman-Kitaev history states corresponding to the quantum circuit that solves client's problem and its complement circuit. The client can learn the solution of the problem and verify its correctness at the same time by measuring energies of local Hamiltonians on these states. Measuring energies of local Hamiltonians can be done with only single qubit measurements of Pauli operators.
Verifiable blind quantum computing is a secure delegated quantum computing where a client with a limited quantum technology delegates her quantum computing to a server who has a universal quantum computer. The client's privacy is protected (blindness), and the correctness of the computation is verifiable by the client despite her limited quantum technology (verifiability). There are mainly two types of protocols for verifiable blind quantum computing: the protocol where the client has only to generate single-qubit states and the protocol where the client needs only the ability of single-qubit measurements. The latter is called the measurement-only verifiable blind quantum computing. If the input of the client's quantum computing is a quantum state, whose classical efficient description is not known to the client, there was no way for the measurement-only client to verify the correctness of the input. Here we introduce a protocol of measurement-only verifiable blind quantum computing where the correctness of the quantum input is also verifiable.
Verifiable blind quantum computing allows a client with poor quantum devices to delegate universal quantum computing to a remote quantum server in such a way that the client's privacy is protected and the honesty of the server is verified. In existing protocols, the client has to send single-qubit states to the server. These states might be decohered by the channel noise. Furthermore, the client hides some "trap" qubits in the server's register so that the client can detect the server's deviation. In reality, however, these trap qubits are disturbed by imperfect operations by the server, which reduces the probability that the client accepts the honest server. To solve these problems, we propose a new gadget that allows the client to remotely prepare encoded logical single-qubit states in the server's place. Importantly, in our fault-tolerant verifiable blind quantum computing protocol, the client needs only the ability of physical single-qubit measurements in X and Z bases.
Blind quantum computing protocols enable a client, who can generate or measure single-qubit states, to delegate quantum computing to a remote quantum server protecting the client's privacy (i.e., input, output, and program). With current technologies, generations or measurements of single-qubit states are not too much burden for the client. In other words, secure delegated quantum computing is possible for ``almost classical" clients. However, is it possible for a ``completely classical" client? Here we consider a one-round perfectly-secure delegated quantum computing, and show that the protocol cannot satisfy both the correctness (i.e., the correct result is obtained when the server is honest) and the perfect blindness (i.e., the client's privacy is completely protected) simultaneously unless BQP is in NP. Since BQP is not believed to be in NP, the result suggests the impossibility of the one-round perfectly-secure delegated quantum computing.
Blind quantum computing is a new secure quantum computing protocol where a client who does not have any sophisticated quantum technology can delegate her quantum computing to a server without leaking any privacy. It is known that a client who has only a measurement device can perform blind quantum computing [T. Morimae and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A 87, 050301(R) (2013)]. It has been an open problem whether the protocol can enjoy the verification, i.e., the ability of the client to check the correctness of the computing. In this paper, we propose a protocol of verification for the measurement-only blind quantum computing.
Blind quantum computing (BQC) enables a client with limited quantum capability to delegate her quantum computation to a remote quantum server and still keeps the client's input, output, and the algorithm private. One important property of BQC is verifiability, which means the client can verify the correctness of the computation or unknown quantum inputs. Recently, Morimae proposed a verifiable blind quantum computing protocol where the client can verify both the correctness of computing and the quantum input. However, the client needs much quantum memory and takes a lot of qubits to get the true result. We reduce the size of quantum memory and the number of qubits used in Morimae's protocol. Besides, we extend the resource state in Morimae's protocol from graph state to hypergraph state. For certain hypergraph states as resources states, such as Union Jack State, the client only needs Pauli measurements in the computation stage but he needs non-Clifford basis measurements if graph states are considered as resources states.
Blind quantum computing (BQC) allows a client to delegate quantum computations to a remote server without revealing the input, computation, or output. In addition to being blind, the client can sometimes also verify that the server has performed their instructions correctly, a property known as verifiability. A key part of realizing such verifiable BQC (VBQC) is choosing the design of the client device: many architectures have been proposed, each with different hardware requirements, security properties, and performance characteristics, making it difficult to identify which is most suitable for a given implementation. In this work, we present a comparative analysis of client architectures for VBQC with a matter-qubit server. We restrict our analysis to single-server, single-client protocols with information-theoretic security based on measurement-based quantum computation. We identify three main categories of client: emission-based, measurement-based, and rotation-based, each with multiple variants depending on how the client interacts with the server. We evaluate each across different dimensions: we compare guarantees of existing corresponding security proofs, we derive equations for the rate at which each client can execute a protocol, we provide an overview of each architecture's error behaviour, and discuss hardware cost and design considerations. Client architectures implementing measurement-based remote state preparation and reflection-based teleportation emerge as strong default candidates, but as the right choice remains context-dependent, we provide a framework for navigating considerations to guide the selection of the most suitable architecture for a given setting.