Mahadev [SIAM J. Comput. 2022] introduced the first protocol for classical verification of quantum computation based on the Learning-with-Errors (LWE) assumption, achieving a 4-message interactive scheme. This breakthrough naturally raised the question of whether fewer messages are possible in the plain model. Despite its importance, this question has remained unresolved. In this work, we prove that there is no quantum black-box reduction of non-interactive classical verification of quantum computation of $\textsf{QMA}$ to any falsifiable assumption. Here, "non-interactive" means that after an instance-independent setup, the protocol consists of a single message. This constitutes a strong negative result given that falsifiable assumptions cover almost all standard assumptions used in cryptography, including LWE. Our separation holds under the existence of a $\textsf{QMA} \text{-} \textsf{QCMA}$ gap problem. Essentially, these problems require a slightly stronger assumption than $\textsf{QMA}\neq \textsf{QCMA}$ . To support the existence of such problems, we present a construction relative to a quantum unitary oracle.Mahadev [SIAM J. Comput. 2022] introduced the first protocol for classical verification of quantum computation based on the Learning-with-Errors (LWE) assumption, achieving a 4-message interactive scheme. This breakthrough naturally raised the question of whether fewer messages are possible in the plain model. Despite its importance, this question has remained unresolved. In this work, we prove that there is no quantum black-box reduction of non-interactive classical verification of quantum computation of $\textsf{QMA}$ to any falsifiable assumption. Here, "non-interactive" means that after an instance-independent setup, the protocol consists of a single message. This constitutes a strong negative result given that falsifiable assumptions cover almost all standard assumptions used in cryptography, including LWE. Our separation holds under the existence of a $\textsf{QMA} \text{-} \textsf{QCMA}$ gap problem. Essentially, these problems require a slightly stronger assumption than $\textsf{QMA}\neq \textsf{QCMA}$. To support the existence of such problems, we present a construction relative to a quantum unitary oracle.

quant-pharXiv:2602.18034Feb 23, 20260 citations

Succinct Classical Verification of Quantum Computation

James Bartusek, Yael Tauman Kalai, Alex Lombardi +5 more

arXiv:2206.14929Lecture notes in computer scienceJan 1, 202215 citations

Classical Verification of Quantum Computations with Efficient Verifier

Nai-Hui Chia, Kai-Min Chung, Takashi Yamakawa

arXiv:1912.00990Lecture notes in computer scienceJan 1, 202027 citations

On the Cryptographic Foundations of Interactive Quantum Advantage

Kabir Tomer, Mark Zhandry

In this work, we study the hardness required to achieve proofs of quantumness (PoQ), which in turn capture (potentially interactive) quantum advantage. A “trivial” or non-interactive PoQ simply assumes an (efficiently-verifiable) average-case hard problem for classical computers that is easy for quantum computers. However, there is much interest in “non-trivial” PoQs that actually rely on quantum hardness assumptions, instead of an assumed separation between quantum and classical computation for search problems, especially since these are often a starting point for more sophisticated protocols such as classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC). We show several lower-bounds for the hardness required to achieve non-trivial PoQ, specifically showing that they likely require cryptographic hardness, with different types of cryptographic hardness being required for different variations of non-trivial PoQ. In particular, our results help explain the challenges in using lattices to build publicly verifiable PoQ and its various extensions such as CVQC.In this work, we study the hardness required to achieve proofs of quantumness (PoQ), which in turn capture (potentially interactive) quantum advantage. A “trivial” or non-interactive PoQ simply assumes an (efficiently-verifiable) average-case hard problem for classical computers that is easy for quantum computers. However, there is much interest in “non-trivial” PoQs that actually rely on quantum hardness assumptions, instead of an assumed separation between quantum and classical computation for search problems, especially since these are often a starting point for more sophisticated protocols such as classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC). We show several lower-bounds for the hardness required to achieve non-trivial PoQ, specifically showing that they likely require cryptographic hardness, with different types of cryptographic hardness being required for different variations of non-trivial PoQ. In particular, our results help explain the challenges in using lattices to build publicly verifiable PoQ and its various extensions such as CVQC.

arXiv:2510.05082ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)Jun 9, 20261 citation

Experimental verification of quantum computation

Stefanie Barz, Joseph F. Fitzsimons, Elham Kashefi +1 more

arXiv:1309.0005Nature PhysicsSep 29, 2013148 citations

\textsf{QMA}

to any falsifiable assumption. Here, "non-interactive" means that after an instance-independent setup, the protocol consists of a single message. This constitutes a strong negative result given that falsifiable assumptions cover almost all standard assumptions used in cryptography, including LWE. Our separation holds under the existence of a

\textsf{QMA} \text{-} \textsf{QCMA}

gap problem. Essentially, these problems require a slightly stronger assumption than

\textsf{QMA}\neq \textsf{QCMA}

. To support the existence of such problems, we present a construction relative to a quantum unitary oracle.