The classical channel remote state preparation (ccRSP) is an important two-party primitive in quantum cryptography. Alice (classical polynomial-time) and Bob (quantum polynomial-time) exchange polynomial rounds of classical messages, and Bob finally gets random single-qubit states while Alice finally gets classical descriptions of the states. In [T. Morimae, arXiv:2003.10712], an information-theoretically-sound non-interactive protocol for the verification of quantum computing was proposed. The verifier of the protocol is classical, but the trusted center is assumed that sends random single-qubit states to the prover and their classical descriptions to the verifier. If the trusted center can be replaced with a ccRSP protocol while keeping the information-theoretical soundness, an information-theoretically-sound classical verification of quantum computing is possible, which solves the long-standing open problem. In this paper, we show that it is not the case unless BQP is contained in MA. We also consider a general verification protocol where the verifier or the trusted center first sends quantum states to the prover, and then the prover and the verifier exchange a constant round of classical messages. We show that the first quantum message transmission cannot be replaced with an (even approximate) ccRSP protocol while keeping the information-theoretical soundness unless BQP is contained in AM. We finally study the verification with the computational soundness. We show that if a ccRSP protocol satisfies a certain condition even against any quantum polynomial-time malicious prover, the replacement of the trusted center with the ccRSP protocol realizes a computationally-sound classical verification of quantum computing. The condition is weaker than the verifiability of the ccRSP.
The classical channel remote state preparation (ccRSP) is an important two-party primitive in quantum cryptography. Alice (classical polynomial-time) and Bob (quantum polynomial-time) exchange polynomial rounds of classical messages, and Bob finally gets random single-qubit states while Alice finally gets classical descriptions of the states. In [T. Morimae, arXiv:2003.10712], an information-theoretically-sound non-interactive protocol for the verification of quantum computing was proposed. The verifier of the protocol is classical, but the trusted center is assumed that sends random single-qubit states to the prover and their classical descriptions to the verifier. If the trusted center can be replaced with a ccRSP protocol while keeping the information-theoretical soundness, an information-theoretically-sound classical verification of quantum computing is possible, which solves the long-standing open problem. In this paper, we show that it is not the case unless BQP is contained in MA. We also consider a general verification protocol where the verifier or the trusted center first sends quantum states to the prover, and then the prover and the verifier exchange a constant round of classical messages. We show that the first quantum message transmission cannot be replaced with an (even approximate) ccRSP protocol while keeping the information-theoretical soundness unless BQP is contained in AM. We finally study the verification with the computational soundness. We show that if a ccRSP protocol satisfies a certain condition even against any quantum polynomial-time malicious prover, the replacement of the trusted center with the ccRSP protocol realizes a computationally-sound classical verification of quantum computing. The condition is weaker than the verifiability of the ccRSP.
The posthoc verification protocol [J. F. Fitzsimons, M. Hajdu{\v s}ek, and T. Morimae, Physical Review Letters {\bf120}, 040501 (2018)] enables an information-theoretically-sound non-interactive verification of quantum computing, but the message from the prover to the verifier is quantum and the verifier has to do single-qubit measurements. The Mahadev protocol removes these quantum parts, but the soundness becomes the computational one. In this paper, we construct an information-theoretically-sound non-interactive classical verification protocol for quantum computing with a trusted center. The trusted center sends random BB84 states to the prover, and the classical descriptions of these BB84 states to the verifier. The messages from the center to the prover and the verifier are independent of the instance. By slightly modifying our protocol, we also construct a non-interactive statistical zero-knowledge proof system for QMA with the trusted center.
Quantum mechanical effects have enabled the construction of cryptographic primitives that are impossible classically. For example, quantum copy-protection allows for a program to be encoded in a quantum state in such a way that the program can be evaluated, but not copied. Many of these cryptographic primitives are two-party protocols, where one party, Bob, has full quantum computational capabilities, and the other party, Alice, is only required to send random BB84 states to Bob. In this work, we show how such protocols can generically be converted to ones where Alice is fully classical, assuming that Bob cannot efficiently solve the LWE problem. In particular, this means that all communication between (classical) Alice and (quantum) Bob is classical, yet they can still make use of cryptographic primitives that would be impossible if both parties were classical. We apply this conversion procedure to obtain quantum cryptographic protocols with classical communication for unclonable encryption, copy-protection, computing on encrypted data, and verifiable blind delegated computation. The key technical ingredient for our result is a protocol for classically-instructed parallel remote state preparation of BB84 states. This is a multi-round protocol between (classical) Alice and (quantum polynomial-time) Bob that allows Alice to certify that Bob must have prepared n uniformly random BB84 states (up to a change of basis on his space). While previous approaches could only certify one- or two-qubit states, our protocol allows for the certification of an n-fold tensor product of BB84 states. Furthermore, Alice knows which specific BB84 states Bob has prepared, while Bob himself does not. Hence, the situation at the end of this protocol is (almost) equivalent to one where Alice sent n random BB84 states to Bob. This allows us to replace the step of preparing and sending BB84 states in existing protocols by our remote-state preparation protocol in a generic and modular way.
We introduce a protocol between a classical polynomial-time verifier and a quantum polynomial-time prover that allows the verifier to securely delegate to the prover the preparation of certain single-qubit quantum states The prover is unaware of which state he received and moreover, the verifier can check with high confidence whether the preparation was successful. The delegated preparation of single-qubit states is an elementary building block in many quantum cryptographic protocols. We expect our implementation of "random remote state preparation with verification", a functionality first defined in (Dunjko and Kashefi 2014), to be useful for removing the need for quantum communication in such protocols while keeping functionality. The main application that we detail is to a protocol for blind and verifiable delegated quantum computation (DQC) that builds on the work of (Fitzsimons and Kashefi 2018), who provided such a protocol with quantum communication. Recently, both blind an verifiable DQC were shown to be possible, under computational assumptions, with a classical polynomial-time client (Mahadev 2017, Mahadev 2018). Compared to the work of Mahadev, our protocol is more modular, applies to the measurement-based model of computation (instead of the Hamiltonian model) and is composable. Our proof of security builds on ideas introduced in (Brakerski et al. 2018).
Quantum computers promise to offer a considerable speed-up in solving certain problems, compared to the best classical algorithms. In many instances, the gap between quantum and classical running times is conjectured to be exponential. While this is great news for those applications where quantum computers would provide such an advantage, it also raises a significant challenge: how can classical computers verify the correctness of quantum computations? In attempting to answer this question, a number of protocols have been developed in which a classical client (referred to as verifier) can interact with one or more quantum servers (referred to as provers) in order to certify the correctness of a quantum computation performed by the server(s). These protocols are of one of two types: either there are multiple non-communicating provers, sharing entanglement, and the verifier is completely classical; or, there is a single prover and the classical verifier has a device for preparing or measuring quantum states. The latter type of protocols are, arguably, more relevant to near term quantum computers, since having multiple quantum computers that share a large amount of entanglement is, from a technological standpoint, extremely challenging. Before the realisation of practical single-prover protocols, a number of challenges need to be addressed: how robust are these protocols to noise on the verifier's device? Can the protocols be made fault-tolerant without significantly increasing the requirements of the verifier? How do we know that the verifier's device is operating correctly? Could this device be eliminated completely, thus having a protocol with a fully classical verifier and a single quantum prover? Our work attempts to provide answers to these questions. First, we consider a single-prover verification protocol developed by Fitzsimons and Kashefi and show that this protocol is indeed robust with respect to deviations on the quantum state prepared by the verifier. We show that this is true even if those deviations are the result of a correlation with the prover's system. We then use this result to give a verification protocol which is device- independent. The protocol consists of a verifier with a measurement device and a single prover. Device-independence means that the verifier need not trust the measurement device (nor the prover) which can be assumed to be fully malicious (though not communicating with the prover). A key element in realising this protocol is a robust technique of Reichardt, Unger and Vazirani for testing, using non-local correlations, that two untrusted devices share a large number of entangled states. This technique is referred to as rigidity of non-local correlations. Our second result is to prove a rigidity result for a type of quantum correlations known as steering correlations. To do this, we first show that steering correlations can be used in order to certify maximally entangled states, in a setting in which each test is independent of the previous one. We also show that the fidelity with which we characterise the state, in this specific test, is optimal. We then improve the previous result by removing the independence assumption. This then leads to our desired rigidity result. We make use of it, in a similar fashion to the device-independent case, in order to give a verification protocol that is one-sided device-independent. The importance of this application is to show how different trust assumptions affect the efficiency of the protocol. Next, we describe a protocol for fault-tolerantly verifying quantum computations, with minimal "quantum requirements" for the verifier. Specifically, the verifier only requires a device for measuring single-qubit states. Both this device, and the prover's operations are assumed to be prone to errors. We show that under standard assumptions about the error model, it is possible to achieve verification of quantum computation using fault-tolerant principles. As a proof of principle, and to better illustrate the inner workings of the protocol, we describe a toy implementation of the protocol in a quantum simulator, and present the results we obtained, when running it for a small computation. Finally, we explore the possibility of having a verification protocol, with a classical verifier and a single prover, such that the prover is blind with respect to the verifier's computation. We give evidence that this is not possible. In fact, our result is only concerned with blind quantum computation with a classical client, and uses complexity theoretic results to argue why it is improbable for such a protocol to exist. We then use these complexity theoretic techniques to show that a client, with the ability to prepare and send quantum states to a quantum server, would not be able to delegate arbitrary NP problems to that server. In other words, even a client with quantum capabilities cannot exploit those capabilities to delegate the computation of NP problems, while keeping the input, to that computation, private. This is again true, provided certain complexity theoretic conjectures are true.
In the quantum computation verification problem, a quantum server wants to convince a client that the output of evaluating a quantum circuit C is some result that it claims. This problem is considered very important both theoretically and practically in quantum computation [1], [2], [3]. The client is considered to be limited in computational power, and one desirable property is that the client can be completely classical, which leads to the classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC) problem. In terms of the time complexity of server-side quantum computations (which typically dominate the total time complexity of both the client and the server), the fastest single-server CVQC protocol so far has complexity O(poly(κ)∣C∣3) where ∣C∣ is the size of the circuit to be verified and κ is the security parameter, given by Mahadev [4]. This leads to a similar cubic time blowup in many existing protocols including multiparty quantum computation, zero knowledge and obfuscation [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Considering the preciousness of quantum computation resources, this cubic complexity barrier could be a big obstacle for theoretical and practical development of protocols for these problems.In this work, by developing new techniques, we give a new CVQC protocol with complexity O(poly(κ)∣C∣) (in terms of the total time complexity of both the client and the server), which is significantly faster than existing protocols. Our protocol is secure in the quantum random oracle model [11] assuming the existence of noisy trapdoor claw-free functions [12], which are both extensively used assumptions in quantum cryptography. Along the way, we also give a new classical channel remote state preparation protocol for states in {∣+θ⟩=21(∣0⟩+eiθπ/4∣1⟩):θ∈{0,1⋯7}}, another basic primitive in quantum cryptography. Our protocol allows for parallel verifiable preparation of L independently random states in this form (up to a constant overall error and a possibly unbounded server-side simulator), and runs in only O(poly(κ)L) time and constant rounds; for comparison, existing works (even for possibly simpler state families) all require very large or unestimated time and round complexities [13], [14], [15], [16].
We show that a classical client with no quantum hardware can use a single untrusted and potentially malicious quantum server as if it were its own trusted quantum computer. Through the server, the client can privately choose and run quantum computations, prepare quantum states, and process quantum states supplied by other parties. It can also keep quantum memory on the server, hidden from the server itself, and use that memory in later computations so its quantum state persists across rounds of interaction. Together, these capabilities let a purely classical party act as a quantum party in a variety of interactive protocols.
We expect this virtual quantum computer to be a broadly useful tool. As immediate applications, we resolve two known open problems: (1) classical verification of quantum sampling with negligible computational soundness error, and (2) remote state preparation of arbitrary efficiently preparable quantum states.
Underlying all of these results is a general-purpose, maliciously secure two-party computation protocol between a classical client and a quantum server, which we construct assuming only the post-quantum hardness of learning with errors.