We present a protocol which allows a client to have a server carry out a quantum computation for her such that the client's inputs, outputs and computation remain perfectly private, and where she does not require any quantum computational power or memory. The client only needs to be able to prepare single qubits randomly chosen from a finite set and send them to the server, who has the balance of the required quantum computational resources. Our protocol is interactive: after the initial preparation of quantum states, the client and server use two-way classical communication which enables the client to drive the computation, giving single-qubit measurement instructions to the server, depending on previous measurement outcomes. Our protocol works for inputs and outputs that are either classical or quantum. We give an authentication protocol that allows the client to detect an interfering server; our scheme can also be made fault-tolerant. We also generalize our result to the setting of a purely classical client who communicates classically with two non-communicating entangled servers, in order to perform a blind quantum computation. By incorporating the authentication protocol, we show that any problem in BQP has an entangled two-prover interactive proof with a purely classical verifier. Our protocol is the first universal scheme which detects a cheating server, as well as the first protocol which does not require any quantum computation whatsoever on the client's side. The novelty of our approach is in using the unique features of measurement-based quantum computing which allows us to clearly distinguish between the quantum and classical aspects of a quantum computation.
Ignoring the blindness requirement of our protocol yields an interactive proof with a @math prover and a nearly-classical verifier. As mentioned, this scenario was first proposed in the work of @cite_23 , using very different techniques based on authentication schemes. Their protocol can be also used for blind quantum computation. However, their scheme requires that Alice have quantum computational resources and memory to act on a constant-sized register. A related classical protocol for the scenario involving a @math prover and a nearly-linear time verifier was given in @cite_12 .
@cite_12 @cite_23
2146099890 2952413488
In this work we study interactive proofs for tractable languages. The (honest) prover should be efficient and run in polynomial time, or in other words a "muggle". The verifier should be super-efficient and run in nearly-linear time. These proof systems can be used for delegating computation: a server can run a computation for a client and interactively prove the correctness of the result. The client can verify the result's correctness in nearly-linear time (instead of running the entire computation itself). Previously, related questions were considered in the Holographic Proof setting by Babai, Fortnow, Levin and Szegedy, in the argument setting under computational assumptions by Kilian, and in the random oracle model by Micali. Our focus, however, is on the original interactive proof model where no assumptions are made on the computational power or adaptiveness of dishonest provers. Our main technical theorem gives a public coin interactive proof for any language computable by a log-space uniform boolean circuit with depth d and input length n. The verifier runs in time (n+d) • polylog(n) and space O(log(n)), the communication complexity is d • polylog(n), and the prover runs in time poly(n). In particular, for languages computable by log-space uniform NC (circuits of polylog(n) depth), the prover is efficient, the verifier runs in time n • polylog(n) and space O(log(n)), and the communication complexity is polylog(n). Using this theorem we make progress on several questions: We show how to construct short (polylog size) computationally sound non-interactive certificates of correctness for any log-space uniform NC computation, in the public-key model. The certificates can be verified in quasi-linear time and are for a designated verifier: each certificate is tailored to the verifier's public key. This result uses a recent transformation of Kalai and Raz from public-coin interactive proofs to one-round arguments. The soundness of the certificates is based on the existence of a PIR scheme with polylog communication. Interactive proofs with public-coin, log-space, poly-time verifiers for all of P. This settles an open question regarding the expressive power of proof systems with such verifiers. Zero-knowledge interactive proofs with communication complexity that is quasi-linear in the witness, length for any NP language verifiable in NC, based on the existence of one-way functions. Probabilistically checkable arguments (a model due to Kalai and Raz) of size polynomial in the witness length (rather than the instance length) for any NP language verifiable in NC, under computational assumptions. The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: Upcoming generations of quantum computers might already be too large to be simulated classically. Is it possible to experimentally test that these systems perform as they should, if we cannot efficiently compute predictions for their behavior? Vazirani has asked: If predicting Quantum Mechanical systems requires exponential resources, is QM a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untrusted future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantum computation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions? To answer these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computational capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to few qubits. Our main theorem can be roughly stated as: "Any language in BQP has a QPIP, and moreover, a fault tolerant one". We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. This QPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our second protocol uses polynomial codes QAS due to BCGHS, combined with quantum fault tolerance and multiparty quantum computation techniques. A slight modification of our constructions makes the protocol "blind": the quantum computation and input are unknown to the prover. After we have derived the results, we have learned that Broadbent at al. have independently derived "universal blind quantum computation" using completely different methods. Their construction implicitly implies similar implications.