Scribd
Upload
27 views

Classical_Verification_of_Quantum_Computations

The document discusses the verification of quantum computations by classical machines, focusing on the use of trapdoor claw-free functions and their relation to the Learning with Errors problem. It outlines the measurement protocols necessary for verifying quantum states and establishes that all decision problems in BQP can be verified efficiently through interaction with a classical verifier. The findings suggest that secure delegation of quantum computations is feasible using classical methods.

Uploaded by

Soumendra Banerjee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views

Classical_Verification_of_Quantum_Computations

The document discusses the verification of quantum computations by classical machines, focusing on the use of trapdoor claw-free functions and their relation to the Learning with Errors problem. It outlines the measurement protocols necessary for verifying quantum states and establishes that all decision problems in BQP can be verified efficiently through interaction with a classical verifier. The findings suggest that secure delegation of quantum computations is feasible using classical methods.

Uploaded by

Soumendra Banerjee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

CLASSICAL

VERIFICATION OF
Classical
Leash
QUANTUM
Quantum
Cat
COMPUTATIONS
COL872: Lattices in CS
Anish Banerjee
Shankh Gupta
Based on the [Mah23] of the same name
HISTORY
[Got04] : Is it possible for an
efficient classical verifier to
verify the output of an
efficient quantum prover?

IP=PSPACE and BQP ⊆ PSPACE


⇒ BQP ⊆ IP

But prover in IP is all powerful!


Can we work with an efficient quantum prover?
[BFK09] [FK17] [ABOE08] [ABOEM17] [RUV12]

… … …
LWE is hard for a BQP machine

Main Results There exists an extended trapdoor claw-free family.


(Informal)

All decision problems in BQP can be verified by an


efficient classical machine through interaction.
Trapdoor Claw-free functions

Hard to find a claw (x0, x1)


such that fk,0(x0)= fk,1(x1)
without td.

Also satisfies two other


hardcore bit properties
Trapdoor Injective Functions

Given y=gk,b(x), hard to find (b,x)


without td.

ETCF=TCF+TIF+Injective Invariance

Hard to distinguish
between (f0,f1) and (g0,g1)
ETCFs are built using LWE.

Extensively used in the construction of


several verification protocols.
Relation to this
course
However, we only have approximate
constructions.

We want to study these constructions and


understand why we don’t have exact.
Hadamard & Standard Basis Measurements

Standard Basis Hadamard Basis

Obtain b with probability

Obtain b with probability


Classical Notion of Verification
Reduce the problem
into a 3-SAT instance φ

Asks for a satisfying assignment

Assignment τ
Prover
Verifier (unbounded)
Verify that τ satisfies
the instance φ
Quantum Analogue of NP
Reduce the problem to a
Local Hamiltonian H.

Asks for a ground state

Sends n-qubit quantum state ρ

Verifier Verify that ρ has low energy w.r.t. H


Prover

• [BL08] H, S measurements are sufficient to estimate energy.


• [MF16] Using H,S measurements, we can verify results of any BQP computation
Measurement Protocol
Goal: Force the prover to behave as the verifier's trusted measurement device

….
≡ H/S

Measurement ρ Ideal
Protocol Behaviour
Ideal Functionality
Constructs an n-qubit state ρ

Chooses either H/S


basis measurement for each qubit

Outputs measurement result of ρ


in the chosen basis

Verifier Prover
Soundness:
If the verifier accepts, there exists a quantum state independent of the
verifier's measurement choice underlying the measurement results
Using Measurement Protocol for Verification
• The measurement protocol implements the following model :

ρ
+
H/S

• Prover sends n-qubit state ρ and verifier measures the state.

• We can show that quantum computations can be verified in the above model.
Measurement Protocol Outline
Verifier chooses either H/S
basis for each qubit

Sends (f0 ,f1) or (g0 ,g1) for each qubit

Sends measurement results

Requests a H/S basis measurement

Verifier Response Prover


Hadamard Basis Measurement

Sample (f0, f1, td) ←TCF.Setup()


f0, f 1 Chooses
Apply f0, f1 (in superposition) on state

y ← fb(x)
Computes x0,y & x1,y using td Measure the final register, obtaining
Hadamard Basis Measurement (cont.)

Applies Hadamard Transform and


measures the pre-image register
obtaining d
d, b'
Finally, perform measurement in the
Standard basis to obtain b'
Standard Basis Measurement

g0, g 1 Chooses
Sample (g0, g1, td) ←TIF.Setup()
Apply g0, g1 (in superposition) on state

y ← gb(x)
Computes b & xb,y using td Measure the final register, obtaining
Conclusion
◦ Verifiable, secure delegation of quantum computations is
possible with a classical machine
◦ Rely on quantum secure Trapdoor claw-free functions (from
Learning with Errors).
THANK
YOU

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy