Abstract: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.

Probabilistic versions of Quantum Private Queries

Reexamination of Quantum Bit Commitment: the Possible and the Impossible

Resonance contributions to HBT correlation radii

Insecurity of Quantum Two-Party Computation with Applications to Cheat-Sensitive Protocols and Oblivious Transfer Reductions

Oracle Separation Between Quantum Commitments and Quantum One-wayness

Interactive Proofs For Quantum Computations

Encryption with Quantum Public Keys

Unconditionally Secure Commitments with Quantum Auxiliary Inputs

Quantum Simultaneous Protocols without Public Coins using Modified Equality Queries

Incomplete quantum oblivious transfer with perfect one-sided security

Fully device independent quantum private query

Security Improvements of Several Basic Quantum Private Query Protocols with O(log N) Communication Complexity

Quantum key distribution based on orthogonal states allows secure quantum bit commitment

Hidden-State Proofs of Quantumness

A Practical Protocol for Quantum Oblivious Transfer from One-Way Functions

Orthogonal-state-based and semi-quantum protocols for quantum private comparison in noisy environment

Verifiable Quantum Advantage without Structure

Quantum Bit Escrow

Quantum Advantage from One-Way Functions

Lower Bounds for Quantum Oblivious Transfer

QKD-based quantum private query without a failure probability