Skip to content (access key 's')
Logo of Technion
Logo of CS Department
Logo of CS4People

The Taub Faculty of Computer Science Events and Talks

Theory Seminar: List-decoding for Reed-Muller Codes
event speaker icon
Shachar Lovett (Weizmann Institute of Science)
event date icon
Wednesday, 06.05.2009, 15:00
event location icon
Taub 337
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 [Vaz07]: If computing predictions for Quantum Mechanics requires exponential resources, is Quantum Mechanics a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untrusted future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantumcomputation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions?

To provide answers to these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs [GMR85] 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" (providing a partial answer to a challenge posted in [Aar07]). We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. ThisQPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our second protocol uses polynomial codes QAS due to Ben-Or, Crepeau, Gottesman, Hassidim, and Smith [BOCG+ 06], combined with quantum fault tolerance and secure multiparty quantum computation techniques. A slight modification of our constructions makes the protocol "blind": the quantum computation and input remain unknown to the prover.