References
 (1) D. Gottesman, 2004. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=284
 (2) D. Aharonov and U. Vazirani, Is quantum mechanics falsifiable? A computational perspective on the foundations of quantum mechanics. arXiv:1206.3686
 (3) A. Gheorghiu, T. Kapourniotis, and E. Kashefi, Verification of quantum computation: an overview of existing approaches. arXiv:1709.06984
 (4) For definitions of complexity classes, see the Complexity Zoo.
 (5) T. Morimae, D. Nagaj, and N. Schuch, Quantum proofs can be verified using only singlequbit measurements. Phys. Rev. A 93, 022326 (2016).
 (6) J. F. Fitzsimons, M. Hajdušek, and T. Morimae, Post hoc verification of quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040501 (2018).
 (7) T. Morimae, Blind quantum computing can always be made verifiable. arXiv:1803.06624
 (8) J. F. Fitzsimons and E. Kashefi, Unconditionally verifiable blind computation. Phys. Rev. A 96, 012303 (2017).
 (9) D. Aharonov, M. BenOr, E. Eban, and U. Mahadev, Interactive proofs for quantum computations. arXiv:1704.04487
 (10) M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Verifiable measurementonly blind quantum computing with stabilizer testing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 220502 (2015).
 (11) A. Broadbent, How to verify quantum computation. arXiv:1509.09180
 (12) S. Barz, J. F. Fitzsimons, E. Kashefi, and P. Walther, Experimental verification of quantum computation. Nat. Phys. 9, 727 (2013).
 (13) C. Greganti, M. C. Roehsner, S. Barz, T. Morimae, and P. Walther, Demonstration of measurementonly blind quantum computing. New J. Phys. 18, 013020 (2016).
 (14) A. Gheorghiu, E. Kashefi, and P. Wallden, Robustness and device independence of verifiable blind quantum computing. New J. Phys. 17, 083040 (2015).
 (15) Y. Takeuchi and T. Morimae, Verification of manyqubit states. arXiv:1709.07575
 (16) T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and M. Hayashi, Verified measurementbased quantum computing with hypergraph states. Phys. Rev. A 96, 062321 (2017).
 (17) Y. Takeuchi, K. Fujii, T. Morimae, and N. Imoto, Faulttolerant verifiable blind quantum computing with logical state remote preparation. arXiv:1607.01568

(18)
M. McKague, Interactive proofs for BQP via selftested graph states. Theory of Computing
12, 1 (2016).  (19) Z. Ji, Classical verification of quantum proofs. Proceedings of the 48th annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2016) p.885 (2016).
 (20) B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Classical command of quantum systems. Nature 496, 456 (2013).
 (21) D. R. Simon, On the power of quantum computation. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1994), p.116 (1994).
 (22) P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1994), p.124 (1994).
 (23) E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory. SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1411 (1997).
 (24) M. McKague, Interactive proofs with efficient quantum prover for recursive Fourier sampling. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science 6, 1 (2012).
 (25) Y. Shi, Quantum and classical tradeoffs. Theoretical Computer Science 344, 335 (2005).
 (26) T. F. Demarie, Y. Ouyang, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Classical verification of quantum circuits containing few basis changes. arXiv:1612.04914
 (27) T. Morimae, Y. Takeuchi, and H. Nishimura, MerlinArthur with efficient quantum Merlin and quantum supremacy for the second level of the Fourier hierarchy. arXiv:1711.10605
 (28) D. Aharonov and A. Green, A quantum inspired proof of . arXiv:1710.09078
 (29) U. Mahadev, Classical verification of quantum computations arXiv:1804.01082
 (30) P. D. Azar and S. Micali, Rational proofs. Proceedings of the 44th symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’12), 1017 (2012).
 (31) D. Aharonov, A simple proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are quantum universal. arXiv:0301040
 (32) Y. Shi, Both Toffoli and controlledNot need little help to do universal quantum computation. arXiv:0205115
 (33) G. W. Brier, Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly weather review, 1950.
 (34) L. Fortnow and J. Rogers, Complexity limitations on quantum computation. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 59, 240 (1999).
 (35) J. Barrett, N. de Beaudrap, M. J. Hoban, and C. M. Lee, The computational landspace of general physical theories. arXiv:1702.08483
 (36) Let be the nondeterministic Turing machine constructed from in the following way: First, increase the lengths of paths so that all paths have equal length (i.e., the resulting computation tree is the full binary tree). For a single such extended path, the result (accept/reject) is the same as that of the previous path before the extension. For other such extended paths, the result (accept/reject) is accept. Let be the nondeterministic Turing machine constructed from in the following way: First, add paths so that all paths have equal length. For a single such extended path, the result (accept/reject) is the same as that of the previous path before the extension. For other such extended paths, the result (accept/reject) is reject. Let be the nondeterministic Turing machine such that it first makes a nondeterministic transition to two branches, and in one branch it simulates and in the other branch it simulates .
 (37) C. Marriott and J. Watrous, Quantum ArthurMerlin games. Computational Complexity 14, 122 (2005).
Comments
There are no comments yet.