Quick Navigation
Topics
Benchmarking Verification Validation
How to Classically Verify a Quantum Cat without Killing It
arXiv
Authors: Yael Tauman Kalai, Dakshita Khurana, Justin Raizes
Year
2026
Paper ID
204
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
156
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Existing protocols for classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC) consume the prover's witness state, requiring a new witness state for each invocation. Because QMA witnesses are not generally clonable, destroying the input witness means that amplifying soundness and completeness via repetition requires many copies of the witness. Building CVQC with low soundness error that uses only *one* copy of the witness has remained an open problem so far. We resolve this problem by constructing a CVQC that uses a single copy of the QMA witness, has negligible completeness and soundness errors, and does *not* destroy its witness. The soundness of our CVQC is based on the post-quantum Learning With Errors (LWE) assumption. To obtain this result, we define and construct two primitives (under the post-quantum LWE assumption) for non-destructively handling superpositions of classical data, which we believe are of independent interest: - A *state preserving* classical argument for NP. - Dual-mode trapdoor functions with *state recovery*.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Benchmarking, Verification & Validation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Existing protocols for classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC) consume the prover's witness state, requiring a new witness state for each invocation.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.