Quantum superiority for verifying NPcomplete problems with linear optics
Abstract
Demonstrating quantum superiority for some computational task will be a milestone for quantum technologies and would show that computational advantages are possible not only with a universal quantum computer but with simpler physical devices. Linear optics is such a simpler but powerful platform where classicallyhard information processing tasks, such as Boson Sampling, can be in principle implemented. In this work, we study a fundamentally different type of computational task to achieve quantum superiority using linear optics, namely the task of verifying NPcomplete problems. We focus on a protocol by Aaronson et al. (2008) that uses quantum proofs for verification. We show that the proof states can be implemented in terms of a single photon in an equal superposition over many optical modes. Similarly, the tests can be performed using linearoptical transformations consisting of a few operations: a global permutation of all modes, simple interferometers acting on at most four modes, and measurement using singlephoton detectors. We also show that the protocol can tolerate experimental imperfections.
I Introduction
Quantum mechanics offers unprecedented possibilities to transmit and process information that have the potential to revolutionize information and communication technologies. While many such advantages are well understood theoretically, building a largescale universal quantum computer or a fullyconnected quantum internet remain formidable tasks for the notsonear future. Towards these goals, it is important and worthwhile to identify examples where quantum superiority can be achieved using physical systems realizable with current or emerging technologies.
It has been fruitful to focus on specific physical systems and search for tasks that are well suited to be deployed in such platforms and where a quantum advantage can be demonstrated. A prime example of this is linear optics, namely the set of transformations on optical modes which preserve the total photon number. Linear optics can be used to perform universal quantum computing Knill et al. (2001); Browne and Rudolph (2004); Kok et al. (2007); O’Brien (2007), increase the precision of estimation in metrology Giovannetti et al. (2006, 2011); Tóth and Apellaniz (2014) and run efficient quantum protocols in communication complexity Arrazola and Lütkenhaus (2014, 2014); Xu et al. (2015); Guan et al. (2016); Kumar et al. (2017). On the road to achieving universal quantum computing, it has also become interesting to study specific tasks, notably Boson Sampling Aaronson and Arkhipov (2011); Broome et al. (2013); Tillmann et al. (2013); Crespi et al. (2013); Spring et al. (2013); Spagnolo et al. (2014), where a computational advantage may be demonstrated by a linear optics scheme that is simpler to implement than a universal quantum computer.
Boson Sampling is a canonical example of a task suitable for quantum superiority. There, the task is to sample from the distribution that arises when a number of photons starting in some optical modes go through a circuit composed of beamsplitters and phaseshifters. While this task is in theory possible to perform by just running the corresponding linear optics circuit, it is related to some computationally hard problems in classical computation. There are other proposals for showing a quantum advantage in a computational context, including for example sparse commuting quantum circuits (IQP), where a randomly chosen IQP circuit is applied to a square lattice of qubits Boixo et al. (2016); Farhi and Harrow (2016); Bremner et al. (2017); Bravyi et al. (2017); Gao et al. (2017); BermejoVega et al. (2017). Note that both above mentioned examples perform circuits of depth at least .
The above proposals, however, present some drawbacks. First, the real difficulty in performing these tasks in a classical computer remains unclear, since it is based on unproven conjectures. In fact, recent results Clifford and Clifford (2017); Neville et al. (2017) provide much faster classical algorithms for Boson Sampling, implying that quantum superiority may need a system with a very large number of photons and optical modes. Second, while in theory we know what the linear optics system is supposed to do, one cannot verify whether the physical implementation actually works correctly or not. In other words, we have no means of testing if our linear optics system works as it should. Third, Boson Sampling or random IQP circuits do not correspond to problems required for realworld applications. Hence, finding an interesting computational task whose classical hardness is well established and which can be solved efficiently and in a verifiable way by a linear optics system remains a challenge.
Here, we deviate considerably from all previous examples and describe a fundamentally different type of computational task to achieve quantum superiority using linear optics. More precisely, we consider the task of verifying NPcomplete problems, for example verifying whether a boolean formula is satisfiable or not.
In this setting, an all powerful but untrusted prover – usually denoted as Merlin – gives a witness of the solution, for example the truth assignment that satisfies the boolean formula, to an honest but computationally bounded verifier – referred to as Arthur – who checks the validity of the witness. By definition of the complexity class NP, if a witness exists, it is always possible for Merlin to provide a proof to Arthur who can verify it in polynomial time; for example Merlin can just provide the truth assignment that satisfies the boolean formula. If no witness exists, i.e. if the formula is unsatisfiable, then Arthur will always reject no matter what Merlin sends to him. But what happens if we restrict the amount of information that can be revealed to Arthur by these proofs? Can Arthur still verify if the formula is satisfied when he receives a proof that does not reveal much information about the satisfying truth assignment? In fact, if the revealed information is sufficiently small, it is in general no longer possible for Arthur to perform an efficient verification. Thus, in the case of verification where the revealed information is restricted, it might in principle be possible that quantum proofs can be verified more efficiently than classical ones, giving rise to a computational advantage. Indeed, it was shown in Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008) that for any NPcomplete problem of size , Merlin can send quantum proofs each revealing bits of information, so that, under the promise that the proofs are not entangled with each other, they can be verified by Arthur in polynomial time on a quantum computer. On the other hand, in the classical case, we will see that any verification algorithm acting on proofs that reveal at most bits of information – as in the quantum protocol – must run in exponential time.
In this work, we show that the verification protocol of Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008) for NPcomplete problems can be implemented using simple linearoptical circuits and photonic sources. We assume, of course, that the prover has access to a classical witness when it exists. The proof states are implemented in terms of a single photon in an equal superposition over many optical modes, while the linearoptical transformations employed in the verification can be decomposed in terms of two main operations: a global permutation of all modes, and simple interferometers acting on at most four modes. As a consequence, the experimental requirements are significantly less stringent than those needed for linearoptics quantum computing or for performing arbitrary linear optics transformations. Our results illustrate another example of a computational quantum advantage in a linear optics setting. Moreover, we show that the protocol can tolerate experimental imperfections such as limited visibility and losses.
Let us make a few remarks about our result. First, the classical hardness of the problem is based on a wellestablished and widely believed conjecture, the Exponential Time Hypothesis Impagliazzo and Paturi (1999), namely that the best classical algorithm for NP runs in time for a constant . In fact, the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis Dantsin and Wolpert (2010) claims that . Second, the validity of the quantum circuit can be easily verified by running it on instances for which we already know the answer. Third, there is a vast number of NPcomplete problems that arise naturally in all sciences and being able to verify them is an important task. Restricting the information leaked from the proofs is also a subject that has been extensively studied in the area of Zero Knowledge proofs Goldwasser et al. (1989) and it is relevant in cases where privacy is important. The fact that one can perform this verification with a simple linear optics system provides more evidence of the power and versatility of linear optics. Last, we note that our task is not solved by a typical quantum circuit, but involves an interaction between two parties; hence the quantum superiority is not for solving a computational task but for verifying efficiently the solution of a computationally hard problem.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we review the verification protocol for the NPcomplete problem 2outof4 SAT of Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008), which consists of three tests that Arthur must be able to perform. By definition of NP, all other problems in the class can be reduced to 2outof4 SAT with only a polynomial overhead and then verified. We describe how the proof states can be implemented and how each of these tests is carried out in a linearoptical setting. We conclude by analyzing the role of experimental imperfections in the protocol.
Ii Quantum Verification of 2outof4 SAT
In the 2outof4 satisfiability problem (2outof4 SAT), we are given a formula over binary variables consisting of a conjunction of clauses, each of which contains exactly four variables. The clauses are satisfied if and only if exactly two variables are equal to 1, i.e. if for a clause relating the variables and . The problem is to decide whether there exists an assignment such that the formula is satisfied. We focus on the case in which the 2outof4 SAT instance meets two conditions. First, the instance must be balanced, meaning that every variable occurs in at most a constant number of clauses, and furthermore, the instance must be a PCP, i.e. either it is satisfiable or else a fraction of at most of the clauses should be satisfiable, for some . Note that these conditions can always be guaranteed when reducing the 3Satisfiability (3SAT) problem to 2outof4 SAT Irit (2007); Aaronson et al. (2008), and therefore any NPcomplete problem can be reduced to an instance of 2outof4 SAT satisfying these restrictions by first reducing it to an instance of 3SAT.
In a valid verification protocol, if there exists a satisfying assignment for the instance, then a correct proof is accepted by Arthur with high probability – typically larger than . This property is called completeness. Similarly, if there is no satisfying assignment for the instance, then any proof is rejected by Arthur with high probability – again, typically larger than . This property is known as soundness. In Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008), it was shown that there exists a quantum verification protocol for 2outof4 SAT that is both sound and complete. In the following, we describe how this protocol can be carried out in a linearoptical setting.
ii.1 State preparation
Since we are verifying NPcomplete problems, we have to assume that the prover has access to the classical witness, otherwise there would be an efficient algorithm for NP, which is highly unlikely. Then, the first ingredient in the verification protocol is the construction of the quantum proofs. Merlin sends Arthur proofs , with . Each of these proofs is an dimensional state of the form
(1) 
where is the string satisfying the instance of the 2outof4 SAT problem. We henceforth refer to any state of this form as a proper state.
Note that this state is mathematically equivalent to a state of qubits and therefore it can only reveal at most bits of information about . In a linearoptical setting, this state can be implemented in terms of a single photon in a superposition over different modes as
(2) 
where is the creation operator for the th mode.
The soundness proofs of Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008) assume that Merlin can only send states in a Hilbert space of dimension , which in this case corresponds to the singlephoton subspace of the modes. To ensure soundness of the verification, Arthur simply rejects the proof if he observes more than one photon in the states he measures. Indeed, in this case, for any strategy in which Merlin sends states containing photons with probability , the acceptance probability by Arthur obeys
(3) 
since for any . This probability is maximized for and therefore we ensure that Merlin’s optimal strategy employs single photon states, in which case the soundness proof of Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008) holds.
It is also required that the states are not entangled with each other. There is no known general method of detecting this entanglement Aaronson et al. (2008) and therefore Arthur cannot enforce this condition through a test in his verification. We thus view this unentanglement condition as a promise on the form of the proofs produced by Merlin. Note that this requirement can be enforced if we assume that Arthur interacts with noncommunicating provers that do not share any entanglement Aaronson et al. (2008). In fact, the unentanglement condition can be enforced even if there are just two noncommunicating provers that do not share any entanglement Harrow and Montanaro (2013).
One way for Merlin to create the state is to start with an initial state of the form
(4) 
and then have phaseshifters acting on each of the modes which apply a phaseshift of only when the corresponding bit of the classical witness is 1. This allows Merlin to perform the transformation as desired.
Equal superposition states of the form of Eq. (4) can be created by sending a single photon through a cascade of beamsplitters (see Fig. 1). An equal superposition state over modes can be implemented in this way using beamsplitters resulting in a linear optics circuit of depth . Such circuits have been implemented for small Heilmann et al. (2015). The output modes are then sent through phaseshifters to create the proof states.
Once the proof states have been prepared, Arthur performs his verification which employs three tests: the satisfiability, uniformity, and symmetry tests. Arthur selects one of the three tests uniformly at random and decides whether to accept or reject the proof depending on the specific criterion of each test. Below we describe how these tests can be performed in a linear optics setting.
ii.2 Satisfiability test
In the satisfiability test, Arthur checks that the assignment which is encoded in the quantum proofs satisfies the 2outof4 SAT instance. To do so, Arthur divides all the clauses into a constant number of blocks in such a way that each block contains at least clauses and in each block, no variable appears more than once. This partition into different blocks is guaranteed to exist because the instance is balanced. Arthur selects a block uniformly at random from this set. He then picks a state at random from the copies and performs a permutation of the modes that groups them into the clauses corresponding to the selected block . After the permutation, for every clause of the form , the corresponding modes have been placed in sequence beside each other. For each such set of four modes, Arthur interferes them in the circuit shown in Fig. 2.
The effect of this interferometer is to perform a mode transformation between the input modes and the output modes given by
For a singlephoton proper state, as in Eq. (2), this relation implies that the probability of observing a photon in each of the output modes is given by
Whenever the clause is satisfied, i.e. when , a photon will never be detected in mode . We refer to this mode as the satisfiability mode. If the clause is not satisfied, the probability of observing a photon in the satisfiability mode is twice the one in the other three modes.
Arthur’s criterion for acceptance is the following: he accepts the proof if and only if exactly one photon is detected and it is not detected in a satisfiability mode. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. In the honest Merlin case, the test will pass with certainty while, as shown in Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008), if is not a satisfying assignment of the problem, a constant fraction of the clauses will be unsatisfied, leading to an overall constant probability of rejecting the proof, since there are clauses in each block. Thus, the test has perfect completeness and constant soundness.
ii.3 Uniformity test
Arthur’s satisfiability test functions correctly whenever the states sent by Merlin are proper states, i.e. of the form of Eq. (2). Arthur requires an additional test to certify that the states he receives are proper states. To perform this uniformity test, Arthur first selects a random perfect matching on the set . A perfect matching is a partitioning of the set into disjoint edges . For instance, is a possible matching on the set . For each of the states he receives, Arthur performs a permutation of the modes such that all modes are paired according to the edges in the matching. After the permutation, for every edge he interferes the corresponding pair of modes in a 50:50 beamsplitter and checks for photons in the outputs. The beamsplitter performs the transformation
which means that, for a proper state, the probabilities of observing a photon in each output are
Thus, whenever a photon is detected in a pair of modes , Arthur learns the value of . This allows a labelling of all possible outcomes of this measurement as , with .
Arthur’s uniformity test is the following: he performs the measurement described above on all copies of the state and he accepts the proof only if there are no incompatible outcomes of the form and . As before, he also requires that there is exactly one photon detected in each state and he rejects the proof if there are no collisions, i.e. photons detected for the same edge in different copies. The test is illustrated in Fig. 4.
By choosing , it follows from the generalized birthday paradox Knight and Bloom (1973) that collisions will occur with high probability. In the honest case, incompatible outcomes never occur and therefore the test has constant completeness where rejection of a correct proof only occurs if there are no collisions. On the other hand, if the states are far from a proper state, it was shown in Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008) that the test has a constant probability of rejecting the proof for any other input state and thus has constant soundness.
ii.4 Symmetry test
If Arthur performs a satisfiability and a uniformity test, the only room left for Merlin to deviate from honest behaviour is to send different proper states in each of the systems. To protect against this, Arthur needs to check that all states are equal. He can achieve this by using a SWAP test: a twooutcome measurement on a pair of states with the property that the probability of obtaining each outcome depends on the inner product of the states.
To perform the test in a linear optics setting, Arthur randomly selects two out of the states and performs a permutation that pairs the th mode of the first state with the th mode of the second state for all . Afterwards, each pair of modes is sent through a 50:50 beamsplitter. The output modes of each beamsplitter can be labelled as the “up” mode and the “down” mode. The interference of the two photons corresponds to a generalized version of the HongOuMandel effect Hong et al. (1987) and indeed it was shown in Ref. GarciaEscartin and ChamorroPosada (2013) that for any two proper input states and as in Eq. (2), the probability of observing a coincidence, i.e. a photon in an “up” mode and the other photon in a “down” mode, is equal to , the same probability of a SWAP test resulting in a ‘different state’ outcome. In particular, this implies that coincidences never occur if the states are equal.
This property allows Arthur to perform the following test for symmetry: he accepts the proof if and only if exactly two photons are detected and there are no coincidences. Note that the SWAP test is a crucial component in quantum fingerprinting Buhrman et al. (2001); Arrazola and Lütkenhaus (2014) and its implementation in a linearoptical setting has already been demonstrated in recent quantum fingerprinting experiments Xu et al. (2015); Guan et al. (2016). The symmetry test is illustrated in Fig. 5.
In the honest case, the test passes with certainty and therefore it has perfect completeness, while it was shown in Ref. Aaronson et al. (2008) that the test also has constant soundness. Overall, by selecting randomly between these three tests, Arthur can verify Merlin’s proof with perfect completeness and constant soundness, as required by a verification protocol.
For the satisfiability and symmetry tests described above, the verifier needs to randomly pick one or a pair of the proofs on which to apply the test. Note that the verifier can pick this before the proofs arrive. One way of doing this is a block switch that takes as input the proofs, puts two random ones as the first two and leaves the remaining unchanged.
In summary, to perform the verification of 2outof4 SAT for an instance of size , Arthur needs the following components when using spatial modes:

single photon sources.

fixed cascades of beamsplitters of depth , each preparing a single photon in an equal superposition over modes.

phaseshifters, one for each mode.

One block switch that permutes groups of modes.

switches that perform arbitrary permutations of modes.

One switch that performs an arbitrary permutation of modes.

fourmode interferometers for the satisfiability test.

twomode interferometers for the uniformity and symmetry tests. This includes the photon number resolving detectors.
A complete setup for the verification protocol is illustrated in Fig. 6. Note that by separating the modes in time it would be possible to use a constant number of interferometers and detectors, greatly reducing the number of required components. It is also possible to optimize the required resources by using delay circuits to suitably direct the selected proofs depending on the chosen test.
In the next section, we calculate the running time of this quantum verification protocol showing that it runs in polynomial time. Note also that only bits of information are revealed to the verifier about the witness . Then, we show that any classical algorithm using proofs that reveal only bits of information requires exponential time under the only assumption that there are no classical algorithms for NPcomplete problems running in time less than .
ii.5 Running time of the verification algorithm
The quantum verification procedure can be decomposed into three main steps: the preparation by the prover of the quantum states that correspond to the classical witness; a permutation circuit that the verifier uses to rearrange the optical modes according to his random choices; and interferometers running on at most four modes each. As discussed before, given knowledge of the classical witness , each proof state can be prepared using a simple cascade of beamsplitters of size and of depth as well as phaseshifters, while the interference circuits for the tests have constant depth and size. Let us look a bit more carefully at the permutation circuit which just spatially rearranges the modes. First, notice that all the random choices of the verifier can be made before he receives the proofs, so the entire permutation circuit can be prepared in advance. For the satisfiability and uniformity tests, we need a permutation module acting on modes, while in the symmetry test, the permutation acts on modes. Such permutations can be performed using a universal circuit of size Reck et al. (1994); Carolan et al. (2015), but there also exist standard microelectromechanical system switches (MEMS) that perform such permutations using only adjustable mirrors. MEMS switches have been demonstrated to work for up to 1100 modes Kim et al. (2003). We also need a permutation to choose one or two of the proofs for the satisfiability and symmetry tests, which can also be performed by a switch of size . Hence, if the proofs arrive at the same time in different spatial modes, the size of the quantum circuit is (dominated by the state preparation).
For the running time of the quantum verification algorithm, let us consider first the case of all proofs arriving at the same time in different spatial modes. Then, we divide the algorithm into two steps: the preprocessing of the permutation circuit, which takes time ; and the quantum execution of the algorithm that takes time , which is the depth of the quantum circuit. Note that, using standard Chernhoff bound arguments, the verification error can be reduced to any small constant by simply repeating the protocol a constant number of times. In the case each proof comes sequentially, then the running time of the quantum execution is also since we possibly need to wait until the last proof.
The states employed are each of dimension , so the global state consisting of all copies has dimension , for some small constant . The dimension of this state places an upper bound on the information that it contains about the classical witness . In particular, for any proof state , we have that the mutual information with the string satisfies
(5) 
In summary, we have a quantum verification procedure where the verifier takes as input a proof revealing at most bits of information about and can verify instances of 2outof4SAT in time.
What can we say about the running time of a classical verification algorithm receiving a proof that reveals the same amount of information? Denote by the running time of any verification algorithm acting on a classical proof with . We want to bound the asymptotic scaling of by using the verification algorithm to produce an algorithm for 2outof4 SAT by randomly searching over all possible proofs. The algorithm is the following:

Generate a random proof. From the entropy bound, the probability of guessing a correct proof is .

Repeat the verification protocol on this proof times and take the majority vote of the outcomes. This identifies whether or not the proof is correct except with probability .

Repeat the previous steps times to ensure that, if it exists, a correct proof will be found with high probability. Accept if a valid proof is found, reject otherwise.
This is an algorithm for 2outof4SAT with running time . Under the Exponential Time Hypothesis that algorithms for NPcomplete problems must have running time , we have that
(6) 
and therefore
(7) 
which is exponential in the input size for large enough . Since we showed that the quantum verification runs in polynomial time, we conclude that there is a quantum advantage in the linearoptical verification of an NPcomplete problem with proofs revealing a restricted amount of information.
Let us now make a quick calculation to understand what order of we would possibly need in order to show quantum superiority. Note that the constant comes from the uniformity test, where we need enough proofs to find a collision with high enough probability. Let us take this to be . Let us also assume the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis, namely . In this case, we need to make sure that a classical algorithm which runs in time exponential in remains infeasible. By taking , we have that the classical algorithm must run for time more than . Note that is the number of optical modes for each of the proofs and that each proof contains one photon. In other words, our circuit has a total of 46 photons, each one in 512 optical modes. The number of photons is comparable to the other proposals, namely Boson Sampling and IQP circuits. While the number of optical modes in our scheme is significantly larger, the depth of the circuits is only logarithmic and not polynomial in as in the other proposals. This is of course a high level calculation and there is a lot of space for optimizing these parameters. On the other hand it is important to consider experimental imperfections as well.
In the following, we discuss the role of experimental imperfections in the quantum verification scheme, showing that they can be tolerated by increasing the number of copies by a constant factor.
Iii Experimental imperfections
In linear optics, there are three main forms of experimental imperfections: detector dark counts, limited interferometric visibility, and losses. Let us start with dark counts. For a state of modes, where the dark count probability for each detector is , the probability of obtaining a single click due to a dark count is
(8) 
which is negligible as long as . Typical values of the dark count probability are below whereas, as discussed, a quantum advantage can be reached for values of many orders of magnitude smaller than .
Limited interferometric visibility refers to all deviations from the ideal state preparation and transformations. This will not lead to a change in the expected number of clicks, but it can cause the wrong detectors to fire. The verification protocol can then tolerate limited visibility as long as there remains a constant gap between soundness and completeness of the test, i.e., of the difference between the probability of accepting a correct proof and the one of accepting an incorrect one, since this difference can be amplified by repeating the verification a constant number of times. Note that our protocol provides such a constant gap in the case of no imperfections.
Losses in the verification are problematic for the tests as we have previously defined them, since proofs are rejected if no photons are detected. To address this, we can modify the tests to correct for this effect. Let be the overall transmissivity of the protocol, meaning that a single photon is detected with probability . We address the modifications to each test separately.
As stated previously, the satisfiability test acts on a single randomly chosen state and rejects if no photons are detected. In the presence of losses, this would cause the test to reject with probability even for a correct proof. Instead, we modify the test by instead randomly selecting states to ensure a high probability of observing a photon in at least one state, and then performing the satisfiability test on each of them. The proof is then accepted if and only if no photons are detected in the satisfiability modes, not more than one photon is detected in each state, and there is at least one state for which a photon is detected.
Similarly, to test for symmetry, instead of randomly selecting a single pair of states, we must now randomly select pairs of states to ensure a high probability of having two photons in at least one pair of states, and perform the symmetry test on each pair. In this case, we accept the proof if and only if no coincidences are observed for any state, no more than two photons are detected for any pair, and there is at least one pair for which two photons are detected.
Finally, in the uniformity test, a measurement is made on all states, so in this case we can compensate for the presence of losses by increasing the number of copies to in order to ensure a high probability of obtaining a collision. Arthur accepts the proof if and only if no incompatible outcomes of the form and occur, at least one collision occurs, and not more than one photon is detected in any state.
Overall, these modifications to the tests lead to completeness of the verification in the presence of losses. With respect to the soundness, note that any statistics that Merlin can induce in Arthur’s measurement in the presence of losses can also be obtained in the ideal lossless case, since Merlin can just introduce the losses himself – so we recover the soundness of the lossless case.
Note also that what we want to demonstrate is a quantum circuit that verifies the NPcomplete problem correctly and from which the verifier does not get more than bits of information about the classical witness. In practice one can ensure this by just making sure that the number of detector clicks are bounded, since this is the way the verifier obtains information. It is important to remember that we are not in a cryptographic setting where we have to worry about a verifier trying to cheat by changing the circuit in order to get more information from the prover. Hence, even though we increased the number of photons by a factor , the information the verifier gets is still , since most photons get lost. Of course, if we want to be even more stringent and ensure that the verifier could not get more information even if he replaces the entire circuit with a lossless one, then we can include the factor and upper bound the information as .
Iv Discussion
We have shown that it is possible to verify NPcomplete problems using simple linear optics. This is done by reducing instances of any NPcomplete problem to a balanced instance of 2outof4 SAT. The solution is encoded into singlephoton states in a superposition across many optical modes, which are then verified by choosing randomly between three different tests. Each of these tests can be implemented using simple linear optics, namely mode permutations and interferometry of at most four modes. We have also shown that a quantum advantage can be obtained for the running time of verification algorithms of proofs that reveal a limited amount of information about the variables. This advantage only holds if the states are not entangled with each other, which we take as a promise from the prover. Overall, our results provide another example of the surprising computational power of linear optics.
Besides the advantage that we discuss in this paper, there are other features of this protocol that are appealing. One of them is the low energy expenditure of the scheme. The only energy consumption takes place in the state preparation, which uses only a few photons, and in the permutation of the modes. This is likely to be less resourceintensive than running conventional computers for the same verification. Additionally, besides thinking of the limited information of the proofs as a restriction on the verification, we can view it as a security goal of Merlin who wants to convince Arthur without revealing full information about the solution. These questions are studied in the context of zeroknowledge proofs, where verification is possible without revealing any information. However, those protocols are interactive and often very complex. Our verification scheme provides a simple alternative where only partial information is revealed while requiring no interaction.
In terms of experimental realizations of the verification protocol, as discussed before, technology is currently available to perform arbitrary permutations of large number of modes using microelectromechanical systems, which can be employed to build optical switches capable of permuting as many as 1100 modes Kim et al. (2003). Since the interferometers act on a small number of modes, the entire verification circuits could in principle be built modularly from small integrated chips, which can be manufactured independently from each other. Finally, although significant progress has been made in preparing highdimensional single photon states using integrated photonics Heilmann et al. (2015), it remains a challenge to create many such states independently for interferometric experiments. It is likely, however, that the verification can be performed using coherent states instead of single photons, in which case only a single coherent laser source would be needed which can be subsequently split into the desired modes. Indeed, as shown in Ref. Arrazola and Lütkenhaus (2014), given one singlephoton state and a linearoptical measurement on it, replacing the single photon with a coherent state leads to measurement statistics that are equivalent to a randomlyselected number of repetitions of the same measurement on a singlephoton state. Further work is needed to ensure that the quantum superiority is retained in this case.
Acknowledgements.
We would like to thank A. Ignjatovic for valuable discussions. J.M.A. acknowledges funding from the Singapore Ministry of Education (partly through the Academic Research Fund Tier 3 MOE2012T31009) and the National Research Foundation of Singapore, Prime Ministerâs Office, under the Research Centres of Excellence programme. This research was supported by the European Research Council project QCC (I.K.).References
 Knill et al. (2001) E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. Milburn, Nature 409, 46 (2001).
 Browne and Rudolph (2004) D. E. Browne and T. Rudolph, Resourceefficient linear optical quantum computation, quantph/0405157 (2004).
 Kok et al. (2007) P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007).
 O’Brien (2007) J. L. O’Brien, Science 318, 1567 (2007).
 Giovannetti et al. (2006) V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006).
 Giovannetti et al. (2011) V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Photonics 5, 222 (2011).
 Tóth and Apellaniz (2014) G. Tóth and I. Apellaniz, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424006 (2014).
 Arrazola and Lütkenhaus (2014) J. M. Arrazola and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 89, 062305 (2014).
 Arrazola and Lütkenhaus (2014) J. M. Arrazola and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042335 (2014).
 Xu et al. (2015) F. Xu, J. M. Arrazola, K. Wei, W. Wang, P. PalaciosAvila, C. Feng, S. Sajeed, N. Lütkenhaus, and H.K. Lo, Nature Communications 6, 8735 (2015).
 Guan et al. (2016) J.Y. Guan, F. Xu, H.L. Yin, Y. Li, W.J. Zhang, S.J. Chen, X.Y. Yang, L. Li, L.X. You, T.Y. Chen, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240502 (2016).
 Kumar et al. (2017) N. Kumar, E. Diamanti, and I. Kerenidis, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032337 (2017).
 Aaronson and Arkhipov (2011) S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, in Proceedings of the fortythird annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (ACM, 2011), pp. 333–342.
 Broome et al. (2013) M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. RahimiKeshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Science 339, 794 (2013).
 Tillmann et al. (2013) M. Tillmann, B. Dakić, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Nature Photonics 7, 540 (2013).
 Crespi et al. (2013) A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F. Galvao, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Nature Photonics 7, 545 (2013).
 Spring et al. (2013) J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. ThomasPeter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, et al., Science 339, 798 (2013).
 Spagnolo et al. (2014) N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, M. Bentivegna, D. J. Brod, A. Crespi, F. Flamini, S. Giacomini, G. Milani, R. Ramponi, P. Mataloni, et al., Nature Photonics 8, 615 (2014).
 Boixo et al. (2016) S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00263 (2016).
 Farhi and Harrow (2016) E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07674 (2016).
 Bremner et al. (2017) M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Quantum 1, 8 (2017).
 Bravyi et al. (2017) S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and R. Koenig, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00690 (2017).
 Gao et al. (2017) X. Gao, S.T. Wang, and L.M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 040502 (2017).
 BermejoVega et al. (2017) J. BermejoVega, D. Hangleiter, M. Schwarz, R. Raussendorf, and J. Eisert, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.00466 (2017).
 Clifford and Clifford (2017) P. Clifford and R. Clifford, arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.01260 (2017).
 Neville et al. (2017) A. Neville, C. Sparrow, R. Clifford, E. Johnston, P. M. Birchall, A. Montanaro, and A. Laing, Nature Physics (2017), doi:10.1038/nphys4270.
 Aaronson et al. (2008) S. Aaronson, S. Beigi, A. Drucker, B. Fefferman, and P. Shor, in 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 2008. (IEEE, 2008), pp. 223–236.
 Impagliazzo and Paturi (1999) R. Impagliazzo and R. Paturi, Proc. 14th IEEE Conf. on Computational Complexity p. 237â240 (1999).
 Dantsin and Wolpert (2010) E. Dantsin and A. Wolpert, Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing â SAT pp. 313–325 (2010).
 Goldwasser et al. (1989) S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, SIAM Journal on Computing (1989).
 Irit (2007) D. Irit, J. ACM 54(3):12 (2007).
 Harrow and Montanaro (2013) A. Harrow and A. Montanaro, J. ACM 60(1):3 (2013).
 Heilmann et al. (2015) R. Heilmann, M. Gräfe, S. Nolte, and A. Szameit, Science 60, 96 (2015).
 Knight and Bloom (1973) W. Knight and D. Bloom, American Mathematical Monthly 80, 1141 (1973).
 Hong et al. (1987) C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987).
 GarciaEscartin and ChamorroPosada (2013) J. C. GarciaEscartin and P. ChamorroPosada, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052330 (2013).
 Buhrman et al. (2001) H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001).
 Reck et al. (1994) M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 58 (1994).
 Carolan et al. (2015) J. Carolan, C. Harrold, C. Sparrow, E. MartinLopez, N. J. Russell, J. W. Silverstone, P. J. Shadbolt, N. Matsuda, M. Oguma, M. Itoh, et al., Science 349, 711 (2015).
 Kim et al. (2003) J. Kim, C. Nuzman, B. Kumar, D. Lieuwen, J. Kraus, A. Weiss, C. Lichtenwalner, A. Papazian, R. Frahm, N. Basavanhally, et al., IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 15, 1537 (2003).