- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

On-Chip Verified Quantum Computation with an Ion-Trap Quantum Processing Unit

Cica Gustiani*

Dominik Leichtle†, Jonathan Miller, and Ross Grassie

Daniel Mills‡

Elham Kashefi

  • LIP6, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France

  • Quantinuum, Terrington House, 13-15 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1NL, United Kingdom

  • School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 10 Crichton Street, EH8 9AB Edinburgh, United Kingdom and LIP6, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France

  • *Contact author: cicagustiani@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: dominik.leichtle@ed.ac.uk
  • ‡Contact author: daniel.mills@quantinuum.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 160801 – Published 14 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/jpms-v3kw

Abstract

We present a novel approach to cryptographically secure verification and benchmarking of quantum computing, demonstrating our approach on an ion-trap quantum computer. Unlike previous cryptographically secure verification protocols, which typically require quantum communication between client and server, our approach is implemented entirely on chip. This eliminates the need for a quantum capable client, and significantly enhances practicality. We perform tomography to justify the additionally required assumption that the noise is independent of the secret used to prepare the server’s single-qubit states. We quantify the soundness error that may be caused by residual secret dependencies. We demonstrate our protocol on the 20-qubit Quantinuum H1-1 ion-trap quantum processing unit, using qubit measurements and resets to construct measurement patterns with up to 52 vertices. To our knowledge, these are the largest verified measurement-based quantum computations performed to date.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (57)

  1. J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certification and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382–390 (2020).
  2. J. Helsen, I. Roth, E. Onorati, A. H. Werner, and J. Eisert, General framework for randomized benchmarking, PRX Quantum 3, 020357 (2022).
  3. D. Mills, S. Sivarajah, T. L. Scholten, and R. Duncan, Application-motivated, holistic benchmarking of a full quantum computing stack, Quantum 5, 415 (2021).
  4. T. Lubinski, J. J. Goings, K. Mayer, S. Johri, N. Reddy, A. Mehta, N. Bhatia, S. Rappaport, D. Mills, C. H. Baldwin, L. Zhao, A. Barbosa, S. Maity, and P. S. Mundada, Quantum algorithm exploration using application-oriented performance benchmarks, arXiv:2402.08985.
  5. A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, S. Sheldon, P. D. Nation, and J. M. Gambetta, Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits, Phys. Rev. A 100, 032328 (2019).
  6. J. F. Fitzsimons and E. Kashefi, Unconditionally verifiable blind quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 96, 012303 (2017).
  7. A. Broadbent, J. Fitzsimons, and E. Kashefi, Universal blind quantum computation, in Proceedings of the 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, New York, 2009).
  8. D. Leichtle, L. Music, E. Kashefi, and H. Ollivier, Verifying BQP computations on noisy devices with minimal overhead, arXiv:2109.04042.
  9. A. Gheorghiu, T. Kapourniotis, and E. Kashefi, Verification of quantum computation: An overview of existing approaches, Theory Comput. Syst. 63, 715 (2018).
  10. E. Kashefi and P. Wallden, Optimised resource construction for verifiable quantum computation, J. Phys. A 50, 145306 (2017).
  11. T. Kapourniotis, E. Kashefi, D. Leichtle, L. Music, and H. Ollivier, Unifying quantum verification and error-detection: Theory and tools for optimisations, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035036 (2024).
  12. T. Kapourniotis, E. Kashefi, D. Leichtle, L. Music, and H. Ollivier, Asymmetric quantum secure multi-party computation with weak clients against dishonest majority, arXiv:2303.08865.
  13. E. Kashefi, D. Leichtle, L. Music, and H. Ollivier, Verification of quantum computations without trusted preparations or measurements, arXiv:2403.10464.
  14. P. Drmota, D. Nadlinger, D. Main, B. Nichol, E. Ainley, D. Leichtle, A. Mantri, E. Kashefi, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, C. Ballance, and D. Lucas, Verifiable blind quantum computing with trapped ions and single photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150604 (2024).
  15. B. Polacchi, D. Leichtle, G. Carvacho, G. Milani, N. Spagnolo, M. Kaplan, E. Kashefi, and F. Sciarrino, Experimental verifiable multi-client blind quantum computing on a Qline architecture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 200603 (2025).
  16. L. Lewis, D. Zhu, A. Gheorghiu, C. Noel, O. Katz, B. Harraz, Q. Wang, A. Risinger, L. Feng, D. Biswas, L. Egan, T. Vidick, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Experimental implementation of an efficient test of quantumness, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012610 (2024).
  17. U. Mahadev, Classical verification of quantum computations, arXiv:1804.01082.
  18. A. Cojocaru, L. Colisson, E. Kashefi, and P. Wallden, Qfactory: Classically-instructed remote secret qubits preparation, in Advances in Cryptology—ASIACRYPT 2019 (Springer International Publishing, New York, 2019), pp. 615–645.
  19. S. Ferracin, T. Kapourniotis, and A. Datta, Accrediting outputs of noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing devices, New J. Phys. 21, 113038 (2019).
  20. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  21. V. Dunjko, J. F. Fitzsimons, C. Portmann, and R. Renner, Composable security of delegated quantum computation, in Advances in Cryptology—ASIACRYPT 2014 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014), pp. 406–425.

  22. The decision of whether the client accepts is still allowed to depend on the resources used for the delegated computation, i.e., the graph that describes the resource state as well as the order in which the qubits are processed.

  23. J. Frank, E. Kashefi, D. Leichtle, and M. de Oliveira, Heuristic-free verification-inspired quantum benchmarking, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 025055 (2025).
  24. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/jpms-v3kw for further details on the assessment of protocol requirements, compilation to H1-1, and additional experimental results, which includes Refs. [25–42].
  25. W. Research, Convexoptimization—wolfram language documentation, https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/ConvexOptimization.html (2024), accessed: 2024-09-13.
  26. M. ApS, Mosek modelling cookbook (2023), available online at https://mosek.com.
  27. C. J. Wood, J. D. Biamonte, and D. G. Cory, Tensor networks and graphical calculus for open quantum systems, Quantum Inf. Comput. 15, 0579 (2015).
  28. S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. L. Moehring, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, and C. Monroe, Manipulation and detection of a trapped Yb+ hyperfine qubit, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052314 (2007).
  29. X. Mai, L. Zhang, and Y. Lu, High-fidelity detection on Yb+171 qubit via d23/2 shelving, arXiv:2402.18868.
  30. M. D. Barrett, B. DeMarco, T. Schaetz, V. Meyer, D. Leibfried, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, W. Itano, B. Jelenković, J. Jost et al., Sympathetic cooling of Be+9 and Mg+24 for quantum logic, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042302 (2003).
  31. J. Eschner, G. Morigi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Laser cooling of trapped ions, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 20, 1003 (2003).
  32. C. Monroe, D. Meekhof, B. King, S. R. Jefferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and P. Gould, Resolved-sideband raman cooling of a bound atom to the 3D zero-point energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4011 (1995).
  33. S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn et al., A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041052 (2023).
  34. J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried et al., High-fidelity universal gate set for Be+9 ion qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060505 (2016).
  35. C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016).
  36. J. Gaebler, C. Baldwin, S. Moses, J. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, and J. Pino, Suppression of midcircuit measurement crosstalk errors with micromotion, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062440 (2021).
  37. A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and quantum computation with ions in thermal motion, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022311 (2000).
  38. P. J. Lee, K.-A. Brickman, L. Deslauriers, P. C. Haljan, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Phase control of trapped ion quantum gates, J. Opt. B 7, S371 (2005).
  39. D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient z gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017).
  40. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules (FIPS PUB 140-2), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 140-2 (National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2001) includes Change Notices as of 12/3/2002, 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.140-2.
  41. N. Norman, rng-tools: A suite of random number generator related utilities, https://github.com/nhorman/rng-tools (2024).
  42. Fujitsu Component Limited, Random Number Generator HM-RAE103 Datasheet, Technical Report (Fujitsu Component Limited, 2022) accessed: 2024-09-05.

  43. Obtaining the optimal value of secret dependency remains an open problem, as the presence of the summation complicates its formulation within a convex or semidefinite optimization framework. Consequently, the value of ϵ1 may be lower.

  44. J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyenhuis, Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum CCD computer architecture, Nature (London) 592, 209 (2021).
  45. Quantinuum, Quantinuum h1 emulator product data sheet v6.8.3, (2024), https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/62b9d45fb3f64842a96c9686/66997f9f44647b2f779fe7d1_Quantinuum%20H1%20Emulator%20Product%20Data%20Sheet%20v6.8.3%2018Jul24.pdf (accessed: 2024-09-06).
  46. C. Ryan-Anderson, pecos: Performance estimator of codes on surfaces, https://github.com/PECOS-packages/PECOS (2018).
  47. C. Ryan-Anderson, Quantum algorithms, architecture, and error correction, Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico, 2018.

  48. This is for demonstration purposes only and is not required in the protocol.

  49. C. Gustiani, D. Leichtle, J. Miller, R. Grassie, D. Mills, and E. Kashefi, On chip verified quantum computation—Python, 2024, https://github.com/CQCL/ocvqc-py.
  50. C. Gustiani and D. P. DiVincenzo, Blind oracular quantum computation, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 045022 (2021).
  51. G. J. Mooney, G. A. L. White, C. D. Hill, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Whole-device entanglement in a 65-qubit superconducting quantum computer, Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2100061 (2021).
  52. S. Yokoyama, R. Ukai, S. C. Armstrong, C. Sornphiphatphong, T. Kaji, S. Suzuki, J.-i. Yoshikawa, H. Yonezawa, N. C. Menicucci, and A. Furusawa, Ultra-large-scale continuous-variable cluster states multiplexed in the time domain, Nat. Photonics 7, 982 (2013).
  53. Quantinuum nexus, (2024), https://nexus.quantinuum.com/.
  54. Quantinuum h1-1, (2024), https://www.quantinuum.com/.
  55. C. Gustiani, D. Leichtle, J. Miller, R. Grassie, D. Mills, and E. Kashefi, On chip verified quantum computation—data, 2024, https://github.com/CQCL/ocvqc-data.
  56. V. Danos and E. Kashefi, Determinism in the one-way model, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052310 (2006).
  57. C. Gustiani and D. P. DiVincenzo, Blind three-qubit exact grover search on a nitrogen-vacancy-center platform, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062422 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 160801– Published 14 October, 2025
  • Received 16 December 2024
  • Accepted 4 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation