The class QMA(k), introduced by , consists of all languages that can be verified using k unentangled quantum proofs. Many of the simplest questions about this class have remained embarrassingly open: for example, can we give any evidence that k quantum proofs are more powerful than one? Does QMA(k)=QMA(2) for k>=2? Can QMA(k) protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? In this paper, we make progress on all of the above questions. First, we give a protocol by which a verifier can be convinced that a 3SAT formula of size n is satisfiable, with constant soundness, given O(sqrt(n)) unentangled quantum witnesses with O(log n) qubits each. Our protocol relies on the existence of very short PCPs. Second, we show that assuming a weak version of the Additivity Conjecture from quantum information theory, any QMA(2) protocol can be amplified to exponentially small error, and QMA(k)=QMA(2) for all k>=2. Third, we prove the nonexistence of "perfect disentanglers" for simulating multiple Merlins with one.
When we try to understand @math , we encounter at least three basic questions. First, do multiple quantum proofs ever actually help? That is, can we find some sort of evidence that @math for some @math ? Second, can @math protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? Third, are two Merlins the most we ever need? That is, does @math for all @math ? The second and third questions are motivated, in part, by an analogy to classical ---where the Parallel Repetition Theorem of Raz @cite_14 and the @math theorem of Ben- @cite_18 turned out to be crucial for understanding the class @math .
@cite_18 @cite_14
2951054288 2807350215 2163684974 2121957834
This paper introduces quantum multiple-Merlin''-Arthur proof systems in which Arthur receives multiple quantum proofs that are unentangled with each other. Although classical multi-proof systems are obviously equivalent to classical single-proof systems (i.e., usual Merlin-Arthur proof systems), it is unclear whether or not quantum multi-proof systems collapse to quantum single-proof systems (i.e., usual quantum Merlin-Arthur proof systems). This paper presents a necessary and sufficient condition under which the number of quantum proofs is reducible to two. It is also proved that, in the case of perfect soundness, using multiple quantum proofs does not increase the power of quantum Merlin-Arthur proof systems. We show that any language in nondeterministic time @math , where the number of iterated exponentials is an arbitrary function @math , can be decided by a multiprover interactive proof system with a classical polynomial-time verifier and a constant number of quantum entangled provers, with completeness @math and soundness @math , where the number of iterated exponentials is @math and @math is a universal constant. The result was previously known for @math and @math ; we obtain it for any time-constructible function @math . The result is based on a compression technique for interactive proof systems with entangled provers that significantly simplifies and strengthens a protocol compression result of Ji (STOC'17). As a separate consequence of this technique we obtain a different proof of Slofstra's recent result (unpublished) on the uncomputability of the entangled value of multiprover games. Finally, we show that even minor improvements to our compression result would yield remarkable consequences in computational complexity theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics: first, it would imply that the class MIP* contains all computable languages; second, it would provide a negative resolution to a multipartite version of Tsirelson's problem on the relation between the commuting operator and tensor product models for quantum correlations. We show that any number of parties can coherently exchange any one pure quantum state for another, without communication, given prior shared entanglement. Two applications of this fact to the study of multi-prover quantum interactive proof systems are given. First, we prove that there exists a one-round two-prover quantum interactive proof system for which no finite amount of shared entanglement allows the provers to implement an optimal strategy. More specifically, for every fixed input string, there exists a sequence of strategies for the provers, with each strategy requiring more entanglement than the last, for which the probability for the provers to convince the verifier to accept approaches 1. It is not possible, however, for the provers to convince the verifier to accept with certainty with a finite amount of shared entanglement. The second application is a simple proof that multi-prover quantum interactive proofs can be transformed to have near-perfect completeness by the addition of one round of communication. Standard security proofs of quantum-key-distribution (QKD) protocols often rely on symmetry arguments. In this paper, we prove the security of a three-state protocol that does not possess rotational symmetry. The three-state QKD protocol we consider involves three qubit states, where the first two states @math and @math can contribute to key generation, and the third state @math is for channel estimation. This protocol has been proposed and implemented experimentally in some frequency-based QKD systems where the three states can be prepared easily. Thus, by founding on the security of this three-state protocol, we prove that these QKD schemes are, in fact, unconditionally secure against any attacks allowed by quantum mechanics. The main task in our proof is to upper bound the phase error rate of the qubits given the bit error rates observed. Unconditional security can then be proved not only for the ideal case of a single-photon source and perfect detectors, but also for the realistic case of a phase-randomized weak coherent light source and imperfect threshold detectors. Our result in the phase error rate upper bound is independent of the loss in the channel. Also, we compare the three-state protocol with the Bennett-Brassard 1984 (BB84) protocol. For the single-photon source case, our result proves that the BB84 protocol strictly tolerates a higher quantum bit error rate than the three-state protocol, while for the coherent-source case, the BB84 protocol achieves a higher key generation rate and secure distance than the three-state protocol when a decoy-state method is used.