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.
Second, Liu, Christandl, and Verstraete @cite_13 gave a natural problem from quantum chemistry, called @math , which is in @math but is not known to be in @math .
@cite_13
2006290558
Recently a great deal of attention has been focused on quantum computation following a sequence of results [Bernstein and Vazirani, in Proc. 25th Annual ACM Symposium Theory Comput., 1993, pp. 11--20, SIAM J. Comput., 26 (1997), pp. 1277--1339], [Simon, in Proc. 35th Annual IEEE Symposium Foundations Comput. Sci., 1994, pp. 116--123, SIAM J. Comput., 26 (1997), pp. 1340--1349], [Shor, in Proc. 35th Annual IEEE Symposium Foundations Comput. Sci., 1994, pp. 124--134] suggesting that quantum computers are more powerful than classical probabilistic computers. Following Shor's result that factoring and the extraction of discrete logarithms are both solvable in quantum polynomial time, it is natural to ask whether all of @math can be efficiently solved in quantum polynomial time. In this paper, we address this question by proving that relative to an oracle chosen uniformly at random with probability 1 the class @math cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine (QTM) in time @math . We also show that relative to a permutation oracle chosen uniformly at random with probability 1 the class @math cannot be solved on a QTM in time @math . The former bound is tight since recent work of Grover [in Proc. @math th Annual ACM Symposium Theory Comput. , 1996] shows how to accept the class @math relative to any oracle on a quantum computer in time @math .