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.
The class @math , or Quantum Merlin-Arthur, consists of all languages that admit a proof protocol in which Merlin sends Arthur a polynomial-size quantum state @math , and then Arthur decides whether to accept or reject in quantum polynomial time. This class was introduced by Knill @cite_9 , Kitaev @cite_24 , and Watrous @cite_23 as a quantum analogue of @math . By now we know a reasonable amount about @math : for example, it allows amplification of success probabilities, is contained in @math , and has natural complete promise problems. (See Aharonov and Naveh @cite_19 for a survey.)
@cite_24 @cite_19 @cite_9 @cite_23
2084019889 2950395077 1627385003 1568529095
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. It is well known that probabilistic boolean decision trees cannot be much more powerful than deterministic ones (N. Nisan, SIAM J. Comput.20, No. 6 (1991), 999?1007). Motivated by a question if randomization can significantly speed up a nondeterministic computation via a boolean decision tree, we address structural properties of Arthur?Merlin games in this model and prove some lower bounds. We consider two cases of interest, the first when the length of communication between the players is limited and the second, if it is not. While in the first case we can carry over the relations between the corresponding Turing complexity classes, in the second case we observe in contrast with Turing complexity that a one-round Merlin?Arthur protocol is as powerful as a general interactive proof system and, in particular, can simulate a one-round Arthur?Merlin protocol. Moreover, we show that sometimes a Merlin?Arthur protocol can be more efficient than an Arthur?Merlin protocol and than a Merlin?Arthur protocol with limited communication. This is the case for a boolean function whose set of zeroes is a code with high minimum distance and a natural uniformity condition. Such functions provide an example when the Merlin?Arthur complexity is 1 with one-sided error ??(23, 1), but at the same time the nondeterministic decision tree complexity is ?(n). The latter should be contrasted with another fact we prove. Namely, if a function has Merlin?Arthur complexity 1 with one-sided error probability ??(0, 23, then its nondeterministic complexity is bounded by a constant. Other results of the paper include connections with the block sensitivity and related combinatorial properties of a boolean function. 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. Many interesting computational problems can be reformulated in terms of decision trees. A natural classical algorithm is to then run a random walk on the tree, starting at the root, to see if the tree contains a node @math level from the root. We devise a quantum-mechanical algorithm that evolves a state, initially localized at the root, through the tree. We prove that if the classical strategy succeeds in reaching level @math in time polynomial in @math then so does the quantum algorithm. Moreover, we find examples of trees for which the classical algorithm requires time exponential in @math but for which the quantum algorithm succeeds in polynomial time. The examples we have so far, however, could also be solved in polynomial time by different classical algorithms.