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.
In 2003, Kobayashi, Matsumoto, and Yamakami @cite_20 defined a generalization of @math called @math . Here there are @math Merlins, who send Arthur @math quantum proofs @math respectively that are guaranteed to be unentangled with each other. (Thus @math .) Notice that in the classical case, this generalization is completely uninteresting: we have @math for all @math , since we can always simulate @math Merlins by a single Merlin who sends Arthur a concatenation of the @math proofs. In the quantum case, however, a single Merlin could cheat by the @math proofs, and we know of no general way to detect such entanglement.
@cite_20
2951054288
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. In quantum zero knowledge, the assumption was made that the verifier is only using unitary operations. Under this assumption, many nice properties have been shown about quantum zero knowledge, including the fact that Honest-Verifier Quantum Statistical Zero Knowledge ( @math ) is equal to Cheating-Verifier Quantum Statistical Zero Knowledge ( @math ) (see Wat02,Wat06 ). In this paper, we study what happens when we allow an honest verifier to flip some coins in addition to using unitary operations. Flipping a coin is a non-unitary operation but doesn 't seem at first to enhance the cheating possibilities of the verifier since a classical honest verifier can flip coins. In this setting, we show an unexpected result: any classical Interactive Proof has an Honest-Verifier Quantum Statistical Zero Knowledge proof with coins. Note that in the classical case, honest verifier @math is no more powerful than @math and hence it is not believed to contain even @math . On the other hand, in the case of cheating verifiers, we show that Quantum Statistical Zero Knowledge where the verifier applies any non-unitary operation is equal to Quantum Zero-Knowledge where the verifier uses only unitaries. One can think of our results in two complementary ways. If we would like to use the honest verifier model as a means to study the general model by taking advantage of their equivalence, then it is imperative to use the unitary definition without coins, since with the general one this equivalence is most probably not true. On the other hand, if we would like to use quantum zero knowledge protocols in a cryptographic scenario where the honest-but-curious model is sufficient, then adding the unitary constraint severely decreases the power of quantum zero knowledge protocols.