We present a classical interactive protocol that verifies the validity of a quantum witness state for the local Hamiltonian problem. It follows from this protocol that approximating the non-local value of a multi-player one-round game to inverse polynomial precision is QMA-hard. Our work makes an interesting connection between the theory of QMA-completeness and Hamiltonian complexity on one hand and the study of non-local games and Bell inequalities on the other.
We present a classical interactive protocol that verifies the validity of a quantum witness state for the local Hamiltonian problem. It follows from this protocol that approximating the non-local value of a multi-player one-round game to inverse polynomial precision is QMA-hard. Our work makes an interesting connection between the theory of QMA-completeness and Hamiltonian complexity on one hand and the study of non-local games and Bell inequalities on the other.
We establish the first hardness results for the problem of computing the value of one-round games played by a verifier and a team of provers who can share quantum entanglement. In particular, we show that it is NP-hard to approximate within an inverse polynomial the value of a one-round game with (i) a quantum verifier and two entangled provers or (ii) a classical verifier and three entangled provers. Previously it was not even known if computing the value exactly is NP-hard. We also describe a mathematical conjecture, which, if true, would imply hardness of approximation of entangled-prover games to within a constant. Using our techniques we also show that every language in PSPACE has a two-prover one-round interactive proof system with perfect completeness and soundness 1−1/poly even against entangled provers. We start our proof by describing two ways to modify classical multiprover games to make them resistant to entangled provers. We then show that a strategy for the modified game that uses entanglement can be “rounded” to one that does not. The results then follow from classical inapproximability bounds. Our work implies that, unless P=NP, the values of entangled-prover games cannot be computed by semidefinite programs that are polynomial in the size of the verifier's system, a method that has been successful for more restricted quantum games.
We establish the first hardness results for the problem of computing the value of one-round games played by a verifier and a team of provers who can share quantum entanglement. In particular, we show that it is NP-hard to approximate within an inverse polynomial the value of a one-round game with (i) quantum verifier and two entangled provers or (ii) classical verifier and three entangled provers. Previously it was not even known if computing the value exactly is NP-hard. We also describe a mathematical conjecture, which, if true, would imply hardness of approximation to within a constant. We start our proof by describing two ways to modify classical multi-prover games to make them resistant to entangled provers. We then show that a strategy for the modified game that uses entanglement can be ``rounded'' to one that does not. The results then follow from classical inapproximability bounds. Our work implies that, unless P=NP, the values of entangled-prover games cannot be computed by semidefinite programs that are polynomial in the size of the verifier's system, a method that has been successful for more restricted quantum games.
A quantum verifier decides membership in QMA using a (single) quantum witness state. This witness may be arbitrary, and no requirement is placed on it beyond its acceptance probability. A protocol claiming to classically verify QMA should offer the same guarantee: any witness that would convince a quantum verifier should also suffice to convince a classical verifier. Unfortunately, existing classical verification of quantum computation (CVQC) protocols behave quite differently from the original QMA verifier: they require many copies of the witness and destroy every one, effectively demanding that the prover solve the hard problem of witness duplication before verification can begin.
We build a protocol to classically verify QMA languages that uses a single copy of the prover's QMA witness. Whenever the original QMA verifier accepts that witness with overwhelming probability, our protocol has negligible completeness and soundness errors and returns the witness negligibly disturbed after interaction with an honest verifier. The soundness of our CVQC is based on the post-quantum Learning With Errors (LWE) assumption.
As an intermediate step of independent interest, we introduce witness-preserving classical arguments for NP which enable provers that start out with a superposition over NP witnesses to convince a verifier without disturbing their superposition.
The quantum PCP (QPCP) conjecture states that all problems in QMA, the quantum analogue of NP, admit quantum verifiers that only act on a constant number of qubits of a polynomial size quantum proof and have a constant gap between completeness and soundness. Despite an impressive body of work trying to prove or disprove the quantum PCP conjecture, it still remains widely open. The above-mentioned proof verification statement has also been shown equivalent to the QMA-completeness of the Local Hamiltonian problem with constant relative gap. Nevertheless, unlike in the classical case, no equivalent formulation in the language of multi-prover games is known. In this work, we propose a new type of quantum proof systems, the Pointer QPCP, where a verifier first accesses a classical proof that he can use as a pointer to which qubits from the quantum part of the proof to access. We define the Pointer QPCP conjecture, that states that all problems in QMA admit quantum verifiers that first access a logarithmic number of bits from the classical part of a polynomial size proof, then act on a constant number of qubits from the quantum part of the proof, and have a constant gap between completeness and soundness. We define a new QMA-complete problem, the Set Local Hamiltonian problem, and a new restricted class of quantum multi-prover games, called CRESP games. We use them to provide two other equivalent statements to the Pointer QPCP conjecture: the Set Local Hamiltonian problem with constant relative gap is QMA-complete; and the approximation of the maximum acceptance probability of CRESP games up to a constant additive factor is as hard as QMA. This is the first equivalence between a quantum PCP statement and the inapproximability of quantum multi-prover games.
Prior work has established that all problems in NP admit classical zero-knowledge proof systems, and under reasonable hardness assumptions for quantum computations, these proof systems can be made secure against quantum attacks. We prove a result representing a further quantum generalization of this fact, which is that every problem in the complexity class QMA has a quantum zero-knowledge proof system. More specifically, assuming the existence of an unconditionally binding and quantum computationally concealing commitment scheme, we prove that every problem in the complexity class QMA has a quantum interactive proof system that is zero-knowledge with respect to efficient quantum computations. Our QMA proof system is sound against arbitrary quantum provers, but only requires an honest prover to perform polynomial-time quantum computations, provided that it holds a quantum witness for a given instance of the QMA problem under consideration. The proof system relies on a new variant of the QMA-complete local Hamiltonian problem in which the local terms are described by Clifford operations and standard basis measurements. We believe that the QMA-completeness of this problem may have other uses in quantum complexity.
The quantum PCP (QPCP) conjecture states that all problems in QMA, the quantum analogue of NP, admit quantum verifiers that only act on a constant number of qubits of a polynomial size quantum proof and have a constant gap between completeness and soundness. Despite an impressive body of work trying to prove or disprove the quantum PCP conjecture, it still remains widely open. The above-mentioned proof verification statement has also been shown equivalent to the QMA-completeness of the Local Hamiltonian problem with constant relative gap. Nevertheless, unlike in the classical case, no equivalent formulation in the language of multi-prover games is known. In this work, we propose a new type of quantum proof systems, the Pointer QPCP, where a verifier first accesses a classical proof that he can use as a pointer to which qubits from the quantum part of the proof to access. We define the Pointer QPCP conjecture, that states that all problems in QMA admit quantum verifiers that first access a logarithmic number of bits from the classical part of a polynomial size proof, then act on a constant number of qubits from the quantum part of the proof, and have a constant gap between completeness and soundness. We define a new QMA-complete problem, the Set Local Hamiltonian problem, and a new restricted class of quantum multi-prover games, called CRESP games. We use them to provide two other equivalent statements to the Pointer QPCP conjecture: the Set Local Hamiltonian problem with constant relative gap is QMA-complete; and the approximation of the maximum acceptance probability of CRESP games up to a constant additive factor is as hard as QMA. Our new conjecture is weaker than the original QPCP conjecture and hence provides a natural intermediate step towards proving the quantum PCP theorem. Furthermore, this is the first equivalence between a quantum PCP statement and the inapproximability of quantum multi-prover games.