We study the ability of efficient quantum verifiers to decide properties of exponentially large subsets given either a classical or quantum witness. We develop a general framework that can be used to prove that QCMA machines, with only classical witnesses, cannot verify certain properties of subsets given implicitly via an oracle. We use this framework to prove an oracle separation between QCMA and QMA using an "in-place" permutation oracle, making the first progress on this question since Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2007. We also use the framework to prove a particularly simple standard oracle separation between QCMA and AM.
We study the ability of efficient quantum verifiers to decide properties of exponentially large subsets given either a classical or quantum witness. We develop a general framework that can be used to prove that QCMA machines, with only classical witnesses, cannot verify certain properties of subsets given implicitly via an oracle. We use this framework to prove an oracle separation between QCMA and QMA using an "in-place" permutation oracle, making the first progress on this question since Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2007. We also use the framework to prove a particularly simple standard oracle separation between QCMA and AM.
QMA is the class of languages that can be decided by an efficient quantum verifier given a quantum witness, whereas QCMA is the class of such languages where the efficient quantum verifier only is given a classical witness. A challenging fundamental goal in quantum query complexity is to find a classical oracle separation for these classes. In this work, we offer a new approach towards proving such a separation that is qualitatively different than prior work, and show that our approach is sound assuming a natural statistical conjecture which may have other applications to quantum query complexity lower bounds.
We construct a classical oracle proving that, in a relativized setting, the set of languages decidable by an efficient quantum verifier with a quantum witness (QMA) is strictly bigger than those decidable with access only to a classical witness (QCMA). The separating classical oracle we construct is for a decision problem we coin spectral Forrelation -- the oracle describes two subsets of the boolean hypercube, and the computational task is to decide if there exists a quantum state whose standard basis measurement distribution is well supported on one subset while its Fourier basis measurement distribution is well supported on the other subset. This is equivalent to estimating the spectral norm of a "Forrelation" matrix between two sets that are accessible through membership queries.
Our lower bound derives from a simple observation that a query algorithm with a classical witness can be run multiple times to generate many samples from a distribution, while a quantum witness is a "use once" object. This observation allows us to reduce proving a QCMA lower bound to proving a sampling hardness result which does not simultaneously prove a QMA lower bound. To prove said sampling hardness result for QCMA, we observe that quantum access to the oracle can be compressed by expressing the problem in terms of bosons -- a novel "second quantization" perspective on compressed oracle techniques, which may be of independent interest. Using this compressed perspective on the sampling problem, we prove the sampling hardness result, completing the proof.
We study the power of quantum witnesses under perfect completeness. We construct a classical oracle relative to which a language lies in QMA₁ but not in QCMA when the QCMA verifier is only allowed polynomially many adaptive rounds and exponentially many parallel queries per round. Additionally, we derandomize the permutation-oracle separation of Fefferman and Kimmel, obtaining an in-place oracle separation between QMA₁ and QCMA. Furthermore, we focus on QCMA and QMA with an exponentially small gap, where we show a separation assuming the gap is fixed, but not when it may be arbitrarily small. Finally, we derive consequences for approximate ground-state preparation from sparse Hamiltonian oracle access, including a bounded adaptivity frustration-free variant.
Since the introduction of the complexity class QMA as a quantum-verifier analogue of NP (Kitaev, 1997), many have wondered whether quantum proofs are necessary or classical proofs suffice - that is, whether QMA = QCMA or QCMA != QMA (Aharonov and Naveh, 2002; Aaronson and Kuperberg, CCC '07). This longstanding question was recently answered by works of Bostanci, Haferkamp, Nirkhe, and Zhandry (STOC '26) and Bostanci, Huang, and Vaikuntanathan (FOCS '26), which showed that quantum proofs are more powerful than classical ones in the classical-oracle setting.
However, it remains unclear what exactly makes quantum proofs more powerful than classical ones. In the information-theoretic setting, a family of quantum states is not classicalizable if and only if it is unclonable. Indeed, these recent works also explicitly highlight the unclonability of their quantum proofs as a key mechanism behind their separations, and their arguments crucially rely on this property. This raises the question of whether unclonability is necessary for quantum proofs to be more powerful than classical ones.
In this work, we show that even clonable quantum proofs can be more powerful than classical ones relative to a classical oracle by constructing a classical oracle O such that QCMA^O != ClonableQMA^O. This resolves the open question of Nehoran and Zhandry (ITCS '24), who established the analogous separation relative to a quantum oracle. We also show a classical-oracle separation between BQP/clonableqpoly and BQP/poly, and give applications of our results to quantum cryptography.
This paper studies whether quantum proofs are more powerful than classical proofs, or in complexity terms, whether QMA = QCMA.We prove three results about this question.First, we give a "quantum oracle separation" between QMA and QCMA.More concretely, we show that any quantum algorithm needs Ω 2 n m+1 queries to find an n-qubit "marked state" |ψ , even if given an m-bit classical description of |ψ together with a quantum black box that recognizes |ψ .Second, we give an explicit QCMA protocol that nearly achieves this lower bound.Third, we show that, in the one previously-known case where quantum proofs seemed to provide an exponential advantage, classical proofs are basically just as powerful.In particular, Watrous gave a QMA protocol for verifying non-membership in finite groups.Under plausible group-theoretic assumptions, we give a QCMA protocol for the same problem.Even with no assumptions, our protocol makes only polynomially many queries to the group oracle.We end with some conjectures about quantum versus classical oracles, and about the possibility of a classical oracle separation between QMA and QCMA.
We study the power of quantum witnesses under perfect completeness. We construct a classical oracle relative to which a language lies in QMA1 but not in QCMA when the QCMA verifier is only allowed polynomially many adaptive rounds and exponentially many parallel queries per round. Additionally, we derandomize the permutation-oracle separation of Fefferman and Kimmel, obtaining an in-place oracle separation between QMA1 and QCMA. Furthermore, we focus on QCMA and QMA with an exponentially small gap, where we show a separation assuming the gap is fixed, but not when it may be arbitrarily small. Finally, we derive consequences for approximate ground-state preparation from sparse Hamiltonian oracle access, including a bounded-adaptivity frustration-free variant.