It is a long-standing open question to construct a classical oracle relative to which BQP/qpoly $\neq$ BQP/poly or QMA $\neq$ QCMA. In this paper, we construct classically-accessible classical oracles relative to which BQP/qpoly $\neq$ BQP/poly and QMA $\neq$ QCMA. Here, classically-accessible classical oracles are oracles that can be accessed only classically even for quantum algorithms. Based on a similar technique, we also show an alternative proof for the separation of QMA and QCMA relative to a distributional quantumly-accessible classical oracle, which was recently shown by Natarajan and Nirkhe.
It is a long-standing open question to construct a classical oracle relative to which BQP/qpoly = BQP/poly or QMA = QCMA. In this paper, we construct classically-accessible classical oracles relative to which BQP/qpoly = BQP/poly and QMA = QCMA. Here, classically-accessible classical oracles are oracles that can be accessed only classically even for quantum algorithms. Based on a similar technique, we also show an alternative proof for the separation of QMA and QCMA relative to a distributional quantumly-accessible classical oracle, which was recently shown by Natarajan and Nirkhe.
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.
We show an unconditional classical oracle separation between the class of languages that can be verified using a quantum proof (QMA) and the class of languages that can be verified with a classical proof (QCMA). Compared to the recent work of Bostanci, Haferkamp, Nirkhe, and Zhandry (STOC 2026), our proof is conceptually and technically simpler, and readily extends to other oracle separations. In particular, our techniques yield the first unconditional classical oracle separation between the class of languages that can be decided with quantum advice (BQP/qpoly) and the class of languages that can be decided with classical advice (BQP/poly), improving on the quantum oracle separation of Aaronson and Kuperberg (CCC 2007) and the classically-accessible classical oracle separation of Li, Liu, Pelecanos and Yamakawa (ITCS 2024).
Our oracles are based on the code intersection problem introduced by Yamakawa and Zhandry (FOCS 2022), combined with codes that have extremely good list-recovery properties.
We give an oracle separation between QMA and QCMA for quantum algorithms that have bounded adaptivity in their oracle queries; that is, the number of rounds of oracle calls is small, though each round may involve polynomially many queries in parallel. Our oracle construction is a simplified version of the construction used recently by Li, Liu, Pelecanos, and Yamakawa (2023), who showed an oracle separation between QMA and QCMA when the quantum algorithms are only allowed to access the oracle classically. To prove our results, we introduce a property of relations called \emph{slipperiness}, which may be useful for getting a fully general classical oracle separation between QMA and QCMA.
We study a longstanding question of Aaronson and Kuperberg on whether there exists a classical oracle separating QMA from QCMA. Settling this question in either direction would yield insight into the power of quantum proofs over classical proofs. We show that such an oracle exists if a certain quantum pseudorandomness conjecture holds. Roughly speaking, the conjecture posits that quantum algorithms cannot, by making few queries, distinguish between the uniform distribution over permutations versus permutations drawn from so-called "dense" distributions. Our result can be viewed as establishing a "win-win" scenario: either there is a classical oracle separation of QMA from QCMA, or there is quantum advantage in distinguishing pseudorandom distributions on permutations.
In recent years, the quantum oracle model introduced by Aaronson and Kuperberg (2007) has found a lot of use in showing oracle separations between complexity classes and cryptographic primitives. It is generally assumed that proof techniques that do not relativize with respect to quantum oracles will also not relativize with respect to classical oracles. Aaronson (2009) showed that this is not the case by showing a complexity class containment that relativizes with respect to classical oracles but not with quantum oracles. However, their result only works for zero-error quantum complexity classes and they leave open the problem for bounded-error complexity classes. We show that there is a quantum oracle problem that is contained in the class QMA, but not in a class we call polyQCPH. However, with respect to classical oracles, QMA is contained in polyQCPH, because polyQCPH is equal to PSPACE with respect to classical oracles. Our result works for polyQCPH, which is a bounded-error complexity class, thus it resolves the open problem from Aaronson (2009). We also show that the same separation holds relative to a distributional oracle, which is a model introduced by Natarajan and Nirkhe (2024). We believe our findings show the need for some caution when using these non-standard oracle models, particularly when showing separations between quantum and classical resources.
Complexity class containments involving interactive proof classes are famously nonrelativizing: although IP=PSPACE, Fortnow and Sipser showed that that there exists an oracle relative to which coNP⊆IP. In contrast, the question of whether the containment BQP⊆IP is relativizing remains wide open. In this work we make progress towards resolving this question by showing that the containment BQP⊆MIP holds with respect to any classical oracle. We obtain this result by constructing, for any classical oracle O, a PCP proof system for BQPO where the verifier makes polynomially many classical queries to an exponentially-long proof, and to the oracle O. Our construction is inspired by the state synthesis algorithm of Grover and Rudolph, and serves as a complement to the "exponential PCP" constructed by Aharonov, Arad, and Vidick, which achieves similar parameters but which is based on different ideas and does not relativize. We propose relativization as a proxy for prover efficiency, and hope that progress towards an IP for BQP in the oracle world will lead to a non-cryptographic interactive protocol for proving any quantum computation to a classical skeptic in the unrelativized world, which is a longstanding open problem in quantum complexity theory.