In this work, we show that verifying the order of a finite group given as a black-box is in the complexity class QCMA. This solves an open problem asked by Watrous in 2000 in his seminal paper on quantum proofs and directly implies that the Group Non-Membership problem is also in the class QCMA, which further proves a conjecture proposed by Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2006. Our techniques also give improved quantum upper bounds on the complexity of many other group-theoretical problems, such as group isomorphism in black-box groups.
In this work, we show that verifying the order of a finite group given as a black-box is in the complexity class QCMA. This solves an open problem asked by Watrous in 2000 in his seminal paper on quantum proofs and directly implies that the Group Non-Membership problem is also in the class QCMA, which further proves a conjecture proposed by Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2006. Our techniques also give improved quantum upper bounds on the complexity of many other group-theoretical problems, such as group isomorphism in black-box groups.
In this work, we show that verifying the order of a finite group given as a black-box is in the complexity class QCMA. This solves an open problem asked by Watrous in 2000 in his seminal paper on quantum proofs and directly implies that the Group Non-Membership problem is also in the class QCMA, which further proves a conjecture proposed by Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2006. Our techniques also give improved quantum upper bounds on the complexity of many other group-theoretical problems, such as group isomorphism in black-box groups.
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(2n/(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.
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.
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.
The article considers a quantum computational variant of nondeterminism based on the notion of a quantum proof, which is a quantum state that plays a role similar to a certificate in an NP-type proof. Specifically, we consider quantum proofs for properties of black-box groups, which are finite groups whose elements are encoded as strings of a given length and whose group operations are performed by a group oracle. We prove that for an arbitrary group oracle, there exist succinct (polynomial-length) quantum proofs for the Group Non-Membership problem that can be checked with small error in polynomial time on a quantum computer. Classically, this is impossible; it is proved that there exists a group oracle, relative to which this problem does not have succinct proofs that can be checked classically with bounded error in polynomial time (i.e., the problem is not in MA relative to the group oracle constructed). By considering a certain subproblem of the Group Non-Membership problem, we obtain a simple proof that there exists an oracle relative to which BQP is not contained in MA. Finally, we show that quantum proofs for non-membership and classical proofs for various other group properties can be combined to yield succinct quantum proofs for other group properties not having succinct proofs in the classical setting, such as verifying that a number divides the order of a group and verifying that a group is not a simple group.
In this paper, we present a polynomial-time quantum algorithm for computing a minimum-sized generating set of solvable black-box groups. Next, we consider the class Γd of black-box groups, where every non-abelian composition factor is isomorphic to a subgroup of the symmetric group Sd for a fixed d. We design polynomial-time quantum algorithms to compute the direct product decomposition of abelian factor groups and solve the constructive membership problem for factor groups of groups from Γd. With the help of these algorithms, we design a quantum algorithm for computing a chief series of black-box groups from Γd. Using the chief series, we construct a polynomial-time quantum algorithm for computing minimum generating sets of black-box groups from Γd. Finally, we show that the minimum generating set problem for general black-box groups is in NP∩coAM.