We initiate the study of quantum Interactive Oracle Proofs (qIOPs), a generalization of both quantum Probabilistically Checkable Proofs and quantum Interactive Proofs, as well as a quantum analogue of classical Interactive Oracle Proofs.
In the model of quantum Interactive Oracle Proofs, we allow multiple rounds of quantum interaction between the quantum prover and the quantum verifier, but the verifier has limited access to quantum resources. This includes both queries to the prover's messages and the complexity of the quantum circuits applied by the verifier. The question of whether QMA admits a quantum interactive oracle proof system is a relaxation of the quantum PCP Conjecture.
We show the following two main constructions of qIOPs, both of which are unconditional:
- We construct a qIOP for QMA in which the verifier shares polynomially many EPR pairs with the prover at the start of the protocol and reads only a constant number of qubits from the prover's messages.
- We provide a stronger construction of qIOP for QMA in which the verifier not only reads a constant number of qubits but also operates on a constant number of qubits overall, including those in their private registers. However, in this stronger setting, the communication complexity becomes exponential. This leaves open the question of whether strong qIOPs for QMA, with polynomial communication complexity, exist.
As a key component of our construction, we introduce a novel single prover many-qubits test, which may be of independent interest.
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.
Whether some problems require quantum proofs has been a central question in quantum complexity (Aharonov and Naveh, 2002; Aaronson and Kuperberg, CCC 2007). Recently, breakthrough work of Bostanci, Haferkamp, Nirkhe, and Zhandry (STOC 2026), followed by a simpler separation due to Bostanci, Huang, and Vaikuntanathan (FOCS 2026), established a classical oracle separation between
QMA and
QCMA. However, while they are not in
QCMA, the problems used in both separations still lie in
AM: they admit a two-message public-coin proof system with a classical verifier. In this work, we ask whether some problems truly require quantum proofs. More formally, we consider the complexity class
QCIP, introduced by Buhrman, Le Gall, and Weggemans (2024), where an efficient quantum verifier interacts with an unbounded prover over a classical channel for an arbitrary polynomial number of rounds. We construct a classical oracle
O such that
QMAO⊆QCIPO, thus showing that some languages indeed require quantum proofs, with no classical replacements. Since
QCMA=QCIP[1], this strengthens the earlier
QMA--
QCMA separations, which now follow as a special case of our result. As a technical contribution, we extend to the complexity theory setting the techniques developed by Cakan, Goyal, and Shmueli (CRYPTO 2026) in the context of cryptography for analyzing classically interacting quantum machines. We believe this may be of independent interest.
We initiate the study of non-interactive zero-knowledge (NIZK) arguments for languages in QMA. Our first main result is the following: if Learning With Errors (LWE) is hard for quantum computers, then any language in QMA has an NIZK argument with preprocessing. The preprocessing in our argument system consists of (i) the generation of a CRS and (ii) a single (instance-independent) quantum message from verifier to prover. The instance-dependent phase of our argument system involves only a single classical message from prover to verifier. Importantly, verification in our protocol is entirely classical, and the verifier needs not have quantum memory; its only quantum actions are in the preprocessing phase. Our second contribution is to extend the notion of a classical proof of knowledge to the quantum setting. We introduce the notions of arguments and proofs of quantum knowledge (AoQK/PoQK), and we show that our non-interactive argument system satisfies the definition of an AoQK. In particular, we explicitly construct an extractor which can recover a quantum witness from any prover which is successful in our protocol. Finally, we show that any language in QMA has an (interactive) proof of quantum knowledge.
With the rapid development of quantum computers, proofs of quantumness have recently become an interesting research direction. However, in current schemes for proofs of quantumness, quantum provers face the risk of being maliciously exploited by classical verifiers. Through malicious strategies in interaction with quantum provers, classical verifiers could solve some instances of hard problems that arise from the specific scheme in use. This is due to the lack of formalization that prevents malicious verifiers from extracting useful information in proofs of quantumness. To address this issue, we formalize zero-knowledge proofs of quantumness. Intuitively, the zero-knowledge property necessitates that the information gained by the classical verifier from interactions with the quantum prover should not surpass what can be simulated using a simulated classical prover interacting with the same verifier. As a result, the new zero-knowledge notion can prevent a malicious verifier from exploiting quantum advantage. We find that the classical zero-knowledge proof is sufficient to compile some existing proofs of quantumness schemes into zero-knowledge proofs of quantumness schemes. It appears to be more general to require zero-knowledge proof on the verifier side instead of the prover side. This helps to regulate the verifier's behavior from malicious to be honest-but-curious. As a result, both parties will play not only one role in the proofs of quantumness but also the dual role in the classical zero-knowledge proof. Specifically, Shor's factoring-based scheme and the learning with errors-based scheme in [Brakerski et al., FOCS, 2018] can be transformed into zero-knowledge proofs of quantumness by requiring an extractable non-interactive zero-knowledge argument on the verifier side. Zero-knowledge proofs of quantumness can thus be viewed as an enhanced security notion for proofs of quantumness.
We show the following hold, unconditionally unless otherwise stated, relative to a random oracle with probability 1: •There are NP search problems solvable by BQP machines but not BPP machines.•There exist functions that are one-way, and even collision resistant, against classical adversaries but are easily inverted quantumly. Similar separations hold for digital signatures and CPA-secure public key encryption (the latter requiring the assumption of a classically CPA-secure encryption scheme). Interestingly, the separation does not necessarily extend to the case of other cryptographic objects such as PRGs.•There are unconditional publicly verifiable proofs of quantumness with the minimal rounds of interaction: for uniform adversaries, the proofs are non-interactive, whereas for non-uniform adversaries the proofs are two message public coin.•Our results do not appear to contradict the Aaronson-Ambanis conjecture. Assuming this conjecture, there exist publicly verifiable certifiable randomness, again with the minimal rounds of interaction.By replacing the random oracle with a concrete cryptographic hash function such as SHA2, we obtain plausible Minicrypt instantiations of the above results. Previous analogous results all required substantial structure, either in terms of highly structured oracles and/or algebraic assumptions in Cryptomania and beyond.