Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2609.39668

QMA(2) with Limited Shared Entanglement

Alex Della Schiava, Ranitha Mataraarachchi

quant-phcs.CCSubmitted Sep 30, 2026• Announced Oct 1, 2026• 0 citations• Revised Oct 14, 2026 (v3)
v1 · Sep 30, 2026v2 · Oct 13, 2026v3 · Oct 14, 2026
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In $\mathsf{QMA}(2)$, two computationally unbounded provers submit unentangled quantum witnesses to a polynomial-time quantum verifier. We ask whether allowing limited shared entanglement between the two provers changes the power of $\mathsf{QMA}(2)$. To this end, we formalize $\mathsf{QMA}(2;h)$, a variant in which the provers initially share $h$ EPR pairs, as suggested by Aaronson, Beigi, Drucker, Fefferman, and Shor (ToC~2009). We show that polynomially many shared EPR pairs give the provers no cheating advantage: $\mathsf{QMA}(2)\subseteq\mathsf{QMA}(2;h)$ for $h=\operatorname{poly}(n)$. For logarithmically many pairs, the power of $\mathsf{QMA}(2)$ remains unchanged, strengthening this inclusion to $\mathsf{QMA}(2)=\mathsf{QMA}(2;h)$ for $h=O(\log n)$. Finally, we introduce a variant that also allows classical communication between the provers when preparing the witnesses. This setting is particularly revealing for logarithmic-size witnesses: assuming $\mathsf{NP}\nsubseteq\mathsf{BQP}$, we show that superlogarithmically many shared EPR pairs strictly reduce the model's computational power.

Comments
27 pages (including appendices), 1 table, 0 figures. v3: updated arXiv metadata

Related papers

NP vs QMA_\log(2)

Salman Beigi

Although it is believed unlikely that $\NP$-hard problems admit efficient quantum algorithms, it has been shown that a quantum verifier can solve NP-complete problems given a "short" quantum proof; more precisely, NP\subseteq QMA_{\log}(2) where QMA_{\log}(2) denotes the class of quantum Merlin-Arthur games in which there are two unentangled provers who send two logarithmic size quantum witnesses to the verifier. The inclusion NP\subseteq QMA_{\log}(2) has been proved by Blier and Tapp by stating a quantum Merlin-Arthur protocol for 3-coloring with perfect completeness and gap 1/24n^6. Moreover, Aaronson et al. have shown the above inclusion with a constant gap by considering $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n})$ witnesses of logarithmic size. However, we still do not know if QMA_{\log}(2) with a constant gap contains NP. In this paper, we show that 3-SAT admits a QMA_{\log}(2) protocol with the gap 1/n^{3+\epsilon}} for every constant \epsilon>0.

Quantum Information and Computation•Jan 1, 2010•26 citations

NP vs QMA_log(2)

Salman Beigi

Although it is believed unlikely that $\NP$-hard problems admit efficient quantum algorithms, it has been shown that a quantum verifier can solve $\NP$-complete problems given a "short" quantum proof; more precisely, $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ where $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ denotes the class of quantum Merlin-Arthur games in which there are two unentangled provers who send two logarithmic size quantum witnesses to the verifier. The inclusion $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ has been proved by Blier and Tapp by stating a quantum Merlin-Arthur protocol for 3-coloring with perfect completeness and gap $\frac{1}{24n^6}$. Moreover, Aaronson {\it et al.} have shown the above inclusion with a constant gap by considering $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n})$ witnesses of logarithmic size. However, we still do not know if $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ with a constant gap contains $\NP$. In this paper, we show that 3-SAT admits a $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ protocol with the gap $\frac{1}{n^{3+ε}}$ for every constant $ε>0$.

arXiv:0810.5109•Oct 28, 2008•0 citations

The QMA(2) UniverseComplexity, Entanglement, and Optimization

Fernando Granha Jeronimo, Pei Wu, Itai Leigh

The complexity class QMA(2), featuring two unentangled quantum provers, occupies a central yet poorly understood position in quantum complexity theory. While superficially a modest extension of QMA, unentanglement fundamentally changes both the algorithmic and complexitytheoretic landscape, connecting QMA(2) to deep questions in separability testing, polynomial optimization, and hardness of approximation. Over the past two decades, QMA(2) has inspired a rich body of work spanning restricted verification models, semidefinite and Sum-of-Squares hierarchies, and surprising links to classical problems such as the Unique Games Conjecture. This survey provides an overview of these developments, emphasizing structural insights, algorithmic techniques, and known barriers, while highlighting how progress on QMA(2) continues to illuminate the interplay between quantum information, convex optimization, and classical complexity theory.

ACM SIGACT News•Mar 31, 2026•0 citations

NP vs QMA_log(2)

Salman Beigi

Although it is believed unlikely that $\NP$-hard problems admit efficient quantum algorithms, it has been shown that a quantum verifier can solve $\NP$-complete problems given a short quantum proof; more precisely, $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ where $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ denotes the class of quantum Merlin-Arthur games in which there are two unentangled provers who send two logarithmic size quantum witnesses to the verifier. The inclusion $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ has been proved by Blier and Tapp by stating a quantum Merlin-Arthur protocol for 3-coloring with perfect completeness and gap $\frac{1}{24n^6}$. Moreover, Aaronson {\it et al.} have shown the above inclusion with a constant gap by considering $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n})$ witnesses of logarithmic size. However, we still do not know if $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ with a constant gap contains $\NP$. In this paper, we show that 3-SAT admits a $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ protocol with the gap $\frac{1}{n^{3+\epsilon}}$ for every constant $\epsilon>0$.

•Oct 28, 2008•9 citations

The Power of Unentanglement (Extended Abstract)

Scott Aaronson, Salman Beigi, Andrew Drucker +2 more

The class QMA(k), introduced by Kobayashi et al., consists of all languages that can be verified using k unentangled quantum proofs. Many of the simplest questions about this class have remained embarrassingly open: for example, can we give any evidence that k quantum proofs are more powerful than one? Can we show any upper bound on QMA(k), besides the trivial NEXP? Does QMA(k) = QMA(2) for k ≥ 2? Can QMA(k) protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? In this paper, we make progress on all of the above questions. • We give a protocol by which a verifier can be convinced that a 3SAT formula of size n is satisfiable, with constant soundness, given Õ (√n) unentangled quantum witnesses with O (log n) qubits each. Our protocol relies on Dinur’s version of the PCP Theorem and is inherently non-relativizing. • We show that assuming the famous Additivity Conjecture from quantum information theory, any QMA(2) protocol can be amplified to exponentially small error, and QMA(k) = QMA(2) for all k ≥ 2. • We give evidence that QMA(2) ⊆ PSPACE, by showing that this would follow from “strong amplification” of QMA(2) protocols. • We prove the nonexistence of “perfect disentanglers” for simulating multiple Merlins with one.

•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

The Power of Unentangled Quantum Proofs with Non-negative Amplitudes

Fernando Granha Jeronimo, Pei Wu

Quantum entanglement is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics and it serves as a basic resource in quantum computation and information. Despite its importance, the power and limitations of quantum entanglement are far from being fully understood. Here, we study entanglement via the lens of computational complexity. This is done by studying quantum generalizations of the class NP with multiple unentangled quantum proofs, the so-called QMA(2) and its variants. The complexity of QMA(2) is known to be closely connected to a variety of problems such as deciding if a state is entangled and several classical optimization problems. However, determining the complexity of QMA(2) is a longstanding open problem, and only the trivial complexity bounds ⊆ (2) ⊆ are known.

arXiv:2402.18790•ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•May 16, 2023•5 citations
In QMA(2)\mathsf{QMA}(2)QMA(2), two computationally unbounded provers submit unentangled quantum witnesses to a polynomial-time quantum verifier. We ask whether allowing limited shared entanglement between the two provers changes the power of QMA(2)\mathsf{QMA}(2)QMA(2). To this end, we formalize QMA(2;h)\mathsf{QMA}(2;h)QMA(2;h), a variant in which the provers initially share hhh EPR pairs, as suggested by Aaronson, Beigi, Drucker, Fefferman, and Shor (ToC~2009). We show that polynomially many shared EPR pairs give the provers no cheating advantage: QMA(2)⊆QMA(2;h)\mathsf{QMA}(2)\subseteq\mathsf{QMA}(2;h)QMA(2)⊆QMA(2;h) for h=poly⁡(n)h=\operatorname{poly}(n)h=poly(n). For logarithmically many pairs, the power of QMA(2)\mathsf{QMA}(2)QMA(2) remains unchanged, strengthening this inclusion to QMA(2)=QMA(2;h)\mathsf{QMA}(2)=\mathsf{QMA}(2;h)QMA(2)=QMA(2;h) for h=O(log⁡n)h=O(\log n)h=O(logn). Finally, we introduce a variant that also allows classical communication between the provers when preparing the witnesses. This setting is particularly revealing for logarithmic-size witnesses: assuming NP⊈BQP\mathsf{NP}\nsubseteq\mathsf{BQP}NP⊈BQP, we show that superlogarithmically many shared EPR pairs strictly reduce the model's computational power.
Although it is believed unlikely that $\NP$-hard problems admit efficient quantum algorithms, it has been shown that a quantum verifier can solve NP-complete problems given a "short" quantum proof; more precisely, NP\subseteq QMA_{\log}(2) where QMA_{\log}(2) denotes the class of quantum Merlin-Arthur games in which there are two unentangled provers who send two logarithmic size quantum witnesses to the verifier. The inclusion NP\subseteq QMA_{\log}(2) has been proved by Blier and Tapp by stating a quantum Merlin-Arthur protocol for 3-coloring with perfect completeness and gap 1/24n^6. Moreover, Aaronson et al. have shown the above inclusion with a constant gap by considering O~(n)\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n})O(n​) witnesses of logarithmic size. However, we still do not know if QMA_{\log}(2) with a constant gap contains NP. In this paper, we show that 3-SAT admits a QMA_{\log}(2) protocol with the gap 1/n^{3+\epsilon}} for every constant \epsilon>0.
Although it is believed unlikely that $\NP$-hard problems admit efficient quantum algorithms, it has been shown that a quantum verifier can solve $\NP$-complete problems given a "short" quantum proof; more precisely, $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ where $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ denotes the class of quantum Merlin-Arthur games in which there are two unentangled provers who send two logarithmic size quantum witnesses to the verifier. The inclusion $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ has been proved by Blier and Tapp by stating a quantum Merlin-Arthur protocol for 3-coloring with perfect completeness and gap 124n6\frac{1}{24n^6}24n61​. Moreover, Aaronson {\it et al.} have shown the above inclusion with a constant gap by considering O~(n)\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n})O(n​) witnesses of logarithmic size. However, we still do not know if $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ with a constant gap contains $\NP$. In this paper, we show that 3-SAT admits a $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ protocol with the gap 1n3+ε\frac{1}{n^{3+ε}}n3+ε1​ for every constant ε>0ε>0ε>0.
The complexity class QMA(2), featuring two unentangled quantum provers, occupies a central yet poorly understood position in quantum complexity theory. While superficially a modest extension of QMA, unentanglement fundamentally changes both the algorithmic and complexitytheoretic landscape, connecting QMA(2) to deep questions in separability testing, polynomial optimization, and hardness of approximation. Over the past two decades, QMA(2) has inspired a rich body of work spanning restricted verification models, semidefinite and Sum-of-Squares hierarchies, and surprising links to classical problems such as the Unique Games Conjecture. This survey provides an overview of these developments, emphasizing structural insights, algorithmic techniques, and known barriers, while highlighting how progress on QMA(2) continues to illuminate the interplay between quantum information, convex optimization, and classical complexity theory.
Although it is believed unlikely that $\NP$-hard problems admit efficient quantum algorithms, it has been shown that a quantum verifier can solve $\NP$-complete problems given a short quantum proof; more precisely, $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ where $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ denotes the class of quantum Merlin-Arthur games in which there are two unentangled provers who send two logarithmic size quantum witnesses to the verifier. The inclusion $\NP\subseteq \QMA_{\log}(2)$ has been proved by Blier and Tapp by stating a quantum Merlin-Arthur protocol for 3-coloring with perfect completeness and gap 124n6\frac{1}{24n^6}24n61​. Moreover, Aaronson {\it et al.} have shown the above inclusion with a constant gap by considering O~(n)\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n})O(n​) witnesses of logarithmic size. However, we still do not know if $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ with a constant gap contains $\NP$. In this paper, we show that 3-SAT admits a $\QMA_{\log}(2)$ protocol with the gap 1n3+ϵ\frac{1}{n^{3+\epsilon}}n3+ϵ1​ for every constant ϵ>0\epsilon>0ϵ>0.
The class QMA(k), introduced by Kobayashi et al., consists of all languages that can be verified using k unentangled quantum proofs. Many of the simplest questions about this class have remained embarrassingly open: for example, can we give any evidence that k quantum proofs are more powerful than one? Can we show any upper bound on QMA(k), besides the trivial NEXP? Does QMA(k) = QMA(2) for k ≥ 2? Can QMA(k) protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? In this paper, we make progress on all of the above questions. • We give a protocol by which a verifier can be convinced that a 3SAT formula of size n is satisfiable, with constant soundness, given Õ (√n) unentangled quantum witnesses with O (log n) qubits each. Our protocol relies on Dinur’s version of the PCP Theorem and is inherently non-relativizing. • We show that assuming the famous Additivity Conjecture from quantum information theory, any QMA(2) protocol can be amplified to exponentially small error, and QMA(k) = QMA(2) for all k ≥ 2. • We give evidence that QMA(2) ⊆ PSPACE, by showing that this would follow from “strong amplification” of QMA(2) protocols. • We prove the nonexistence of “perfect disentanglers” for simulating multiple Merlins with one.
Quantum entanglement is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics and it serves as a basic resource in quantum computation and information. Despite its importance, the power and limitations of quantum entanglement are far from being fully understood. Here, we study entanglement via the lens of computational complexity. This is done by studying quantum generalizations of the class NP with multiple unentangled quantum proofs, the so-called QMA(2) and its variants. The complexity of QMA(2) is known to be closely connected to a variety of problems such as deciding if a state is entangled and several classical optimization problems. However, determining the complexity of QMA(2) is a longstanding open problem, and only the trivial complexity bounds ⊆ (2) ⊆ are known.