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:2610.03648

Separating QMA from QCIP with a Classical Oracle, or, the Power of Quantum Proofs over Classical Interaction for Quantum Verifiers

Alper Çakan

Published Oct 2, 2026• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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 $\mathsf{QMA}$ and $\mathsf{QCMA}$. However, while they are not in $\mathsf{QCMA}$, the problems used in both separations still lie in $\mathsf{AM}$: 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 $\mathsf{QCIP}$, 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 $\mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathsf{QMA}^{\mathcal{O}}\not\subseteq\mathsf{QCIP}^{\mathcal{O}}$, thus showing that some languages indeed require quantum proofs, with no classical replacements. Since $\mathsf{QCMA}=\mathsf{QCIP}[1]$, this strengthens the earlier $\mathsf{QMA}$--$\mathsf{QCMA}$ 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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2610.03648

Related papers

Separating ClonableQMA and QCMA Relative to a Classical Oracle

Alper Cakan, Kai-Min Chung, Wei-Hsiang Hung +1 more

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.

cs.CCCross-listedarXiv:2610.06740•Oct 6, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Interactive Oracle Proofs

Baocheng Sun, Thomas Vidick

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.

cs.CCCross-listedarXiv:2601.12874•Jan 20, 2026•0 citations

Separating Quantum and Classical Advice with Good Codes

John Bostanci, Andrew Huang, Vinod Vaikuntanathan

We show an unconditional classical oracle separation between the class of languages that can be verified using a quantum proof ($\mathsf{QMA}$) and the class of languages that can be verified with a classical proof ($\mathsf{QCMA}$). 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 ($\mathsf{BQP}/\mathsf{qpoly}$) and the class of languages that can be decided with classical advice ($\mathsf{BQP}/\mathsf{poly}$), 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.

quant-pharXiv:2602.09385•Feb 11, 2026•0 citations

Achieving perfect completeness for one- and two-message quantum proof systems

Yupan Liu, Thomas Vidick

While quantum interactive proof systems using at least three messages can achieve perfect completeness, as shown by Kitaev and Watrous (STOC 2000), whether perfect completeness is achievable for one- and two-message quantum proof systems has remained open. For the one-message case, whether $\sf QMA$ can achieve perfect completeness was posed as an open problem in Watrous (FOCS 2000) and Aharonov and Naveh (2002); for the two-message case, the corresponding problems were (implicitly) posed in Jain, Upadhyay, and Watrous~(FOCS 2009) and Kobayashi, Le Gall, and Nishimura (SICOMP, 2019). In this work, we establish that ${\sf QIP}(2)$, ${\rm qq}\text{-}{\sf QAM}$, $\sf QAM$, and $\sf QMA$ can achieve perfect completeness. Here ${\rm qq}\text{-}{\sf QAM}$ denotes the class of promise problems admitting two-message quantum-public-coin quantum interactive proof systems in which the verifier's only message consists of half-EPR pairs. Our main technical contributions are the follows: 1. For $\sf QMA$ (and directly for $\sf QAM$), an exactly constructible block-encoded matrix whose kernel certifies yes instances, constructed from the acceptance operator induced by the verification circuit. This also yields an alternative proof of ${\sf QCMA}={\sf QCMA}_1$. 2. For ${\sf QIP}(2)$ (and implicitly ${\rm qq}\text{-}{\sf QAM}$), a new turn-halving transformation that preserves completeness and ensures that the resulting proof system retains at least two messages, provided that the terminal state before the final measurement is efficiently preparable.

quant-pharXiv:2609.15926•Sep 15, 2026•0 citations

Classical Verification of Quantum Computation Beyond the Polynomial Hierarchy

Atul Mantri

It is not known whether a classical polynomial-time verifier can verify arbitrary polynomial-time quantum computations with an efficient quantum honest prover without computational assumptions. We show that, relative to a classical oracle, such verification is possible for a language beyond the polynomial hierarchy that is decided exactly in quantum polynomial time. The protocol is public-coin, with perfect completeness and soundness error at most 1/4. To our knowledge, no language with such a proof system was previously proved to lie outside AM relative to an oracle. For every unbounded polynomial-time computable function, the oracle can be chosen so that the message count and the oracle query counts of the quantum algorithm, verifier, and honest prover are bounded by this function of the input length. The message count is optimal up to a constant factor, since for a suitable oracle every interactive proof system for the language uses at least a constant fraction of the messages of our protocol on infinitely many lengths, with a constant depending on its verifier. The language is a variant of recursive Fourier sampling in which code tables encode secrets that address data tables. The tables are evaluated recursively, and the oracle stores only the leaves. The quantum algorithm recovers every secret exactly, and the verifier checks the prover's secrets recursively against random code entries. The recursion restricts the input in a correlated way, as the same secret fixes the code bits and chooses the free coordinate, so Håstad's switching lemma does not apply. We prove a switching theorem for these restrictions, which may be of independent interest. For instances of sufficient height, no constant-depth circuit of size $2^{\mathrm{poly}(n)}$ changes its output with probability above $2^{-Ω(n)}$ when the answer of a random instance is flipped by changing a single leaf.

quant-pharXiv:2610.37635•Oct 28, 2026•0 citations

On Removing Interaction from Quantum Proofs

Nicholas Spooner, Max Tromanhauser

An important open question in quantum cryptography is the construction of publicly-verifiable NIZKs for QMA. Classically, one can construct NIZKs for NP in the random oracle model (and sometimes in the standard model) by compiling an honest-verifier ZK (HVZK) $Σ$-protocol for NP using the Fiat-Shamir transformation. Broadbent and Grilo introduced a quantum analog of a $Σ$-protocol (which they call a $Ξ$-protocol) in which the prover's first message is quantum, and show that HVZK $Ξ$-protocols exist for QMA. However, it is not clear how to compile such protocols into NIZKs in the (Q)ROM, because the Fiat-Shamir transformation seems to be incompatible with quantum messages. In this work we give formal evidence that this is indeed the case: we show that if generic "Fiat-Shamir-like" compilers for quantum protocols exist in the QROM (with small completeness and soundness error) then QMA = BQP.

quant-pharXiv:2609.38387•Oct 1, 2026•0 citations
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\mathsf{QMA}QMA and QCMA\mathsf{QCMA}QCMA. However, while they are not in QCMA\mathsf{QCMA}QCMA, the problems used in both separations still lie in AM\mathsf{AM}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\mathsf{QCIP}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\mathcal{O}O such that QMAO⊈QCIPO\mathsf{QMA}^{\mathcal{O}}\not\subseteq\mathsf{QCIP}^{\mathcal{O}}QMAO⊆QCIPO, thus showing that some languages indeed require quantum proofs, with no classical replacements. Since QCMA=QCIP[1]\mathsf{QCMA}=\mathsf{QCIP}[1]QCMA=QCIP[1], this strengthens the earlier QMA\mathsf{QMA}QMA--QCMA\mathsf{QCMA}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.
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 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.
We show an unconditional classical oracle separation between the class of languages that can be verified using a quantum proof (QMA\mathsf{QMA}QMA) and the class of languages that can be verified with a classical proof (QCMA\mathsf{QCMA}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\mathsf{BQP}/\mathsf{qpoly}BQP/qpoly) and the class of languages that can be decided with classical advice (BQP/poly\mathsf{BQP}/\mathsf{poly}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.
While quantum interactive proof systems using at least three messages can achieve perfect completeness, as shown by Kitaev and Watrous (STOC 2000), whether perfect completeness is achievable for one- and two-message quantum proof systems has remained open. For the one-message case, whether QMA\sf QMAQMA can achieve perfect completeness was posed as an open problem in Watrous (FOCS 2000) and Aharonov and Naveh (2002); for the two-message case, the corresponding problems were (implicitly) posed in Jain, Upadhyay, and Watrous~(FOCS 2009) and Kobayashi, Le Gall, and Nishimura (SICOMP, 2019). In this work, we establish that QIP(2){\sf QIP}(2)QIP(2), qq-QAM{\rm qq}\text{-}{\sf QAM}qq-QAM, QAM\sf QAMQAM, and QMA\sf QMAQMA can achieve perfect completeness. Here qq-QAM{\rm qq}\text{-}{\sf QAM}qq-QAM denotes the class of promise problems admitting two-message quantum-public-coin quantum interactive proof systems in which the verifier's only message consists of half-EPR pairs. Our main technical contributions are the follows: 1. For QMA\sf QMAQMA (and directly for QAM\sf QAMQAM), an exactly constructible block-encoded matrix whose kernel certifies yes instances, constructed from the acceptance operator induced by the verification circuit. This also yields an alternative proof of QCMA=QCMA1{\sf QCMA}={\sf QCMA}_1QCMA=QCMA1​. 2. For QIP(2){\sf QIP}(2)QIP(2) (and implicitly qq-QAM{\rm qq}\text{-}{\sf QAM}qq-QAM), a new turn-halving transformation that preserves completeness and ensures that the resulting proof system retains at least two messages, provided that the terminal state before the final measurement is efficiently preparable.
It is not known whether a classical polynomial-time verifier can verify arbitrary polynomial-time quantum computations with an efficient quantum honest prover without computational assumptions. We show that, relative to a classical oracle, such verification is possible for a language beyond the polynomial hierarchy that is decided exactly in quantum polynomial time. The protocol is public-coin, with perfect completeness and soundness error at most 1/4. To our knowledge, no language with such a proof system was previously proved to lie outside AM relative to an oracle. For every unbounded polynomial-time computable function, the oracle can be chosen so that the message count and the oracle query counts of the quantum algorithm, verifier, and honest prover are bounded by this function of the input length. The message count is optimal up to a constant factor, since for a suitable oracle every interactive proof system for the language uses at least a constant fraction of the messages of our protocol on infinitely many lengths, with a constant depending on its verifier. The language is a variant of recursive Fourier sampling in which code tables encode secrets that address data tables. The tables are evaluated recursively, and the oracle stores only the leaves. The quantum algorithm recovers every secret exactly, and the verifier checks the prover's secrets recursively against random code entries. The recursion restricts the input in a correlated way, as the same secret fixes the code bits and chooses the free coordinate, so Håstad's switching lemma does not apply. We prove a switching theorem for these restrictions, which may be of independent interest. For instances of sufficient height, no constant-depth circuit of size 2poly(n)2^{\mathrm{poly}(n)}2poly(n) changes its output with probability above 2−Ω(n)2^{-Ω(n)}2−Ω(n) when the answer of a random instance is flipped by changing a single leaf.
An important open question in quantum cryptography is the construction of publicly-verifiable NIZKs for QMA. Classically, one can construct NIZKs for NP in the random oracle model (and sometimes in the standard model) by compiling an honest-verifier ZK (HVZK) ΣΣΣ-protocol for NP using the Fiat-Shamir transformation. Broadbent and Grilo introduced a quantum analog of a ΣΣΣ-protocol (which they call a ΞΞΞ-protocol) in which the prover's first message is quantum, and show that HVZK ΞΞΞ-protocols exist for QMA. However, it is not clear how to compile such protocols into NIZKs in the (Q)ROM, because the Fiat-Shamir transformation seems to be incompatible with quantum messages. In this work we give formal evidence that this is indeed the case: we show that if generic "Fiat-Shamir-like" compilers for quantum protocols exist in the QROM (with small completeness and soundness error) then QMA = BQP.