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

Information Processing Letters

Parallelization of entanglement-resistant multi-prover interactive proofs

Tsuyoshi Ito

Published May 20, 2014• 5 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.ipl.2014.05.005

Related papers

Using Entanglement in Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs

Julia Kempe, Hirotada Kobayashi, Keiji Matsumoto +1 more

Computational Complexity•Jun 1, 2009•38 citations

Quantum Multi-prover Interactive Proof Systems with Limited Prior Entanglement

Hirotada Kobayashi, Keiji Matsumoto

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2002•4 citations

Quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems with limited prior entanglement

Hirotada Kobayashi, Keiji Matsumoto

Journal of Computer and System Sciences•May 1, 2003•92 citations

Multi-Prover Interactive Proof Systems with Leakage

Vahid R. Asadi, Atsuya Hasegawa, François Le Gall

It is known that there exist multi-prover interactive protocols ($\mathsf{MIP}$ protocols) for the complexity class $\mathsf{NEXP}$, succinct $\mathsf{MIP}$ protocols for $\mathsf{NP}$ and multi-prover interactive protocols with shared entanglement ($\mathsf{MIP}^\ast$ protocols) for $\mathsf{RE}$. This extraordinary power of multi-prover interactive proof systems comes from the assumption that provers do not communicate with each other during the protocols. If they are allowed to communicate freely, the setting is the same as in the single-prover case, and the computational power of the system becomes significantly weaker. In this paper, we investigate for the first time the setting where communication (i.e., leakage of information) between provers is allowed but bounded. We introduce two techniques to approach this question and show that multi-prover interactive proof systems are robust against some amount of leakage. Our first technique is based on parallel repetition theorems. We apply it to show that for any polynomial $p$, we can construct two-prover one-round $\mathsf{MIP}$ and $\mathsf{MIP}^\ast$ protocols for $\mathsf{NEXP}$ and $\mathsf{RE}$, respectively, that are robust against $p(n)$ bits of leakage. We further derive our second technique to convert any low-soundness PCP construction to a two-prover one-round $\mathsf{MIP}$ protocol for $\mathsf{NP}$ robust against leakage. We also discuss the relation between robustness against leakage in multi-prover interactive proof systems and the Sliding Scale Conjecture in the PCP literature.

quant-pharXiv:2605.09872•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•May 12, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Two Provers Interactive Proof Systems

Beverly Sackler, Alex Rapaport

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

Using Entanglement in Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs

Julia Kempe, Hirotada Kobayashi, Keiji Matsumoto +1 more

The central question in quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems is whether or not entanglement shared between provers affects the verification power of the proof system. We study for the first time positive aspects of prior entanglement and show that entanglement is useful even for honest provers. We show how to use shared entanglement to parallelize any multi-prover quantum interactive proof system to a one-round system with perfect completeness, with one extra prover. Alternatively, we can also parallelize to a three-turn system with the same number of provers, where the verifier only broadcasts the outcome of a coin flip. This "public-coin" property is somewhat surprising, since in the classical case public-coin multi-prover interactive proofs are equivalent to single prover ones.

arXiv:0711.3715•Nov 23, 2007•1 citation
It is known that there exist multi-prover interactive protocols (MIP\mathsf{MIP}MIP protocols) for the complexity class NEXP\mathsf{NEXP}NEXP, succinct MIP\mathsf{MIP}MIP protocols for NP\mathsf{NP}NP and multi-prover interactive protocols with shared entanglement (MIP∗\mathsf{MIP}^\astMIP∗ protocols) for RE\mathsf{RE}RE. This extraordinary power of multi-prover interactive proof systems comes from the assumption that provers do not communicate with each other during the protocols. If they are allowed to communicate freely, the setting is the same as in the single-prover case, and the computational power of the system becomes significantly weaker. In this paper, we investigate for the first time the setting where communication (i.e., leakage of information) between provers is allowed but bounded. We introduce two techniques to approach this question and show that multi-prover interactive proof systems are robust against some amount of leakage. Our first technique is based on parallel repetition theorems. We apply it to show that for any polynomial ppp, we can construct two-prover one-round MIP\mathsf{MIP}MIP and MIP∗\mathsf{MIP}^\astMIP∗ protocols for NEXP\mathsf{NEXP}NEXP and RE\mathsf{RE}RE, respectively, that are robust against p(n)p(n)p(n) bits of leakage. We further derive our second technique to convert any low-soundness PCP construction to a two-prover one-round MIP\mathsf{MIP}MIP protocol for NP\mathsf{NP}NP robust against leakage. We also discuss the relation between robustness against leakage in multi-prover interactive proof systems and the Sliding Scale Conjecture in the PCP literature.
The central question in quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems is whether or not entanglement shared between provers affects the verification power of the proof system. We study for the first time positive aspects of prior entanglement and show that entanglement is useful even for honest provers. We show how to use shared entanglement to parallelize any multi-prover quantum interactive proof system to a one-round system with perfect completeness, with one extra prover. Alternatively, we can also parallelize to a three-turn system with the same number of provers, where the verifier only broadcasts the outcome of a coin flip. This "public-coin" property is somewhat surprising, since in the classical case public-coin multi-prover interactive proofs are equivalent to single prover ones.