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

Communications of the ACM

QIP = PSPACE

Rahul Jain, Zhengfeng Ji, Sarvagya Upadhyay, John Watrous

Published Nov 23, 2010• 20 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The interactive proof system model of computation has been studied extensively in computational complexity theory and theoretical cryptography for more than 25 years, and has driven the development of interesting new techniques and insights in those fields. This work considers the quantum interactive proof system model, which is the classical model's natural quantum computational analog. An exact characterization of the expressive power of quantum interactive proof systems is obtained: the collection of computational problems having quantum interactive proof systems consists precisely of those problems solvable with an ordinary classical computer using at most a polynomial amount of memory (or QIP = PSPACE in complexity-theoretic terminology). One striking implication of this characterization is that it implies quantum computing provides no increase in computational power whatsoever over classical computing in the context of interactive proof systems.

DOI
10.1145/1859204.1859231

Related papers

QIP = PSPACE

Rahul Jain, Zhengfeng Ji, Sarvagya Upadhyay +1 more

This work considers the quantum interactive proof system model of computation, which is the (classical) interactive proof system model’s natural quantum computational analogue. An exact characterization of the expressive power of quantum interactive proof systems is obtained: the collection of computational problems having quantum interactive proof systems consists precisely of those problems solvable by deterministic Turing machines that use at most a polynomial amount of space (or, more succinctly, QIP = PSPACE). This characterization is proved through the use of a parallelized form of the matrix multiplicative weights update method, applied to a class of semidefinite programs that captures the computational power of quantum interactive proof systems. One striking implication of this characterization is that quantum computing provides no increase in computational power whatsoever over classical computing in the context of interactive proof systems, for it is well known that the collection of computational problems having classical interactive proof systems coincides with those problems solvable by polynomial-space computations.

Journal of the ACM•Dec 1, 2011•59 citations

Space-efficient Simulations of Quantum Interactive Proofs.

Xiaodi Wu

Interactive proof systems form an important complexity model that has been central to many prominent results in computational complexity theory, such as those on probabilistically checkable proofs, hardness of approximation, and fundamental cryptographic primitives. In this thesis, we study the quantum-enhanced version of interactive proof systems, in which each party has access to quantum computing resources. We focus on its power and limitations, which lead us to the following results. (*) We provide an alternative and conceptually simpler proof of Jain et al.’s recent breakthrough result, which demonstrates that the expressive power of quantum interactive proof systems coincides with that of its classical counterpart, and therefore PSPACE. (*) We determine the complexity of several variants of quantum competing-prover interactive proof systems, which introduce zero-sum games into interactive proof systems. In particular, we prove that the complexity class of two-turn quantum refereed games coincides with PSPACE, answering an important open problem of Jain et al.’s. Our result suggests that a more general model called double quantum interactive proof systems coincides with PSPACE, which subsumes and unifies all previous results on short refereed games. (*) We contribute to the study of two-prover quantum Merlin-Arthur games (QMA(2)), which exhibit an intriguing tradeoff between an intrinsic quantum ingredient, entanglement, and computational power. We prove a PSPACE upper bound for a variant of QMA(2) that is to date the most general one known in PSPACE. We also provide a quasi-polynomial time algorithm for optimizing linear functions over separable states, giving an alternative to the one proposed by Brandao et al. Our main technical contribution behind the above results is the equilibrium value method for obtaining space-efficient algorithms for a class of optimization problems that arise naturally in quantum computation. We also contribute to QMA-complete problems, where we demonstrate that the “Non-Identity Check” problem remains QMA-complete on circuits of poly-logarithmic depths, improving upon polynomial depths from previous results.

•Jan 1, 2013•0 citations

QIP = PSPACE

Rahul Jain, Zhengfeng Ji, Sarvagya Upadhyay +1 more

We prove that the complexity class QIP, which consists of all problems having quantum interactive proof systems, is contained in PSPACE. This containment is proved by applying a parallelized form of the matrix multiplicative weights update method to a class of semidefinite programs that captures the computational power of quantum interactive proofs. As the containment of PSPACE in QIP follows immediately from the well-known equality IP = PSPACE, the equality QIP = PSPACE follows.

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•Jun 5, 2010•53 citations

QIP = PSPACE

Rahul Jain, Zhengfeng Ji, Sarvagya Upadhyay +1 more

We prove that the complexity class QIP, which consists of all problems having quantum interactive proof systems, is contained in PSPACE. This containment is proved by applying a parallelized form of the matrix multiplicative weights update method to a class of semidefinite programs that captures the computational power of quantum interactive proofs. As the containment of PSPACE in QIP follows immediately from the well-known equality IP = PSPACE, the equality QIP = PSPACE follows.

arXiv:0907.4737•Jul 27, 2009•0 citations

Beyond IP = PSPACE and QIP = PSPACE: Interactive Proofs in Arbitrary Physical Theories

Kishor Bharti

The equalities IP = PSPACE and QIP = PSPACE, the latter achievable with three messages, raise a basic question: how much of an interactive proof's power comes from the underlying physical theory? We study interactive proofs in general probabilistic theories, which include classical and quantum theory. The answer depends on what the prover and verifier exchange and how the theory specifies efficient operations. When they exchange only classical messages, protocols in every theory satisfying our standard assumptions decide exactly PSPACE. For protocols with a quantum verifier and quantum messages, allowing a prover to use any theory containing quantum theory does not increase the maximum acceptance probability. Thus, the three-message PSPACE result remains valid against such provers. When messages may be arbitrary systems, the interactive-proof class can strictly exceed PSPACE.

quant-pharXiv:2610.00847•Oct 2, 2026•0 citations

QIP = PSPACE

Rahul Jain, Zhengfeng Ji, Sarvagya Upadhyay +1 more

We prove that the complexity class QIP, which consists of all problems having quantum interactive proof systems, is contained in PSPACE. This containment is proved by applying a parallelized form of the matrix multiplicative weights update method to a class of semidefinite programs that captures the computational power of quantum interactive proofs. As the containment of PSPACE in QIP follows immediately from the well-known equality IP = PSPACE, the equality QIP = PSPACE follows.

•Jul 27, 2009•0 citations
The interactive proof system model of computation has been studied extensively in computational complexity theory and theoretical cryptography for more than 25 years, and has driven the development of interesting new techniques and insights in those fields. This work considers the quantum interactive proof system model, which is the classical model's natural quantum computational analog. An exact characterization of the expressive power of quantum interactive proof systems is obtained: the collection of computational problems having quantum interactive proof systems consists precisely of those problems solvable with an ordinary classical computer using at most a polynomial amount of memory (or QIP = PSPACE in complexity-theoretic terminology). One striking implication of this characterization is that it implies quantum computing provides no increase in computational power whatsoever over classical computing in the context of interactive proof systems.
This work considers the quantum interactive proof system model of computation, which is the (classical) interactive proof system model’s natural quantum computational analogue. An exact characterization of the expressive power of quantum interactive proof systems is obtained: the collection of computational problems having quantum interactive proof systems consists precisely of those problems solvable by deterministic Turing machines that use at most a polynomial amount of space (or, more succinctly, QIP = PSPACE). This characterization is proved through the use of a parallelized form of the matrix multiplicative weights update method, applied to a class of semidefinite programs that captures the computational power of quantum interactive proof systems. One striking implication of this characterization is that quantum computing provides no increase in computational power whatsoever over classical computing in the context of interactive proof systems, for it is well known that the collection of computational problems having classical interactive proof systems coincides with those problems solvable by polynomial-space computations.
Interactive proof systems form an important complexity model that has been central to many prominent results in computational complexity theory, such as those on probabilistically checkable proofs, hardness of approximation, and fundamental cryptographic primitives. In this thesis, we study the quantum-enhanced version of interactive proof systems, in which each party has access to quantum computing resources. We focus on its power and limitations, which lead us to the following results. (*) We provide an alternative and conceptually simpler proof of Jain et al.’s recent breakthrough result, which demonstrates that the expressive power of quantum interactive proof systems coincides with that of its classical counterpart, and therefore PSPACE. (*) We determine the complexity of several variants of quantum competing-prover interactive proof systems, which introduce zero-sum games into interactive proof systems. In particular, we prove that the complexity class of two-turn quantum refereed games coincides with PSPACE, answering an important open problem of Jain et al.’s. Our result suggests that a more general model called double quantum interactive proof systems coincides with PSPACE, which subsumes and unifies all previous results on short refereed games. (*) We contribute to the study of two-prover quantum Merlin-Arthur games (QMA(2)), which exhibit an intriguing tradeoff between an intrinsic quantum ingredient, entanglement, and computational power. We prove a PSPACE upper bound for a variant of QMA(2) that is to date the most general one known in PSPACE. We also provide a quasi-polynomial time algorithm for optimizing linear functions over separable states, giving an alternative to the one proposed by Brandao et al. Our main technical contribution behind the above results is the equilibrium value method for obtaining space-efficient algorithms for a class of optimization problems that arise naturally in quantum computation. We also contribute to QMA-complete problems, where we demonstrate that the “Non-Identity Check” problem remains QMA-complete on circuits of poly-logarithmic depths, improving upon polynomial depths from previous results.
The equalities IP = PSPACE and QIP = PSPACE, the latter achievable with three messages, raise a basic question: how much of an interactive proof's power comes from the underlying physical theory? We study interactive proofs in general probabilistic theories, which include classical and quantum theory. The answer depends on what the prover and verifier exchange and how the theory specifies efficient operations. When they exchange only classical messages, protocols in every theory satisfying our standard assumptions decide exactly PSPACE. For protocols with a quantum verifier and quantum messages, allowing a prover to use any theory containing quantum theory does not increase the maximum acceptance probability. Thus, the three-message PSPACE result remains valid against such provers. When messages may be arbitrary systems, the interactive-proof class can strictly exceed PSPACE.