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

Computational Complexity

An Exponential Separation Between MA and AM Proofs of Proximity

Tom Gur, Yang P. Liu, Ron D. Rothblum

Published Aug 18, 2021• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Interactive proofs of proximity allow a sublinear-time verifier to check that a given input is close to the language, using a small amount of communication with a powerful (but untrusted) prover. In this work, we consider two natural minimally interactive variants of such proofs systems, in which the prover only sends a single message, referred to as the proof. The first variant, known as -proofs of Proximity (), is fully non-interactive, meaning that the proof is a function of the input only. The second variant, known as -proofs of Proximity (), allows the proof to additionally depend on the verifier's (entire) random string. The complexity of both s and s is the total number of bits that the verifier observes—namely, the sum of the proof length and query complexity. Our main result is an exponential separation between the power of s and s. Specifically, we exhibit an explicit and natural property $$\Pi$$ Π that admits an with complexity $$O(\log n)$$ O ( log n ) , whereas any for $$\Pi$$ Π has complexity $$\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/4})$$ Ω ~ ( n 1 / 4 ) , where n denotes the length of the input in bits. Our lower bound also yields an alternate proof, which is more general and arguably much simpler, for a recent result of Fischer et al. (ITCS, 2014). Also, Aaronson (Quantum Information & Computation 2012) has shown a $$\Omega(n^{1/6})$$ Ω ( n 1 / 6 ) lower bound for the same property $$\Pi$$ Π . Lastly, we also consider the notion of oblivious proofs of proximity, in which the verifier's queries are oblivious to the proof. In this setting, we show that s can only be quadratically stronger than s. As an application of this result, we show an exponential separation between the power of public and private coin for oblivious interactive proofs of proximity.

DOI
10.1007/s00037-021-00212-3

Related papers

Interactive proofs of proximity

Guy N. Rothblum, Salil Vadhan, Avi Wigderson

We study interactive proofs with sublinear-time verifiers. These proof systems can be used to ensure approximate correctness for the results of computations delegated to an untrusted server. Following the literature on property testing, we seek proof systems where with high probability the verifier accepts every input in the language, and rejects every input that is far from the language. The verifier's query complexity (and computation complexity), as well as the communication, should all be sublinear. We call such a proof system an Interactive Proof of Proximity (IPP). On the positive side, our main result is that all languages in NC have Interactive Proofs of Proximity with roughly √n query and communication and complexities, and polylog(n) communication rounds. This is achieved by identifying a natural language, membership in an affine subspace (for a structured class of subspaces), that is complete for constructing interactive proofs of proximity, and providing efficient protocols for it. In building an IPP for this complete language, we show a tradeoff between the query and communication complexity and the number of rounds. For example, we give a 2-round protocol with roughly n3/4 queries and communication. On the negative side, we show that there exist natural languages in NC1, for which the sum of queries and communication in any constant-round interactive proof of proximity must be polynomially related to n. In particular, for any 2-round protocol, the sum of queries and communication must be at least ~Ω(√n). Finally, we construct much better IPPs for specific functions, such as bipartiteness on random or well-mixing graphs, and the majority function. The query complexities of these protocols are provably better (by exponential or polynomial factors) than what is possible in the standard property testing model, i.e. without a prover.

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•May 28, 2013•58 citations

Quantum Proofs of Proximity

Marcel Dall’Agnol, Tom Gur, Subhayan Roy Moulick +1 more

We initiate the systematic study of QMA algorithms in the setting of property testing, to which we refer as QMA proofs of proximity (QMAPs). These are quantum query algorithms that receive explicit access to a sublinear-size untrusted proof and are required to accept inputs having a property Π and reject inputs that are ε -far from Π , while only probing a minuscule portion of their input.We investigate the complexity landscape of this model, showing that QMAPs can be exponentially stronger than both classical proofs of proximity and quantum testers. To this end, we extend the methodology of Blais, Brody, and Matulef (Computational Complexity, 2012) to prove quantum property testing lower bounds via reductions from communication complexity. This also resolves a question raised in 2013 by Montanaro and de Wolf (cf. Theory of Computing, 2016).Our algorithmic results include a purpose an algorithmic framework that enables quantum speedups for testing an expressive class of properties, namely, those that are succinctly decomposable . A consequence of this framework is a QMA algorithm to verify the Parity of an n -bit string with O(n2/3) queries and proof length. We also propose a QMA algorithm for testing graph bipartitneness, a property that lies outside of this family, for which there is a quantum speedup.

arXiv:2105.03697•Quantum•Oct 13, 2022•2 citations

Advisor-Verifier-Prover Games and the Hardness of Information Theoretic Cryptography

Benny Applebaum, Oded Nir

A major open problem in information-theoretic cryptography is to obtain a super-polynomial lower bound for the communication complexity of basic cryptographic tasks. This question is wide open even for very powerful non-interactive primitives such as private information retrieval (or locally-decodable codes), general secret sharing schemes, conditional disclosure of secrets, and fully-decomposable randomized encoding (or garbling schemes). In fact, for all these primitives we do not even have super-linear lower bounds. Furthermore, it is unknown how to relate these questions to each other or to other complexity-theoretic questions.In this note, we relate all these questions to the classical topic of query/space trade-offs, lifted to the setting of interactive proof systems. Specifically, we consider the following Advisor-Verifier-Prover (AVP) game: First, a function f is given to the advisor who computes an advice a. Next, an input x is given to the verifier and to the prover who claims that $f(x) \quad =1.$ The verifier should check this claim via a single round of interaction based on the private advice a and without having any additional information on f. We focus on the case where the prover is laconic and communicates only a constant number of bits, and, mostly restrict the attention to the simplest, purely information-theoretic setting, where all parties are allowed to be computationally unbounded. The goal is to minimize the total communication complexity which is dominated by the length of the advice plus the length of the verifier’s query.As our main result, we show that a super-polynomial lower bound for AVPs implies a super-polynomial lower bound for a wide range of information-theoretic cryptographic tasks. In particular, we present a communication-efficient transformation from any of the above primitives into an AVP protocol. Interestingly, each primitive induces some additional property over the resulting protocol. Thus AVP games form a new common yardstick that highlights the differences between all the above primitives.Equipped with this view, we revisit the existing (somewhat weak) lower bounds for the above primitives, and show that many of these lower bounds can be unified by proving a single counting-based lower bound on the communication of AVPs, whereas some techniques are inherently limited to specific domains. The latter is shown by proving the first polynomial separations between the complexity of secret-sharing schemes and conditional disclosure of secrets and between the complexity of randomized encodings and conditional disclosure of secrets.

Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science•Nov 6, 2023•1 citation

Probabilistically Checking Quantum Proofs, with Interaction

Baocheng Sun, Thomas Vidick

The model of interactive oracle proofs (IOP) generalizes the notion of probabilistically checkable proof (PCP), in which a static proof is verified probabilistically by querying a small number of bits, to the interactive setting: a polynomial-time verifier interacts with an unbounded prover, but is restricted to only reading a small number of bits, in total, from the messages sent by the prover. IOPs provide a relaxed setting in which to study local probabilistic verification. They have proved instrumental in devising efficient methods for verification through subsequent compilation into non-interactive or succinct protocols. We study a quantum analogue of interactive oracle proofs (qIOP) in which the verifier and communication are both allowed to be quantum; yet the verifier is restricted to perform measurements only on a small number of qubits received from the prover. Our main result is a qIOP for any language in QMA, in which the total communication is polynomial but the verifier only reads a polylogarithmic number of qubits in total. The protocol has completeness parameter exponentially close to $1$ and soundness bounded away from $1$ by a constant. In the absence of a quantum PCP theorem, this provides the first information-theoretically sound local and robust characterization of QMA, albeit interactive. Our protocol combines the use of a quantum locally testable code (LTC) with classical techniques, notably probabilistically checkable proofs of proximity (PCPP). We avoid the necessity for complex multi-qubit tests employed in other settings by leveraging the local indistinguishability property of the quantum LTC.

cs.CCCross-listedarXiv:2606.09588•Jun 9, 2026•0 citations

On the power of quantum proofs

Ran Raz, Amir Shpilka

We study the power of quantum proofs, or more precisely, the power of quantum Merlin-Arthur (QMA) protocols, in two well studied models of quantum computation: the black box model and the communication complexity model. Our main results are obtained for the communication complexity model. For this model, we identify a complete promise problem for QMA protocols, the linear sub-spaces distance problem. The problem is of geometrical nature: each player gets a linear subspace of R/sup m/ and considers the sphere of unit vectors in that subspace. Their goal is to output 1 if the distance between the two spheres is very small (say, smaller than 0.1 /spl middot/ /spl radic/2) and 0 if the distance is very large (say, larger than 0.9 /spl middot/ /spl radic/2). We show that: 1. The QMA communication complexity of the problem is O(logm). 2. The (classical) MA communication complexity of the problem is /spl Omega/(m/sup /spl epsi//) (for some /spl epsi/ > 0). 3. The (standard) quantum communication complexity of the problem is /spl Omega/(/spl radic/m). In particular, this gives an exponential separation between QMA communication complexity and MA communication complexity. For the black box model we give several observations. First, we observe that the block sensitivity method, as well as the polynomial method for proving lower bounds for the number of queries, can both be extended to QMA protocols. We use these methods to obtain lower bounds for the QMA black box complexity of functions. In particular, we obtain a tight lower bound of /spl Omega/(N) for the QMA black box complexity of a random function, and a tight lower bound of /spl Omega/(/spl radic/N) for the QMA black box query complexity of NOR(X/sub 1/,..., X/sub n/). In particular, this shows that any attempt to give short quantum proofs for the class of languages Co - NP have to go beyond black box arguments. We also observe that for any Boolean function G(X/sub 1/,..., X/sub n/), if for both G and 7minus;G there are QMA black box protocols that make at most T queries to the black box, then there is a classical deterministic black box protocol for G that makes 0(T/sup 6/) queries to the black box. In particular, this shows that in the black box model QMA /spl cap/ Co - QMA = P. On the positive side, we observe that any (total or partial) Boolean function G(X/sub 1/,..., X/sub n/) has a QMA black box protocol with proofs of length N that makes only 0(/spl radic/N) queries to the black box. Finally, we observe a very simple proof for the exponential separation (for promise problems) between QMA black box complexity and (classical) MA black box complexity (first obtained by Watrous).

IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC)•Nov 12, 2004•12 citations

Quantum Proofs

Thomas Vidick, John Watrous

Quantum information and computation provide a fascinating twist on the notion of proofs in computational complexity theory. For instance, one may consider a quantum computational analogue of the complexity class NP, known as QMA, in which a quantum state plays the role of a proof (also called a certificate or witness), and is checked by a polynomial-time quantum computation. For some problems, the fact that a quantum proof state could be a superposition over exponentially many classical states appears to offer computational advantages over classical proof strings. In the interactive proof system setting, one may consider a verifier and one or more provers that exchange and process quantum information rather than classical information during an interaction for a given input string, giving rise to quantum complexity classes such as QIP, QSZK, and QMIP* that represent natural quantum analogues of IP, SZK, and MIP. While quantum interactive proof systems inherit some properties from their classical counterparts, they also possess distinct and uniquely quantum features that lead to an interesting landscape of complexity classes based on variants of this model. In this survey we provide an overview of many of the known results concerning quantum proofs, computational models based on this concept, and properties of the complexity classes they define. In particular, we discuss non-interactive proofs and the complexity class QMA, single-prover quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class QIP, statistical zero-knowledge quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class QSZK, and multiprover interactive proof systems and the complexity classes QMIP, QMIP*, and MIP*.

arXiv:1610.01664•Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science•Mar 31, 2016•44 citations
Abstract Interactive proofs of proximity allow a sublinear-time verifier to check that a given input is close to the language, using a small amount of communication with a powerful (but untrusted) prover. In this work, we consider two natural minimally interactive variants of such proofs systems, in which the prover only sends a single message, referred to as the proof. The first variant, known as -proofs of Proximity (), is fully non-interactive, meaning that the proof is a function of the input only. The second variant, known as -proofs of Proximity (), allows the proof to additionally depend on the verifier's (entire) random string. The complexity of both s and s is the total number of bits that the verifier observes—namely, the sum of the proof length and query complexity. Our main result is an exponential separation between the power of s and s. Specifically, we exhibit an explicit and natural property Π\PiΠ Π that admits an with complexity O(log⁡n)O(\log n)O(logn) O ( log n ) , whereas any for Π\PiΠ Π has complexity Ω~(n1/4)\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/4})Ω~(n1/4) Ω ~ ( n 1 / 4 ) , where n denotes the length of the input in bits. Our lower bound also yields an alternate proof, which is more general and arguably much simpler, for a recent result of Fischer et al. (ITCS, 2014). Also, Aaronson (Quantum Information & Computation 2012) has shown a Ω(n1/6)\Omega(n^{1/6})Ω(n1/6) Ω ( n 1 / 6 ) lower bound for the same property Π\PiΠ Π . Lastly, we also consider the notion of oblivious proofs of proximity, in which the verifier's queries are oblivious to the proof. In this setting, we show that s can only be quadratically stronger than s. As an application of this result, we show an exponential separation between the power of public and private coin for oblivious interactive proofs of proximity.
We study interactive proofs with sublinear-time verifiers. These proof systems can be used to ensure approximate correctness for the results of computations delegated to an untrusted server. Following the literature on property testing, we seek proof systems where with high probability the verifier accepts every input in the language, and rejects every input that is far from the language. The verifier's query complexity (and computation complexity), as well as the communication, should all be sublinear. We call such a proof system an Interactive Proof of Proximity (IPP). On the positive side, our main result is that all languages in NC have Interactive Proofs of Proximity with roughly √n query and communication and complexities, and polylog(n) communication rounds. This is achieved by identifying a natural language, membership in an affine subspace (for a structured class of subspaces), that is complete for constructing interactive proofs of proximity, and providing efficient protocols for it. In building an IPP for this complete language, we show a tradeoff between the query and communication complexity and the number of rounds. For example, we give a 2-round protocol with roughly n3/4 queries and communication. On the negative side, we show that there exist natural languages in NC1, for which the sum of queries and communication in any constant-round interactive proof of proximity must be polynomially related to n. In particular, for any 2-round protocol, the sum of queries and communication must be at least ~Ω(√n). Finally, we construct much better IPPs for specific functions, such as bipartiteness on random or well-mixing graphs, and the majority function. The query complexities of these protocols are provably better (by exponential or polynomial factors) than what is possible in the standard property testing model, i.e. without a prover.
We initiate the systematic study of QMA algorithms in the setting of property testing, to which we refer as QMA proofs of proximity (QMAPs). These are quantum query algorithms that receive explicit access to a sublinear-size untrusted proof and are required to accept inputs having a property Π and reject inputs that are ε -far from Π , while only probing a minuscule portion of their input.We investigate the complexity landscape of this model, showing that QMAPs can be exponentially stronger than both classical proofs of proximity and quantum testers. To this end, we extend the methodology of Blais, Brody, and Matulef (Computational Complexity, 2012) to prove quantum property testing lower bounds via reductions from communication complexity. This also resolves a question raised in 2013 by Montanaro and de Wolf (cf. Theory of Computing, 2016).Our algorithmic results include a purpose an algorithmic framework that enables quantum speedups for testing an expressive class of properties, namely, those that are succinctly decomposable . A consequence of this framework is a QMA algorithm to verify the Parity of an n -bit string with O(n2/3) queries and proof length. We also propose a QMA algorithm for testing graph bipartitneness, a property that lies outside of this family, for which there is a quantum speedup.
A major open problem in information-theoretic cryptography is to obtain a super-polynomial lower bound for the communication complexity of basic cryptographic tasks. This question is wide open even for very powerful non-interactive primitives such as private information retrieval (or locally-decodable codes), general secret sharing schemes, conditional disclosure of secrets, and fully-decomposable randomized encoding (or garbling schemes). In fact, for all these primitives we do not even have super-linear lower bounds. Furthermore, it is unknown how to relate these questions to each other or to other complexity-theoretic questions.In this note, we relate all these questions to the classical topic of query/space trade-offs, lifted to the setting of interactive proof systems. Specifically, we consider the following Advisor-Verifier-Prover (AVP) game: First, a function f is given to the advisor who computes an advice a. Next, an input x is given to the verifier and to the prover who claims that f(x)=1.f(x) \quad =1.f(x)=1. The verifier should check this claim via a single round of interaction based on the private advice a and without having any additional information on f. We focus on the case where the prover is laconic and communicates only a constant number of bits, and, mostly restrict the attention to the simplest, purely information-theoretic setting, where all parties are allowed to be computationally unbounded. The goal is to minimize the total communication complexity which is dominated by the length of the advice plus the length of the verifier’s query.As our main result, we show that a super-polynomial lower bound for AVPs implies a super-polynomial lower bound for a wide range of information-theoretic cryptographic tasks. In particular, we present a communication-efficient transformation from any of the above primitives into an AVP protocol. Interestingly, each primitive induces some additional property over the resulting protocol. Thus AVP games form a new common yardstick that highlights the differences between all the above primitives.Equipped with this view, we revisit the existing (somewhat weak) lower bounds for the above primitives, and show that many of these lower bounds can be unified by proving a single counting-based lower bound on the communication of AVPs, whereas some techniques are inherently limited to specific domains. The latter is shown by proving the first polynomial separations between the complexity of secret-sharing schemes and conditional disclosure of secrets and between the complexity of randomized encodings and conditional disclosure of secrets.
The model of interactive oracle proofs (IOP) generalizes the notion of probabilistically checkable proof (PCP), in which a static proof is verified probabilistically by querying a small number of bits, to the interactive setting: a polynomial-time verifier interacts with an unbounded prover, but is restricted to only reading a small number of bits, in total, from the messages sent by the prover. IOPs provide a relaxed setting in which to study local probabilistic verification. They have proved instrumental in devising efficient methods for verification through subsequent compilation into non-interactive or succinct protocols. We study a quantum analogue of interactive oracle proofs (qIOP) in which the verifier and communication are both allowed to be quantum; yet the verifier is restricted to perform measurements only on a small number of qubits received from the prover. Our main result is a qIOP for any language in QMA, in which the total communication is polynomial but the verifier only reads a polylogarithmic number of qubits in total. The protocol has completeness parameter exponentially close to 111 and soundness bounded away from 111 by a constant. In the absence of a quantum PCP theorem, this provides the first information-theoretically sound local and robust characterization of QMA, albeit interactive. Our protocol combines the use of a quantum locally testable code (LTC) with classical techniques, notably probabilistically checkable proofs of proximity (PCPP). We avoid the necessity for complex multi-qubit tests employed in other settings by leveraging the local indistinguishability property of the quantum LTC.
We study the power of quantum proofs, or more precisely, the power of quantum Merlin-Arthur (QMA) protocols, in two well studied models of quantum computation: the black box model and the communication complexity model. Our main results are obtained for the communication complexity model. For this model, we identify a complete promise problem for QMA protocols, the linear sub-spaces distance problem. The problem is of geometrical nature: each player gets a linear subspace of R/sup m/ and considers the sphere of unit vectors in that subspace. Their goal is to output 1 if the distance between the two spheres is very small (say, smaller than 0.1 /spl middot/ /spl radic/2) and 0 if the distance is very large (say, larger than 0.9 /spl middot/ /spl radic/2). We show that: 1. The QMA communication complexity of the problem is O(logm). 2. The (classical) MA communication complexity of the problem is /spl Omega/(m/sup /spl epsi//) (for some /spl epsi/ > 0). 3. The (standard) quantum communication complexity of the problem is /spl Omega/(/spl radic/m). In particular, this gives an exponential separation between QMA communication complexity and MA communication complexity. For the black box model we give several observations. First, we observe that the block sensitivity method, as well as the polynomial method for proving lower bounds for the number of queries, can both be extended to QMA protocols. We use these methods to obtain lower bounds for the QMA black box complexity of functions. In particular, we obtain a tight lower bound of /spl Omega/(N) for the QMA black box complexity of a random function, and a tight lower bound of /spl Omega/(/spl radic/N) for the QMA black box query complexity of NOR(X/sub 1/,..., X/sub n/). In particular, this shows that any attempt to give short quantum proofs for the class of languages Co - NP have to go beyond black box arguments. We also observe that for any Boolean function G(X/sub 1/,..., X/sub n/), if for both G and 7minus;G there are QMA black box protocols that make at most T queries to the black box, then there is a classical deterministic black box protocol for G that makes 0(T/sup 6/) queries to the black box. In particular, this shows that in the black box model QMA /spl cap/ Co - QMA = P. On the positive side, we observe that any (total or partial) Boolean function G(X/sub 1/,..., X/sub n/) has a QMA black box protocol with proofs of length N that makes only 0(/spl radic/N) queries to the black box. Finally, we observe a very simple proof for the exponential separation (for promise problems) between QMA black box complexity and (classical) MA black box complexity (first obtained by Watrous).
Quantum information and computation provide a fascinating twist on the notion of proofs in computational complexity theory. For instance, one may consider a quantum computational analogue of the complexity class NP, known as QMA, in which a quantum state plays the role of a proof (also called a certificate or witness), and is checked by a polynomial-time quantum computation. For some problems, the fact that a quantum proof state could be a superposition over exponentially many classical states appears to offer computational advantages over classical proof strings. In the interactive proof system setting, one may consider a verifier and one or more provers that exchange and process quantum information rather than classical information during an interaction for a given input string, giving rise to quantum complexity classes such as QIP, QSZK, and QMIP* that represent natural quantum analogues of IP, SZK, and MIP. While quantum interactive proof systems inherit some properties from their classical counterparts, they also possess distinct and uniquely quantum features that lead to an interesting landscape of complexity classes based on variants of this model. In this survey we provide an overview of many of the known results concerning quantum proofs, computational models based on this concept, and properties of the complexity classes they define. In particular, we discuss non-interactive proofs and the complexity class QMA, single-prover quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class QIP, statistical zero-knowledge quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class QSZK, and multiprover interactive proof systems and the complexity classes QMIP, QMIP*, and MIP*.