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

IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC)

On the power of quantum proofs

Ran Raz, Amir Shpilka

Published Nov 12, 2004• 12 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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).

DOI
10.1109/ccc.2004.1313849

Related papers

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 Subspaces Distance problem. The problem is of geometrical nature: Each player gets a linear subspace of R 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 · √ 2) and 0 if the distance is very large (say, larger than 0.9 · √ 2). We show that: 1. The QMA communication complexity of the problem is O(log m). 2. The (classical) MA communication complexity of the problem is Ω(m ɛ) (for some ɛ> 0). 3. The (standard) quantum communication complexity of the problem is Ω ( √ m). In particular, this gives an exponential separation between QMA communication complexity and MA communication complexity.

Conference on Computational Complexity•Jun 21, 2004•30 citations

On Arthur Merlin Games in Communication Complexity

Hartmut Klauck

We show several results related to interactive proof modes of communication complexity. First we show lower bounds for the QMA-communication complexity of the functions Inner Product and Disjointness. We describe a general method to prove lower bounds for QMA-communication complexity, and show how one can 'transfer' hardness under an analogous measure in the query complexity model to the communication model using Sherstov's pattern matrix method.Combining a result by Vereshchagin and the pattern matrix method we find a partial function with AM-communication complexity O(log n), PP-communication complexity Ω(n1/3), and QMA-communication complexity Ω(n1/6). Hence in the world of communication complexity noninteractive quantum proof systems are not able to efficiently simulate co-nondeterminism or interaction. These results imply that the related questions in Turing machine complexity theory cannot be resolved by 'algebrizing' techniques. Finally we show that in MA-protocols there is an exponential gap between one-way protocols and two-way protocols for a partial function (this refers to the interaction between Alice and Bob). This is in contrast to nondeterministic, AM-, and QMA-protocols, where one-way communication is essentially optimal.

IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC)•Jun 1, 2011•33 citations

Quantum versus Classical Proofs and Advice

Scott Aaronson, Greg Kuperberg

This paper studies whether quantum proofs are more powerful than classical proofs, or in complexity terms, whether QMA = QCMA.We prove three results about this question.First, we give a "quantum oracle separation" between QMA and QCMA.More concretely, we show that any quantum algorithm needs Ω 2 n m+1 queries to find an n-qubit "marked state" |ψ , even if given an m-bit classical description of |ψ together with a quantum black box that recognizes |ψ .Second, we give an explicit QCMA protocol that nearly achieves this lower bound.Third, we show that, in the one previously-known case where quantum proofs seemed to provide an exponential advantage, classical proofs are basically just as powerful.In particular, Watrous gave a QMA protocol for verifying non-membership in finite groups.Under plausible group-theoretic assumptions, we give a QCMA protocol for the same problem.Even with no assumptions, our protocol makes only polynomially many queries to the group oracle.We end with some conjectures about quantum versus classical oracles, and about the possibility of a classical oracle separation between QMA and QCMA.

IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC)•Jun 1, 2007•38 citations

On Arthur Merlin Games in Communication Complexity

Hartmut Klauck

We show several results related to interactive proof modes of communication complexity. First we show lower bounds for the QMA-communication complexity of the functions Inner Product and Disjointness. We describe a general method to prove lower bounds for QMA-communication complexity, and show how one can 'transfer' hardness under an analogous measure in the query complexity model to the communication model using Sherstov's pattern matrix method. Combining a result by Vereshchagin and the pattern matrix method we find a communication problem with AM-communication complexity $O(\log n)$, PP-communication complexity $Ω(n^{1/3})$, and QMA-communication complexity $Ω(n^{1/6})$. Hence in the world of communication complexity noninteractive quantum proof systems are not able to efficiently simulate co-nondeterminism or interaction. These results imply that the related questions in Turing machine complexity theory cannot be resolved by 'algebrizing' techniques. Finally we show that in MA-protocols there is an exponential gap between one-way protocols and two-way protocols (this refers to the interaction between Alice and Bob). This is in contrast to nondeterministic, AM-, and QMA-protocols, where one-way communication is essentially optimal.

arXiv:1101.0523•Jan 3, 2011•6 citations

Quantum Versus Classical Proofs and Advice

Scott Aaronson, Greg Kuperberg

This paper studies whether quantum proofs are more powerful than classical proofs, or in complexity terms, whether QMA=QCMA. We prove three results about this question. First, we give a "quantum oracle separation" between QMA and QCMA. More concretely, we show that any quantum algorithm needs $Ω(\sqrt{2^n/(m+1)})$ queries to find an $n$-qubit "marked state" $\lvertψ\rangle$, even if given an $m$-bit classical description of $\lvertψ\rangle$ together with a quantum black box that recognizes $\lvertψ\rangle$. Second, we give an explicit QCMA protocol that nearly achieves this lower bound. Third, we show that, in the one previously-known case where quantum proofs seemed to provide an exponential advantage, classical proofs are basically just as powerful. In particular, Watrous gave a QMA protocol for verifying non-membership in finite groups. Under plausible group-theoretic assumptions, we give a QCMA protocol for the same problem. Even with no assumptions, our protocol makes only polynomially many queries to the group oracle. We end with some conjectures about quantum versus classical oracles, and about the possibility of a classical oracle separation between QMA and QCMA.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604056•Electronic colloquium on computational complexity•Apr 10, 2006•4 citations

Quantum Computational Complexity Theory and Lower Bounds

Phillip Kaye, Raymond Laflamme, Michele Mosca

We have seen in the previous chapters that quantum computers seem to be more powerful than classical computers for certain problems. There are limits on the power of quantum computers, however. Since a classical computer can simulate a quantum computer, a quantum computer can only compute the same set of functions that a classical computer can. The advantage of using a quantum computer is that the amount of resources needed by a quantum algorithm might be much less than what is needed by the best classical algorithm. In Section 9.1 we briefly define some classical and quantum complexity classes and give some relationships between them. Most of the interesting questions relating classical and quantum complexity classes remain open. For example, we do not yet know if a quantum computer is capable of efficiently solving an NP-complete problem (defined later). One can prove upper bounds on the difficulty of a problem by providing an algorithm that solves that problem, and proving that it will work within in a given running time. But how does one prove a lower bound on the computational complexity of a problem? For example, if we wish to find the product of two n-bit numbers, computing the answer requires outputting roughly 2n bits and that requires Ω(n) steps (in any computing model with finite-sized gates). The best-known upper bound for integer multiplication is O(n log n log log n) steps. It has proved extremely difficult to derive non-trivial lower bounds on the computational complexity of a problem. Most of the known non-trivial lower bounds are in the ‘black-box’ model (for both classical and quantum computing), where we only query the input via a ‘black-box’ of a specific form. We discuss the black-box model in more detail in Section 9.2. We then sketch several approaches for proving black-box lower bounds. The first technique has been called the ‘hybrid method’ and was used to prove that quantum searching requires Ω(√n) queries to succeed with constant probability. The second technique is called the ‘polynomial method’. We then describe a technique based on ‘block sensitivity’, and conclude with a technique known as the ‘adversary method’.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Nov 16, 2006•0 citations
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).
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 Subspaces Distance problem. The problem is of geometrical nature: Each player gets a linear subspace of R 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 · √ 2) and 0 if the distance is very large (say, larger than 0.9 · √ 2). We show that: 1. The QMA communication complexity of the problem is O(log m). 2. The (classical) MA communication complexity of the problem is Ω(m ɛ) (for some ɛ> 0). 3. The (standard) quantum communication complexity of the problem is Ω ( √ m). In particular, this gives an exponential separation between QMA communication complexity and MA communication complexity.
We show several results related to interactive proof modes of communication complexity. First we show lower bounds for the QMA-communication complexity of the functions Inner Product and Disjointness. We describe a general method to prove lower bounds for QMA-communication complexity, and show how one can 'transfer' hardness under an analogous measure in the query complexity model to the communication model using Sherstov's pattern matrix method.Combining a result by Vereshchagin and the pattern matrix method we find a partial function with AM-communication complexity O(log n), PP-communication complexity Ω(n1/3), and QMA-communication complexity Ω(n1/6). Hence in the world of communication complexity noninteractive quantum proof systems are not able to efficiently simulate co-nondeterminism or interaction. These results imply that the related questions in Turing machine complexity theory cannot be resolved by 'algebrizing' techniques. Finally we show that in MA-protocols there is an exponential gap between one-way protocols and two-way protocols for a partial function (this refers to the interaction between Alice and Bob). This is in contrast to nondeterministic, AM-, and QMA-protocols, where one-way communication is essentially optimal.
This paper studies whether quantum proofs are more powerful than classical proofs, or in complexity terms, whether QMA = QCMA.We prove three results about this question.First, we give a "quantum oracle separation" between QMA and QCMA.More concretely, we show that any quantum algorithm needs Ω 2 n m+1 queries to find an n-qubit "marked state" |ψ , even if given an m-bit classical description of |ψ together with a quantum black box that recognizes |ψ .Second, we give an explicit QCMA protocol that nearly achieves this lower bound.Third, we show that, in the one previously-known case where quantum proofs seemed to provide an exponential advantage, classical proofs are basically just as powerful.In particular, Watrous gave a QMA protocol for verifying non-membership in finite groups.Under plausible group-theoretic assumptions, we give a QCMA protocol for the same problem.Even with no assumptions, our protocol makes only polynomially many queries to the group oracle.We end with some conjectures about quantum versus classical oracles, and about the possibility of a classical oracle separation between QMA and QCMA.
We show several results related to interactive proof modes of communication complexity. First we show lower bounds for the QMA-communication complexity of the functions Inner Product and Disjointness. We describe a general method to prove lower bounds for QMA-communication complexity, and show how one can 'transfer' hardness under an analogous measure in the query complexity model to the communication model using Sherstov's pattern matrix method. Combining a result by Vereshchagin and the pattern matrix method we find a communication problem with AM-communication complexity O(log⁡n)O(\log n)O(logn), PP-communication complexity Ω(n1/3)Ω(n^{1/3})Ω(n1/3), and QMA-communication complexity Ω(n1/6)Ω(n^{1/6})Ω(n1/6). Hence in the world of communication complexity noninteractive quantum proof systems are not able to efficiently simulate co-nondeterminism or interaction. These results imply that the related questions in Turing machine complexity theory cannot be resolved by 'algebrizing' techniques. Finally we show that in MA-protocols there is an exponential gap between one-way protocols and two-way protocols (this refers to the interaction between Alice and Bob). This is in contrast to nondeterministic, AM-, and QMA-protocols, where one-way communication is essentially optimal.
This paper studies whether quantum proofs are more powerful than classical proofs, or in complexity terms, whether QMA=QCMA. We prove three results about this question. First, we give a "quantum oracle separation" between QMA and QCMA. More concretely, we show that any quantum algorithm needs Ω(2n/(m+1))Ω(\sqrt{2^n/(m+1)})Ω(2n/(m+1)​) queries to find an nnn-qubit "marked state" ∣ψ⟩\lvertψ\rangle∣ψ⟩, even if given an mmm-bit classical description of ∣ψ⟩\lvertψ\rangle∣ψ⟩ together with a quantum black box that recognizes ∣ψ⟩\lvertψ\rangle∣ψ⟩. Second, we give an explicit QCMA protocol that nearly achieves this lower bound. Third, we show that, in the one previously-known case where quantum proofs seemed to provide an exponential advantage, classical proofs are basically just as powerful. In particular, Watrous gave a QMA protocol for verifying non-membership in finite groups. Under plausible group-theoretic assumptions, we give a QCMA protocol for the same problem. Even with no assumptions, our protocol makes only polynomially many queries to the group oracle. We end with some conjectures about quantum versus classical oracles, and about the possibility of a classical oracle separation between QMA and QCMA.
We have seen in the previous chapters that quantum computers seem to be more powerful than classical computers for certain problems. There are limits on the power of quantum computers, however. Since a classical computer can simulate a quantum computer, a quantum computer can only compute the same set of functions that a classical computer can. The advantage of using a quantum computer is that the amount of resources needed by a quantum algorithm might be much less than what is needed by the best classical algorithm. In Section 9.1 we briefly define some classical and quantum complexity classes and give some relationships between them. Most of the interesting questions relating classical and quantum complexity classes remain open. For example, we do not yet know if a quantum computer is capable of efficiently solving an NP-complete problem (defined later). One can prove upper bounds on the difficulty of a problem by providing an algorithm that solves that problem, and proving that it will work within in a given running time. But how does one prove a lower bound on the computational complexity of a problem? For example, if we wish to find the product of two n-bit numbers, computing the answer requires outputting roughly 2n bits and that requires Ω(n) steps (in any computing model with finite-sized gates). The best-known upper bound for integer multiplication is O(n log n log log n) steps. It has proved extremely difficult to derive non-trivial lower bounds on the computational complexity of a problem. Most of the known non-trivial lower bounds are in the ‘black-box’ model (for both classical and quantum computing), where we only query the input via a ‘black-box’ of a specific form. We discuss the black-box model in more detail in Section 9.2. We then sketch several approaches for proving black-box lower bounds. The first technique has been called the ‘hybrid method’ and was used to prove that quantum searching requires Ω(√n) queries to succeed with constant probability. The second technique is called the ‘polynomial method’. We then describe a technique based on ‘block sensitivity’, and conclude with a technique known as the ‘adversary method’.