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:quant-ph/0604056 · Electronic colloquium on computational complexity

Quantum Versus Classical Proofs and Advice

Scott Aaronson, Greg Kuperberg

Published Apr 10, 2006• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0604056

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 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

QMA vs QCMA and Pseudorandomness

Jiahui Liu, Saachi Mutreja, Henry Yuen

We study a longstanding question of Aaronson and Kuperberg on whether there exists a classical oracle separating $\mathsf{QMA}$ from $\mathsf{QCMA}$. Settling this question in either direction would yield insight into the power of quantum proofs over classical proofs. We show that such an oracle exists if a certain quantum pseudorandomness conjecture holds. Roughly speaking, the conjecture posits that quantum algorithms cannot, by making few queries, distinguish between the uniform distribution over permutations versus permutations drawn from so-called "dense" distributions. Our result can be viewed as establishing a "win-win" scenario: either there is a classical oracle separation of $\mathsf{QMA}$ from $\mathsf{QCMA}$, or there is quantum advantage in distinguishing pseudorandom distributions on permutations.

arXiv:2411.14416•ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•Jun 15, 2025•2 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 vs Classical Proofs and Subset Verification

Bill Fefferman, Shelby Kimmel

We study the ability of efficient quantum verifiers to decide properties of exponentially large subsets given either a classical or quantum witness. We develop a general framework that can be used to prove that QCMA machines, with only classical witnesses, cannot verify certain properties of subsets given implicitly via an oracle. We use this framework to prove an oracle separation between QCMA and QMA using an "in-place" permutation oracle, making the first progress on this question since Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2007. We also use the framework to prove a particularly simple standard oracle separation between QCMA and AM.

arXiv:1510.06750•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Oct 22, 2015•7 citations

Classical vs Quantum Advice and Proofs Under Classically-Accessible Oracle

Xingjian Li, Liu, Qipeng, Angelos Pelecanos +1 more

It is a long-standing open question to construct a classical oracle relative to which BQP/qpoly $\neq$ BQP/poly or QMA $\neq$ QCMA. In this paper, we construct classically-accessible classical oracles relative to which BQP/qpoly $\neq$ BQP/poly and QMA $\neq$ QCMA. Here, classically-accessible classical oracles are oracles that can be accessed only classically even for quantum algorithms. Based on a similar technique, we also show an alternative proof for the separation of QMA and QCMA relative to a distributional quantumly-accessible classical oracle, which was recently shown by Natarajan and Nirkhe.

arXiv:2303.04298•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Mar 8, 2023•2 citations
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.
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.
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 study a longstanding question of Aaronson and Kuperberg on whether there exists a classical oracle separating QMA\mathsf{QMA}QMA from QCMA\mathsf{QCMA}QCMA. Settling this question in either direction would yield insight into the power of quantum proofs over classical proofs. We show that such an oracle exists if a certain quantum pseudorandomness conjecture holds. Roughly speaking, the conjecture posits that quantum algorithms cannot, by making few queries, distinguish between the uniform distribution over permutations versus permutations drawn from so-called "dense" distributions. Our result can be viewed as establishing a "win-win" scenario: either there is a classical oracle separation of QMA\mathsf{QMA}QMA from QCMA\mathsf{QCMA}QCMA, or there is quantum advantage in distinguishing pseudorandom distributions on permutations.
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 ability of efficient quantum verifiers to decide properties of exponentially large subsets given either a classical or quantum witness. We develop a general framework that can be used to prove that QCMA machines, with only classical witnesses, cannot verify certain properties of subsets given implicitly via an oracle. We use this framework to prove an oracle separation between QCMA and QMA using an "in-place" permutation oracle, making the first progress on this question since Aaronson and Kuperberg in 2007. We also use the framework to prove a particularly simple standard oracle separation between QCMA and AM.
It is a long-standing open question to construct a classical oracle relative to which BQP/qpoly ≠\neq= BQP/poly or QMA ≠\neq= QCMA. In this paper, we construct classically-accessible classical oracles relative to which BQP/qpoly ≠\neq= BQP/poly and QMA ≠\neq= QCMA. Here, classically-accessible classical oracles are oracles that can be accessed only classically even for quantum algorithms. Based on a similar technique, we also show an alternative proof for the separation of QMA and QCMA relative to a distributional quantumly-accessible classical oracle, which was recently shown by Natarajan and Nirkhe.