NEEXP is Contained in MIP*

We study multiprover interactive proof systems. The power of classical multiprover interactive proof systems, in which the provers do not share entanglement, was characterized in a famous work by Babai, Fortnow, and Lund (Computational Complexity 1991), whose main result was the equality MIP = NEXP. The power of quantum multiprover interactive proof systems, in which the provers are allowed to share entanglement, has proven to be much more difficult to characterize. The best known lower-bound on MIP* is NEXP, due to Ito and Vidick (FOCS 2012). As for upper bounds, MIP* could be as large as RE, the class of recursively enumerable languages. The main result of this work is the inclusion of NEEXP (nondeterministic doubly exponential time) in MIP*. This is an exponential improvement over the prior lower bound and shows that proof systems with entangled provers are at least exponentially more powerful than classical provers. In our protocol the verifier delegates a classical, exponentially large MIP protocol for NEEXP to two entangled provers: the provers obtain their exponentially large questions by measuring their shared state, and use a classical PCP to certify the correctness of their exponentially-long answers. For the soundness of our protocol, it is crucial that each player should not only sample its own question correctly but also avoid performing measurements that would reveal the other player's sampled question. We ensure this by commanding the players to perform a complementary measurement, relying on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to prevent the forbidden measurements from being performed.

[1]  Zheng-Feng Ji,et al.  Compression of quantum multi-prover interactive proofs , 2016, STOC.

[2]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Multi-prover interactive proofs: how to remove intractability assumptions , 2019, STOC '88.

[3]  Thomas Vidick Three-Player Entangled XOR Games are NP-Hard to Approximate , 2016, SIAM J. Comput..

[4]  Joseph Fitzsimons,et al.  Quantum proof systems for iterated exponential time, and beyond , 2018, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[5]  William Slofstra,et al.  THE SET OF QUANTUM CORRELATIONS IS NOT CLOSED , 2017, Forum of Mathematics, Pi.

[6]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  A classical leash for a quantum system: command of quantum systems via rigidity of CHSH games , 2012, ITCS '13.

[7]  Johan Håstad,et al.  Some optimal inapproximability results , 2001, JACM.

[8]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Probabilistic checking of proofs; a new characterization of NP , 1992, Proceedings., 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[9]  William Slofstra,et al.  Tsirelson’s problem and an embedding theorem for groups arising from non-local games , 2016, Journal of the American Mathematical Society.

[10]  Matthew Coudron,et al.  Infinite randomness expansion with a constant number of devices , 2014, STOC.

[11]  Richard Ryan Williams,et al.  Distributed PCP Theorems for Hardness of Approximation in P , 2017, 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[12]  Tsuyoshi Ito,et al.  A Multi-prover Interactive Proof for NEXP Sound against Entangled Provers , 2012, 2012 IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[13]  R. Raz,et al.  How to delegate computations: the power of no-signaling proofs , 2014, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[14]  Tsuyoshi Ito,et al.  Quantum interactive proofs with weak error bounds , 2010, ITCS '12.

[15]  Bill Fefferman,et al.  A Complete Characterization of Unitary Quantum Space , 2016, ITCS.

[16]  Anand Natarajan,et al.  Low-Degree Testing for Quantum States, and a Quantum Entangled Games PCP for QMA , 2018, 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[17]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Quantum cryptography with imperfect apparatus , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[18]  B. S. Cirel'son Quantum generalizations of Bell's inequality , 1980 .

[19]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols , 2005, computational complexity.

[20]  Reinhard F. Werner,et al.  Maximal violation of Bell's inequalities for algebras of observables in tangent spacetime regions , 1988 .

[21]  Joseph Fitzsimons,et al.  A Multiprover Interactive Proof System for the Local Hamiltonian Problem , 2014, ITCS.

[22]  Attila Pereszlényi,et al.  Multi-Prover Quantum Merlin-Arthur Proof Systems with Small Gap , 2012, ArXiv.

[23]  Ekert,et al.  Quantum cryptography based on Bell's theorem. , 1991, Physical review letters.

[24]  Anand Natarajan,et al.  Two-player entangled games are NP-hard , 2018, Computational Complexity Conference.

[25]  R. Cleve,et al.  Consequences and limits of nonlocal strategies , 2004 .

[26]  Roger Colbeck,et al.  Quantum And Relativistic Protocols For Secure Multi-Party Computation , 2009, 0911.3814.

[27]  R. Mcweeny On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox , 2000 .

[28]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems , 1998, JACM.