Stronger methods of making quantum interactive proofs perfectly complete

This paper presents stronger methods of achieving perfect completeness in quantum interactive proofs. First, it is proved that any problem in QMA has a two-message quantum interactive proof system of perfect completeness with constant soundness error, where the verifier has only to send a constant number of halves of EPR pairs. This in particular implies that the class QMA is necessarily included by the class QIP1(2)} of problems having two-message quantum interactive proofs of perfect completeness, which gives the first nontrivial upper bound for QMA in terms of quantum interactive proofs. It is also proved that any problem having an $m$-message quantum interactive proof system necessarily has an ${(m+1)}$-message quantum interactive proof system of perfect completeness. This improves the previous result due to Kitaev and Watrous, where the resulting system of perfect completeness requires ${m+2}$ messages if not using the parallelization result.

[1]  Ashwin Nayak,et al.  Bit-commitment-based quantum coin flipping , 2002, quant-ph/0206123.

[2]  Gus Gutoski,et al.  Quantum Strategies and Local Operations , 2010, 1003.0038.

[3]  R. Renner,et al.  A de Finetti representation for finite symmetric quantum states , 2004, quant-ph/0410229.

[4]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Fault-tolerant quantum computation , 1996, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  Dorit Aharonov,et al.  On the Complexity of Commuting Local Hamiltonians, and Tight Conditions for Topological Order in Such Systems , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[6]  Rahul Jain,et al.  QIP = PSPACE , 2011, JACM.

[7]  Lov K. Grover.  A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search , 1996, STOC '96.

[8]  Man-Duen Choi.  Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices , 1975 .

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

[10]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Quantum circuits with mixed states , 1998, STOC '98.

[11]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  The detectability lemma and quantum gap amplification , 2008, STOC '09.

[12]  Mikhail N. Vyalyi,et al.  Classical and Quantum Computation , 2002, Graduate studies in mathematics.

[13]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Introduction to the Tenth Anniversary Edition , 2010 .

[14]  D. Aharonov.  A Simple Proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are Quantum Universal , 2003, quant-ph/0301040.

[15]  John Watrous.  PSPACE has constant-round quantum interactive proof systems , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  The 1D Area Law and the Complexity of Quantum States: A Combinatorial Approach , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[17]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  On perfect completeness for QMA , 2008, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[18]  Stathis Zachos,et al.  Probabalistic Quantifiers vs. Distrustful Adversaries , 1987, FSTTCS.

[19]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP , 1998, JACM.

[20]  Hirotada Kobayashi,et al.  Achieving perfect completeness in classical-witness quantum merlin-arthur proof systems , 2011, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[21]  T. Rudolph,et al.  Degrees of concealment and bindingness in quantum bit commitment protocols , 2001, quant-ph/0106019.

[22]  Alexei Y. Kitaev,et al.  Parallelization, amplification, and exponential time simulation of quantum interactive proof systems , 2000, STOC '00.

[23]  Yaoyun Shi.  Both Toffoli and controlled-NOT need little help to do universal quantum computing , 2003, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[24]  Sergey Bravyi,et al.  Efficient algorithm for a quantum analogue of 2-SAT , 2006, quant-ph/0602108.

[25]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Fast amplification of QMA , 2009, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[26]  L. Babai,et al.  Trading group theory for randomness , 1985, STOC '85.

[27]  Keiji Matsumoto,et al.  Using Entanglement in Quantum Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs , 2007, 2008 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[28]  John Watrous.  Zero-Knowledge against Quantum Attacks , 2009, SIAM J. Comput..

[29]  Matthias Christandl,et al.  One-and-a-Half Quantum de Finetti Theorems , 2007 .

[30]  Greg Kuperberg,et al.  How Hard Is It to Approximate the Jones Polynomial? , 2009, Theory Comput..

[31]  Jamie Sikora,et al.  QMA variants with polynomially many provers , 2011, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[32]  J. Kowski.  Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators , 1972 .

[33]  John Watrous,et al.  Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[34]  E. Knill.  Quantum Randomness and Nondeterminism , 1996 .

[35]  Chris Marriott,et al.  Quantum Arthur–Merlin games , 2004, Proceedings. 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004..

[36]  Salman Beigi,et al.  Quantum Interactive Proofs with Short Messages , 2010, Theory Comput..

[37]  John Watrous,et al.  Quantum Computational Complexity , 2008, Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science.

[38]  Yacov Yacobi,et al.  The Complexity of Promise Problems with Applications to Public-Key Cryptography , 1984, Inf. Control..

[39]  Mikhail N. Vyalyi,et al.  QMA=PP implies that PP contains PH , 2003, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..