Constant-space quantum interactive proofs against multiple provers

We present upper and lower bounds of the computational complexity of the two-way communication model of multiple-prover quantum interactive proof systems whose verifiers are limited to measure-many two-way quantum finite automata. We prove that (i) the languages recognized by those multiple-prover systems running in expected polynomial time are exactly the ones in NEXP, the nondeterministic exponential-time complexity class, (ii) if we further require verifiers to be one-way quantum finite automata, then their associated proof systems recognize context-free languages but not beyond languages in NE, the nondeterministic linear exponential-time complexity class, and moreover, (iii) when no time bound is imposed, the proof systems become as powerful as Turing machines. The first two results answer affirmatively an open question, posed by Nishimura and Yamakami [J. Comput. System Sci. 75 (2009) 255-269], of whether multiple-prover quantum interactive proof systems are more powerful than single-prover ones. Our proofs are simple and intuitive, although they heavily rely on an earlier result on multiple-prover classical interactive proof systems of Feige and Shamir [J. Comput. System Sci. 44 (1992) 259-271].

[1]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Interactive Proofs for Quantum Computation , 2003, ISAAC.

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

[3]  Kohtaro Tadaki,et al.  Theory of One Tape Linear Time Turing Machines , 2003, SOFSEM.

[4]  Anne Condon,et al.  The Complexity of Space Boundes Interactive Proof Systems , 1993, Complexity Theory: Current Research.

[5]  John Watrous,et al.  On the power of quantum finite state automata , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[6]  Thierry Paul,et al.  Quantum computation and quantum information , 2007, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[7]  Harumichi Nishimura,et al.  Interactive proofs with quantum finite automata , 2014, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[9]  Keiji Matsumoto,et al.  Quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems with limited prior entanglement , 2001, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[10]  John Watrous,et al.  PSPACE has constant-round quantum interactive proof systems , 1999, 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039).

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

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

[13]  Adi Shamir,et al.  Multi-Oracle Interactive Protocols with Constant Space Verifiers , 1992, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[14]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  Finite state verifiers I: the power of interaction , 1992, JACM.

[15]  Harumichi Nishimura,et al.  Polynomial time quantum computation with advice , 2004, Inf. Process. Lett..

[16]  Harumichi Nishimura,et al.  An application of quantum finite automata to interactive proof systems , 2009, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..