Power of the interactive proof systems with verifiers modeled by semi-quantum two-way finite automata

Interactive proof systems (IP) are very powerful - languages they can accept form exactly PSPACE. They represent also one of the very fundamental concepts of theoretical computing and a model of computation by interactions. One of the key players in IP is verifier. In the original model of IP whose power is that of PSPACE, the only restriction on verifiers is that they work in randomized polynomial time. Because of such key importance of IP, it is of large interest to find out how powerful will IP be when verifiers are more restricted. So far this was explored for the case that verifiers are two-way probabilistic finite automata (Dwork and Stockmeyer, 1990) and one-way quantum finite automata as well as two-way quantum finite automata (Nishimura and Yamakami, 2009). IP in which verifiers use public randomization is called Arthur-Merlin proof systems (AM). AM with verifiers modeled by Turing Machines augmented with a fixed-size quantum register (qAM) were studied also by Yakaryilmaz (2012). He proved, for example, that an NP-complete language L knapsack , representing the 0-1 knapsack problem, can be recognized by a qAM whose verifier is a two-way finite automaton working on quantum mixed states using superoperators.In this paper we explore the power of AM for the case that verifiers are two-way finite automata with quantum and classical states (2QCFA) - introduced by Ambainis and Watrous in 2002 - and the communications are classical. It is of interest to consider AM with such "semi-quantum" verifiers because they use only limited quantum resources. Our main result is that such Quantum Arthur-Merlin proof systems (QAM(2QCFA)) with polynomial expected running time are more powerful than the models in which the verifiers are two-way probabilistic finite automata (AM(2PFA)) with polynomial expected running time. Moreover, we prove that there is a language which can be recognized by an exponential expected running time QAM(2QCFA), but cannot be recognized by any AM(2PFA), and that the NP-complete language L knapsack can also be recognized by a QAM(2QCFA) working only on quantum pure states using unitary operators.

[1]  Silvio Micali,et al.  The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems , 1985, STOC '85.

[2]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Algebraic Results on Quantum Automata , 2005, Theory of Computing Systems.

[3]  Azaria Paz,et al.  Introduction to probabilistic automata (Computer science and applied mathematics) , 1971 .

[4]  Shafi Goldwasser,et al.  Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems , 1986, STOC '86.

[5]  M. W. Shields.  An Introduction to Automata Theory , 1988 .

[6]  Abuzer Yakaryilmaz,et al.  Turing-equivalent automata using a fixed-size quantum memory , 2012, ArXiv.

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

[8]  Jozef Gruska,et al.  Quantum Computing , 2008, Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering.

[9]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation , 1979 .

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

[11]  Adi Shamir,et al.  IP = PSPACE , 1992, JACM.

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

[13]  Paulo Mateus,et al.  On the complexity of minimizing probabilistic and quantum automata , 2012, Inf. Comput..

[14]  Jozef Gruska,et al.  Descriptional Complexity Issues in Quantum Computing , 2000, J. Autom. Lang. Comb..

[15]  Daowen Qiu.  Some Observations on Two-Way Finite Automata with Quantum and Classical States , 2008, ICIC.

[16]  Carlo Mereghetti,et al.  Quantum finite automata with control language , 2006, RAIRO Theor. Informatics Appl..

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

[18]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Probabilistic Game Automata , 1988, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[19]  Shenggen Zheng,et al.  State Succinctness of two-Way finite Automata with quantum and Classical States , 2012, QLSC.

[20]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Probabilistic Game Automata , 1986, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[21]  Lihua Wu,et al.  Characterizations of one-way general quantum finite automata , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Mariëlle Stoelinga,et al.  An Introduction to Probabilistic Automata , 2002, Bull. EATCS.

[23]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  1-way quantum finite automata: strengths, weaknesses and generalizations , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

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

[25]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Journal of the ACM , 2006 .

[26]  Robert A. Meyers,et al.  Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science , 2009 .

[27]  Rusins Freivalds,et al.  A new family of nonstochastic languages , 2010, Inf. Process. Lett..

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

[29]  Albert G. Greenberg,et al.  A Lower Bound for Probabilistic Algorithms for Finite State Machines , 1984, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[30]  Alex Brodsky,et al.  Characterizations of 1-Way Quantum Finite Automata , 2002, SIAM J. Comput..

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

[32]  Abuzer Yakaryilmaz,et al.  Public-qubits versus private-coins , 2012, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[33]  Andris Ambainis,et al.  Two-way finite automata with quantum and classical state , 1999, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[34]  Alberto Bertoni,et al.  Quantum Computing: 1-Way Quantum Automata , 2003, Developments in Language Theory.

[35]  Shenggen Zheng,et al.  Some Languages Recognized by Two-Way Finite Automata with Quantum and Classical States , 2011, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[36]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  A Time Complexity Gap for Two-Way Probabilistic Finite-State Automata , 1990, SIAM J. Comput..

[37]  A. C. Cem Say,et al.  Unbounded-error quantum computation with small space bounds , 2010, Inf. Comput..

[38]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  Quantum automata and quantum grammars , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[40]  Harumichi Nishimura,et al.  An Application of Quantum Finite Automata to Interactive Proof Systems , 2004, CIAA.

[41]  Roland Vollmar,et al.  Quantum Finite Automata , 2006 .

[42]  A. C. Cem Say,et al.  Succinctness of two-way probabilistic and quantum finite automata , 2009, Discret. Math. Theor. Comput. Sci..