Generalized Quantum Arthur-Merlin Games

This paper investigates the role of interaction and coins in quantum Arthur-Merlin games(also called public-coin quantum interactive proof systems). While the existing model restricts the messages from the verifier to be classical even in the quantum setting, the present work introduces a generalized version of quantum Arthur-Merlin games where the messages from the verifier can be quantum as well: the verifier can send not only random bits, but also halves of EPR pairs. This generalization turns out to provide several novel characterizations of quantum interactive proof systems with a constant number of turns. First, it is proved that the complexity class corresponding to two-turn quantum Arthur-Merlin games where both of the two messages are quantum, denoted qq-QAM in this paper, does not change by adding a constant number of turns of classical interaction prior to the communications of qq-QAM proof systems. This can be viewed as a quantum analogue of the celebrated collapse theorem for AM due to Babai. To prove this collapse theorem, this paper presents a natural complete problem for qq-QAM: deciding whether the output of a given quantum circuit is close to a totally mixed state. This complete problem is on the very line of the previous studies investigating the hardness of checking properties related to quantum circuits, and thus, qq-QAM may provide a good measure in computational complexity theory. It is further proved that the class qq-QAM1, the perfect-completeness variant of qq-QAM, gives new bounds for standard well-studied classes of two-turn quantum interactive proof systems. Finally, the collapse theorem above is extended to comprehensively classify the role of classical and quantum interactions in quantum Arthur-Merlin games: it is proved that, for any constant m ≥ 2, the class of problems having m-turn quantum Arthur-Merlin proof systems is either equal to PSPACE or equal to the class of problems having two-turn quantum Arthur-Merlin proof systems of a specific type, which provides a complete set of quantum analogues of Babai's collapse theorem.

[1]  François Le Gall,et al.  Stronger methods of making quantum interactive proofs perfectly complete , 2012, ITCS '13.

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

[3]  SystemsCarsten Lund,et al.  Algebraic Methods for Interactive Proof , 2010 .

[4]  Attila Pereszlényi,et al.  On Quantum Interactive Proofs with Short Messages , 2011, Chic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

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

[7]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Games against nature , 1983, 24th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1983).

[8]  Mark M. Wilde,et al.  Two-Message Quantum Interactive Proofs and the Quantum Separability Problem , 2012, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[9]  Rahul Jain,et al.  Two-Message Quantum Interactive Proofs Are in PSPACE , 2009, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

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

[11]  John Watrous,et al.  Limits on the power of quantum statistical zero-knowledge , 2002, The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2002. Proceedings..

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

[13]  Stephanie Wehner,et al.  Entanglement in Interactive Proof Systems with Binary Answers , 2005, STACS.

[14]  Jeroen van de Graaf,et al.  Cryptographic Distinguishability Measures for Quantum-Mechanical States , 1997, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

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

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

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

[18]  Clemens Lautemann,et al.  BPP and the Polynomial Hierarchy , 1983, Inf. Process. Lett..

[19]  Jin-Yi Cai Lectures in Computational Complexity , 2003 .

[20]  Hirotada Kobayashi,et al.  Non-interactive Quantum Perfect and Statistical Zero-Knowledge , 2003, ISAAC.

[21]  John Watrous,et al.  Zero-knowledge against quantum attacks , 2005, STOC '06.

[22]  Keiji Matsumoto,et al.  Quantum Merlin-Arthur Proof Systems: Are Multiple Merlins More Helpful to Arthur? , 2009, Chic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[24]  Bill Fefferman,et al.  The Power of Unentanglement , 2008, 2008 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[25]  Andrew Drucker,et al.  New Limits to Classical and Quantum Instance Compression , 2012, 2012 IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

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

[27]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems , 1990, Proceedings [1990] 31st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[28]  A. Uhlmann The "transition probability" in the state space of a ∗-algebra , 1976 .

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

[30]  R. Schumann Quantum Information Theory , 2000, quant-ph/0010060.

[31]  Iordanis Kerenidis,et al.  Interactive and Noninteractive Zero Knowledge are Equivalent in the Help Model , 2008, TCC.

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

[33]  Amnon Ta-Shma,et al.  Quantum Expanders: Motivation and Construction , 2010, Theory Comput..

[34]  Amnon Ta-Shma,et al.  Quantum Expanders: Motivation and Constructions , 2008, 2008 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[35]  William Rosgen,et al.  Computational Distinguishability of Quantum Channels , 2009, ArXiv.

[36]  Bill Rosgen,et al.  On the hardness of distinguishing mixed-state quantum computations , 2004, 20th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'05).

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

[38]  Igor Vajda,et al.  Note on discrimination information and variation (Corresp.) , 1970, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[39]  László Babai,et al.  Arthur-Merlin Games: A Randomized Proof System, and a Hierarchy of Complexity Classes , 1988, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[40]  Alexander Shen IP = SPACE: simplified proof , 1992, JACM.

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

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