Low-Degree Testing for Quantum States, and a Quantum Entangled Games PCP for QMA

We show that given an explicit description of a multiplayer game, with a classical verifier and a constant number of players, it is QMA-hard, under randomized reductions, to distinguish between the cases when the players have a strategy using entanglement that succeeds with probability 1 in the game, or when no such strategy succeeds with probability larger than 1/2. This proves the "games quantum PCP conjecture" of Fitzsimons and the second author (ITCS'15), albeit under randomized reductions. The core component in our reduction is a construction of a family of two-player games for testing n-qubit maximally entangled states. For any integer n >= 2, we give such a game in which questions from the verifier are O(log n) bits long, and answers are poly(log log n) bits long. We show that for any constant eps >= 0, any strategy that succeeds with probability at least 1-eps in the test must use a state that is within distance δ(eps) = O(eps^c) from a state that is locally equivalent to a maximally entangled state on n qubits, for some universal constant c > 0. The construction is based on the classical plane-vs-point test for multivariate low-degree polynomials of Raz and Safra. We extend the classical test to the quantum regime by executing independent copies of the test in the generalized Pauli X and Z bases over F_q, where q is a sufficiently large prime power, and combine the two through a test for the Pauli twisted commutation relations. Our main complexity-theoretic result is obtained by combining this game with techniques from the classical PCP literature. More specifically, we use constructions of PCPs of proximity introduced by Ben-Sasson et al. (CCC'05), and crucially rely on a linear property of such PCPs. Another consequence of our reduction is a deterministic reduction from the games quantum PCP conjecture to a suitable formulation of the constraint satisfaction quantum PCP conjecture.

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

[2]  Thomas Vidick,et al.  Low-degree testing for quantum states , 2018 .

[3]  Thomas Vidick,et al.  Test for a large amount of entanglement, using few measurements , 2018, Quantum.

[4]  Iordanis Kerenidis,et al.  Pointer Quantum PCPs and Multi-Prover Games , 2016, MFCS.

[5]  Ashley Montanaro,et al.  Complexity Classification of Local Hamiltonian Problems , 2013, 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[6]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  Constant-Round Interactive Proofs for Delegating Computation , 2016, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[7]  A. Steane Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[8]  Lev Glebsky Almost commuting matrices with respect to normalized Hilbert-Schmidt norm. , 2010 .

[9]  Lior Eldar,et al.  Local Hamiltonians Whose Ground States Are Hard to Approximate , 2015, 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[10]  Andrea Coladangelo,et al.  Parallel self-testing of (tilted) EPR pairs via copies of (tilted) CHSH and the magic square game , 2016, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[11]  P. K. Aravind The magic squares and Bell''s theorem , 2002 .

[12]  Thomas Vidick,et al.  Entanglement of approximate quantum strategies in XOR games , 2016, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[13]  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.

[14]  Andrea Coladangelo,et al.  Robust self-testing for linear constraint system games , 2017, 1709.09267.

[15]  Henry Yuen,et al.  Noise-Tolerant Testing of High Entanglement of Formation , 2017, ICALP.

[16]  Dorit Aharonov,et al.  The commuting local Hamiltonian problem on locally expanding graphs is approximable in NP\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} , 2014, Quantum Information Processing.

[17]  Thomas Vidick,et al.  Hardness amplification for entangled games via anchoring , 2017, STOC.

[18]  Rudolf Ahlswede,et al.  Strong converse for identification via quantum channels , 2000, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[19]  Yossi Azar,et al.  Approximating Probability Distributions Using Small Sample Spaces , 1998, Comb..

[20]  W. T. Gowers,et al.  Inverse and stability theorems for approximate representations of finite groups , 2015, 1510.04085.

[21]  Thomas Vidick,et al.  Three-Player Entangled XOR Games Are NP-Hard to Approximate , 2013, 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[22]  Ran Raz,et al.  PCP characterizations of NP: towards a polynomially-small error-probability , 1999, STOC '99.

[23]  Shor,et al.  Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[24]  Aram Wettroth Harrow,et al.  Product-state approximations to quantum ground states , 2013, STOC '13.

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

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

[27]  Ran Raz,et al.  A sub-constant error-probability low-degree test, and a sub-constant error-probability PCP characterization of NP , 1997, STOC '97.

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

[29]  Daniel Gottesman Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Higher-Dimensional Systems , 1998, QCQC.

[30]  Anand Natarajan,et al.  A quantum linearity test for robustly verifying entanglement , 2017, STOC.

[31]  Dorit Aharonov,et al.  The Quantum PCP Conjecture , 2013, ArXiv.

[32]  Santosh Kumar,et al.  Nonbinary Stabilizer Codes Over Finite Fields , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[33]  Manuel Blum,et al.  Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems , 1990, STOC '90.

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

[35]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Short PCPs verifiable in polylogarithmic time , 2005, 20th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'05).

[36]  Jacob T. Schwartz,et al.  Fast Probabilistic Algorithms for Verification of Polynomial Identities , 1980, J. ACM.

[37]  Matthew Coudron,et al.  The Parallel-Repeated Magic Square Game is Rigid , 2016, 1609.06306.

[38]  Richard Zippel,et al.  Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials , 1979, EUROSAM.

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

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

[41]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems , 1992, Proceedings., 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[42]  Stacey Jeffery,et al.  Verifier-on-a-Leash: new schemes for verifiable delegated quantum computation, with quasilinear resources , 2017, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[43]  Jean-Daniel Bancal,et al.  Device-independent certification of one-shot distillable entanglement , 2017, New Journal of Physics.

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

[45]  Zheng-Feng Ji,et al.  Classical verification of quantum proofs , 2015, STOC.