Exponentially Small Soundness for the Direct Product Z-Test

Given a function f:[N]^k->[M]^k, the Z-test is a three query test for checking if a function f is a direct product, namely if there are functions g_1,...g_k:[N]->[M] such that f(x_1,...,x_k)=(g_1(x_1),...,g_k(x_k)) for every input x in [N]^k. This test was introduced by Impagliazzo et. al. (SICOMP 2012), who showed that if the test passes with probability epsilon > exp(-sqrt k) then f is Omega(epsilon) close to a direct product function in some precise sense. It remained an open question whether the soundness of this test can be pushed all the way down to exp(-k) (which would be optimal). This is our main result: we show that whenever f passes the Z test with probability epsilon > exp(-k), there must be a global reason for this: namely, f must be close to a product function on some Omega(epsilon) fraction of its domain. Towards proving our result we analyze the related (two-query) V-test, and prove a "restricted global structure" theorem for it. Such theorems were also proven in previous works on direct product testing in the small soundness regime. The most recent work, by Dinur and Steurer (CCC 2014), analyzed the V test in the exponentially small soundness regime. We strengthen their conclusion of that theorem by moving from an "in expectation" statement to a stronger "concentration of measure" type of statement, which we prove using hyper-contractivity. This stronger statement allows us to proceed to analyze the Z test. We analyze two variants of direct product tests. One for functions on ordered tuples, as above, and another for functions on sets of size k. The work of Impagliazzo et al. was actually focused only on functions of the latter type, i.e. on sets. We prove exponentially small soundness for the Z-test for both variants. Although the two appear very similar, the analysis for tuples is more tricky and requires some additional ideas

Testing product states, quantum Merlin-Arthur games and tensor optimisation

We give a test that can distinguish efficiently between product states of n quantum systems and states which are far from product. If applied to a state psi whose maximum overlap with a product state is 1-epsilon, the test passes with probability 1-Theta(epsilon), regardless of n or the local dimensions of the individual systems. The test uses two copies of psi. We prove correctness of this test as a special case of a more general result regarding stability of maximum output purity of the depolarising channel. A key application of the test is to quantum Merlin-Arthur games with multiple Merlins, where we obtain several structural results that had been previously conjectured, including the fact that efficient soundness amplification is possible and that two Merlins can simulate many Merlins: QMA(k)=QMA(2) for k>=2. Building on a previous result of Aaronson et al, this implies that there is an efficient quantum algorithm to verify 3-SAT with constant soundness, given two unentangled proofs of O(sqrt(n) polylog(n)) qubits. We also show how QMA(2) with log-sized proofs is equivalent to a large number of problems, some related to quantum information (such as testing separability of mixed states) as well as problems without any apparent connection to quantum mechanics (such as computing injective tensor norms of 3-index tensors). As a consequence, we obtain many hardness-of-approximation results, as well as potential algorithmic applications of methods for approximating QMA(2) acceptance probabilities. Finally, our test can also be used to construct an efficient test for determining whether a unitary operator is a tensor product, which is a generalisation of classical linearity testing.Comment: 44 pages, 1 figure, 7 appendices; v6: added references, rearranged sections, added discussion of connections to classical CS. Final version to appear in J of the AC

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 QIP_1(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.Comment: 41 pages; v2: soundness parameters improved, correction of a minor error in Lemma 23, and removal of the sentences claiming that our techniques are quantumly nonrelativizin

Quantum Proofs

Quantum information and computation provide a fascinating twist on the notion of proofs in computational complexity theory. For instance, one may consider a quantum computational analogue of the complexity class \class{NP}, known as QMA, in which a quantum state plays the role of a proof (also called a certificate or witness), and is checked by a polynomial-time quantum computation. For some problems, the fact that a quantum proof state could be a superposition over exponentially many classical states appears to offer computational advantages over classical proof strings. In the interactive proof system setting, one may consider a verifier and one or more provers that exchange and process quantum information rather than classical information during an interaction for a given input string, giving rise to quantum complexity classes such as QIP, QSZK, and QMIP* that represent natural quantum analogues of IP, SZK, and MIP. While quantum interactive proof systems inherit some properties from their classical counterparts, they also possess distinct and uniquely quantum features that lead to an interesting landscape of complexity classes based on variants of this model. In this survey we provide an overview of many of the known results concerning quantum proofs, computational models based on this concept, and properties of the complexity classes they define. In particular, we discuss non-interactive proofs and the complexity class QMA, single-prover quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class QIP, statistical zero-knowledge quantum interactive proof systems and the complexity class \class{QSZK}, and multiprover interactive proof systems and the complexity classes QMIP, QMIP*, and MIP*.Comment: Survey published by NOW publisher

Quantum Locally Testable Codes

We initiate the study of quantum Locally Testable Codes (qLTCs). We provide a definition together with a simplification, denoted sLTCs, for the special case of stabilizer codes, together with some basic results using those definitions. The most crucial parameter of such codes is their soundness, $R(\delta)$, namely, the probability that a randomly chosen constraint is violated as a function of the distance of a word from the code ($\delta$, the relative distance from the code, is called the proximity). We then proceed to study limitations on qLTCs. In our first main result we prove a surprising, inherently quantum, property of sLTCs: for small values of proximity, the better the small-set expansion of the interaction graph of the constraints, the less sound the qLTC becomes. This phenomenon, which can be attributed to monogamy of entanglement, stands in sharp contrast to the classical setting. The complementary, more intuitive, result also holds: an upper bound on the soundness when the code is defined on poor small-set expanders (a bound which turns out to be far more difficult to show in the quantum case). Together we arrive at a quantum upper-bound on the soundness of stabilizer qLTCs set on any graph, which does not hold in the classical case. Many open questions are raised regarding what possible parameters are achievable for qLTCs. In the appendix we also define a quantum analogue of PCPs of proximity (PCPPs) and point out that the result of Ben-Sasson et. al. by which PCPPs imply LTCs with related parameters, carries over to the sLTCs. This creates a first link between qLTCs and quantum PCPs.Comment: Some of the results presented here appeared in an initial form in our quant-ph submission arXiv:1301.3407. This is a much extended and improved version. 30 pages, no figure

Constant-Soundness Interactive Proofs for Local Hamiltonians

$\newcommand{\Xlin}{\mathcal{X}} \newcommand{\Zlin}{\mathcal{Z}} \newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}$We give a quantum multiprover interactive proof system for the local Hamiltonian problem in which there is a constant number of provers, questions are classical of length polynomial in the number of qubits, and answers are of constant length. The main novelty of our protocol is that the gap between completeness and soundness is directly proportional to the promise gap on the (normalized) ground state energy of the Hamiltonian. This result can be interpreted as a concrete step towards a quantum PCP theorem giving entangled-prover interactive proof systems for QMA-complete problems. The key ingredient is a quantum version of the classical linearity test of Blum, Luby, and Rubinfeld, where the function $f:\{0,1\}^n\to\{0,1\}$ is replaced by a pair of functions \Xlin, \Zlin:\{0,1\}^n\to \text{Obs}_d(\C), the set of $d$-dimensional Hermitian matrices that square to identity. The test enforces that (i) each function is exactly linear, \Xlin(a)\Xlin(b)=\Xlin(a+b) and \Zlin(a) \Zlin(b)=\Zlin(a+b), and (ii) the two functions are approximately complementary, \Xlin(a)\Zlin(b)\approx (-1)^{a\cdot b} \Zlin(b)\Xlin(a).Comment: 33 page