AG-2026.04-1663·quant-ph·cross-listed: cs.CC
En Route to a Standard QMA1 vs. QCMA Oracle Separation
Authors
- David Miloschewsky
- Supartha Podder
- Dorian Rudolph
Abstract
We study the power of quantum witnesses under perfect completeness. We construct a classical oracle relative to which a language lies in $\mathsf{QMA}_1$ but not in $\mathsf{QCMA}$ when the $\mathsf{QCMA}$ verifier is only allowed polynomially many adaptive rounds and exponentially many parallel queries per round. Additionally, we derandomize the permutation-oracle separation of Fefferman and Kimmel, obtaining an in-place oracle separation between $\mathsf{QMA}_1$ and $\mathsf{QCMA}$. Furthermore, we focus on $\mathsf{QCMA}$ and $\mathsf{QMA}$ with an exponentially small gap, where we show a separation assuming the gap is fixed, but not when it may be arbitrarily small. Finally, we derive consequences for approximate ground-state preparation from sparse Hamiltonian oracle access, including a bounded-adaptivity frustration-free variant.
Submitted
29 April 20261 week ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.26921
Summary
Researchers construct quantum oracles showing that QMA₁ (quantum verification with perfect certainty) is strictly more powerful than QCMA (classical witnesses verified quantum-mechanically), even under realistic computational constraints.
- The separation holds even when the QCMA verifier can ask many questions in parallel and adapt its strategy over polynomially many rounds—ruling out weak computational models as the reason for the gap.
- By derandomizing a prior construction, the authors obtain a cleaner oracle separation that doesn't rely on probabilistic tricks, making the fundamental difference between quantum and classical witnesses more transparent.
- The results constrain what quantum computers can do with access to ground-state information: you can't always efficiently prepare approximate ground states from a sparse Hamiltonian oracle, revealing limits on a key quantum algorithm primitive.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.