Separating QMA from QCMA with a Classical Oracle
John Bostanci, Jonas Haferkamp, Chinmay Nirkhe, Mark Zhandry
Abstract
We construct a classical oracle proving that, in a relativized setting, the set of languages decidable by an efficient quantum verifier with a quantum witness (QMA) is strictly bigger than those decidable with access only to a classical witness (QCMA). The separating classical oracle we construct is for a decision problem we coin spectral Forrelation – the oracle describes two subsets of the boolean hypercube, and the computational task is to decide if there exists a quantum state whose standard basis measurement distribution is well supported on one subset while its Fourier basis measurement distribution is well supported on the other subset. This is equivalent to estimating the spectral norm of a “Forrelation” matrix between two sets that are accessible through membership queries. Our lower bound derives from a simple observation that a query algorithm with a classical witness can be run multiple times to generate many samples from a distribution, while a quantum witness is a “use once” object. This observation allows us to reduce proving a QCMA lower bound to proving a sampling hardness result which does not simultaneously prove a QMA lower bound. To prove said sampling hardness result for QCMA, we observe that quantum access to the oracle can be compressed by expressing the problem in terms of bosons – a novel “second quantization” perspective on compressed oracle techniques, which may be of independent interest. Using this compressed perspective on the sampling problem, we prove the sampling hardness result, completing the proof.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 84a032f1-afdc-454e-963b-9bfa8f98cb7fCited by top-tier papers2
- Separating Non-interactive Classical Verification of Quantum Computation from Falsifiable AssumptionsMohammed Barhoush, Tomoyuki Morimae, Ryo Nishimaki, Takashi YamakawaCRYPTO 2026
- On the Need for (Quantum) Memory with Short OutputsZihan Hao, Zikuan Huang, Qipeng LiuSTOC 2026
Builds on8
- NLTS Hamiltonians from Good Quantum CodesAnurag Anshu, Nikolas P. Breuckmann, Chinmay NirkheSTOC 2023 · 50 citations
- Verifiable Quantum Advantage without StructureTakashi Yamakawa, Mark ZhandryFOCS 2022 · 35 citations
- Learning Quantum Hamiltonians at Any Temperature in Polynomial TimeAinesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, Ewin TangSTOC 2024 · 14 citations
- The Power of a Single Haar Random State: Constructing and Separating Quantum PseudorandomnessBoyang Chen, Andrea Coladangelo, Or SattathEUROCRYPT 2025 · 6 citations
- QMA vs QCMA and PseudorandomnessJiahui Liu, Saachi Mutreja, Henry YuenSTOC 2025 · 5 citations
Related papers
- Classical Commitments to Quantum StatesSam Gunn, Yael Tauman Kalai, Anand Natarajan, Ági VillányiSTOC 2025 · 2 citations
- Founding Quantum Cryptography on Quantum Advantage, or, Towards Cryptography from #P HardnessDakshita Khurana, Kabir TomerSTOC 2025 · 2 citations
- A Meta-complexity Characterization of Quantum CryptographyBruno Pasqualotto Cavalar, Eli Goldin, Matthew Gray, Peter HallEUROCRYPT 2025 · 2 citations
- Classical Proofs of Quantum KnowledgeThomas Vidick, Tina ZhangEUROCRYPT 2021 · 19 citations
- A Geometric Approach to Quantum DistinguishersZhili Wu, Zhenzhen BaoCRYPTO 2026
