On parallel composition of zero-knowledge proofs with black-box quantum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let $L$ be a language decided by a constant-round quantum Arthur-Merlin ($\QAM$) protocol with negligible soundness error and all but possibly the last message being classical. We prove that if this protocol is zero knowledge with a black-box, quantum simulator $\cS$, then $L \in \BQP$. Our result also applies to any language having a three-round quantum interactive proof ($\QIP$), with all but possibly the last message being classical, with negligible soundness error and a black-box quantum simulator. These results in particular make it unlikely that certain protocols can be composed in parallel in order to reduce soundness error, while maintaining zero knowledge with a black-box quantum simulator. They generalize analogous classical results of Goldreich and Krawczyk (1990). Our proof goes via a reduction to quantum black-box search. We show that the existence of a black-box quantum simulator for such protocols when $L \notin \BQP$ would imply an impossibly-good quantum search algorithm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".