Two-message quantum interactive proofs and the quantum separability problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suppose that a polynomial-time mixed-state quantum circuit, described as a sequence of local unitary interactions followed by a partial trace, generates a quantum state shared between two parties. One might then wonder, does this quantum circuit produce a state that is separable or entangled? Here, we give evidence that it is computationally hard to decide the answer to this question, even if one has access to the power of quantum computation. We begin by exhibiting a two-message quantum interactive proof system that can decide the answer to a promise version of the question. We then prove that the promise problem is hard for the class of promise problems with "quantum statistical zero knowledge" QSZK proof systems by demonstrating a polynomial-time Karp reduction from the QSZK-complete promise problem "quantum state distinguishability" to our quantum separability problem. By exploiting Knill's efficient encoding of a matrix description of a state into a description of a circuit to generate the state, we can show that our promise problem is NP-hard with respect to Cook reductions. Thus, the quantum separability problem (as phrased above) constitutes the first nontrivial promise problem decidable by a two-message quantum interactive proof system while being hard for both NP and QSZK. We also consider a variant of the problem, in which a given polynomial-time mixed-state quantum circuit accepts a quantum state as input, and the question is to decide if there is an input to this circuit which makes its output separable across some bipartite cut. We prove that this problem is a complete promise problem for the class QIP of problems decidable by quantum interactive proof systems. Finally, we show that a two-message quantum interactive proof system can also decide a multipartite generalization of the quantum separability problem.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".