Definition(BQP): We say a language L∈BQP if and only if there exists a polynomial-time uniform family of quantum circuits {Qn:n∈N}, such that:
∀n∈N, Qn takes n qubits and outputs 1 classical bit(by measurement).
∀n∈L,Pr[Q∣x∣(x)=1]≥32.
∀n∈/L,Pr[Q∣x∣(x)=0]≥32.
∀n∈N,Qn consists of O(nc) gates.
The gates in Qn are limited to some universal set, e.g. {H,NOT,CNOT,CCNOT}.
In this definition, “polynomial-time uniform” indicates that for n∈N, there exists a deterministic Turing machine that output the diagram of Qn with input 1n in polynomial time.
Theorem: BQP⊆PSPACE.
Definition: QMA(2) is the set of all languages L such that there exists a (“BQP”) verifier V such that:
(Completeness)If x∈L, then ∃∣ψ1⟩,∣ψ2⟩, each with l=O(nc) qubits long s.t.
Pr[V(∣x⟩⊗∣ψ1⟩⊗∣ψ2⟩) accepts]≥c
(Soundness)If x∈/L,∀∣ψ1⟩,ψ2⟩, each with l=O(nc) qubits long s.t.
Pr[V(∣x⟩⊗∣ψ1⟩⊗∣ψ2⟩) accepts]≤s
Remark: In QMA(2), we don’t allow entangled provers, so it’s always the tensor product of two separate states.
We can put all parameters in a compact form:
QMAl(k)c,s
Theorem:
Hugue Blier and Alain Tapp. All languages in np have very short quantum proofs.
In ICQNM ’09.
NP⊆QMAl(2)c,s with l=log(n),c=1,s=1−poly(n)1
If we want the soundness probability to be constant:
Theorem: Scott Aaronson, Salman Beigi, Andrew Drucker, Bill Fefferman, and Peter Shor.
The power of unentanglement. volume 5, pages 1–42, 2009.
NP⊆QMAl(k)c,s with l=log(n),k=O~(n),c=1,s=0.999