text: The class QMA(k), introduced by , consists of all languages that can be verified using k unentangled quantum proofs. Many of the simplest questions about this class have remained embarrassingly open: for example, can we give any evidence that k quantum proofs are more powerful than one? Does QMA(k)=QMA(2) for k>=2? Can QMA(k) protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? In this paper, we make progress on all of the above questions. First, we give a protocol by which a verifier can be convinced that a 3SAT formula of size n is satisfiable, with constant soundness, given O(sqrt(n)) unentangled quantum witnesses with O(log n) qubits each. Our protocol relies on the existence of very short PCPs. Second, we show that assuming a weak version of the Additivity Conjecture from quantum information theory, any QMA(2) protocol can be amplified to exponentially small error, and QMA(k)=QMA(2) for all k>=2. Third, we prove the nonexistence of "perfect disentanglers" for simulating multiple Merlins with one.
  @cite_13: This paper introduces a new technique for removing existential quantifiers over quantum states. Using this technique, we show that there is no way to pack an exponential number of bits into a polynomial-size quantum state, in such a way that the value of any one of those bits can later be proven with the help of a polynomial-size quantum witness. We also show that any problem in QMA with polynomial-size quantum advice, is also in PSPACE with polynomial-size classical advice. This builds on our earlier result that BQP qpoly is contained in PP poly, and offers an intriguing counterpoint to the recent discovery of Raz that QIP qpoly = ALL. Finally, we show that QCMA qpoly is contained in PP poly and that QMA rpoly = QMA poly.
summary: Second, Liu, Christandl, and Verstraete @cite_13 gave a natural problem from quantum chemistry, called @math , which is in @math but is not known to be in @math .