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_18: Quite complex cryptographic machinery has been developed based on the assumption that one-way functions exist, yet we know of only a few possible such candidates. It is important at this time to find alternative foundations to the design of secure cryptography. We introduce a new model of generalized interactive proofs as a step in this direction. We prove that all NP languages have perfect zero-knowledge proof-systems in this model, without making any intractability assumptions. The generalized interactive-proof model consists of two computationally unbounded and untrusted provers, rather than one, who jointly agree on a strategy to convince the verifier of the truth of an assertion and then engage in a polynomial number of message exchanges with the verifier in their attempt to do so. To believe the validity of the assertion, the verifier must make sure that the two provers can not communicate with each other during the course of the proof process. Thus, the complexity assumptions made in previous work, have been traded for a physical separation between the two provers. We call this new model the multi-prover interactive-proof model, and examine its properties and applicability to cryptography.
  @cite_14: We show that a parallel repetition of any two-prover one-round proof system (MIP(2,1)) decreases the probability of error at an exponential rate. No constructive bound was previously known. The constant in the exponent (in our analysis) depends only on the original probability of error and on the total number of possible answers of the two provers. The dependency on the total number of possible answers is logarithmic, which was recently proved to be almost the best possible [U. Feige and O. Verbitsky, Proc.11th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996, pp. 70--76].
summary: When we try to understand @math , we encounter at least three basic questions. First, do multiple quantum proofs ever actually help? That is, can we find some sort of evidence that @math for some @math ? Second, can @math protocols be amplified to exponentially small error? Third, are two Merlins the most we ever need? That is, does @math for all @math ? The second and third questions are motivated, in part, by an analogy to classical ---where the Parallel Repetition Theorem of Raz @cite_14 and the @math theorem of Ben- @cite_18 turned out to be crucial for understanding the class @math .