Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Chemistry

An exponential time upper bound for Quantum Merlin-Arthur games with unentangled provers

arXiv
Authors: Martin Schwarz

Year

2015

Paper ID

26448

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

125

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We prove a deterministic exponential time upper bound for Quantum Merlin-Arthur games with k unentangled provers. This is the first non-trivial upper bound of QMA(k) better than NEXP and can be considered an exponential improvement, unless EXP=NEXP. The key ideas of our proof are to use perturbation theory to reduce the QMA(2)-complete Separable Sparse Hamiltonian problem to a variant of the Separable Local Hamiltonian problem with an exponentially small promise gap, and then to decide this instance using epsilon-net methods. Our results imply an exponential time algorithm for the Pure State N-Representability problem in quantum chemistry, which is in QMA(2), but is not known to be in QMA. We also discuss the implications of our results on the Best Separable State problem.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Chemistry research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We prove a deterministic exponential time upper bound for Quantum Merlin-Arthur games with k unentangled provers.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #26448 #69042 Simultaneous Fragment Docking f... #69037 Spin dynamics and ortho-para co... #69012 Projector Quantum Variational A... #69006 Elucidating the Control of Circ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.