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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.