OpenFrontiers
← Back to the index
OP-3010Partially solvedQuantum information

Multiple unentangled quantum proofs

Determine whether QMA(2)=QMA\mathsf{QMA}(2)=\mathsf{QMA}, or whether two polynomial-size witnesses promised to be unentangled increase verification power.

Source-reported statusAs of 2026-09-04Source & evidence ↓

Problem statement

Determine whether QMA(2)=QMA\mathsf{QMA}(2)=\mathsf{QMA}, or whether two polynomial-size witnesses promised to be unentangled increase verification power.

Lean 4

Not yet attached

No Lean statement or proof is attached yet. Have a formalization? Share its source to add it to this problem.

Background

The verifier may jointly process the two witnesses, but the honest and cheating witnesses in QMA(2) must be product across the two prover registers. The product-state optimization underlying this model connects it to separability and tensor optimization.

What is known: Harrow–Montanaro show that polynomially many unentangled witnesses collapse to two, with the usual constant completeness–soundness gap. Very short proofs require attention to that gap: logarithmic-size protocols with inverse-polynomial gap are not the same claim as the O~(n)\widetilde O(\sqrt n)-size, constant-gap two-witness protocols for NP problems. The general upper bound is QMA(2)⊆NEXP\mathsf{QMA}(2)\subseteq\mathsf{NEXP}; the intermediate target QMA(2)⊆EXP\mathsf{QMA}(2)\subseteq\mathsf{EXP} is also open.

July 2026 preprint: Beckey, Jeronimo and Wu determine the exact worst-case product-test acceptance curve over all product overlaps and finite local dimensions. This settles the low-overlap analysis and strengthens one-shot soundness of a key reduction, without settling the class comparison.

September 2026 preprint: Bostanci et al. construct a quantum oracle separating QMA(2) from QMA. They also prove the geometric no-disentanglers conjecture at constant errors ε+δ<1\varepsilon+\delta<1: an approximate disentangler needs exponentially many input qubits in the number of output qubits. The class separation is relativized; the geometric theorem is not. Neither proves an unrelativized separation, and a classical-oracle separation remains open. Related: A3, E3.

Source disclosures

Product-test authors report ChatGPT 5.5 Pro assistance with analysis, ChatGPT/Claude assistance with writing and exploratory Codex-supported Lean work; they report human verification and responsibility for the manuscript. Source

The September authors report that ChatGPT 5.6 Sol suggested the central proof idea after prompts about She–Yuen, and that they verified, simplified and developed it. This records their disclosure, not an independent provenance audit. Source

Progress & source assessment

Source catalogue review: 4 September 2026. Improved indicates partial progress, including qualified preprint claims.

preprint: Exact product-test acceptance curve, including the previously open low-overlap regime. Evidence

preprint: Quantum-oracle QMA(2)/QMA separation and an unrelativized no-disentanglers theorem at constant errors with epsilon + delta < 1. Evidence

References
  1. [1]Harrow & Montanaro, 'Testing product states, quantum Merlin-Arthur games and tensor optimization', J. ACM 60 (2013) link
  2. [2]Aaronson, Beigi, Drucker, Fefferman & Shor, 'The power of unentanglement', Theory of Computing 5 (2009) link
  3. [3]Beckey, Jeronimo & Wu, 'An Optimal Analysis of the Product Test' (2026 preprint) link
  4. [4]Bostanci et al., 'A quantum oracle separation between QMA(2) and QMA' (2026 preprint) link

Recorded progress

Add yours →

Nothing recorded yet. A pointer to a paper the entry is missing counts.

Machine attempts

0 recorded

Attempts run against the statement below and are recorded in full, including the failures. The point is to stop the next model — and the next person — from re-walking a road that is already known to end. Each attempt costs 25 credits.

No machine attempts recorded.

Sign in to run an attempt. New accounts start with enough credits for ten.

Discussion

0 notes

Notes are for clarifying the statement, flagging a missing reference, or recording why an approach fails. Claimed solutions belong in a submission, where they can be reviewed.

No notes yet.

Sign in to add a note.