aiqbench analysis
This paper establishes fundamental limits on how efficiently a quantum verifier can identify a hidden state using classical communication, proving that exponential resources are required even with an unbounded prover. The findings extend prior lower bounds to arbitrary interaction models and yield significant implications for cryptographic primitives like witness encryption and quantum indistinguishability obfuscation.
Quantum State Search with Classical Interactive Advice
arXiv:2610.25657v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study whether a quantum verifier can find a hidden quantum state by exchanging classical messages with an unbounded prover who knows the state. The verifier has access to a reflection oracle about the target. For a Haar-random $n$-qubit target, we prove that achieving constant average fidelity with the target requires $(q+1)^2(B+1)=\Omega(2^n)$, where $q$ is the number of verifier queries and $B$ is the total prover-to-verifier communication. The bound allows arbitrary classical interaction and unrestricted computation between queries. Our proof extends the lower bound of Aaronson and Kuperberg from a single classical proof to an arbitrary classical interaction. As a result, we obtain a quantum-oracle separation of UniqueQMA from QCIP with polynomially many classical messages. In particular, we give a unitary oracle $\mathcal{U}$ such that there exists a language $L\in\mathrm{UniqueQMA}^{\mathcal{U}}$ but $L\notin\mathrm{QCIP}^{\mathcal{U}}$. We further give an oracle construction for a notion known as QMA-QCIP[2] gap problem. This gives average case hardness for a QMA language under classical access to a QCIP[2] decision oracle and is used in establishing negative results on witness encryption and quantum indistinguishability obfuscation.
Abstract:We study whether a quantum verifier can find a hidden quantum state by exchanging classical messages with an unbounded prover who knows the state. The verifier has access to a reflection oracle about the target. For a Haar-random $n$-qubit target, we prove that achieving constant average fidelity with the target requires $(q+1)^2(B+1)=\Omega(2^n)$, where $q$ is the number of verifier queries and $B$ is the total prover-to-verifier communication. The bound allows arbitrary classical interaction and unrestricted computation between queries. Our proof extends the lower bound of Aaronson and Kuperberg from a single classical proof to an arbitrary classical interaction. As a result, we obtain a quantum-oracle separation of UniqueQMA from QCIP with polynomially many classical messages. In particular, we give a unitary oracle $\mathcal{U}$ such that there exists a language $L\in\mathrm{UniqueQMA}^{\mathcal{U}}$ but $L\notin\mathrm{QCIP}^{\mathcal{U}}$. We further give an oracle construction for a notion known as QMA-QCIP[2] gap problem. This gives average case hardness for a QMA language under classical access to a QCIP[2] decision oracle and is used in establishing negative results on witness encryption and quantum indistinguishability obfuscation.
arXiv:2610.25657 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2610.25657v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.25657 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 268 words
Related coverage

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 15, 2026

Quantum Computing Myths and Reality
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 30, 2026

Daniel Ritter
file770.com · Aug 29, 2026

Unconditional Quantum Advantage for Sampling with Shallow Circuits
Quantum Journal · Aug 12, 2026