Haran Pilpel

dblp:19/6178 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Mathematical optimization · 55% Quantum computing and quantum information · 40% Computational complexity · 5%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Mathematical optimization
integer programming
0.322014
Quantum Multiprover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · SIAM J. Comput. 2014
Quantum Multi Prover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · FOCS 2008
Mathematical optimization › integer programming
quantum interactive proofs
0.322014
Quantum Multiprover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · SIAM J. Comput. 2014
Quantum Multi Prover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · FOCS 2008
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum complexity theory
quantum multi-prover interactive proof
0.322014
Quantum Multiprover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · SIAM J. Comput. 2014
Quantum Multi Prover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · FOCS 2008
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum complexity theory
0.212014
Quantum Multiprover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · SIAM J. Comput. 2014
Mathematical optimization › integer programming
multi-prover interactive proofs
0.112008
Quantum Multi Prover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · FOCS 2008
Computational complexity › complexity classes › exponential time
NEXPTIME
0.112014
Quantum Multiprover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers · SIAM J. Comput. 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

separable operations · 0.2quantum message exchange · 0.2commitment protocol · 0.2classical communication between provers · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Quantum Multiprover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers
abstract
We introduce a new variant of quantum multiprover interactive proofs (QMIP) where the provers and the verifier are quantum. The verifier can exchange quantum messages with the provers. The provers cannot communicate quantumly between themselves and do not share entanglement, but are unlimited in the classical communication between them, even after receiving messages from the verifier. We show that any language in nondeterministic exponential time (NEXP) can be recognized in this model efficiently, with just two provers and two rounds of communication, and with a constant completeness/soundness gap. This is in contrast to the result of [R. Jain et al., Comm. ACM, 53 (2010), pp. 102--109], which shows that QIP = PSPACE, or equivalently that the set of languages that can be recognized by a quantum verifier communicating with a single quantum prover is equal to PSPACE. To analyze the cheating power of the provers, we give them more power and allow them to perform any separable operation. We then show a unique two-phase protocol in which the provers first commit to a superposition of correct answers to all possible questions, and then in the second phase the verifier opens up the committed answer and checks for correctness and consistency.
Michael Ben-Or, Avinatan Hassidim, Haran Pilpel
SIAM J. Comput.3
2008 Quantum Multi Prover Interactive Proofs with Communicating Provers
abstract
We introduce another variant of quantum MIP, where the provers do not share entanglement, the communication between the verifier and the provers is quantum, but the provers are unlimited in the classical communication between them. At first, this model may seem very weak, as provers who exchange information seem to be equivalent in power to a simple prover. This in fact is not the case-we show that any language in NEXP can be recognized in this model efficiently, with just two provers and two rounds of communication, with a constant completeness-soundness gap. Similar ideas and techniques may help help with other models of quantum MIP, including the dual question, of non communicating provers with unlimited entanglement.
Michael Ben-Or, Avinatan Hassidim, Haran Pilpel
FOCS3