Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
181,716 studies31 sourcesUpdated 57 min ago
PreprintarXiv licencearXiv

A Separation Between Types of Quantum Oracle Separations

Abstract

Recent works have demonstrated that quantum oracles have subtle behavior, as access to inverse, conjugate or controlled queries can exponentially change the query complexity of certain tasks. Inspired by these works, we introduce the notion of meta-complexity of quantum relativization. We ask: for any two quantum complexity classes, under which "types" of quantum oracles are they equal or separated? Different pantheons of oracles (or quantum oracle types, e.g. unitary vs state, poly- vs superpoly-dimensional, closed under inverse or not) form a partially ordered set based on their power in separating complexity classes. Moreover, two oracle pantheons A and B are separated if there exists a pair of complexity classes that are separated under an oracle from pantheon A but yet the complexity classes are equivalent under all oracles from pantheon B. We show that this meta-complexity can be nontrivial by giving a complete classification, within the family of oracle pantheons defined in this paper, of which models can separate the complexity classes PostBQP and PreciseBQP, the exponentially precise variant of BQP. Both classes equal PP in the unrelativized setting. Within our taxonomy, they remain equal relative to real or polynomial-dimensional unitary oracles and whenever inverse or conjugate access is supplied. In contrast, we give a separation relative to forward-only complex diagonal unitaries of superpolynomial dimension, as well as a separation relative to single-qubit state-preparation oracles. We view this as a test case for the meta-complexity of oracles which underscores the subtlety inherent to the relativization of quantum complexity classes.

Related

  1. A quantum oracle separation between QMA(2) and QMA
    John Bostanci, Sabee Grewal, Jonas Haferkamp +4
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textQuantum physics & quantum informationarXiv
  2. A Quantum/Classical Example Oracle Separation for Making Things Up
    Kenny Chen
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsQuantum physics & quantum informationarXiv
  3. EFI Pairs Without One-Way Puzzles: Oracle Separations from Communication Complexity
    Atul Mantri
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textQuantum physics & quantum informationarXiv
  4. Oracle Separations in the Fourier Hierarchy
    Atul Mantri
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textQuantum physics & quantum informationarXiv
  5. A classical oracle separation between QMA and QMA(2)
    Sabee Grewal, Saachi Mutreja, Kabir Tomer
    arXivPreprintCC BY-NC-SA 4.0Full textQuantum physics & quantum informationarXiv
BibTeX
@misc{aaronson2026separation,
  title = {{A Separation Between Types of Quantum Oracle Separations}},
  author = {Scott Aaronson and Adam Bouland and Jordan Docter and Barak Nehoran},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.38704},
  eprint = {2609.38704},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38704},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - A Separation Between Types of Quantum Oracle Separations
AU  - Scott Aaronson
AU  - Adam Bouland
AU  - Jordan Docter
AU  - Barak Nehoran
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/30
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.38704
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38704
AB  - Recent works have demonstrated that quantum oracles have subtle behavior, as access to inverse, conjugate or controlled queries can exponentially change the query complexity of certain tasks. Inspired by these works, we introduce the notion of meta-complexity of quantum relativization. We ask: for any two quantum complexity classes, under which "types" of quantum oracles are they equal or separated? Different pantheons of oracles (or quantum oracle types, e.g. unitary vs state, poly- vs superpoly-dimensional, closed under inverse or not) form a partially ordered set based on their power in separating complexity classes. Moreover, two oracle pantheons A and B are separated if there exists a pair of complexity classes that are separated under an oracle from pantheon A but yet the complexity classes are equivalent under all oracles from pantheon B. We show that this meta-complexity can be nontrivial by giving a complete classification, within the family of oracle pantheons defined in this paper, of which models can separate the complexity classes PostBQP and PreciseBQP, the exponentially precise variant of BQP. Both classes equal PP in the unrelativized setting. Within our taxonomy, they remain equal relative to real or polynomial-dimensional unitary oracles and whenever inverse or conjugate access is supplied. In contrast, we give a separation relative to forward-only complex diagonal unitaries of superpolynomial dimension, as well as a separation relative to single-qubit state-preparation oracles. We view this as a test case for the meta-complexity of oracles which underscores the subtlety inherent to the relativization of quantum complexity classes.
ER  -