1: \begin{abstract}

2: This paper studies whether quantum proofs are more powerful than classical

3: proofs, or in complexity terms, whether $\mathsf{QMA}=\mathsf{QCMA}$. \ We

4: prove three results about this question. \ First, we give a \textquotedblleft

5: quantum oracle separation\textquotedblright\ between $\mathsf{QMA}$ and

6: $\mathsf{QCMA}$. \ More concretely, we show that any quantum algorithm needs

7: $\Omega\left(  \sqrt{\frac{2^{n}}{m+1}}\right)  $ queries to find an $n$-qubit

8: \textquotedblleft marked state\textquotedblright\ $\left\vert \psi

9: \right\rangle $,\ even if given an $m$-bit classical description of

10: $\left\vert \psi\right\rangle $ together with a quantum black box that

11: recognizes $\left\vert \psi\right\rangle $. \ Second, we give an explicit

12: $\mathsf{QCMA}$ protocol that nearly achieves this lower bound. \ Third, we

13: show that, in the one previously-known case where quantum proofs seemed to

14: provide an exponential advantage, \textit{classical} proofs are basically just

15: as powerful. \ In particular, Watrous gave a $\mathsf{QMA}$\ protocol for

16: verifying non-membership in finite groups. \ Under plausible group-theoretic

17: assumptions, we give a $\mathsf{QCMA}$\ protocol for the same problem. \ Even

18: with no assumptions, our protocol makes only polynomially many queries to the

19: group oracle. \ We end with some conjectures about quantum versus classical

20: oracles, and about the possibility of a \textit{classical} oracle separation

21: between $\mathsf{QMA}$\ and $\mathsf{QCMA}$.

22: 

23: \end{abstract}

24: