Promises should be taken seriously: On relativization with promise problems

Relativization is concerned with comparing computational models with black-box access to an oracle. For promise problems, black-box access is not canonical due to inputs outside of the promise being unconstrained. We study two semantics for such access. Under robust queries, a machine must correctly answer regardless of the completion of the problem,, while loose access requires that the internal choices of a machine do not change based on off-promise queries. Our first result separates the language and promise settings. Namely, we construct an oracle $O$ such that $\mathsf{P}^O = \mathsf{BQP}^O = \mathsf{AWPP}^O$, but $\mathsf{PromiseBQP}^O\not\subseteq\mathsf{PromiseP}^O_{\mathsf{/poly}}$. In particular, $\mathsf{BPP}^O = \mathsf{BQP}^O$, but $\mathsf{PromiseBQP}^O \neq \mathsf{PromiseBPP}^O$, showing that results for languages need not transfer to promises. Next, we use loose queries to strengthen the upper bound on the Quantum-Classical Polynomial Hierarchy from $\mathsf{P}^{\mathsf{PP}^{\mathsf{PP}}}$ to $\mathsf{QCPH} \subseteq \mathsf{BP\cdot PP} \subseteq \mathsf{PromiseBPP}^{\mathsf{PP}}$. The same proof also shows $\mathsf{PP}^\mathsf{PromiseBQP} = \mathsf{PP}$. Additionally, we show that $\mathsf{PromiseBQP}$, even when given quantum advice, is self-low under robust queries. Finally, we exhibit an obstruction to transferring language-level counting results to promise classes. Although $\mathsf{AWPP}$ and $\mathsf{APP}$ are low for $\mathsf{PP}$, a corresponding promise analogue would collapse the counting hierarchy as $\mathsf{GapP} \subseteq \mathsf{FP}^{\mathsf{PromiseAWPP}}$. This motivates the introduction of $\mathsf{PromisePostBQP^*}$, which restricts $\mathsf{PostBQP}$ to input-indepencent postselection. By showing that it is low for \PP, we obtain $\mathsf{PP}^{\mathsf{PromiseYQP^*}} = \mathsf{PP}$.