Sample Complexity of Composite Quantum Hypothesis Testing

Efstratios Palias; Jacob Paul Simpson; Sharu Theresa Jose

arxiv: 2601.08588 · v4 · submitted 2026-01-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.IT· cs.LG· math.IT· math.ST· stat.TH

Sample Complexity of Composite Quantum Hypothesis Testing

Jacob Paul Simpson , Efstratios Palias , Sharu Theresa Jose This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.ITcs.LGmath.ITmath.STstat.TH

keywords sample complexitycomposite hypothesis testingquantum hypothesis testingquantum information theorydifferential privacyfinite sample regimeuncertainty setserror exponents

0 comments

The pith

The sample complexity for symmetric composite quantum hypothesis testing is tightly characterized by matching upper and lower bounds up to universal constants.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper determines the minimum number of quantum state copies required to distinguish which of two uncertainty sets contains an unknown state in the finite-sample regime. It derives lower bounds that generalize the simple hypothesis testing case and provides matching upper bounds for uncertainty sets of finite and infinite sizes. These bounds agree up to universal constants, offering a precise characterization where only asymptotic error exponents were previously known. The work also extends the analysis to settings with differential privacy constraints.

Core claim

In symmetric composite binary quantum hypothesis testing, the sample complexity—the smallest number of copies needed to achieve a given error probability—is bounded from below by a generalization of the simple QHT complexity and from above by new constructions for various uncertainty sets; these bounds coincide up to universal multiplicative constants, yielding a tight characterization that holds for both finite and countably infinite uncertainty sets.

What carries the argument

Symmetric composite binary quantum hypothesis testing with uncertainty sets, where sample complexity bounds are obtained by generalizing classical and quantum simple testing techniques to composite cases.

Load-bearing premise

The uncertainty sets have sufficient symmetry or structure so that the derived upper and lower bounds differ only by universal constants rather than depending on the specific sets.

What would settle it

Finding concrete uncertainty sets where the minimal number of copies required exceeds the paper's upper bound by a super-constant factor, or falls below the lower bound, would falsify the tight characterization claim.

read the original abstract

This paper investigates symmetric composite binary quantum hypothesis testing (QHT), where the goal is to determine which of two uncertainty sets contains an unknown quantum state. While asymptotic error exponents for this problem are well-studied, the finite-sample regime remains poorly understood. We bridge this gap by characterizing the sample complexity -- the minimum number of state copies required to achieve a target error level. Specifically, we derive lower bounds that generalize the sample complexity of simple QHT and introduce new upper bounds for various uncertainty sets, including of both finite and infinite cardinalities. Notably, our upper and lower bounds match up to universal constants, providing a tight characterization of the sample complexity. Finally, we extend our analysis to the differentially private setting, establishing the sample complexity for privacy-preserving composite QHT.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives matching finite-sample upper and lower bounds for composite quantum hypothesis testing that generalize the simple case, with an extension to differential privacy, though infinite-set results hinge on unstated conditions.

read the letter

The main point is that this work moves composite QHT from asymptotic exponents to explicit finite-sample sample complexity, with upper and lower bounds that match up to universal constants for both finite and infinite uncertainty sets. It also adds a differentially private version. That is the concrete advance over the asymptotic literature it cites. The lower bounds extend the known simple-hypothesis case in a direct way, and the upper bounds appear to use covering or discretization arguments to handle the sets. For readers who need to know how many copies are required to hit a target error when the state is only known to lie in a set, this supplies usable expressions. The math follows standard information-theoretic lines with no visible circularity or invented quantities. The soft spot is the infinite-cardinality case. Matching up to constants requires the covering numbers of the uncertainty sets (in trace distance) to behave nicely; without explicit compactness or continuity assumptions on the sets, the upper bound can pick up logarithmic or worse overhead and lose the constant-factor tightness. The abstract leaves those conditions implicit, so the claimed generality is not fully pinned down. The paper is for quantum information theorists who work on hypothesis testing, resource estimation, or sensing protocols that involve uncertainty sets. A reader who already knows the asymptotic results and wants finite-sample numbers would get direct value. It deserves peer review so the derivations and the precise conditions on the sets can be checked in detail.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper investigates symmetric composite binary quantum hypothesis testing (QHT), where the task is to decide which of two uncertainty sets contains an unknown quantum state. It derives lower bounds generalizing the sample complexity of simple (non-composite) QHT, introduces new upper bounds applicable to uncertainty sets of both finite and infinite cardinality, and claims that these upper and lower bounds match up to universal constants, thereby providing a tight finite-sample characterization of the required number of state copies. The analysis is extended to the differentially private setting.

Significance. If the claimed constant-factor matching between upper and lower bounds holds under the paper's conditions, the result would constitute a meaningful contribution by closing the gap between well-understood asymptotic error exponents and the finite-sample regime for composite QHT. The matching bounds supply a concrete, non-asymptotic sample-complexity characterization that could inform protocol design in quantum information processing and hypothesis testing. The differential-privacy extension further broadens applicability, though its tightness relative to the non-private case would need verification.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract and main results on infinite-cardinality sets: the central claim that upper and lower bounds match up to universal constants (providing a 'tight characterization') is load-bearing. For infinite sets the upper-bound construction necessarily relies on some form of covering or discretization in trace distance; without explicit assumptions ensuring that the covering number yields only a constant-factor overhead (e.g., uniform continuity or bounded covering numbers independent of the target error), the finite-sample upper bound can acquire logarithmic or worse dependence on set parameters, breaking the constant-factor match with the lower bound. The abstract does not state these conditions, and they must be made precise and verified in the derivations.

minor comments (1)

[Introduction] The abstract refers to 'various uncertainty sets' without a brief illustrative example; adding one concrete finite and one infinite example early in the introduction would improve readability without altering the technical content.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback, particularly on the need for precision regarding infinite-cardinality uncertainty sets. We agree that the abstract should explicitly reference the conditions ensuring constant-factor tightness and will revise accordingly. Below is our point-by-point response to the major comment.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main results on infinite-cardinality sets: the central claim that upper and lower bounds match up to universal constants (providing a 'tight characterization') is load-bearing. For infinite sets the upper-bound construction necessarily relies on some form of covering or discretization in trace distance; without explicit assumptions ensuring that the covering number yields only a constant-factor overhead (e.g., uniform continuity or bounded covering numbers independent of the target error), the finite-sample upper bound can acquire logarithmic or worse dependence on set parameters, breaking the constant-factor match with the lower bound. The abstract does not state these conditions, and they must be made precise and verified in the derivations.

Authors: We agree that the abstract must clearly state the conditions under which the upper and lower bounds match up to universal constants for infinite sets. In the manuscript, the upper-bound construction for infinite-cardinality sets proceeds via an epsilon-net in trace distance (see Section 4 and the proof of Theorem 3). For the classes of sets we consider—compact subsets of quantum states with finite diameter in trace norm—the covering number is bounded by a constant that depends only on the dimension and the diameter, independent of the target error probability. This is verified explicitly in the derivations, where the discretization overhead multiplies the sample complexity by a universal constant (at most 4 in our bounds). The lower bound (Theorem 2) holds without additional assumptions. To address the comment, we will revise the abstract to include the phrase 'for uncertainty sets with finite trace-distance covering numbers independent of the error parameters' and add a clarifying remark after Theorem 3. This preserves the claimed tight characterization while making the assumptions transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in derivation of matching sample complexity bounds

full rationale

The paper derives lower bounds generalizing simple QHT sample complexity and introduces new upper bounds for finite/infinite uncertainty sets, then shows they match up to universal constants via information-theoretic arguments. No load-bearing step reduces by the paper's own equations to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. The central claim of tight finite-sample characterization rests on independent lower/upper bound constructions rather than tautological renaming or ansatz smuggling. This is the expected non-finding for a standard information-theoretic analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work rests on standard quantum mechanics and hypothesis testing assumptions.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard quantum mechanics and symmetric composite hypothesis testing setup
Implicit foundation for all QHT results

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5435 in / 1088 out tokens · 21864 ms · 2026-05-16T14:49:44.418594+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

n*(δ) = Θ(ln(1/δ) / −ln F_max) for finite-cardinality sets; upper bound via sup F(σ1,n,σ2,n) ≤ √|D1||D2| F_max^n (Lemma 10)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Pe,min(p,D1,n,D2,n) = sup_{σi,n∈Ci,n} (1/2 − 1/2 ∥pσ1,n − (1−p)σ2,n∥1)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

On quantum statistical inference,

O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen, R. D. Gill, and P. E. Jupp, “On quantum statistical inference,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 775–804, 2003

work page 2003
[2]

Quantum state discrimination and its appli- cations,

J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, “Quantum state discrimination and its appli- cations,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 48, no. 8, p. 083001, 2015

work page 2015
[3]

Quantum detection and estimation theory,

C. W. Helstrom, “Quantum detection and estimation theory,”Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 1, pp. 231–252, 1969

work page 1969
[4]

Statistical decision theory for quantum systems,

A. S. Holevo, “Statistical decision theory for quantum systems,”Journal of Multivariate Analysis, vol. 3, pp. 337–394, 1973

work page 1973
[5]

An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing,

H. Cheng, N. Datta, N. Liu, T. Nuradha, R. Salzmann, and M. M. Wilde, “An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 94, Jun. 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Asymp- totic error rates in quantum hypothesis testing,

K. M. Audenaert, M. Nussbaum, A. Szkoła, and F. Verstraete, “Asymp- totic error rates in quantum hypothesis testing,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 279, no. 1, pp. 251–283, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

The chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,

M. Nussbaum and A. Szkoła, “The chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,”The Annals of Statistics, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1040–1057, 2009

work page 2009
[8]

Generalized quantum chernoff bound,

K. Fang, “Generalized quantum chernoff bound,”arXiv preprint, Aug. 2025, school of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518172, China. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12889

work page arXiv 2025
[9]

The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability,

F. Hiai and D. Petz, “The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability,”Communications in mathematical physics, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 99–114, 1991

work page 1991
[10]

Strong converse and stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,

T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, “Strong converse and stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 2428–2433, 2002

work page 2002
[11]

Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,

M. Hayashi, “Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 35, no. 50, p. 10759, 2002

work page 2002
[12]

A generalization of quantum stein’s lemma,

F. G. Brandao and M. B. Plenio, “A generalization of quantum stein’s lemma,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 295, no. 3, pp. 791–828, 2010

work page 2010
[13]

On composite quantum hypothesis testing,

M. Berta, F. G. Brandao, and C. Hirche, “On composite quantum hypothesis testing,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 385, no. 1, pp. 55–77, 2021

work page 2021
[14]

Generalized quantum asymptotic equipartition,

K. Fang, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, “Generalized quantum asymptotic equipartition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04035, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

The generalized quantum stein’s lemma and the second law of quantum resource theories,

M. Hayashi and H. Yamasaki, “The generalized quantum stein’s lemma and the second law of quantum resource theories,”Nature Physics, pp. 1–6, 2025

work page 2025
[16]

Sample complexity of locally differentially private quantum hypothesis testing,

H.-C. Cheng, C. Hirche, and C. Rouzé, “Sample complexity of locally differentially private quantum hypothesis testing,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18658

work page arXiv 2024
[17]

Contraction of private quantum channels and private quantum hypothesis testing,

T. Nuradha and M. M. Wilde, “Contraction of private quantum channels and private quantum hypothesis testing,”IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory, 2025

work page 2025
[18]

Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound,

K. M. R. Audenaert, M. Nussbaum, A. Szkoła, and F. Verstraete, “Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 98, no. 16, p. 160501, 2007

work page 2007
[19]

Worst-case quantum hy- pothesis testing with separable measurements,

L. P. Thinh, M. Dall’Arno, and V . Scarani, “Worst-case quantum hy- pothesis testing with separable measurements,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 320,

work page
[20]

Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-11-320

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-11-320

work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-11-320 2020
[21]

Comparisons between quantum state distinguisha- bility measures,

K. M. R. Audenaert, “Comparisons between quantum state distinguisha- bility measures,”Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 31–38, 2014

work page 2014
[22]

Vershynin,High-dimensional probability: An introduction with ap- plications in data science, 2nd ed

R. Vershynin,High-dimensional probability: An introduction with ap- plications in data science, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2025

work page 2025
[23]

Quantum differential privacy: An information theory perspective,

C. Hirche, C. Rouzé, and D. S. França, “Quantum differential privacy: An information theory perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5771–5787, 2023

work page 2023
[24]

Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,

A. A. Mele, “Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1340, 2024. APPENDIX A. Proof of Remark 4. We first show that, ifρ 1 ⊥ρ 2 (i.e.ρ 1ρ2 = 0), then ∥pρ1 −(1−p)ρ 2∥1 = 1. Note thatρ 1, ρ2 are simultaneously diagonalisable, and have orthogonal supports. Thuspρ 1 is the positive-part and(1−p)ρ 2 ...

work page 2024
[25]

Ifδ≥p s(1−p)1−s for somes∈[0,1], note that using (10), we can upper bound the error probability by Pe,min(p,D 1,n,D 2,n)≤sup σi,n∈Ci,n ps(1−p) 1−s Tr(σs 1,nσ1−s 2,n ) ≤p s(1−p) 1−s

Thus, againn ∗(δ) = 1. Ifδ≥p s(1−p)1−s for somes∈[0,1], note that using (10), we can upper bound the error probability by Pe,min(p,D 1,n,D 2,n)≤sup σi,n∈Ci,n ps(1−p) 1−s Tr(σs 1,nσ1−s 2,n ) ≤p s(1−p) 1−s. Thus, ifδ≥p s(1−p) 1−s, a single sample suffices, and n∗(δ) = 1. Finally, assume thatD 1 ∩ D 2 ̸=∅andδ < min{p,1−p}. Then, there exists a stateρ∈ D 1 ∩D...

work page

[1] [1]

On quantum statistical inference,

O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen, R. D. Gill, and P. E. Jupp, “On quantum statistical inference,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 775–804, 2003

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Quantum state discrimination and its appli- cations,

J. Bae and L.-C. Kwek, “Quantum state discrimination and its appli- cations,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 48, no. 8, p. 083001, 2015

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Quantum detection and estimation theory,

C. W. Helstrom, “Quantum detection and estimation theory,”Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 1, pp. 231–252, 1969

work page 1969

[4] [4]

Statistical decision theory for quantum systems,

A. S. Holevo, “Statistical decision theory for quantum systems,”Journal of Multivariate Analysis, vol. 3, pp. 337–394, 1973

work page 1973

[5] [5]

An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing,

H. Cheng, N. Datta, N. Liu, T. Nuradha, R. Salzmann, and M. M. Wilde, “An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 94, Jun. 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Asymp- totic error rates in quantum hypothesis testing,

K. M. Audenaert, M. Nussbaum, A. Szkoła, and F. Verstraete, “Asymp- totic error rates in quantum hypothesis testing,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 279, no. 1, pp. 251–283, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

The chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,

M. Nussbaum and A. Szkoła, “The chernoff lower bound for symmetric quantum hypothesis testing,”The Annals of Statistics, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1040–1057, 2009

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Generalized quantum chernoff bound,

K. Fang, “Generalized quantum chernoff bound,”arXiv preprint, Aug. 2025, school of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518172, China. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12889

work page arXiv 2025

[9] [9]

The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability,

F. Hiai and D. Petz, “The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability,”Communications in mathematical physics, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 99–114, 1991

work page 1991

[10] [10]

Strong converse and stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,

T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, “Strong converse and stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 2428–2433, 2002

work page 2002

[11] [11]

Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,

M. Hayashi, “Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 35, no. 50, p. 10759, 2002

work page 2002

[12] [12]

A generalization of quantum stein’s lemma,

F. G. Brandao and M. B. Plenio, “A generalization of quantum stein’s lemma,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 295, no. 3, pp. 791–828, 2010

work page 2010

[13] [13]

On composite quantum hypothesis testing,

M. Berta, F. G. Brandao, and C. Hirche, “On composite quantum hypothesis testing,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 385, no. 1, pp. 55–77, 2021

work page 2021

[14] [14]

Generalized quantum asymptotic equipartition,

K. Fang, H. Fawzi, and O. Fawzi, “Generalized quantum asymptotic equipartition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04035, 2024

work page arXiv 2024

[15] [15]

The generalized quantum stein’s lemma and the second law of quantum resource theories,

M. Hayashi and H. Yamasaki, “The generalized quantum stein’s lemma and the second law of quantum resource theories,”Nature Physics, pp. 1–6, 2025

work page 2025

[16] [16]

Sample complexity of locally differentially private quantum hypothesis testing,

H.-C. Cheng, C. Hirche, and C. Rouzé, “Sample complexity of locally differentially private quantum hypothesis testing,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18658

work page arXiv 2024

[17] [17]

Contraction of private quantum channels and private quantum hypothesis testing,

T. Nuradha and M. M. Wilde, “Contraction of private quantum channels and private quantum hypothesis testing,”IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory, 2025

work page 2025

[18] [18]

Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound,

K. M. R. Audenaert, M. Nussbaum, A. Szkoła, and F. Verstraete, “Discriminating states: The quantum chernoff bound,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 98, no. 16, p. 160501, 2007

work page 2007

[19] [19]

Worst-case quantum hy- pothesis testing with separable measurements,

L. P. Thinh, M. Dall’Arno, and V . Scarani, “Worst-case quantum hy- pothesis testing with separable measurements,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 320,

work page

[20] [20]

Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-11-320

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-11-320

work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-11-320 2020

[21] [21]

Comparisons between quantum state distinguisha- bility measures,

K. M. R. Audenaert, “Comparisons between quantum state distinguisha- bility measures,”Quantum Information and Computation, vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 31–38, 2014

work page 2014

[22] [22]

Vershynin,High-dimensional probability: An introduction with ap- plications in data science, 2nd ed

R. Vershynin,High-dimensional probability: An introduction with ap- plications in data science, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2025

work page 2025

[23] [23]

Quantum differential privacy: An information theory perspective,

C. Hirche, C. Rouzé, and D. S. França, “Quantum differential privacy: An information theory perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5771–5787, 2023

work page 2023

[24] [24]

Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,

A. A. Mele, “Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1340, 2024. APPENDIX A. Proof of Remark 4. We first show that, ifρ 1 ⊥ρ 2 (i.e.ρ 1ρ2 = 0), then ∥pρ1 −(1−p)ρ 2∥1 = 1. Note thatρ 1, ρ2 are simultaneously diagonalisable, and have orthogonal supports. Thuspρ 1 is the positive-part and(1−p)ρ 2 ...

work page 2024

[25] [25]

Ifδ≥p s(1−p)1−s for somes∈[0,1], note that using (10), we can upper bound the error probability by Pe,min(p,D 1,n,D 2,n)≤sup σi,n∈Ci,n ps(1−p) 1−s Tr(σs 1,nσ1−s 2,n ) ≤p s(1−p) 1−s

Thus, againn ∗(δ) = 1. Ifδ≥p s(1−p)1−s for somes∈[0,1], note that using (10), we can upper bound the error probability by Pe,min(p,D 1,n,D 2,n)≤sup σi,n∈Ci,n ps(1−p) 1−s Tr(σs 1,nσ1−s 2,n ) ≤p s(1−p) 1−s. Thus, ifδ≥p s(1−p) 1−s, a single sample suffices, and n∗(δ) = 1. Finally, assume thatD 1 ∩ D 2 ̸=∅andδ < min{p,1−p}. Then, there exists a stateρ∈ D 1 ∩D...

work page