Universal Scaling of the Minimum Error Probability in Qualification of Quantum States

Weicheng Huang; Xiaoguang Wang; Yaotian Li; Y. M. Du; Zhaoyu Fei

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Universal Scaling of the Minimum Error Probability in Qualification of Quantum States

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that deciding whether a quantum state falls in one of two parameter regions costs samples set by the worst pair of boundary states, with error scaling as $N^{-3/2} e^{-N\xi}$ for disjoint regions and $(NF)^{-1/2}$ for…

desk verdict Useful scaling framework for quantum state qualification, but the central optimality proof is deferred and the cutoff ansatz is asserted, so treat Eq. (6) as an upper bound until the missing analysis appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04870 v2 pith:HXYUULLX submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Zhaoyu Fei , Yaotian Li , Weicheng Huang , Xiaoguang Wang , Y. M. Du This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords compositequantumhypothesistestingstatequalificationChernoffdivergenceFisherinformationpermutationsymmetryfinite-sampleerrorscalingphasetransitionpurity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper treats "qualification" — judging whether an unknown quantum state lies in an admissible parameter region — as a composite quantum hypothesis test between two parameter sets. For polarization-direction and purity qualification, it shows that the $N$-copy permutation symmetry together with the geometric symmetries of the regions (a $U(1)$ rotation symmetry for polarization, full $SO(3)$ symmetry for purity) fixes the optimal measurement and the "worst pairwise states". This yields universal scaling for the minimum error probability: $N^{-3/2} e^{-N\xi}$ for disjoint regions, $(NF)^{-1/2}$ for adjacent regions, and a nonzero intrinsic floor for overlapping regions, where $\xi$ and $F$ are the quantum Chernoff divergence and quantum Fisher information of the worst pair. If correct, the result gives a concrete sample-cost law for certifying quantum devices without full state tomography.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a symmetry reduction of the composite test to a one-parameter family of cutoff measurements. Permutation symmetry among the $N$ copies restricts the relevant states to the totally symmetric subspace; the $U(1)$ symmetry of the polarization regions makes the operator $\pi_1\bar{\rho}_1-\pi_0\bar{\rho}_0$ diagonal in the basis of fixed total magnetization, while the $SO(3)$ symmetry of the purity regions makes it constant on each block labeled by total angular momentum $S$. The optimal POVM is therefore a cutoff on total magnetization (Eq. (4)) or total spin (Eq. (9)), parameterized by a single angle $x$. Minimizing the error over $x$ yields the cutoff state $\rho_{x^*}$, whose quantum Chernoff divergence and quantum Fisher information against the worst pairwise states set the exponent $\xi$ and the prefactor $F$ in the scaling law.

What would settle it

For small $N$ (say 3 or 4), numerically search over all possible two-outcome measurements for polarization-direction qualification and compare the best error with Eq. (6); a consistently smaller error would disprove the claim that the cutoff measurement is optimal. Alternatively, prepare states at the worst pair and check whether the empirical error decays as $N^{-3/2} e^{-N\xi}$ for disjoint windows and as $(NF)^{-1/2}$ for adjacent windows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for composite quantum hypothesis testing, the minimum error probability with $N$ copies is governed entirely by the worst pairwise states — the pair of states from the two competing sets that minimize the quantum Chernoff divergence. For polarization-direction qualification and purity qualification, the paper identifies these states from symmetry and derives, in Eq. (6), the scaling $P^{\min}_e \simeq A_s N^{-3/2} e^{-N\xi}$ for disjoint regions, $P^{\min}_e \simeq A_b (N F)^{-1/2}$ for adjacent regions, and $P^{\min}_e \simeq P_{\rm ov} + A_s N^{-3/2} e^{-N\xi}$ for overlapping regions, where $\xi$ is the Chernoff divergence of the worst pair and $F$ its Fisher information. The adjacent configuration marks the critical point of a second-order phase transition in the $N\to\infty$ limit, with $P^{\min}_e$ as the order parameter and a finite-$N$ scaling form $P^{\min}_e(N,d,x^*)=N^{-1/2} g(x^*) f(Nd)$ near the critical point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the optimal measurement is exactly a one-parameter cutoff on total magnetization for polarization qualification and on total spin for purity qualification; if some non-cutoff measurement performed better, the quoted minimum error would be only an upper bound and the scaling exponents could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For disjoint admissible and rejected windows, the sample count needed to reach error probability $\epsilon$ grows only logarithmically in $1/\epsilon$, with the rate set by the Chernoff divergence of the worst boundary pair.
For adjacent windows the error falls only as $N^{-1/2}$; a boundary exactly at the threshold is intrinsically harder to certify than a disjoint window.
Overlapping windows give a nonzero limiting error $P_{\rm ov}=\pi_0+\pi_1-1$, so increasing the copy number cannot eliminate the intrinsic ambiguity.
The adjacent configuration is the critical point of a second-order phase transition; near it the rescaled error $N^{1/2}P^{\min}_e$ collapses onto a single curve as a function of $Nd$.
For optical-fiber polarization qualification, the ratio $\gamma=\ln 2$ marks the longest transmission distance over which the polarization error can be made arbitrarily small by collecting more photons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The symmetry-based reduction is likely not limited to qubits: the same argument should apply to any state family with a transitive group action on the parameter region, suggesting analogous $N^{-3/2}e^{-N\xi}$ and $(NF)^{-1/2}$ laws for higher-dimensional and Gaussian state families.
The paper's own note on boundary-vanishing priors implies a testable protocol-design rule: if the prior density vanishes at the boundary as $|\cos\theta-\cos\theta_i|^{\alpha}$, the exponents shift by $\alpha$, so the experimenter can tune the prior to soften or sharpen the sample cost.
A direct falsifier of the cutoff-optimality assumption would be to run a numerical search over generic two-outcome measurements for small $N$; any systematically better measurement would turn Eq. (6) into an upper bound rather than an exact scaling.
In a calibration context, the phase-transition structure suggests that the measured scaling exponent near the boundary could be used as a sensor for how close a device's operating point is to the acceptance threshold.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper gives a clean, plausible answer to a practical question: how many copies are needed to qualify an unknown quantum state against a tolerance window. Second, you cannot check the answer from the preprint, because the derivation of Eqs. (5) and (6) is deferred to a forthcoming supplement, and the critical step—that the optimal measurement is a single cutoff—is asserted rather than proved.

What is genuinely new and good: the framing as composite hypothesis testing with prior weights, and the two worked examples (polarization direction, purity) with different symmetries, both yielding the same three scaling regimes. The reduction of the exponent to a worst pairwise state is not new (refs 54–59), and the N^{-3/2} and (NF)^{-1/2} prefactors are familiar from classical one-sided tests, but the symmetry-based identification of the worst states for noncommuting qubit families is the contribution. The authors are honest about what is missing: they explicitly flag the forthcoming supplement and even note how the scaling changes when the prior density vanishes at the boundary. The citation pattern looks appropriate, crediting prior composite testing work rather than burying it.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note says. Permutation plus U(1) symmetry makes π1ρ1 − π0ρ0 diagonal in the Dicke basis, but the true optimal POVM is the projector onto its negative eigenspace. That is a single cutoff only if the eigenvalue sequence changes sign at most once. No total-positivity or monotonicity argument is supplied. If the sign pattern is, say, −, +, −, the optimal measurement is a union of two intervals and strictly beats every cutoff POVM. Then Eq. (6) is an upper bound, and the N^{-3/2} and (NF)^{-1/2} prefactors could change, not just the constants. The numerics in Fig. 2 do not settle this unless the numerical optimization was over all POVMs; the text says only that it minimizes Eq. (1), which looks like the same one-parameter family.

Two smaller concerns. The phase-transition section is not yet convincing: a signed distance built from a three-valued ε and a scaling collapse over moderate N is suggestive, not a demonstration of a second-order transition. And the comparison between analytical curves and numerics is not fully independent if the same formulas were used to generate both—the prefactors are not shown, so the agreement in Fig. 2 is weaker than it looks.

For whom: quantum information theorists who care about composite hypothesis testing and anyone doing finite-sample certification of photon sources or sensors. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would send it to a referee. The referee should be asked specifically whether the eigenvalue sign pattern is monotone; if that is fixed, the paper is a solid letter. As is, acceptance should be conditional on the missing derivation appearing in a verifiable supplement.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Fei et al. formulate the task of qualifying whether an unknown N-copy qubit state belongs to a prescribed parameter region as a composite binary hypothesis test. For two examples, polarization-direction qualification (PDQ) and purity qualification (PQ), they invoke permutation and geometric symmetries to restrict the optimal POVM to a single cutoff on total magnetization or total spin, and they derive the Bayesian minimum error probability. They report three scaling regimes: N^{-3/2} exp(-N \xi) for disjoint regions, (NF)^{-1/2} for adjacent regions, and a nonzero intrinsic value for overlapping regions, where \xi and F are the quantum Chernoff divergence and quantum Fisher information of the worst pairwise boundary states. They also interpret the transition between scaling behaviors as a second-order phase transition and propose a finite-N scaling form for the minimum error probability.

Significance. If the central optimality and scaling claims are correct, the paper offers a concise and physically appealing picture of quantum state qualification: the sample complexity is governed by worst pairwise boundary states rather than by full tomography, with a clear exponential-to-polynomial transition between disjoint and adjacent parameter regions. The problem formulation is clean, the two examples are well chosen, and the paper explicitly identifies the worst-pair-state structure and notes the boundary-density caveat in reference [42]. The numerical comparison in Fig. 2 spans all three region configurations. However, the central derivation is deferred to a 'forthcoming' Supplemental Material, and the claimed optimality of the cutoff POVM is not proved in the manuscript; these gaps prevent the result from being considered established as submitted.

major comments (3)

[Polarization-direction qualification and purity qualification, Eqs. (4), (6), (9)] The optimal POVM is claimed to be a single cutoff in M (PDQ) or S (PQ), but Eq. (2) shows that the true optimum is the projection onto the negative eigenspace of \Delta = \pi_1\rho_1 - \pi_0\rho_0. The permutation and U(1)/SO(3) symmetries only make \Delta diagonal in the Dicke basis or block-scalar in total-spin sectors; they do not imply that the eigenvalues d_M (or d_S) change sign at most once. If the negative set is a union of disjoint intervals, the optimal E_0 is a union of Dicke intervals and strictly outperforms every cutoff POVM, so Eq. (6) would be an upper bound rather than the minimum. No monotonicity or total-positivity proof is supplied; the text defers the derivation to a 'forthcoming' SM [41]. Please provide a proof of the single-sign-change property, or state the result as conditional on it.
[Polarization-direction qualification and purity qualification, Eq. (6) and Fig. 2] The analytical curves in Fig. 2 are compared with Eq. (6), but Eq. (6) is stated with prefactors A_s and A_b 'given in Supplemental Material [41]', which is described as 'forthcoming' and is not part of this submission. The same applies to the derivation of Eq. (5). Because the prefactors are essential for verifying the N^{-3/2} and N^{-1/2} scalings and for the phase-transition collapse in Fig. 3(b), the central scaling result is not checkable from the manuscript as submitted. The derivation and prefactors must be included.
[Fig. 2 and the paragraph preceding it] The manuscript says numerical results are 'obtained by minimizing the error probability defined in Eq. (1)', but it does not state whether this minimization is over all binary POVMs on the N-copy Hilbert space or only over the cutoff family in Eqs. (4) and (9). If the numerics also optimize only over cutoffs, the agreement with Eq. (6) is not independent evidence for optimality. Please specify the numerical optimization exactly, and if it is cutoff-restricted, add a verification over non-cutoff POVMs for small N (for example, via a semidefinite program on the negative eigenspace of \Delta).

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (4)] The notation '|S\rangle_M M\langle S|' and the summation limits in Eq. (4) appear garbled or undefined; the intended object appears to be the projector onto the Dicke state |S_max, M\rangle, but this should be written explicitly.
[Eq. (9)] Equation (9) contains the visibly corrupted expression 'SmaxM ...', which should be a sum over total-spin sectors S; please correct the typesetting so the projector structure is clear.
[Eq. (5)] The domain of the arccos in Eq. (5) is not discussed; if the argument falls outside [-1, 1] for some boundary values, the cutoff angle x* is undefined and the subsequent scaling analysis needs a separate treatment.
[Eq. (10) and Fig. 3(b)] The finite-N scaling function f(Nd) in Eq. (10) is introduced without an explicit form or a quantitative measure of the collapse in Fig. 3(b); stating the functional form or, failing that, a goodness-of-fit measure would strengthen the phase-transition claim.
[Reference [41]] Reference [41] is cited for derivations that are load-bearing for the main result, but it is described as 'forthcoming' and is not accessible; please replace it with a complete Supplemental Material or move the derivations into the main text.
[Worst pairwise states section] For PDQ the worst pairwise states are identified via the convex hull C_i = conv{\rho_\theta}, while for PQ the sets are taken as C_i = {\rho_\theta} without convex hulls; the reason for this distinction should be stated explicitly, since it affects the Chernoff-divergence minimization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: xi and F are computed from boundary-state Chernoff/Fisher quantities, not fitted; the deferred proof of cutoff optimality is an omitted-support issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. Equation (2) is the exact Helstrom minimum, and the scaling laws in Eq. (6) are obtained by substituting the explicit cutoff POVMs of Eqs. (4)/(9) and minimizing P_e(x); xi is then identified with the classical Chernoff divergence C(t0||t1) between the boundary Bernoulli distributions in Eq. (7), while F is the corresponding Fisher information. Neither xi nor F is fitted to data or chosen to reproduce Eq. (6), so the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern does not apply. The self-citations ([21]-[23],[29],[30]) are standard references for finite-sample metrology, relative entropy, and quantum Fisher information and are not load-bearing. The paper does contain a real completeness gap: the claim that the symmetries 'identify the optimal measurements' is used to justify the single-cutoff form of Eq. (4)/(9), but only diagonalization/block-scalar structure is shown, and the monotonicity of the eigenvalues that would make the negative eigenspace a single cutoff is deferred to the forthcoming Supplemental Material [41]. This means Eq. (6) may be only an upper bound until that proof is supplied. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper does not define P_min as the minimum over the cutoff family, and no parameter is renamed as a prediction. The numerical comparison in Fig. 2 is a validation aid, not the source of xi or F. Verdict: 0 on the circularity scale.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard testing theory, Schur-Weyl duality, and a single-cutoff ansatz for the optimal POVM. The latter is an unproved assumption specific to this paper. The convex-hull reduction and the smooth-prior conditions are imported from prior work and are stated without a self-contained proof.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard quantum binary hypothesis testing: the minimum error probability is given by the trace-norm formula in Eq. (2).
Used in Eq. (2) to reduce the composite test to binary discrimination between the averaged states rho_0 and rho_1.
standard math Permutation symmetry and Schur-Weyl duality for N qubits restrict effective states to the totally symmetric subspace or to constant blocks labeled by total spin S.
Invoked to justify the Dicke-basis and total-spin cutoff forms of the POVM in Eqs. (4) and (9).
ad hoc to paper The optimal measurement can be parametrized by a single cutoff x (magnetization threshold or total-spin threshold) and all other POVM degrees of freedom are irrelevant.
Stated without proof; the derivation of the minimizer x* and Eq. (6) depends on this ansatz.
domain assumption The asymptotic error exponent for the composite test is governed by the minimum quantum Chernoff divergence between the convex hulls of the two state families, and the worst pairwise states are the boundary states rho_{theta0} and rho_{theta1}.
This is the standard reduction for convex sets, but the paper neither proves it for the present noncommuting-family case nor gives the proof in the SM; it relies on citations to refs. 54-59.
domain assumption The prior densities q and w are smooth and nonvanishing at the boundaries theta0, theta1 (or r0, r1).
Required for the N^{-3/2} and (NF)^{-1/2} exponents; footnote [42] gives modified exponents if the prior vanishes as a power law.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Scaling of the Minimum Error Probability in Qualification of Quantum States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXYUULLX

@misc{pith2026260804870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Scaling of the Minimum Error Probability in Qualification of Quantum States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXYUULLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04870}
}

abstract

Qualification of quantum states judges which of two sets of quantum states an unknown state lies in, where the two sets are labeled by two distinct parameter regions. We formulate this problem as a composite quantum hypothesis test and uncover universal scaling laws for the minimum error probability for $N$ copies. Taking polarization-direction qualification and purity qualification as examples, we show that the $N$-copy permutation symmetry and the geometric symmetries of the parameter regions identify the optimal measurements and the "worst pairwise states". The minimum error probability scales as $N^{-3/2}\exp(-N\xi)$ for disjoint regions and as $(NF)^{-1/2}$ for adjacent regions, where $\xi$ and $F$ are the quantum Chernoff divergence and quantum Fisher information associated with the "worst pairwise states", respectively. With the minimum error probability serving as an order parameter, the transition between the scaling behaviors becomes a second-order phase transition as $N\to\infty$. Our approach determines whether a quantum state belongs to a given set without full state tomography, thereby enabling qualification of large ensembles using finite samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04870 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Numerical verification of the minimum error probability for PDQ and PQ. (a) Disjoint regions, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Finite-N scaling analysis of the minimum error probability in the PDQ. (a) Minimum error probability P min e as a function of signed distance for N copies. (b) For N copies, with N from N = 20 to N = 400, the rescaled error probability N 1/2P min e is plotted as a function of d. of d for several copy numbers N. As N increases, the transition from the disjoint-region phase (d < 0) to the overlapping-region phase (d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[42]

(6), we have assumed thatq(cosθ) is fi- nite and nonzero at the boundariesθ 0 andθ 1

In deriving Eq. (6), we have assumed thatq(cosθ) is fi- nite and nonzero at the boundariesθ 0 andθ 1. If instead q(cosθ)∼ |cosθ−cosθ i|α withα >1, the scaling behav- ior becomeN −3/2−α exp(−N ξ) and (N F)−(1+α)/2

work page
[41]

Detailed derivations of the optimal measurement, the asymptotic error probabilities, and additional results for purity qualification will be provided in a forthcoming Supplemental Material

work page
[1]

J. J. Meyer, S. Khatri, D. Stilck Fran¸ ca, J. Eisert, and P. Faist, PRX Quantum6, 030336 (2025)

2025
[2]

Santori, D

C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature419, 594 (2002)

work page 2002
[3]

Somaschi, V

N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Anton, J. Demory,et al., Nature Photonics10, 340 (2016)

2016
[4]

X. Ding, Y. He, Z.-C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, et al., Physical review letters116, 020401 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 347 (2015)

2015
[6]

Senellart, G

P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, Nat. Nanotech- nol.12, 1026 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 61 references

[7]

C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D23, 1693 (1981)

1981
[8]

D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A46, R6797 (1992)

1992
[9]

Kitagawa and M

M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

1993
[10]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science306, 1330 (2004)

2004
[11]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011). 6

2011
[12]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[13]

Pezz` e, A

L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[14]

Schnabel, Phys

R. Schnabel, Phys. Rep.684, 1 (2017)

2017
[15]

C. B. Czegledi, M. Karlsson, E. Agrell, and P. Johannis- son, Sci. Rep.6, 21217 (2016)

2016
[16]

M. B. Willemsen, M. U. F. Khalid, M. P. van Exter, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4815 (1999)

1999
[17]

P. K. A. Wai and C. R. Menyuk, Opt. Lett.19, 1517 (1994)

1994
[18]

P. K. A. Wai and C. R. Menyuk, Opt. Lett.20, 2493 (1995)

1995
[19]

P. K. A. Wai and C. R. Menyuk, J. Lightwave Technol. 14, 148 (1996)

1996
[20]

Imai and T

T. Imai and T. Matsumoto, Opt. Lett.12, 723 (1987)

1987
[21]

L. X. Cui, Y.-M. Du, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 160203 (2023)

2023
[22]

Li, Y.-M

Y. Li, Y.-M. Du, W. Ding, Z. Fei, L. Fu, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A112, 032220 (2025)

2025
[23]

M.-M. Yi, L. X. Cui, Y.-M. Du, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A113, 062613 (2026)

2026
[25]

K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, E. Bagan, L. Masanes, A. Acin, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160501 (2007)

2007
[26]

C. W. Helstrom, J. Stat. Phys.1, 231 (1969)

1969
[27]

A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory(Springer Basel, 2011)

2011
[28]

H¨ ubner, Phys

M. H¨ ubner, Phys. Lett. A179, 226 (1993)

1993
[29]

Ma and X

J. Ma and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A80, 012318 (2009)

2009
[30]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53, 023001 (2019)

2019
[31]

D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

2001
[32]

J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, and P. G. Kwiat, inAdv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys., Vol. 52 (Academic Press, 2005) pp. 105–159

2005
[33]

Gross, Y.-K

D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eis- ert, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 150401 (2010)

2010
[34]

Cramer, M

M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. D. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y.-K. Liu, Nat. Commun.1, 149 (2010)

2010
[35]

S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 230501 (2011)

2011
[36]

M. P. da Silva, O. Landon-Cardinal, and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 210404 (2011)

2011
[37]

Pallister, N

S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 170502 (2018)

2018
[38]

Eisert, D

J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382 (2020)

2020
[39]

S. M. Barnett and S. Croke, Adv. Opt. Photon.1, 238 (2009)

2009
[40]

Throughout, a lower bound of the formy+ 1 denotes the smallest admissible quantum number strictly larger than yon the relevant integer or half-integer lattice
[43]

Chernoff, Ann

H. Chernoff, Ann. Math. Stat.23, 493 (1952)

1952
[44]

Hellman and J

M. Hellman and J. Raviv, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory16, 368 (1970)

1970
[45]

Blahut, IEEE Trans

R. Blahut, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory20, 405 (1974)

1974
[46]

Nielsen, Entropy24, 1400 (2022)

F. Nielsen, Entropy24, 1400 (2022)

2022
[47]

For disjoint regions,π 0 +π 1 = 1, so theπ i can be in- terpreted as prior probabilities

The prior distribution dµ(θ) is normalized on Θ 0 ∪Θ 1. For disjoint regions,π 0 +π 1 = 1, so theπ i can be in- terpreted as prior probabilities. For overlapping regions, the intersection Θ 0 ∩Θ 1 contributes to bothπ 0 andπ 1, givingπ 0 +π 1 = 1 +µ(Θ 0 ∩Θ 1)>1. Therefore,π i ...
[48]

C. A. Fuchs, arXiv (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9601020 [quant-ph]

1996 arXiv
[49]

Calsamiglia, R

J. Calsamiglia, R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, L. Masanes, A. Acin, and E. Bagan, Phys. Rev. A77, 032311 (2008)

2008
[50]

Nussbaum and A

M. Nussbaum and A. Szko la, Ann. Stat.37, 1040 (2009)

2009
[51]

S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

1994
[52]

For each region Θ i, the convex hullC i = conv{ρ θ :θ∈ Θi}contains all convex mixtures P k pkρθk , whereθ k ∈ Θi,p k ≥0, and P k pk = 1
[53]

Hiai and D

F. Hiai and D. Petz, Commun. Math. Phys.143, 99 (1991)

1991
[54]

Berta, F

M. Berta, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and C. Hirche, Commun. Math. Phys.385, 55 (2021)

2021
[55]

Mosonyi, Z

M. Mosonyi, Z. Szil´ agyi, and M. Weiner, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory68, 1032 (2022)

2022
[56]

Lami, IEEE Trans

L. Lami, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory71, 4454 (2025)

2025
[57]

Lami, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2510.06340 [quant-ph]

L. Lami, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2510.06340 [quant-ph]

2025
[58]

Fang and M

K. Fang and M. Hayashi, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2508.12889 [quant-ph]

2025
[59]

J. P. Simpson, E. Palias, and S. T. Jose, arXiv (2026), arXiv:2601.08588 [quant-ph]

2026 arXiv
[60]

Galtarossa, L

A. Galtarossa, L. Palmieri, M. Schiano, and T. Tam- bosso, Opt. Lett.25, 384 (2000)

2000
[61]

Galtarossa, L

A. Galtarossa, L. Palmieri, M. Schiano, and T. Tam- bosso, Opt. Lett.26, 962 (2001)

2001
[62]

M. A. Eronyan, D. R. Devetyarov, A. A. Reutskiy, A. A. Untilov, S. M. Aksarin, I. K. Meshkovskiy, M. A. Bisyarin, and A. A. Pechenkin, Mater. Lett.301, 130316 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [42]

(6), we have assumed thatq(cosθ) is fi- nite and nonzero at the boundariesθ 0 andθ 1

In deriving Eq. (6), we have assumed thatq(cosθ) is fi- nite and nonzero at the boundariesθ 0 andθ 1. If instead q(cosθ)∼ |cosθ−cosθ i|α withα >1, the scaling behav- ior becomeN −3/2−α exp(−N ξ) and (N F)−(1+α)/2

work page

[2] [41]

Detailed derivations of the optimal measurement, the asymptotic error probabilities, and additional results for purity qualification will be provided in a forthcoming Supplemental Material

work page

[3] [1]

J. J. Meyer, S. Khatri, D. Stilck Fran¸ ca, J. Eisert, and P. Faist, PRX Quantum6, 030336 (2025)

2025

[4] [2]

Santori, D

C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature419, 594 (2002)

work page 2002

[5] [3]

Somaschi, V

N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Anton, J. Demory,et al., Nature Photonics10, 340 (2016)

2016

[6] [4]

X. Ding, Y. He, Z.-C. Duan, N. Gregersen, M.-C. Chen, S. Unsleber, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, et al., Physical review letters116, 020401 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [5]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 347 (2015)

2015

[8] [6]

Senellart, G

P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, Nat. Nanotech- nol.12, 1026 (2017)

work page 2017