Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Quantum sequential parameter testing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A twin-peaks stopping rule certifies an unknown continuous parameter within a prescribed tolerance, with expected sample cost set by the hardest δ-separated alternative and, for small δ, by the Fisher information.

desk verdict Genuinely new sequential parameter-testing framework with a clean twin-peaks test; the i.i.d. and purity results hold up, but the adaptive phase asymptotics are asserted more than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01248 v1 pith:CRXQKCQU submitted 2026-08-02 quant-ph

Simon Morelli , Ricard Ravell Rodríguez , John Calsamiglia , Ramón Muñoz-Tapia , Gael Sentís , Michalis Skotiniotis This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords sequentialparametertestingtwin-peakstesthypothesisquantumstatecertificationphaseestimationpurityFisherinformationrelativeentropy
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

This paper introduces sequential parameter testing: rather than estimating a continuous parameter as closely as possible, one certifies that it lies within a prescribed tolerance $\delta$ by ruling out all parameter values farther than $\delta$ with a chosen evidence threshold. The central device is the twin-peaks test, which stops as soon as the most likely parameter value beats its strongest competitor outside the tolerance region by a factor $A_\epsilon$. The paper derives the asymptotic expected number of measurement rounds for this test, shows that the small-tolerance cost is set by the Fisher information, and applies the framework to the phase and purity of a qubit. If the analysis is right, the approach provides a run-by-run evidence guarantee and a resource-efficient route to certification tasks in which only crossing a threshold matters.

What carries the argument

The engine is the twin-peaks statistic $$\$Lambda_n^{{\mathrm{TP}}$}(\hat{\$\theta$})=\frac{p(m_n\mid\hat{\$\theta$})\pi(\hat{\$\theta$})}{\sup_{\theta_0\in B_\delta^c(\hat{\$\theta$})} p(m_n\mid\theta_0)\pi(\theta_0)},$$ checked after every round against $A_\epsilon$. It collapses the continuum of competing hypotheses into a single comparison between the current maximum-a-posteriori estimate and its strongest $\delta$-separated rival, avoiding the region integrals needed by the complement and concentration tests. The asymptotic analysis rests on a Laplace principle: if the normalized log-likelihood $\ell_n(\theta)=n^{-1}\log p(m_n\mid\theta)$ converges almost surely and uniformly on compact sets, then all three tests are exponentially equivalent and the mean stopping time is governed by the minimum relative-entropy rate over the $\delta$-separated alternatives. The small-$\delta$ law follows from the curvature identity $D(p_\theta\|p_{\theta+\delta})=\frac12 I(\theta)\delta^2+o(\delta^2)$, which makes the Fisher information the cost coefficient for high-resolution certification.

What would settle it

Simulate the adaptive greedy phase-testing protocol at fixed threshold $A_\epsilon$ and small $\delta$ for many true phases, and compare the empirical mean stopping time with $$\max_{\theta_0:\|\$\theta$-\theta_0\|\geq\delta}\frac{\log A_\epsilon+\log(\pi(\theta_0)/\pi(\$\theta$))}{D(\$\theta$\|\theta_0)}.$$ A discrepancy that does not shrink as $\epsilon\to0$ would show that the assumed convergence or the exchange of limits fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that certification of a continuous parameter can be treated as a continuous analogue of sequential likelihood-ratio testing. For a parameter $\theta$, tolerance $\delta$, and threshold $A_\epsilon=(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$, the twin-peaks test stops once $$\frac{p(\hat{\$\theta$}\mid m_n)\pi(\hat{\$\theta$})}{\sup_{\theta_0:\|\theta_0-\hat{\$\theta$}\|\geq\delta} p(\theta_0\mid m_n)\pi(\theta_0)}\geq A_\epsilon.$$ Under almost-sure convergence of the normalized log-likelihoods, the mean stopping time satisfies $$E(N\mid\$\theta$)\sim \max_{\theta_0:\|\$\theta$-\theta_0\|\geq\delta}\frac{\log A_\epsilon+\log(\pi(\theta_0)/\pi(\$\theta$))}{D(\$\theta$\|\theta_0)},$$ where $D(\theta\|\theta_0)$ is the asymptotic relative-entropy rate; for small $\delta$ this reduces to $E(N\mid\theta)\sim 2\log(1/\epsilon)/(I(\theta)\delta^2)$. For the equatorial qubit phase the paper reports numerically that adaptive projective measurements attain the same average sample count as collective covariant measurements on a fixed number of copies. For qubit purity, local projective measurements attain the asymptotic stopping time, batch Schur measurements recover the same cost when the Bloch direction is unknown, and sequential stopping saves a constant fraction over fixed-sample worst-case designs.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted stopping times hold only if the normalized log-likelihood ratios converge uniformly almost surely and the expected stopping threshold can be exchanged with the large-threshold limit; for the adaptive phase protocol this convergence is assumed without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every stopped run of the twin-peaks test carries a trajectory-wise evidence guarantee: the reported tolerance region contains the MAP estimate, and every parameter value outside it is suppressed by at least $A_\epsilon$ in posterior density ratio.
  • The mean sample count is fixed by the hardest $\delta$-separated alternative, $E(N\mid\theta)\sim \max_{\theta_0:\|\theta-\theta_0\|\geq\delta}(\log A_\epsilon+\log(\pi(\theta_0)/\pi(\theta)))/D(\theta\|\theta_0)$, so the test spends more rounds exactly where distinguishability is low.
  • For small tolerance, $E(N\mid\theta)\sim 2\log(1/\epsilon)/(I(\theta)\delta^2)$: the Fisher information of the chosen measurement is the resource coefficient, and the leading cost in $\delta$ is universal.
  • For equatorial qubit phase, adaptive greedy projective measurements match the average cost of collective covariant measurements, so adaptivity can substitute for quantum memory in this certification task.
  • For qubit purity, sequential stopping uses a constant fraction of the fixed-sample worst-case budget: $2/3$ of that budget for a flat prior, $2/5$ for a Hilbert-Schmidt-uniform prior, and $1/4$ for a Bures-uniform prior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A pragmatic follow-up would be to calibrate $A_\epsilon$ numerically in finite samples, rather than using the asymptotic value $(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$, to turn the twin-peaks evidence ratio into an exact posterior error guarantee.
  • If the almost-sure convergence assumption fails for the adaptive phase protocol, a block-adaptive variant that keeps the measurement fixed for a block of rounds before re-estimating would likely restore the guarantee at a finite sample-cost premium; this is testable by simulation.
  • The small-$\delta$ scaling suggests a dimension-free benchmark for certification: the sample cost per unit of guaranteed tolerance scales as $\delta^{-2}$, independent of Hilbert-space dimension, which could be used to compare threshold tasks across different quantum platforms.
  • For purity with unknown Bloch direction, the paper's large-block Schur limit implies that a simple two-stage protocol (estimate the direction with a vanishing fraction of copies, then run the local twin-peaks test) should match the asymptotic cost; working out the finite-sample trade-off between the two stages is left to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a sequential framework called parameter testing for continuous parameters, in which the goal is to certify that an unknown parameter lies within a prescribed tolerance δ while ruling out δ-separated alternatives at a target error calibration ϵ. Three stopping rules are proposed (complement, concentration, and twin-peaks tests), and the twin-peaks test is analyzed in depth: it stops when the posterior-density ratio between the current MAP estimate and its strongest δ-separated competitor exceeds a threshold A_ϵ. The main analytical results are the asymptotic mean stopping time in Eq. (35), the small-δ Fisher-information form in Eq. (40), and the claim that all three tests are exponentially equivalent under the Laplace-principle conditions of App. A.4. The framework is applied to two qubit tasks: phase testing, where i.i.d. POVMs, random projective measurements, a greedy adaptive protocol, and a collective covariant strategy are compared numerically; and purity testing, where local measurements along a known Bloch direction are shown to saturate the KL bound, direction-agnostic weak Schur measurements asymptotically match this performance, and sequential strategies yield constant-factor sample savings over fixed-sample worst-case benchmarks.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a computationally simple and operationally motivated sequential procedure for continuous-parameter certification, with explicit parameter-free predictions such as Eqs. (59) and (72). The purity analysis is the strongest part: the KL-rate calculation is explicit, the numerical agreement is good in the asymptotic regime, and the comparison against fixed-sample strategies is concrete. The phase analysis is suggestive but less conclusive, because the headline adaptive/collective equivalence currently rests on numerical evidence at one threshold and on an unproven extension of classical SPRT asymptotics to data-dependent measurements. The paper is also useful in clarifying that the twin-peaks threshold is an asymptotic calibration parameter rather than an exact finite-sample posterior-error probability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V and App. A.4 (Eqs. (35), (40), (A27))] The stopping-time asymptotics are not established for the adaptive phase protocol of Sec. VII. Theorem A.1 assumes almost-sure uniform convergence of the normalized log-likelihood to a deterministic limit, and the text says this holds for "adaptive experiments with stabilized likelihood increments," but for the greedy rule φ_{k+1}=θ̂_k+π/2 of Eq. (57) the conditional outcome distribution at each round depends on the full past. No argument is given for uniform a.s. convergence of (1/n)log[p(m_n|θ)/p(m_n|θ0)] over θ0 outside B_δ(θ), nor for the first-passage properties needed to convert this into a mean stopping time. For i.i.d. strategies the argument is plausible, but the adaptive/collective equivalence requires either a proof for this specific design or an explicit statement that it is a numerical conjecture.
  2. [App. A.4, Eqs. (A43)-(A44)] The passage from the almost-sure statement N/A_ϵ → 1/inf D to the expectation E(N|θ*) = (log A_ϵ)/inf D + o(log ϵ^{-1}) is made by invoking "additional first-passage and integrability conditions" that are never stated or checked. For the twin-peaks stopping time, which is the first passage of a supremum over a continuum of correlated log-likelihood processes, boundary overshoot and the data-dependent selection of the maximizing competitor need not be O(1); if they contribute a growing term, Eq. (35) and Eq. (40) would overstate the resource savings. These conditions should be stated explicitly and verified for the i.i.d. models studied, and at least discussed for the adaptive protocol.
  3. [Sec. VII, Fig. 3] The claim that adaptive projective measurements achieve the same average sample cost as collective covariant measurements is demonstrated only at the single threshold A_ϵ=19. Since the asymptotic proof for the adaptive protocol is missing (see the first major comment), one numerical point cannot establish the claimed equivalence as a general statement. Additional thresholds and values of δ, together with an analytic argument, are needed before this claim can be presented as a theorem rather than as numerical evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout (Eqs. (37), (66), (A27))] Several equations contain corrupted symbol artifacts such as "/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne" and "⌟⟨rro⟪⟪⟩r⟪", which make parts of the manuscript unreadable. These need to be fixed in the final version.
  2. [Figs. 4 and 5] For small δ and small r the simulations hit the 15000-sample cap, and the flat portions of the curves are an artifact of this cap. The captions should state this explicitly so that these regions are not read as physical predictions.
  3. [Eq. (35)] The notation uses the same symbol θ for the true parameter and for the argument of the maximum; using θ* for the true value and θ̂ for the MAP estimate would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [App. A.4] The sentence "we set A_ϵ = log(1−ϵ)−logϵ" is inconsistent with Eq. (9), where A_ϵ=(1−ϵ)/ϵ is a ratio; the logarithm belongs in the stopping-time formula rather than in the definition of the threshold.
  5. [References] Several references (e.g., [38], [39], [45]) are arXiv preprints without journal identifiers; these should be updated if published versions are available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the twin-peaks stopping-time bounds follow from standard SPRT and Fisher-information asymptotics, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained rather than circular. Equation (35) is the classical SPRT expected-stopping-time formula extended to the maximum-competitor twin-peaks statistic, and Eq. (40) follows from the standard KL/Fisher-information curvature identity Eq. (39). For purity, Eq. (72) is the corresponding Bernoulli KL rate and is compared with simulations without fitting. The adaptive phase claim in Sec. VII is a numerical comparison at A_epsilon=19, not a fitted prediction, and the collective covariant sample number is obtained by directly evaluating the stopping condition in Eq. (34). The only overlapping-author citation, Ref. [33], is used in Sec. II.C to state the binary lower bound Eq. (18) as background; it is not used to force the twin-peaks, phase, or purity conclusions. The genuine weaknesses are mathematical gaps acknowledged by the paper: Theorem A.1 assumes uniform almost-sure convergence in Eq. (A27), and for the adaptive protocol this condition is only asserted via 'adaptive experiments with stabilized likelihood increments'; Appendix A.4 invokes unstated 'additional first-passage and integrability conditions' to exchange the large-threshold limit with the expectation. These are omitted proofs or unverified technical conditions, not circularity. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is imported to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters were fitted to data. The central results depend on standard Bayesian and SPRT machinery plus several regularity conditions that are stated but not fully proved; these are collected here.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Normalized log-likelihoods l_n converge almost surely and uniformly on compact sets to a limit l, as required by the Laplace principle.
    Invoked in Theorem A.1 (App. A.4) to show exponential equivalence of the three tests; valid for i.i.d. models and stabilized adaptive experiments, but no proof is given for the adaptive phase protocol.
  • domain assumption First-passage and integrability conditions allow exchanging the large-threshold limit with the expectation in stopping times.
    Needed for Eq. (A44); the paper states these conditions must hold but does not prove them.
  • domain assumption The maximum-likelihood estimator is strongly consistent.
    Used in App. A.4 after Eq. (A41) to replace theta_hat with the true theta when evaluating the infimum of the relative entropy rate.
  • domain assumption The parameter space is convex and compact, with continuous and strictly positive priors in the regions used.
    Stated in Sec. III and used in the Bayes, Laplace, and Bernstein-von Mises arguments.
  • domain assumption For purity testing, the qubit states commute for all r and, for the local optimality claim, the Bloch direction is known.
    Assumed in Sec. VIII; the direction-agnostic result recovers the same asymptotic cost only in the M to infinity limit of block measurements.
  • standard math Standard background: Cramer-Rao bound, Fisher information as local curvature of KL divergence, Bernstein-von Mises, Hiai-Petz and Hayashi relative entropy convergence.
    Drawn from refs. [13,14,27,29,51,53]; not proven in the paper but uncontroversial in the stated regimes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum sequential parameter testing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CRXQKCQU

@misc{pith2026260801248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum sequential parameter testing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CRXQKCQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01248}
}
read the original abstract

Sequential strategies in hypothesis testing use a variable number of measurement rounds, allowing a decision to be made as soon as the observed data provide a prescribed level of error tolerance. Although sequential testing is well established for a discrete set of hypotheses, extending this framework to a continuous parameter space poses additional challenges and has remained largely unexplored. In this article, we introduce sequential \textit{parameter testing}, a framework for determining an unknown parameter up to a prescribed tolerance by ruling out sufficiently distant competing values with a target error tolerance. We clarify its operational distinction from conventional parameter estimation and develop sequential tests for continuous families of hypotheses, introducing the \textit{twin-peaks test} as a natural and computationally efficient analog of sequential likelihood-ratio testing. We apply the framework to two paradigmatic quantum tasks: testing the phase and the purity of a qubit. For phase testing, we show numerically that adaptive projective measurements achieve the same average sample cost as collective covariant measurements with a fixed number of copies. For purity testing, local measurements are optimal, and sequential parameter testing yields significant average sample savings over fixed sample-size protocols. Our results establish parameter testing as an operationally meaningful framework for resource-efficient certification tasks involving continuous parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The figure shows the three different tests explained in this work. The first image shows the updated normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. One run of the equatorial phase testing protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Log-plot of the mean number of rounds until the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Average number of samples required by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Logarithm of the average number of samples required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Average number of samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Precision of the different estimation strategies explained in the main text. The left image shows the mean squared error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The performance of entangled strategies. In blue the sine state from Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ratio of the total average number of samples for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wald, Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses, Ann

    A. Wald, Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses, Ann. Math. Stat.16, 117 (1945)

    work page 1945

  2. [2]

    Wald and J

    A. Wald and J. Wolfowitz, Optimum Character of the Sequential Probability Ratio Test, Ann. Math. Stat.19, 326 (1948)

    work page 1948

  3. [3]

    R. R. Shamir, L. Joskowicz, S. Spektor, and Y. Shoshan, Localization and registration accuracy in image guided neurosurgery: a clinical study, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery4, 45 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Z. Lin, C. Lei, and L. Yang, Modern image-guided surgery: A narrative review of medical image processing and visualization, Sensors23, 9872 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Uncertainty of measurement – Part 4: Role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assess- ment (2012), accessed: 2026-07-09

    International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide 98-4:2012. Uncertainty of measurement – Part 4: Role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assess- ment (2012), accessed: 2026-07-09

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum States with Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen Correlations Admitting a Hidden-Variable Model, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states, Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 441 (2000)

    2000

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Ac´ ın, N

    A. Ac´ ın, N. Gisin, and L. Masanes, From Bell’s theorem to secure quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 120405 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Ac´ ın, S. Massar, V. Scarani, R. de Wolf, and N. Gisin, Random numbers certified by Bell’s theo- rem, Nature464, 1021 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM J. Comput. 38, 1207 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Raussendorf, J

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, A fault- tolerant one-way quantum computer, Ann. Phys.321, 2242 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    C. R. Rao, Information and the accuracy attainable in the estimation of statistical parameters, inBreakthroughs in Statistics: Foundations and basic theory(Springer,

  6. [14]

    Cram´ er,Mathematical methods of statistics, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics, Vol

    H. Cram´ er,Mathematical methods of statistics, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics, Vol. 26 (Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    D’Agostini,Bayesian Reasoning in Data Analysis: A Critical Introduction(World Scientific, 2003)

    G. D’Agostini,Bayesian Reasoning in Data Analysis: A Critical Introduction(World Scientific, 2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    W. M. Bolstad,Understanding Computational Bayesian Statistics(John Wiley & Sons, 2009). 18

    2009

  9. [17]

    M. A. Amaral Turkman, C. D. Paulino, and P. M¨ uller, Computational Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Slussarenko, M

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, J.-G. Li, N. Camp- bell, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Quantum state discrimination using the minimum average number of copies, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 030502 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    C. W. Baum and V. V. Veeravalli, A sequential procedure for multihypothesis testing, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory40, 1994 (1994)

    1994

  12. [20]

    V. V. Veeravalli and C. W. Baum, Asymptotic efficiency of a sequential multihypothesis test, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory41, 1994 (1995)

    1995

  13. [21]

    Armitage, Sequential analysis with more than two alternative hypotheses, and its relation to discriminant function analysis, J

    P. Armitage, Sequential analysis with more than two alternative hypotheses, and its relation to discriminant function analysis, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B12, 137 (1950)

    1950

  14. [22]

    Lorden, Nearly-optimal sequential tests for finitely many parameter values, Ann

    G. Lorden, Nearly-optimal sequential tests for finitely many parameter values, Ann. Statist.5, 1 (1977)

    1977

  15. [23]

    V. P. Draglia, A. G. Tartakovsky, and V. V. Veer- avalli, Multihypothesis sequential probability ratio tests .i. asymptotic optimality, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory45, 2448 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation the- ory, Journal of statistical physics1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  17. [25]

    Holevo, Statistical decision theory for quantum sys- tems, J

    A. Holevo, Statistical decision theory for quantum sys- tems, J. Multivar. Anal.3, 337 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    H. Yuen, R. Kennedy, and M. Lax, Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory21, 125 (1975)

    1975

  19. [27]

    Hiai and D

    F. Hiai and D. Petz, The proper formula for relative en- tropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability, Com- mun. Math. Phys.143, 99 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Ogawa and H

    T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, Strong converse and Stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory46, 2428 (2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    Hayashi, Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of Stein’s lemma, J

    M. Hayashi, Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of Stein’s lemma, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.35, 10759 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Calsamiglia, R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, E. Bagan, L. Masanes, A. Ac´ ın, and F. Verstraete, Discriminating States: The Quantum Chernoff Bound, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 160501 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Tsang, Continuous quantum hypothesis testing, Phys- ical Review Letters108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.170502 (2012)

    M. Tsang, Continuous quantum hypothesis testing, Phys- ical Review Letters108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.170502 (2012)

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Mosonyi and T

    M. Mosonyi and T. Ogawa, Quantum hypothesis test- ing and the operational interpretation of the quantum R´ enyi relative entropies, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics334, 1617 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Mart´ ınez-Vargas, C

    E. Mart´ ınez-Vargas, C. Hirche, G. Sent´ ıs, M. Skotiniotis, M. Carrizo, R. Mu˜ noz-Tapia, and J. Calsamiglia, Quan- tum sequential hypothesis testing, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 180502 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Y. Li, V. Y. F. Tan, and M. Tomamichel, Optimal adap- tive strategies for sequential quantum hypothesis testing, Commun. Math. Phys.392, 993 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Gasbarri, M

    G. Gasbarri, M. Bilkis, E. Roda-Salichs, and J. Cal- samiglia, Sequential hypothesis testing for continuously- monitored quantum systems, Quantum8, 1289 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    P´ erez-Guijarro, A

    J. P´ erez-Guijarro, A. Pag` es-Zamora, and J. R. Fonollosa, Bounds in Sequential Unambiguous Discrimination of Multiple Pure Quantum States, Quantum9, 1919 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Roda-Salichs, G

    E. Roda-Salichs, G. Gasbarri, A. Alou, M. Skotinio- tis, A. Sierant, D. M´ endez-Avalos, M. W. Mitchell, and J. Calsamiglia, Sequential analysis in a continuous spin- noise quantum sensor (2025), arXiv:2509.16177

    2025

  30. [38]

    Zecchin, O

    M. Zecchin, O. Simeone, and A. Ramdas, Quan- tum sequential universal hypothesis testing (2025), arXiv:2508.21594

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. P. Simpson, E. Palias, and S. T. Jose, Optimal error exponents for composite sequential quantum hypothesis testing (2026), arXiv:2605.04915

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino, Strict hier- archy between parallel, sequential, and indefinite-causal- order strategies for channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 200504 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino, Unitary channel discrimination beyond group structures: Advan- tages of sequential and indefinite-causal-order strategies, Journal of Mathematical Physics63(2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    E. L. Andr´ e, J. Bavaresco, and M. Mehboudi, Strategy optimization for Bayesian quantum parameter estimation with finite copies: Adaptive greedy, parallel, sequential, and general strategies (2026), arXiv:2602.09655

    2026

  36. [44]

    Berta, O

    M. Berta, O. Fawzi, and M. Tomamichel, On variational expressions for quantum relative entropies, Lett. Math. Phys.107, 2239 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    J. P. Simpson, E. Palias, and S. T. Jose, Sample com- plexity of composite quantum hypothesis testing (2026), arXiv:2601.08588

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Hayashi and H

    M. Hayashi and H. Yamasaki, Generalized quantum Stein’s lemma and second law of quantum resource the- ories (2025), arXiv:2408.02722

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lami, A solution of the generalised quantum Stein’s Lemma, IEEE Trans

    L. Lami, A solution of the generalised quantum Stein’s Lemma, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory71, 4454 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Lami, Generalised quantum Sanov theorem revisited (2025), arXiv:2510.06340

    L. Lami, Generalised quantum Sanov theorem revisited (2025), arXiv:2510.06340

    2025

  41. [49]

    Lami, A doubly composite Chernoff-Stein lemma and its applications (2025), arXiv:2510.06342

    L. Lami, A doubly composite Chernoff-Stein lemma and its applications (2025), arXiv:2510.06342

    2025

  42. [50]

    Pallister, N

    S. Pallister, N. Linden, and A. Montanaro, Optimal ver- ification of entangled states with local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 170502 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Amari and H

    S. Amari and H. Nagaoka,Methods of Information Geom- etry, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 191 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

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

    2011

  45. [53]

    Gut ¸˘ a and J

    M. Gut ¸˘ a and J. Kahn, Local asymptotic normality for qubit states, Phys. Rev. A73, 052108 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Bagan, M

    E. Bagan, M. A. Ballester, R. Mu˜ noz Tapia, and O. Romero-Isart, Purity estimation with separable mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 110504 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    Dembo and O

    A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni,Large Deviations Techniques and Applications, 2nd ed., Applications of Mathematics, Vol. 38 (Springer, New York, 1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    A. S. Holevo, Covariant measurements and imprimitivity systems, Lect. Notes Math.1055, 153 (1984)

    1984

  49. [57]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Refer- ence frames, superselection rules, and quantum informa- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 555 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    Barenco, A

    A. Barenco, A. Berthiaume, D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, and C. Macchiavello, Stabilization of quan- tum computations by symmetrization, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1541 (1997). 19

    1997

  51. [59]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2044 (1987)

    1987

  52. [60]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 167902 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    A. K. Ekert, C. M. Alves, D. K. L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek, Direct estimations of lin- ear and nonlinear functionals of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 217901 (2002)

    2002

  54. [62]

    Parniak, S

    M. Parniak, S. Bor´ owka, K. Boroszko, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and R. Demkowicz-Dobrza´ nski, Beating the Rayleigh limit using two-photon interference, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 250503 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    G. H. Aguilar, R. S. Piera, P. L. Saldanha, R. L. d. M. Filho, and S. P. Walborn, Robust interferometric sens- ing using two-photon interference, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024028 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Ndagano, H

    B. Ndagano, H. Defienne, D. Branford, Y. D. Shah, A. Lyons, N. Westerberg, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Quantum microscopy based on Hong–Ou–Mandel inter- ference, Nat. Photon.16, 384 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Lyons, G

    A. Lyons, G. C. Knee, E. Bolduc, T. Roger, J. Leach, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Attosecond-resolution Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry, Science Advances4, eaap9416 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Ansari, B

    V. Ansari, B. Brecht, J. Gil-Lopez, J. M. Donohue, J. ˇReh´ aˇ cek, Z. c. v. Hradil, L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, and C. Sil- berhorn, Achieving the ultimate quantum timing resolu- tion, PRX Quantum2, 010301 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    first one past the post

    M. Mazelanik, A. Leszczy´ nski, and M. Parniak, Optical-domain spectral super-resolution via a quantum- memory-based time-frequency processor, Nat. Comm. 13, 691 (2022). Appendix A: Description of T ests Let Θ⊂Rbe a parameter space. For anyδ>0 define the sets Bδ(ϑ)∶={φ∈Θ∣ ∣φ−ϑ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.