Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Converse bounds for quantum hypothesis exclusion: A divergence-radius approach

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum exclusion rates are capped by a divergence radius, the paper proves.

desk verdict A genuinely new proof technique for known exclusion bounds, but the headline 'same upper bounds' outstrips what is actually derived here: the limsup versions are cited or absent. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09712 v2 pith:DCNPVXJI submitted 2025-01-16 quant-ph cs.ITmath-phmath.ITmath.MP

Kaiyuan Ji , Hemant K. Mishra , Milán Mosonyi , Mark M. Wilde This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITmath-phmath.ITmath.MP MSC 81P4594A17
keywords quantumhypothesisexclusionstatechannelerrorexponentdivergenceradiusstrongconverseRényiBelavkin-Staszewski
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 proves converse bounds on the asymptotic error exponents of quantum state exclusion and quantum channel exclusion: the best exclusion rate is at most a divergence radius determined by the candidate hypotheses. For states, the radius is the multivariate log-Euclidean Chernoff divergence $C^\flat(\rho_{[r]}) = \sup_{s_{[r]}} \inf_{\tau} \sum_x s_x D(\tau\|\rho_x)$; for channels, it is $\sup_{s_{[r]}} \inf_{\mathcal{T}} \sum_x s_x \hat{D}(\mathcal{T}\|\mathcal{N}_x)$ using the Belavkin-Staszewski channel divergence. The proofs differ from the authors' previous companion paper: they invoke strong-converse results for binary hypothesis testing against a single dummy hypothesis and use a geometric sphere-packing picture. A one-shot analysis gives a finite-size bound that recovers the state-exclusion exponent bound, though the liminf version stated as Corollary 5 is cited from the companion paper rather than proved here.

What carries the argument

The divergence-radius argument: fix a dummy state $\tau$ (or dummy channel $\mathcal{T}$) and apply the strong converse of binary hypothesis testing to each pair $(\tau,\rho_x)$. If all single-hypothesis error exponents exceeded the radius $\max_x D(\tau\|\rho_x)$, the probabilities of all outcomes under $\tau$ would tend to zero, impossible since they sum to one. The one-shot strengthening uses Lemma 3, a bound on $|\operatorname{Tr}[\Lambda\tau]|$ in terms of $\operatorname{Tr}[\Lambda\rho]$ and the extended sandwiched R\'enyi divergence, obtained via data processing.

What would settle it

Compute $\inf_{\tau} \max_x D(\tau\|\rho_x)$ for a state tuple and attempt to construct a sequence of POVMs whose per-hypothesis error exponents all exceed that radius; the proof predicts this is impossible, so any such construction would refute the claim. Alternatively, exhibit a tuple for which the supremum in Eq. (25) is not attained, invalidating the interchange in Eq. (26).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that if a sequence of exclusion measurements had per-hypothesis error exponents all exceeding the divergence radius $R = \inf_{\tau} \max_x D(\tau\|\rho_x)$, then by the strong converse of binary quantum Stein's lemma every outcome probability against a suitably chosen dummy state $\tau$ would vanish, contradicting that the measurement probabilities sum to one. Hence at least one hypothesis must have exponent at most $R$, and the overall exclusion error exponent is at most $R$. The same dummy-hypothesis argument, with the strong converse for channel discrimination in terms of the Belavkin-Staszewski divergence, gives the channel-exclusion upper bound. A one-shot version using the extended sandwiched R\'enyi divergence yields a nonasymptotic converse with an explicit prior-penalty term.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on being able to swap the supremum over exclusion strategies with the limit inferior in the error exponent (Eqs. (26) and (62)), and on the strong-converse binary tests applying to arbitrary measurement or adaptive-strategy sequences; if the supremum is not attained, the bound on the limsup exponent does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The state-exclusion exponent upper bound $\overline{E}_{\mathrm{err}}(\mathcal{E}) \le C^\flat(\rho_{[r]})$ is recovered from the strong converse alone, without the nonasymptotic divergence analysis of the companion paper.
  • The channel-exclusion exponent satisfies $\overline{E}_{\mathrm{err}}(\mathcal{N}) \le \sup_{s_{[r]}} \inf_{\mathcal{T}} \sum_x s_x \hat{D}(\mathcal{T}\|\mathcal{N}_x)$, matching the companion paper's barycentric bound.
  • The one-shot converse (Proposition 4) gives finite-size penalties depending only on the smallest prior and the R\'enyi parameter $\alpha$.
  • The geometric picture suggests exclusion is fundamentally a sphere-packing problem: the error exponent is bounded by the smallest radius of a divergence sphere around a dummy hypothesis that intersects all candidate 'exclusion balls'.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same dummy-hypothesis trick could prove converse bounds for other multi-hypothesis tasks, such as quantum state elimination or discrimination with a fixed number of guesses, whenever a strong converse for the binary subproblem exists.
  • The constants in Proposition 4 could be optimized by choosing $\alpha$ depending on $n$; the paper does not compute the resulting second-order rates.
  • The geometric sphere-packing picture suggests the bound is tight exactly when a minimax saddle point exists for $\inf_{\tau} \max_x D(\tau\|\rho_x)$; locating such saddles would give achievability criteria.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a divergence-radius method for deriving converse bounds on the asymptotic error exponents of quantum state exclusion and quantum channel exclusion. The idea is to apply strong-converse results for asymmetric binary hypothesis testing to distinguish an arbitrary dummy hypothesis from each candidate, and then to derive an upper bound in terms of a divergence radius. Theorem 2 proves a liminf upper bound E_err(E) <= C_flat(rho[r]) for state exclusion, and Proposition 4 states a one-shot converse bound. Corollary 5 asserts the limsup bound Ebar_err(E) <= C_flat(rho[r]) but its proof is a citation to the authors' companion paper [11]. Theorem 7 proves only the liminf bound E_err(N) <= sup_s inf_T sum_x s_x bD(T||N_x) for channel exclusion. The paper frames itself as providing alternative proofs of the upper bounds of [11] using a conceptually different, geometrically inspired approach.

Significance. The divergence-radius argument is elegant and, if completed, would give a conceptually simpler route to the tightest known efficiently computable upper bounds for quantum state and channel exclusion. The use of strong-converse lemmas with a dummy hypothesis is a clean idea that may generalize to other multi-hypothesis tasks. However, the paper as written does not deliver the advertised strong-converse results: the state limsup bound is deferred to a citation, and no channel limsup bound is stated or proved. Theorems 2 and 7 are plausible and the proof strategy is sound, but the central claim of the paper is only partially realized. The manuscript would be substantially strengthened by proving Corollary 5 from the one-shot analysis and by upgrading Theorem 7 to a limsup statement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B / Corollary 5] Corollary 5 is the only strong-converse (limsup) statement for state exclusion, and its proof is the single sentence 'See our companion paper [11, Theorem 15].' The one-shot analysis in Proposition 4 is not used to derive Corollary 5, and the text's claim that the liminf/limsup gap is filled is therefore not supported by the manuscript. Since the abstract advertises alternative proofs of the upper bounds of [11], this is a load-bearing omission.
  2. [Section IV.A / Theorem 7] Theorem 7 establishes only the liminf bound E_err(N) <= sup_s inf_T sum_x s_x bD(T||N_x); no limsup analogue Ebar_err(N) <= ... appears anywhere in Section IV. The abstract and the comparison with [11] promise the same upper bounds as the previous work, but the channel strong converse is absent as presented. The proof can likely be upgraded by applying Lemma 6 to a subsequence on which the limsup is realized, but this must be carried out explicitly.
  3. [Eqs. (26) and (62)] The equality liminf_n sup_Λ f_n = sup_{(Λ_n)} liminf_n f_n(Λ_n) is asserted with the explanation that the supremum can be replaced by a maximum. This is not automatic for arbitrary compact strategy sets. The argument is valid if, for each n, the supremum is attained and one selects a maximizing sequence, but this justification is missing. The same issue appears in the channel proof at Eq. (62).
  4. [Proposition 4 / Eq. (48)] The Sion minimax step in Eq. (48) is not justified: the domain aff(D_A) is noncompact, and the required convexity and lower semicontinuity of the extended sandwiched Rényi divergence in its first argument are not stated. Moreover, Proposition 4 is not connected to Corollary 5, so the one-shot analysis does not currently serve the paper's stated goal. Either prove the minimax identity with explicit hypotheses or relegate Proposition 4 to an ancillary role.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (27) and (63)] The passage from -1/n ln sum_x p_x a_x to min_x -1/n ln a_x is true asymptotically, but the justification should be stated: for fixed r and fixed positive priors, the sum and the maximum differ by at most O(1).
  2. [Theorem 7 proof] There is a typo in the proof: 'Let T in C_{A->B} be a state' should read 'be a channel.'
  3. [Eq. (59)] The expression max_x bD(T||N_{x*}) appears to contain a typo; the maximum should be over x, not x*.
  4. [Section IV.A] When applying Lemma 6 to an r-outcome exclusion strategy, the paper should explicitly note that each outcome can be coarse-grained into a two-outcome strategy; this makes the applicability of the two-outcome strong converse lemma immediate.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised limsup (strong-converse) state bound is not proved in this paper: Corollary 5 is proved by citing the authors' own companion paper, and Theorem 7 only gives a liminf channel bound. The liminf proofs are genuine alternative arguments, so the circularity is partial.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III-B, Corollary 5 and its proof, after Proposition 4 and Eq. (49)]
    "However, the upper bound in Theorem 2 is on E_err(E) instead of E_err(E), and in this sense there is a gap between the statement here and the original statement of Ref. [11, Theorem 15]. In what follows, we fill this gap by providing a one-shot analysis corresponding to Theorem 2. ... Corollary 5. Let ρ[r]∈D^[r]_A be a tuple of states. Then E_err(E)≤C♭(ρ[r]). Proof. See our companion paper [11, Theorem 15]."

    The paper's abstract and introduction promise alternative proofs of the same upper bounds on the asymptotic error exponents, and the limsup exponent is the strong-converse bound. Theorem 2 proves only the liminf bound E_err(E)≤C♭(ρ[r]). The paper explicitly acknowledges this gap and says a one-shot analysis will fill it, but Corollary 5, the claimed limsup strengthening, is not derived from Proposition 4 or any argument in this paper: its proof is literally 'See our companion paper [11, Theorem 15]'. Thus the central advertised state result reduces, at the key step, to a self-citation of the authors' own prior work rather than to the new divergence-radius derivation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section IV-A, proof of Theorem 7, Eqs. (61)-(66)]
    "Here (62) follows because the supremum on the right-hand side of (61) can be replaced with a maximum; Eq. (65) follows from (60); Eq. (66) follows from Ref. [11, Lemma 3]."

    The theorem's advertised upper bound is the barycentric expression sup_{s[r]∈P_r} inf_{T∈C_{A→B}} ∑_x s_x bD(T∥N_x). The proof derives the bound in the form inf_{T∈C_{A→B}} max_x bD(T∥N_x) and then imports the equality to the barycentric form from Lemma 3 of the authors' own companion paper [11]. Since the stated purpose is to provide an alternative proof of the companion paper's barycentric upper bound, using that same companion paper's lemma to supply the final form means the new proof is not fully self-contained at the decisive step where the divergence-radius bound becomes the advertised bound.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuinely new proof idea: apply the strong converse of asymmetric binary hypothesis testing to a dummy hypothesis, then use the normalization of exclusion strategies to force a divergence-radius bound. This yields Theorem 2 for the liminf state exponent and Theorem 7 for the liminf channel exponent, and these proofs rely on external strong-converse results (Nagaoka-Ogawa, Fang-Fawzi) plus standard convex-analysis steps. However, the paper's headline claim is to provide alternative proofs of the same upper bounds as the companion paper [11], and that is only partially true. For states, the limsup bound E_err(E)≤C♭(ρ[r]) is stated as Corollary 5 but its proof is a citation to the authors' own [11, Theorem 15]; the one-shot Proposition 4 is not shown in this paper to imply the limsup bound. For channels, Theorem 7 gives only the liminf bound E_err(N)≤sup_s inf_T ∑_x s_x bD(T∥N_x); no limsup channel bound is even stated, and the final barycentric form is obtained by invoking [11, Lemma 3]. The asserted sup/liminf interchanges in Eqs. (26) and (62) are plausible from compactness and maxima but are not proved, which is a technical gap rather than circularity. Overall, the liminf derivations are independent and interesting, but the strong-converse claims advertised in the abstract are not fully delivered here and one of them is explicitly deferred to a self-citation. This is partial circularity, not complete circularity, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

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

No numeric free parameters are fitted. The proof relies on several external strong converse results and on two unproven analytical assumptions: the applicability of Sion's minimax theorem to the noncompact affine hull and the sup-max interchange for sequences of strategies. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Strong converse part of the quantum Stein's lemma (Nagaoka-Ogawa), used as Lemma 1.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 2 to force Tr[Lambda_x tau^n] to vanish when the error exponent exceeds D(tau||rho_x). It is an established external result.
  • domain assumption Strong converse bound for asymmetric binary channel hypothesis testing (Fang-Fawzi Theorem 49), used as Lemma 6.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 7 for adaptive channel strategies. This is an external result from [19].
  • domain assumption Data-processing inequality for the extended sandwiched Renyi divergence, from [21, Lemma 2].
    Used in Lemma 3 when the first argument is a unit-trace Hermitian operator, not necessarily a state. The paper relies on this external result.
  • ad hoc to paper Sion minimax theorem applies to the objective over s in P_r and tau in aff(D_A).
    Used in Proposition 4, Eq. (48). Compactness of aff(D_A) is not shown, so the hypotheses of Sion's theorem are not verified in the text.
  • ad hoc to paper The supremum over sequences of strategies in Eqs. (26) and (62) can be replaced by a maximum.
    The paper asserts this without proof in both the state and channel sections. It is a nontrivial interchange of sup and lim inf.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Converse bounds for quantum hypothesis exclusion: A divergence-radius approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DCNPVXJI

@misc{pith2026250109712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Converse bounds for quantum hypothesis exclusion: A divergence-radius approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DCNPVXJI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09712}
}
read the original abstract

Hypothesis exclusion is an information-theoretic task in which an experimenter aims at ruling out a false hypothesis from a finite set of known candidates, and an error occurs if and only if the hypothesis being ruled out is the ground truth. For the tasks of quantum state exclusion and quantum channel exclusion -- where hypotheses are represented by quantum states and quantum channels, respectively -- efficiently computable upper bounds on the asymptotic error exponents were established in a recent work of the current authors [Ji et al., arXiv:2407.13728 (2024)], where the derivation was based on nonasymptotic analysis. In this companion paper of our previous work, we provide alternative proofs for the same upper bounds on the asymptotic error exponents of quantum state and channel exclusion, but using a conceptually different approach from the one adopted in the previous work. Specifically, we apply strong converse results for asymmetric binary hypothesis testing to distinguishing an arbitrary ``dummy'' hypothesis from each of the concerned candidates. This leads to the desired upper bounds in terms of divergence radii via a geometrically inspired argument.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The strong converse part of the quantum Stein’s lemma can be understood in a pictorial way as follows. Let () () 1 () [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Nonlocality without entanglement in exclusion of quantum states

    quant-ph 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Three bipartite product states are globally antidistinguishable yet not LOCC antidistinguishable under the paper's restricted one-pass LOCC model, giving a claimed minimal example of exclusion-based nonlocality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    Barycentric bounds on the error exponents of quantum hypothesis exclusion,

    K. Ji, H. K. Mishra, M. Mosonyi, and M. M. Wilde, “Barycentric bounds on the error exponents of quantum hypothesis exclusion,” Jul

    work page

  2. [2]

    Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation , ser

    M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation , ser. Graduate Texts in Physics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-3-662-49725-8

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information , 1st ed

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information , 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cambridge. org/core/product/identifier/9781316848142/type/book

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Khatri and M

    S. Khatri and M. M. Wilde, Principles of Quantum Communication Theory: A Modern Approach . arXiv, Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.04672v2

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    How much state assignments can differ,

    T. A. Brun, J. Finkelstein, and N. D. Mermin, “How much state assignments can differ,” Physical Review A, vol. 65, p. 032315, Feb. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032315

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.65.032315 2002

  6. [6]

    Conditions for compatibility of quantum-state assignments,

    C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Conditions for compatibility of quantum-state assignments,” Physical Review A , vol. 66, p. 062111, Dec. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.66.062111

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    On the reality of the quantum state,

    M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, “On the reality of the quantum state,” Nature Physics, vol. 8, pp. 475–478, Jun. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2309

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Is the quantum state real? An extended review of 𝜓-ontology theorems,

    M. S. Leifer, “Is the quantum state real? An extended review of 𝜓-ontology theorems,” Quanta, vol. 3, p. 67, Nov. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://quanta.ws/ojs/index.php/quanta/article/view/22

    work page 2014

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    No 𝜓-epistemic model can fully explain the indistinguishability of quantum states,

    J. Barrett, E. G. Cavalcanti, R. Lal, and O. J. E. Maroney, “No 𝜓-epistemic model can fully explain the indistinguishability of quantum states,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 112, p. 250403, Jun. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.250403

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    On the optimal error exponents for classical and quantum antidistinguishability,

    H. K. Mishra, M. Nussbaum, and M. M. Wilde, “On the optimal error exponents for classical and quantum antidistinguishability,” Letters in Mathematical Physics, vol. 114, p. 76, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11005-024-01821-z

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    On quantum Rényi entropies: A new generalization and some properties,

    M. Müller-Lennert, F. Dupuis, O. Szehr, S. Fehr, and M. Tomamichel, “On quantum Rényi entropies: A new generalization and some properties,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 54, p. 122203, Dec

  4. [13]

    Strong converse for the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched Rényi relative entropy,

    M. M. Wilde, A. Winter, and D. Yang, “Strong converse for the classical capacity of entanglement-breaking and Hadamard channels via a sandwiched Rényi relative entropy,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 331, pp. 593–622, Oct. 2014. [Online]. Available: http://link....

    2014 doi

  5. [14]

    Conditional expectation in an operator algebra, IV (entropy and information),

    H. Umegaki, “Conditional expectation in an operator algebra, IV (entropy and information),” Kodai Mathematical Journal , vol. 14, Jan. 1962. [Online]. Available: https://projecteuclid. org/journals/kodai-mathematical-journal/volume-14/issue-2/ Conditional-expectation-in-an-ope...

    1962

  6. [15]

    A new quantum version of 𝑓 -divergence,

    K. Matsumoto, “A new quantum version of 𝑓 -divergence,” in Reality and Measurement in Algebraic Quantum Theory , M. Ozawa, J. Butterfield, H. Halvorson, M. Rédei, Y . Kitajima, and F. Buscemi, Eds., vol. 261. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2018, pp. 229–273. [Online]. Availabl...

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    Geometric distinguishability measures limit quantum channel estimation and discrimination,

    V . Katariya and M. M. Wilde, “Geometric distinguishability measures limit quantum channel estimation and discrimination,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 20, p. 78, Feb. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11128-021-02992-7

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    𝐶∗-algebraic generalization of relative entropy and entropy,

    V . P. Belavkin and P. Staszewski, “ 𝐶∗-algebraic generalization of relative entropy and entropy,” Annales de l’I.H.P . Physique théorique, vol. 37, pp. 51–58, 1982. [Online]. Available: http://eudml.org/doc/76163

    1982

  9. [18]

    Bounding the forward classical capacity of bipartite quantum channels,

    D. Ding, S. Khatri, Y . Quek, P. W. Shor, X. Wang, and M. M. Wilde, “Bounding the forward classical capacity of bipartite quantum channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 69, pp. 3034–3061, May

  10. [19]

    Geometric Rényi divergence and its applications in quantum channel capacities,

    K. Fang and H. Fawzi, “Geometric Rényi divergence and its applications in quantum channel capacities,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 384, pp. 1615–1677, Jun. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00220-021-04064-4

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    Geometric relative entropies and barycentric Rényi divergences,

    M. Mosonyi, G. Bunth, and P. Vrana, “Geometric relative entropies and barycentric Rényi divergences,” Linear Algebra and its Applications , vol. 699, pp. 159–276, Oct. 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0024379524002490

    2024

  12. [21]

    𝛼-logarithmic negativity,

    X. Wang and M. M. Wilde, “ 𝛼-logarithmic negativity,” Physical Review A , vol. 102, p. 032416, Sep. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032416

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

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

    H. Nagaoka and T. Ogawa, “Strong converse and Stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 46, pp. 2428–2433, Nov. 2000. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/887855/

    2000

  14. [23]

    Divergence radii and the strong converse exponent of classical-quantum channel coding with constant compositions,

    M. Mosonyi and T. Ogawa, “Divergence radii and the strong converse exponent of classical-quantum channel coding with constant compositions,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 67, pp. 1668–1698, Mar. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9276455/

    2021

  15. [24]

    Quantum hypothesis testing and the operational interpretation of the quantum Rényi relative entropies,

    ——, “Quantum hypothesis testing and the operational interpretation of the quantum Rényi relative entropies,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 334, pp. 1617–1648, Mar. 2015. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00220-014-2248-x

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    On general minimax theorems,

    M. Sion, “On general minimax theorems,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 8, pp. 171–176, Mar. 1958. [Online]. Available: http://msp.org/pjm/1958/8-1/p14.xhtml

    1958

  17. [26]

    Exact quantum sensing limits for Bosonic dephasing channels,

    Z. Huang, L. Lami, and M. M. Wilde, “Exact quantum sensing limits for Bosonic dephasing channels,” PRX Quantum, vol. 5, p. 020354, Jun

  18. [27]

    Toward a general theory of quantum games,

    G. Gutoski and J. Watrous, “Toward a general theory of quantum games,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. San Diego California USA: ACM, Jun. 2007, pp. 565–574. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1250790.1250873

    2007

  19. [28]

    Memory effects in quantum channel discrimination,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, “Memory effects in quantum channel discrimination,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 101, p. 180501, Oct. 2008. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.101.180501

    2008

  20. [29]

    Quantum circuit architecture,

    ——, “Quantum circuit architecture,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 101, p. 060401, Aug. 2008. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.060401

    2008 doi

  21. [30]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum. 5.020354

    doi

  22. [2013]

    Available: https://pubs.aip.org/jmp/article/54/12/122203/ 233328/On-quantum-Renyi-entropies-A-new-generalization

    [Online]. Available: https://pubs.aip.org/jmp/article/54/12/122203/ 233328/On-quantum-Renyi-entropies-A-new-generalization

  23. [2023]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10005080/

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10005080/

  24. [2024]

    Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13728

    [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13728

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.