Defines OptimalHypothesisRate, the optimal rate of distinguishing an MState ρ from a set of other
mixed states S, with at most Type I error ε.
That is to say: take a projective measurement (a POVM) with elements {T, 1-T}, where measuring T
will mean we conclude our unknown state was ρ, and measuring 1-T will mean we think the state was
something in S. We only accept T's such that Tr[(1-T)ρ] ≤ ε, that is, we have at most an ε
probability of incorrectly concluding it was ρ. The Type II error associated to this T is then
max_{σ ∈ S} Tr[T σ], that is, the (worst possible, over possible states) chance of incorrectly
concluding our state was in S. Optimize over T to get the lowest possible Type II error rate,
and the resulting error rate is OptimalHypothesisRate ρ ε S.
We make this accessible through the notation β_ ε(ρ‖S).
See The tangled state of quantum hypothesis testing by Mario Berta et al. for a broader overview.
The optimal hypothesis testing rate, for a tolerance ε: given a state ρ and a set of states S, the optimum distinguishing rate that allows a probability ε of errors.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
 
Instances For
The space of strategies T in OptimalHypothesisRate is inhabited, we always have some valid strategy.
When S is empty, the optimal hypothesis testing rate is zero.
There exists an optimal T for the hypothesis testing, that is, it's a minimum
and not just an infimum. This states we have 1 - ε ≤ ρ.exp_val T, but we can always
"worsen" T to make that bound tight, which is exists_min.
There exists an optimal T for the hypothesis testing, that is, it's a minimum and
not just an infimum. This tightens the T from exists_min' to a ⟪ρ,T⟫ = 1 - ε bound.
When the allowed Type I error ε is less than 1 (so, we have some limit on our errors),
and the kernel of the state ρ contains the kernel of some element in S, then the optimal
hypothesis rate is positive - there is some lower bound on the type II errors we'll see. In
other words, under these conditions, we cannot completely avoid type II errors.
Lemma S1
This is from Strong converse exponents for a quantum channel discrimination problem and quantum-feedback-assisted communication, Lemma 5.
It seems like this is actually true for all 0 < α (with appropriate modifications at α = 1), but we only need it for the case of 1 < α.