Quantum hypothesis testing between qubit states with parity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum hypothesis testing (QHT) provides an effective method to discriminate between two quantum states using a two-outcome positive operator-valued measure (POVM). Two types of decision errors in a QHT can occur. In this paper we focus on the asymmetric setting of QHT, where the two types of decision errors are treated unequally, considering the operational limitations arising from the lack of a reference frame for chirality. This reference frame is associated with the group ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$ consisting of the identity transformation and the parity transformation. Thus, we have to discriminate between two qubit states by performing the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$-invariant POVMs only. We start from the discrimination between two pure states. By solving the specific optimization problem we completely characterize the asymptotic behavior of the minimal probability of type-II error which occurs when the null hypothesis is accepted when it is false. Our results reveal that the minimal probability reduces to zero in a finite number of copies, if the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$-twirlings of such two pure states are different. We further derive the critical number of copies such that the minimal probability reduces to zero. Finally, we replace one of the two pure states with a maximally mixed state, and similarly characterize the asymptotic behavior of the minimal probability of type-II error.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".