Source author record

Aadil Oufkir

Explore this author’s publications, collaborators and research topics. This catalog record has not been claimed by its author.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Data Structures and Algorithms math-ph math.MP math.ST quant-ph Statistics Theory

Catalog footprint

Research overview

2works

6topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Is this your work?

Open graph Browse papers

preprint2026arXiv

Improved Lower Bounds for Learning Quantum Channels in Diamond Distance

We prove that learning an unknown quantum channel with input dimension $d_A$ , output dimension $d_B$ , and Choi rank $r$ to diamond distance $\varepsilon$ requires $Ω\!\left( \frac{d_A d_B r}{\varepsilon \log(d_B r / \varepsilon)} \right)$ channel queries when $d_A= rd_B$ , and $Ω\!\left( \frac{d_A d_B r}{\varepsilon^2 \log(d_B r / \varepsilon)} \right)$ channel queries when $d_A\le rd_B/2$ . These lower bounds improve upon the best previous $Ω(d_A d_B r)$ bound by introducing explicit, near-optimal $\varepsilon$ -dependence. Moreover, when $d_A\le rd_B/2$ , the lower bound is optimal up to a logarithmic factor. The proof constructs ensembles of channels that are well separated in diamond norm yet admit Stinespring isometries that are close in operator norm.

preprint2022arXiv

Sequential algorithms for testing identity and closeness of distributions

What advantage do \emph{sequential} procedures provide over batch algorithms for testing properties of unknown distributions? Focusing on the problem of testing whether two distributions $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}_2$ on $\{1,\dots, n\}$ are equal or $ε$ -far, we give several answers to this question. We show that for a small alphabet size $n$ , there is a sequential algorithm that outperforms any batch algorithm by a factor of at least $4$ in terms sample complexity. For a general alphabet size $n$ , we give a sequential algorithm that uses no more samples than its batch counterpart, and possibly fewer if the actual distance $TV(\mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2)$ between $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}_2$ is larger than $ε$ . As a corollary, letting $ε$ go to $0$ , we obtain a sequential algorithm for testing closeness when no a priori bound on $TV(\mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2)$ is given that has a sample complexity $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\frac{n^{2/3}}{TV(\mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2)^{4/3}})$ : this improves over the $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\frac{n/\log n}{TV(\mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2)^{2} })$ tester of \cite{daskalakis2017optimal} and is optimal up to multiplicative constants. We also establish limitations of sequential algorithms for the problem of testing identity and closeness: they can improve the worst case number of samples by at most a constant factor.

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.