Paper detail

Adversarial hypothesis testing and a quantum Stein's Lemma for restricted measurements

Recall the classical hypothesis testing setting with two convex sets of probability distributions P and Q. One receives either n i.i.d. samples from a distribution p in P or from a distribution q in Q and wants to decide from which set the points were sampled. It is known that the optimal exponential rate at which errors decrease can be achieved by a simple maximum-likelihood ratio test which does not depend on p or q, but only on the sets P and Q. We consider an adaptive generalization of this model where the choice of p in P and q in Q can change in each sample in some way that depends arbitrarily on the previous samples. In other words, in the k'th round, an adversary, having observed all the previous samples in rounds 1,...,k-1, chooses p_k in P and q_k in Q, with the goal of confusing the hypothesis test. We prove that even in this case, the optimal exponential error rate can be achieved by a simple maximum-likelihood test that depends only on P and Q. We then show that the adversarial model has applications in hypothesis testing for quantum states using restricted measurements. For example, it can be used to study the problem of distinguishing entangled states from the set of all separable states using only measurements that can be implemented with local operations and classical communication (LOCC). The basic idea is that in our setup, the deleterious effects of entanglement can be simulated by an adaptive classical adversary. We prove a quantum Stein's Lemma in this setting: In many circumstances, the optimal hypothesis testing rate is equal to an appropriate notion of quantum relative entropy between two states. In particular, our arguments yield an alternate proof of Li and Winter's recent strengthening of strong subadditivity for quantum relative entropy.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.