SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Jan Seyfried

Publications and source records attributed to Jan Seyfried.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

On the Power of Adaptivity in Testing Quantum States in Fidelity

We study the problems of quantum state certification, equivalence testing and independence testing. In certification, given samples of an unknown quantum state $\rho$ and the description of a state $\sigma$, the goal is to test whether $\rho=\sigma$, or whether $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are far in a given distance measure. In equivalence testing, $\sigma$ is also unknown and only accessible via samples. Independence testing decides whether $\rho_{AC}=\rho_A\otimes\rho_C$, or is far from being a product. The sample complexities of these problems are now well-understood for a decision gap $\varepsilon$ in trace distance: in the single-copy measurement setting with $d$-dimensional states, all three tasks can be solved using the same non-adaptive approach, which uses $\Theta(d^{3/2}/\varepsilon^2)$ samples and is optimal in general, even without adaptivity. In this work, we consider decision gaps expressed in fidelity and study possible separations between these problems and how adaptivity can help. We prove that certification with respect to fidelity for a state $\sigma$ of rank $r$ does not benefit from adaptivity and requires $\widetilde{\Theta}(r^{3/2}/\varepsilon)$ samples. For equivalence testing and independence testing, we provide adaptive algorithms using $\widetilde{O}(\min\{d^{3/2}/\varepsilon^2,d^{9/4}/\varepsilon\})$ and $\widetilde{O}(\min\{(d_Ad_C)^{3/2}/\varepsilon^2,d_A^{9/4}d_C^{3/4}/\varepsilon\})$ samples, for $d_A\geq d_C$, respectively. Our main technique is a framework that uses partial learning and a reduction to testing in $\ell_2$-distance, adapted from the distribution testing literature. We show that adaptivity matters for equivalence testing in fidelity by proving that $\widetilde{\Omega}(1/\varepsilon^2)$ samples are necessary in the non-adaptive case even for qubits, showing a separation from certification.

quant-ph

Testing (Conditional) Mutual Information

We investigate the sample complexity of mutual information and conditional mutual information testing. For conditional mutual information testing, given access to independent samples of a triple of random variables $(A, B, C)$ with unknown distribution, we want to distinguish between two cases: (i) $A$ and $C$ are conditionally independent, i.e., $I(A\!:\!C|B) = 0$, and (ii) $A$ and $C$ are conditionally dependent, i.e., $I(A\!:\!C|B) \geq \varepsilon$ for some threshold $\varepsilon$. We establish an upper bound on the number of samples required to distinguish between the two cases with high confidence, as a function of $\varepsilon$ and the three alphabet sizes. We conjecture that our bound is tight and show that this is indeed the case in several parameter regimes. For the special case of mutual information testing (when $B$ is trivial), we establish the necessary and sufficient number of samples required up to polylogarithmic terms. Our technical contributions include a novel method to efficiently simulate weakly correlated samples from the conditionally independent distribution $P_{A|B} P_{C|B} P_B$ given access to samples from an unknown distribution $P_{ABC}$, and a new estimator for equivalence testing that can handle such correlated samples, which might be of independent interest.

cs.DS