Quantum Sequential Universal Hypothesis Testing

Aaditya Ramdas; Matteo Zecchin; Osvaldo Simeone

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Sequential Universal Hypothesis Testing

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces QSUT, a sequential universal test that decides between composite sets of quantum states while provably keeping the false-alarm probability at or below a preset level at every stopping time, under any adaptive…

desk verdict A clean and correct adaptation of universal inference to sequential composite QHT, with a patchable MLE-existence gap and proof-of-concept experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21594 v1 pith:JJ7AUQKJ submitted 2025-08-29 quant-ph cs.ITmath.ITstat.ME

Matteo Zecchin , Osvaldo Simeone , Aaditya Ramdas This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.ITmath.ITstat.ME

keywords quantumhypothesistestingsequentialanalysiscompositehypothesesuniversalinferencee-processesanytime-validHelstrom-Holevomeasurementcopycomplexity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces QSUT, a sequential test for deciding whether an unknown quantum state belongs to one composite class of states or another. Unlike fixed-copy protocols, QSUT consumes a variable number of copies and can stop as soon as the evidence is conclusive. The paper proves a non-asymptotic guarantee: for any adaptive measurement strategy, the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis stays at or below a preset level $\epsilon_0$ at every stopping time. This matters because earlier composite quantum tests could not adapt their copy count, wasting copies on easy states. The paper also gives two practical instantiations and reports single-qubit experiments in which they achieve the error target with lower average copy complexity than fixed-copy baselines.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-anticipating sequential split likelihood ratio $\Lambda_t = \prod_{i=1}^t \frac{\mathrm{Tr}((\hat{\rho}_1^{i-1})^{\otimes n_i}M_i^{X_i})}{\mathrm{Tr}((\hat{\rho}_0^t)^{\otimes n_i}M_i^{X_i})}$, which replaces the alternative state in each factor by the previous-round maximum-likelihood estimate and the null state by the current-round estimate. This ratio is an e-process under the null: because the denominator uses a maximum over the null class, the ratio is bounded by the same expression with the true null state in the denominator, and that expression telescopes into a supermartingale with expectation one. Ville's inequality then converts the crossing of the threshold $1/\epsilon_0$ into a type-I error bound at any stopping time.

What would settle it

Run QSUT with an open hypothesis class such as the paper's experiment $H_1:\omega\in(45^\circ,135^\circ)\cup(135^\circ,180^\circ)$ and record a history whose likelihood is maximized only at the excluded boundary $\omega=135^\circ$; then the estimator in (13) has no value, the likelihood ratio is undefined, and the stated minimal-assumption guarantee does not apply. If an implementation substitutes a nearby point and the empirical false-rejection rate exceeds $\epsilon_0$, the claimed universal control fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that valid sequential hypothesis testing of composite quantum hypotheses is possible by combining universal inference with arbitrary adaptive measurement policies. The key is to construct the sequential split likelihood ratio from maximum-likelihood estimates of the two classes, using the alternative-class estimate from the previous round in the numerator and the null-class estimate from the current round in the denominator. Under the null hypothesis, replacing the denominator estimate by the true state makes the process a supermartingale with expectation one, so an e-process bound applies: the first time the ratio crosses $1/\epsilon_0$ has probability at most $\epsilon_0$ regardless of the measurement policy. The paper further presents two instantiations, one based on Helstrom-Holevo measurements and one based on shallow variational circuits, and reports empirical copy-complexity reductions compared with fixed-copy tests.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the maximum-likelihood estimates in (12) and (13) exist and attain their maxima over the relevant hypothesis classes at every round, so that the sequential split likelihood ratio is always defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Composite quantum hypothesis tests no longer need a fixed copy budget: the same protocol provides type-I error control at any stopping time, so resources can be spent adaptively.
Because the error bound holds for every measurement policy, measurement designs can be chosen or tuned purely to make decisions faster, without invalidating the test.
The two-sided version of QSUT uses two simultaneous e-processes and controls both false rejection and false acceptance, provided at least one target error is below 1.
In the single-qubit experiments, the sequential tests reach the same power as fixed-copy baselines with substantially fewer copies once the available budget is large enough.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

I infer the same split-likelihood construction could be inverted at multiple thresholds to build anytime-valid confidence regions for an unknown quantum parameter, a direction the paper does not discuss.
I infer the previous-round estimate in the numerator is what prevents the alternative fit from overusing the newest outcome, which is why the e-process property survives arbitrary adaptive measurements.
A directly testable extension is to replace the exact maximum-likelihood estimate by a regularized approximate maximizer so the type-I guarantee remains meaningful when the hypothesis sets are open and no argmax exists.
Since one instantiation uses shallow variational circuits, QSUT is compatible with near-term hardware in principle, but the experiments are simulated and the effect of measurement noise is not analyzed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is a clean transplant of classical universal inference into sequential composite quantum hypothesis testing. That is both its main contribution and its main limitation: QSUT is the first protocol I know of that gives non-asymptotic anytime-valid type-I control for composite quantum hypotheses, and the proof is the standard split-likelihood-ratio supermartingale argument. The two instantiations, aLHT and aLVT, are sensible, and the single-qubit experiments show real early-stopping gains.

The central theorem is correct, with one caveat. The inequality Λ ≤ \barΛ in Appendix A uses \hatρ_t^0 as an exact maximizer in (12). For an arbitrary open S0 the argmax can fail to exist, so the "minimal assumptions" claim in the abstract is too strong. The experiments avoid this because the null sets in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 are a single point and a finite set. But the theorem is stated for arbitrary disjoint subsets, and the paper should either assume compactness or closedness of S0 or replace the MLE with an approximate maximizer and add a slack factor. This is a patchable technicality, not a flaw in the main idea.

The other soft spots are minor. Equation (35) in Appendix B is garbled; the two-sided proof can be reconstructed but needs a rewrite. The experiments use 200 runs, no error bars, no code release, and only single-qubit states, so the copy-complexity savings are proof-of-concept. I would also like a clear paragraph on how QSUT differs from Grootveld et al. (2025), which is dispatched in one sentence.

The citation pattern looks fine; the use of classical universal inference is acknowledged, and the self-citations to Wasserman et al. and Ramdas et al. are appropriate. Theorem 4.1 is a genuine new result in quantum statistics.

I would send this to a serious referee. It deserves to be published after minor revisions.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QSUT, a sequential testing framework for composite quantum hypotheses. At each round t, an arbitrary adaptive measurement policy selects a POVM, and the test computes a non-anticipating sequential split likelihood ratio Lambda_t in Eq. (14) using MLEs over the null and alternative sets; the test rejects H0 as soon as Lambda_t exceeds 1/epsilon0. Theorem 4.1 claims uniform type-I control, sup_{rho in S0} Pr[D_T=1|rho] <= epsilon0, for any measurement policy, with a proof that dominates Lambda_t by a martingale under H0 and applies Ville's inequality. The paper then gives two instantiations, aLHT/aLHT+ based on Helstrom-Holevo measurements and aLVT based on shallow variational circuits, together with a two-sided extension in Section 4.5. Experiments on single-qubit parametric families compare copy complexity with fixed-copy baselines LHT/bLHT and LVT/bLVT.

Significance. If Theorem 4.1 is correct under the stated assumptions, QSUT would be the first non-asymptotic anytime-valid test for composite quantum hypotheses, and the e-process argument is a clean quantum adaptation of the universal inference framework of Wasserman et al. The central proof is short, uses no fitted parameters, and gives an explicit error bound; the paper also openly acknowledges the classical predecessor. The empirical results are suggestive, showing copy-complexity reductions against fixed-copy baselines. However, the advertised 'minimal assumptions' / 'no assumptions' claim is too strong: as stated, Theorem 4.1 requires an exact null MLE to exist at every round, which fails for open hypothesis sets. This is a load-bearing technical gap, although it is repairable with a compactness condition or a supremum-based formulation.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.1, Eqs. (12)-(14); Appendix A, Eq. (29)] Theorem 4.1 is stated for arbitrary disjoint subsets S0 and S1 of D(H), but the proof requires the MLE rho_hat_0^t in Eq. (12) to exist and to be an exact maximizer, because Appendix A's inequality (29) needs the product likelihood at rho_hat_0^t to be at least the product likelihood at the true state. For open sets S0, the argmax can fail. For example, take S0 = {diag(p,1-p) : p in (0,1)}, S1 = {diag(0,1)}, and computational-basis measurements; on the all-0 path, which has positive probability under p = 0.95, the supremum of p^t over p in (0,1) is 1 and is not attained. Any completion rho_hat_0^t with p_hat < 1 leaves a true p in (p_hat,1) with p^t > p_hat^t, so the key inequality (29) fails and the uniform type-I bound (15) is not delivered. Thus the claimed validity under 'minimal assumptions' or 'no assumptions' is false as stated. The fix is either to require S0 to be compact (or closed) so that the MLE exists, or, preferably, to define the denominator via sup_{rho in S0} product_i Tr(rho^{otimes n_i} M_i^{X_i}); the inequality Lambda_t <= barLambda_t then holds without attainment. The abstract and Section 1.2 should be revised accordingly.
[Appendix B, Eq. (35)] The proof of Proposition B.1 is garbled. Eq. (35) uses an undefined object rho_hat_t^1 and presents a chain of inequalities that does not follow from the assumption Lambda^t_QSUT,0 >= 1/epsilon0: the displayed lower bound is not what Eq. (34) implies, and the inequalities as written have the wrong direction. Since the two-sided decision rule (22) cites the claimed impossibility of simultaneous crossing, this proof needs to be corrected or the proposition removed. I note that the error-control claim in Theorem 4.2 is not itself invalidated: the rejection event for the two-sided test is exactly {Lambda_QSUT,0 >= 1/epsilon0}, so Theorem 4.1 applies directly, and similarly for the type-II side. The simultaneous-crossing statement is a separate assertion that still requires a correct proof.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.1, Eq. (14)] The initial estimator rho_hat_1^0 used in the product for i = 1 is never defined; specify that it is any fixed element of S1 or is chosen by a prespecified rule before data collection.
[Appendix A, Eq. (31)] There is an index typo in Eq. (31): the term Tr((rho_hat_t^1)^{otimes n_t} M_t^x) should presumably read Tr((rho_hat_1^{t-1})^{otimes n_t} M_t^x); as written the estimator index is inconsistent with the rest of the proof.
[Section 5.3] The block-size description is internally inconsistent: the text says blocks of size k = 10 and then states that the first k - n_H = 6 copies are measured in the computational basis, which does not match the k + 1 round block structure described in Section 4.3. Please clarify the number of single-copy rounds and the total number of copies per block.
[Section 5] The experiments do not state the values of r_z and r_x in Eq. (26), nor the grid/discretization used for the MLEs over open sets such as H1 in Section 5.4. These details are needed for reproducibility, especially because the MLE in Eq. (13) may not be attained for open alternative sets.
[Section 3 and Section 5] The paper should state what happens when the stopping time T is infinite, both in the definition of the type-I event and in the experiments: for truncated runs, please specify whether the copy budget n is consumed and how non-rejection is counted in the reported power and average copy complexity.
[Section 4.1] The sentence claiming that Lambda_t itself is an e-process would benefit from a one-line justification: Lambda_t is dominated by the martingale barLambda_t, so the e-process property follows from the optional stopping of barLambda_t rather than from an intrinsic supermartingale property of Lambda_t.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the type-I guarantee is derived from a self-contained supermartingale/Ville argument, not from fitted values or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central Theorem 4.1 is not circular. It defines the SLR Λ_t^QSUT via MLEs in Eq. (14), then Appendix A constructs µΛ_t in Eq. (28), proves it is a supermartingale under any ρ ∈ S0 using Eq. (30), and invokes Ville's inequality. The key domination step Λ_t^QSUT ≤ µΛ_t follows directly from the MLE definition, and no parameter is fitted to enforce the type-I bound. The reliance on Wasserman et al. for the universal-inference framework is not load-bearing here because the e-process/supermartingale argument is reproduced self-contained in the appendix. The aLHT/aLVT instantiations are algorithmic designs evaluated empirically; optimizing sensitivity or circuit parameters to maximize estimated expected log-likelihood increments is not a prediction forced by the theorem. The potential failure of MLEs to exist for open hypothesis sets is a mathematical-robustness caveat, not a circularity, and thus does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem imports no fitted constants. It rests on standard quantum measurement axioms, on the existence of MLEs over the hypothesis classes (the load-bearing domain assumption), on the non-anticipating structure of the sequential protocol, and on Ville's inequality. Practical variants add tunable measurement parameters lambda and theta_b, which affect power and copy complexity but not the type-I guarantee. The paper does not invent new physical entities.

free parameters (2)

Sensitivity parameter lambda (aLHT and aLHT+) = Uniformly random in (0,1) for aLHT; lambda_b via grid search maximizing Eq. (16) for aLHT+
Controls the trade-off between type I and type II errors in the Helstrom-Holevo measurement. It affects power and copy complexity but not the anytime type-I guarantee.
Variational circuit parameters theta_b (aLVT) = Optimized via grid search and parameter-shift rule to maximize an approximation of the expected log increment
Define the variational POVM in Eq. (17). They affect the empirical power and copy complexity, but not the type-I guarantee.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The MLE argmax in Eqs. (12)-(13) exists and is computable for arbitrary S0 and S1 at every round.
The SLR in Eq. (14) and the inequality Lambda <= ar Lambda in the proof of Theorem 4.1 require an attained maximum over the hypothesis sets. No compactness, closedness, or regularity condition is stated.
standard math Quantum measurements obey the Born rule and POVMs resolve the identity.
Used throughout Eq. (1) and in the conditional-expectation argument in Eq. (31).
standard math Ville's inequality applies to the nonnegative supermartingale ar Lambda_t under H0.
This classical result is the bridge from the supermartingale property to the anytime type-I bound in Appendix A.
domain assumption The null and alternative hypothesis sets S0 and S1 are disjoint subsets of the density-matrix set.
This is the problem definition in Eq. (2) and is needed for the hypothesis test to be meaningful.
domain assumption The measurement policy mu_t is non-anticipating and depends only on past POVMs and outcomes.
The sequential-test definition in Section 3 requires this for the conditional expectation argument and for the stopping time to be well defined.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Sequential Universal Hypothesis Testing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJ7AUQKJ

@misc{pith2026250821594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Sequential Universal Hypothesis Testing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJ7AUQKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21594}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum hypothesis testing (QHT) concerns the statistical inference of unknown quantum states. In the general setting of composite hypotheses, the goal of QHT is to determine whether an unknown quantum state belongs to one or another of two classes of states based on the measurement of a number of copies of the state. Prior art on QHT with composite hypotheses focused on a fixed-copy two-step protocol, with state estimation followed by an optimized joint measurement. However, this fixed-copy approach may be inefficient, using the same number of copies irrespective of the inherent difficulty of the testing task. To address these limitations, we introduce the quantum sequential universal test (QSUT), a novel framework for sequential QHT in the general case of composite hypotheses. QSUT builds on universal inference, and it alternates between adaptive local measurements aimed at exploring the hypothesis space and joint measurements optimized for maximal discrimination. QSUT is proven to rigorously control the type I error under minimal assumptions about the hypothesis structure. We present two practical instantiations of QSUT, one based on the Helstrom-Holevo test and one leveraging shallow variational quantum circuits. Empirical results across a range of composite QHT tasks demonstrate that QSUT consistently reduces copy complexity relative to state-of-the-art fixed-copy strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21594 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the adaptive learned Helstrom-Holevo test (aLHT). The aLHT measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of the adaptive learned variational test (aLVT). The aLVT measurement policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance of the sequential tests aLHT+ and aLHT and the fixed-copy tests LHT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance of aLVT and the fixed-copy tests LVT and bLVT for QHT with a composite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Quantum sequential parameter testing
quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A tolerance-based sequential test, the twin-peaks test, certifies a continuous parameter with asymptotic sample cost 2 log(1/epsilon)/(I(theta) delta^2) and is demonstrated for qubit phase and purity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Discriminating states: the quantum C hernoff bound

Koenraad MR Audenaert, John Calsamiglia, Ram \'o n Munoz-Tapia, Emilio Bagan, Ll Masanes, Antonio Acin, and Frank Verstraete. Discriminating states: the quantum C hernoff bound. Physical review letters, 98 0 (16): 0 160501, 2007

work page 2007
[2]

Statistical complexity of quantum learning

Leonardo Banchi, Jason Luke Pereira, Sharu Theresa Jose, and Osvaldo Simeone. Statistical complexity of quantum learning. Advanced Quantum Technologies, page 2300311, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

On variational expressions for quantum relative entropies

Mario Berta, Omar Fawzi, and Marco Tomamichel. On variational expressions for quantum relative entropies. Letters in Mathematical Physics, 107: 0 2239--2265, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

On composite quantum hypothesis testing

Mario Berta, Fernando Brandao, and Christoph Hirche. On composite quantum hypothesis testing. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 385 0 (1): 0 55--77, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms

Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics, 94 0 (1): 0 015004, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

A quantum version of S anov's theorem

Igor Bjelakovi \'c , Jean-Dominique Deuschel, Tyll Kr \"u ger, Ruedi Seiler, Rainer Siegmund-Schultze, and Arleta Szko a. A quantum version of S anov's theorem. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 260 0 (3): 0 659--671, 2005

work page 2005
[7]

An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing

Hao-Chung Cheng, Nilanjana Datta, Nana Liu, Theshani Nuradha, Robert Salzmann, and Mark M Wilde. An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing. npj Quantum Information, 11 0 (1): 0 94, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Quantum hypothesis testing for composite alternative hypotheses

Daichi Fujiki, Fuyuhiko Tanaka, and Tatsuya Sakashita. Quantum hypothesis testing for composite alternative hypotheses. Physical Review A, 111 0 (3): 0 032405, 2025

work page 2025

Show all 45 references

[9]

Towards quantum universal hypothesis testing

Arick Grootveld, Haodong Yang, Biao Chen, Venkata Gandikota, and Jason Pollack. Towards quantum universal hypothesis testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16299, 2025

2025
[10]

Safe testing

Peter Gr \"u nwald, Rianne de Heide, and Wouter Koolen. Safe testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 86 0 (5): 0 1091--1128, 2024

2024
[11]

Practical optimization for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

Gian Giacomo Guerreschi and Mikhail Smelyanskiy. Practical optimization for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01450, 2017

2017 arXiv
[12]

Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of S tein's lemma in quantum hypothesis testing

Masahito Hayashi. Optimal sequence of quantum measurements in the sense of S tein's lemma in quantum hypothesis testing. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 35 0 (50): 0 10759, 2002

2002
[13]

Group theoretical study of LOCC -detection of maximally entangled states using hypothesis testing

Masahito Hayashi. Group theoretical study of LOCC -detection of maximally entangled states using hypothesis testing. New Journal of Physics, 11 0 (4): 0 043028, 2009

2009
[14]

Generalized quantum S tein's lemma and second law of quantum resource theories

Masahito Hayashi and Hayata Yamasaki. Generalized quantum S tein's lemma and second law of quantum resource theories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02722, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Quantum detection and estimation theory

Carl W Helstrom. Quantum detection and estimation theory. Journal of Statistical Physics, 1 0 (2): 0 231--252, 1969

1969
[16]

The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability

Fumio Hiai and D \'e nes Petz. The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 143 0 (1): 0 99--114, 1991

1991
[17]

Multiple-copy state discrimination: thinking globally, acting locally

BL Higgins, AC Doherty, SD Bartlett, GJ Pryde, and HM Wiseman. Multiple-copy state discrimination: thinking globally, acting locally. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 83 0 (5): 0 052314, 2011

2011
[18]

Quantum-inspired classification via efficient simulation of H elstrom measurement

Wooseop Hwang, Daniel K Park, Israel F Araujo, and Carsten Blank. Quantum-inspired classification via efficient simulation of H elstrom measurement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15308, 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

Quantum-machine-learning channel discrimination

AS Kardashin, AV Vlasova, AA Pervishko, Dmitry Yudin, and Jacob D Biamonte. Quantum-machine-learning channel discrimination. Physical Review A, 106 0 (3): 0 032409, 2022

2022
[20]

Quantum hypothesis testing for quantum G aussian states: Q uantum analogues of chi-square, t and F tests

Wataru Kumagai and Masahito Hayashi. Quantum hypothesis testing for quantum G aussian states: Q uantum analogues of chi-square, t and F tests. arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.6255, 2011

2011 arXiv
[21]

A solution of the generalised quantum S tein’s lemma

Ludovico Lami. A solution of the generalised quantum S tein’s lemma. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2025

2025
[22]

Optimal adaptive strategies for sequential quantum hypothesis testing

Yonglong Li, Vincent YF Tan, and Marco Tomamichel. Optimal adaptive strategies for sequential quantum hypothesis testing. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 392 0 (3): 0 993--1027, 2022

2022
[23]

Variational quantum circuits for quantum state tomography

Yong Liu, Dongyang Wang, Shichuan Xue, Anqi Huang, Xiang Fu, Xiaogang Qiang, Ping Xu, He-Liang Huang, Mingtang Deng, Chu Guo, et al. Variational quantum circuits for quantum state tomography. Physical Review A, 101 0 (5): 0 052316, 2020

2020
[24]

Quantum sequential hypothesis testing

Esteban Mart \' nez Vargas, Christoph Hirche, Gael Sent \' s, Michalis Skotiniotis, Marta Carrizo, Ramon Mu \ n oz-Tapia, and John Calsamiglia. Quantum sequential hypothesis testing. Physical review letters, 126 0 (18): 0 180502, 2021

2021
[25]

Quantum computation and quantum information

Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, 2010

2010
[26]

Strong converse and S tein's lemma in quantum hypothesis testing

Tomohiro Ogawa and Hiroshi Nagaoka. Strong converse and S tein's lemma in quantum hypothesis testing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 46 0 (7): 0 2428--2433, 2002

2002
[27]

Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inference

Aaditya Ramdas, Peter Gr \"u nwald, Vladimir Vovk, and Glenn Shafer. Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inference. Statistical Science, 38 0 (4): 0 576--601, 2023

2023
[28]

Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements

Joseph M Renes, Robin Blume-Kohout, Andrew J Scott, and Carlton M Caves. Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 45 0 (6): 0 2171--2180, 2004

2004
[29]

A class of stopping rules for testing parametric hypotheses

Herbert Robbins and David Siegmund. A class of stopping rules for testing parametric hypotheses. In Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 4: Biology and Health, volume 6, pages 37--42. University of California Press, 1972

1972
[30]

Usefulness of adaptive strategies in asymptotic quantum channel discrimination

Farzin Salek, Masahito Hayashi, and Andreas Winter. Usefulness of adaptive strategies in asymptotic quantum channel discrimination. Physical Review A, 105 0 (2): 0 022419, 2022

2022
[31]

Testing by betting: A strategy for statistical and scientific communication

Glenn Shafer. Testing by betting: A strategy for statistical and scientific communication. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 184 0 (2): 0 407--431, 2021

2021
[32]

Nonparametric two-sample testing by betting

Shubhanshu Shekhar and Aaditya Ramdas. Nonparametric two-sample testing by betting. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70 0 (2): 0 1178--1203, 2023

2023
[33]

Sequential analysis: tests and confidence intervals

David Siegmund. Sequential analysis: tests and confidence intervals. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[34]

An introduction to quantum machine learning for engineers, volume 16

Osvaldo Simeone. An introduction to quantum machine learning for engineers, volume 16. Now Publishers, Inc., 2022

2022
[35]

Classical and quantum information theory: uncertainty, information, and correlation

Osvaldo Simeone. Classical and quantum information theory: uncertainty, information, and correlation. Cambridge University Press, 2025

2025
[36]

Shallow-depth variational quantum hypothesis testing

Mahadevan Subramanian and Sai Vinjanampathy. Shallow-depth variational quantum hypothesis testing. Physical Review A, 110 0 (3): 0 032424, 2024

2024
[37]

Sequential analysis: hypothesis testing and changepoint detection

Alexander Tartakovsky, Igor Nikiforov, and Michele Basseville. Sequential analysis: hypothesis testing and changepoint detection. CRC press, 2014

2014
[38]

Étude critique de la notion de collectif

Jean Ville. Étude critique de la notion de collectif. 1939. URL http://eudml.org/doc/192893

1939
[39]

Sequential analysis

Abraham Wald. Sequential analysis. Courier Corporation, 1947

1947
[40]

Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses

Abraham Wald. Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Breakthroughs in statistics: Foundations and basic theory, pages 256--298, 1992

1992
[41]

Universal inference

Larry Wasserman, Aaditya Ramdas, and Sivaraman Balakrishnan. Universal inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 0 (29): 0 16880--16890, 2020

2020
[42]

Estimating means of bounded random variables by betting

Ian Waudby-Smith and Aaditya Ramdas. Estimating means of bounded random variables by betting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 86 0 (1): 0 1--27, 2024

2024
[43]

Quantum information theory

Mark M Wilde. Quantum information theory. Cambridge University Press, 2013

2013
[44]

A unified framework for bandit multiple testing

Ziyu Xu, Ruodu Wang, and Aaditya Ramdas. A unified framework for bandit multiple testing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 16833--16845, 2021

2021
[45]

Adaptive learn-then-test: Statistically valid and efficient hyperparameter selection

Matteo Zecchin, Sangwoo Park, and Osvaldo Simeone. Adaptive learn-then-test: Statistically valid and efficient hyperparameter selection. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Discriminating states: the quantum C hernoff bound

Koenraad MR Audenaert, John Calsamiglia, Ram \'o n Munoz-Tapia, Emilio Bagan, Ll Masanes, Antonio Acin, and Frank Verstraete. Discriminating states: the quantum C hernoff bound. Physical review letters, 98 0 (16): 0 160501, 2007

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Statistical complexity of quantum learning

Leonardo Banchi, Jason Luke Pereira, Sharu Theresa Jose, and Osvaldo Simeone. Statistical complexity of quantum learning. Advanced Quantum Technologies, page 2300311, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

On variational expressions for quantum relative entropies

Mario Berta, Omar Fawzi, and Marco Tomamichel. On variational expressions for quantum relative entropies. Letters in Mathematical Physics, 107: 0 2239--2265, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

On composite quantum hypothesis testing

Mario Berta, Fernando Brandao, and Christoph Hirche. On composite quantum hypothesis testing. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 385 0 (1): 0 55--77, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms

Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics, 94 0 (1): 0 015004, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

A quantum version of S anov's theorem

Igor Bjelakovi \'c , Jean-Dominique Deuschel, Tyll Kr \"u ger, Ruedi Seiler, Rainer Siegmund-Schultze, and Arleta Szko a. A quantum version of S anov's theorem. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 260 0 (3): 0 659--671, 2005

work page 2005

[7] [7]

An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing

Hao-Chung Cheng, Nilanjana Datta, Nana Liu, Theshani Nuradha, Robert Salzmann, and Mark M Wilde. An invitation to the sample complexity of quantum hypothesis testing. npj Quantum Information, 11 0 (1): 0 94, 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Quantum hypothesis testing for composite alternative hypotheses

Daichi Fujiki, Fuyuhiko Tanaka, and Tatsuya Sakashita. Quantum hypothesis testing for composite alternative hypotheses. Physical Review A, 111 0 (3): 0 032405, 2025

work page 2025