arXiv:1707.01114v1 [quant-ph] 4 Jul 2017 fodrn h est prtr.Ol hs htstsyt satisfy that see several; those are Only there and operators. purposes, density the ordering of o w lsia distributions classical two For divergences Rényi 2.1 Setup 2 s the of characterization game complete be certainty a relation provide new can a we establishing fi fidelity, analogou by we as Second, First, well recovery. as glement applications. measurement, optimal interesting the of to number measurement a have conse to dist immediate out an optimal essentially are and inequalities divergence the Though Rényi the involving equalities q various of relationship the investigating by measurement eovn ojcuefrte“ige ooay tde i studied monogamy” “singlet the for conjecture a t resolving fidelities entanglemen entanglement optimal possible the and of implie fidelity characterization for principle pot holds uncertainty of relation the values same system; the The of quantum predictions a provide on to ables is game of goal The dlt ucin ec e nihsit hs esrsof in measures case these the into is insights This new tasks. Hence function. reco or fidelity states d quantum Rényi distinguishing the for more, strategies even good” But t entropy. includes and which information divergences, mutual Rényi of no the a by given that is requirement measures intuitive processi the data satisfies the information satisfy of that those particularly entropy, Introduction 1 éy divergence Rényi aibei ilb ovnett en h iayRnidive Rényi binary the define to convenient be will it variable h limits The hr 0 where P x nteqatmcs hr r eea osbedfiiin of definitions possible several are there case quantum the In eew xedarcn eutb ao n Verdú and Sason by result recent a extend we Here ucsflaayi fifrainpoesn rtcl r protocols processing information of analysis Successful P ( [ is,w banasaprbudrltn h pia probab optimal the relating bound sharper a obtain we First, eoeyt h dlt ftesaewt rdc tt,whi state, product a with state relations. the monogamy of measurement, fidelity good the bound pretty obtain to recovery we the Second, of recovery. that entanglement good to pretty states of ensemble an x arXiv:1701.01974 etrbud notmlmaueetadetnlmn recov entanglement and measurement optimal on bounds Better ) ≤ log eetn h eetbud fSsnadVrúrltn Rényi relating Verdú and Sason of bounds recent the extend We α p = Q P ≤ ( ( x x ,1, 0, n 0 and 1 [ ) ) 3 and , , [ 9 4 ∞ , ] plctost netit n ooayrelations monogamy and uncertainty to applications hc sas eae owv-atcedaiyrltosi relations duality wave-particle to related also is which , 10 r bandb otniyin continuity by obtained are D ] ≤ ] ∞ oteqatmdmi n hwta hyhv ubro diffe of number a have they that show and domain quantum the to , [ q 1 nttt o hoeia hsc,EHZrc,Switzerlan Zürich, ETH Physics, Theoretical for Institute ( ] ≤ P o ntne hc on e odtosfrteoptimalit the for conditions new found which instance, for , , Q d .Aantelmtn ae r salse ycontinuity. by established are cases limiting the Again 1. P α = ) ( and p D , D α q ( α max ) [ ρ Q ( 8 : P , = h éy iegneo order of divergence Rényi the , ] , σ Q x o noeve.Hr ewl ou ntemnml rsandwic or minimal, the on focus will we Here overview. an for ) α ) log − 1 : : = 1 = log Q P α oehM Renes M. Joseph α ( ( x x − 1 ) ) − 1 ntecs fdsrbtoso iayvle random binary-valued a on distributions of case the In . p 1 1 α α q o Tr log log 1 hc gives which , 1 − α X odfeetpriscnhv ihacmo system, common a with have can parties different wo [ ( + gieult,tesaeetta omlmeasure formal a that statement the inequality, ng x eigetnlmn,adaerltdt h oft-used the to related are and entanglement, vering 2 ] uneo h aapoesn nqaiy hyturn they inequality, processing data the of quence s hne antices t n ra ls of class broad One it. increase cannot channel isy atmRnidivergences. Rényi uantum P hc salse hl ls fFn-iein- Fano-like of class whole a establishes which , n 1 σ nusigpoaiiy oteqatmdomain. quantum the to probability, inguishing hte ed otgttiatt netit and uncertainty tripartite tight to leads then ch edt rcsigieult r sflfrour for useful are inequality processing data he to disbegesn rbblte na un- an in probabilities guessing admissible of et euulSannadvnNuandefinitions Neumann von and Shannon usual he rgence ( we h pia usigpoaiiyadthe and probability guessing optimal the tween httepeitoscno ohb accurate. be both cannot predictions the that s − [ eoey n nti otx ie complete a gives context this in and recovery, t eaigotmlgesn n entanglement and guessing optimal relating s x qie utbemaue fifrainand information of measures suitable equires 1 e ed onwrslsfrteeoperational these for results new to leads ten 2 nilmaueet ftocnuaeobserv- conjugate two of measurements ential vrecsas nops pia n “pretty and optimal encompass also ivergences dipoe onsrltn h rtygood pretty the relating bounds improved nd 6 − α lt fcretydsigihn lmnsof elements distinguishing correctly of ility ) α p ] onsfrpet odadotmlentan- optimal and good pretty for bounds s α ρσ . n naaoosbudfrotmland optimal for bound analogous an and ) Q α D nrp n aeinhptei testing hypothesis Bayesian and entropy h éy iegne u otechoices the to due divergence, Rényi the ( ( 0 1 x 1 2 ( − ) α − α P 1 α , − Q q α α ∈ ) = ) (1) . 1 ( − (3) . ,1 0, α utpr interferometers multiport n − ) (2) , log ∪ d ( P 1, x ∞ : P etapplications. rent ( x ) ftepet good pretty the of y ) > sgvnby given is r,with ery, 0 Q ( x ) , D 1 ( [ P 7 , ] Q hed, [ = ) 5 ] . The name “minimal” comes from the fact that quantity is the smallest in a family of possible Rényi divergences which satisfies the data processing inequality (in this case, for α [ 1 , ]) [8]. ∈ 2 ∞ Though we will not explicitly make use of it here, we mention that the Rényi divergence can be used to define a conditional entropy by either H↓ (X B) := log X D (ρ , π ρ ) or H↑ (X B) := sup (log X α | ρ | | − α XB X ⊗ B α | ρ σ | | − D (ρ , π σ ). In the classical case this definition goes back to Arimoto [11] and appears to be the most α XB X ⊗ B meaningful extension of the usual Shannon conditional entropy to the Rényi setting [12, 13].
2.2 Guessing probabilities and entanglement recovery The minimal divergence is also interesting due to its connections with the fidelity function as well as optimal and “pretty good” guessing probabilities and entanglement recovery. For F(ρ, σ)= pρpσ 1 the fidelity of 2 k k the states ρ and σ, we have D1 (ρ, σ)= log F(ρ, σ) . /2 − An arbitrary ensemble of states ϕx with prior probabilities px can be encapsulated in the classical-quantum state ρ = p x x (ϕ ) . Any given measurement Λ on B results in some average probability of XB Px x | 〉〈 |x ⊗ x B correctly guessing, P(X B) Λ = p Tr[ϕ Λ ]. As shown in [14], the optimal probability P satisfies | ρ, Px x x x opt
inf D (ρXB, πX σB)= log X Popt(X B)ρ , (4) σ ∞ ⊗ | | | where πX is the completely mixed state (uniform distribution). The “pretty good measurement” [15, 16] uses 1/2 1/2 the POVM elements Λ = ϕ− p ϕ ϕ− for ϕ = p ϕ , and its guessing probability P satisfies [17] x x x Px x x pg D (ρ , π ρ )= log X P (X B) . (5) 2 XB X ⊗ B | | pg | ρ When the ϕx commute and B is effectively a classical random variable Y , the pretty good measurement reduces to guessing X by sampling from the distribution PX Y =y for the observed value of Y . Beyond its use in quantum information theory, this measurement has also been| used to construct decoders for error-correcting codes in classical information theory [18]. The fully quantum analog of the guessing scenario is that of entanglement recovery by local action. For an arbitrary bipartite entangled state ρAB. a quantum channel EA B taking B to A′ A results in some (squared) ′| ≃ Φ 1 Φ E fidelity with the maximally entangled state AA = x x A x A , R(A B)ρ,E = Tr[ AA A B(ρAB)]. The ′ p A P ′ ′ ′| | 〉 | | | 〉 | 〉 | optimal fidelity Ropt satisfies [14] 2 inf D (ρAB, πA σB)= log A Ropt(A B)ρ . (6) σ ∞ ⊗ | | |
1/2 1/2 T E − − B The “pretty good recovery” uses the map A B(σAB )= TrB[ρB ρA BρB σAB] and satisfies [19] ′| ′ D (ρ , π ρ )= log A 2R (A B) . (7) 2 AB A ⊗ B | | pg | ρ When TrB[ρAB ]= πA, this is the recovery map of [20].
3 Bounds Λ Regarding the POVM x as the quantum-classical channel MX B, we can express the guessing probability { } ′| as P(X B) Λ = Tr[Π M (ρ )], where Π = x x x x . Note that Tr[Π M (π ρ, XX ′ X ′ B XB XX ′ x X X X ′ XX ′ X ′ B X | | P ∈ | 〉〈 | ⊗ | 〉〈 | | ⊗ σ )] = 1 for any state σ . The projector Π is part of a two-outcome measurement, a test, described by B X B XX ′ | | Π the channel TY XX . The random variable Y equals 1 when the test passes, corresponding to XX , and zero
| ′ ′ ½ Π if it fails, corresponding to XX XX . Similarly, the expression for R(A B)ρ,E makes use of the test TY AA ′ − ′ | | ′ involving Φ . And in this case we have, for any σ , Tr[Φ π σ ]= 1 . Applying the data processing AA′ A′ AA′ A ⊗ A′ A 2 inequality of the Rényi divergence for T M or T E immediately gives our| | main result. ◦ ◦ Proposition 1. Let σ be any normalized state and α [ 1 , ]. For arbitrary classical-quantum states ρ and B ∈ 2 ∞ XB measurements Λ on B, we have { x } 1 Dα(ρXB, πX σB) dα(P(X B)ρ,Λ, X ) . (8) ⊗ ≥ | | | For ρAB an arbitrary bipartite quantum state and EA B a quantum channel from B to A′ A, we have ′| ≃ 1 Dα(ρAB, πA σB) dα(R(A B)ρ,E , A 2 ) . (9) ⊗ ≥ | | | Choosing α = 1, σ = ρ , and the optimal measurement Λ or recovery map E gives the Fano inequali- B B A′ B ties | H(X B) (1 P (X B) ) log( X 1) + h (P (X B) ) , and (10) | ρ ≤ − opt | ρ | | − 2 opt | ρ H(A B) log A + (1 R (A B) ) log( A 2 1) + h (R (A B) ) , (11) | ρ ≤ − | | − opt | ρ | | − 2 opt | ρ where h (x)= x log x (1 x) log (1 x) is the binary entropy. 2 − 2 − − 2 −
2 3.1 Pretty good measurement and entanglement recovery
Choosing MX Y to be the optimal measurement for given ρXB and using (5) in (8) gives ′| 2 (1 Popt(X B)ρ ) P (X B) P (X B)2 + − | . (12) pg | ρ ≥ opt | ρ X 1 | | −
In the classical case this was first shown by [21, Theorem 3], though without the connection between D2 and P (X B) . pg | ρ Equality can be attained (also shown in [21]), as illustrated by the “L distribution” with weight p0 on X = 0 and (1 p )/( X 1). The optimal guess is always X = 0, meaning P (X ) = p . Meanwhile, − 0 | | − opt 0 the pretty good measurement generates its guess in this case by sampling from the distribution. Therefore 1 p 2 ( )= 2 + ( ) − 0 Ppg X p0 X 1 X 1 , which is precisely the righthand side above. | | − | |− Taking the limit X , we recover the previously-known result, P (X B) P (X B)2 , first shown | |→∞ pg | ρ ≥ opt | ρ in [22] in the classical case (again, just as a statement involving on D2) and in [20] in the quantum case. The new bound resolves a defect of the previous bound, in that the value of the new bound is always larger than ( X P )2 1/ X . To see this, observe that the righthand side of (12) minus 1/ X is simply | | opt > 0. This ensures | | | | X ( X 1) that the bound is meaningful for any value of P (X B) , whereas the previous| bound| | |− is only meaningful opt | ρ when P (X B) 1/ X . opt | ρ ≥ p| | Choosing EA B to be the optimal recovery map for given ρAB and using (7) in (9) similarly gives ′| 2 (1 Ropt(A B)ρ) R (A B) R (A B)2 + − | . (13) pg | ρ ≥ opt | ρ A 2 1 | | −
Equality can also be attained in this bound, by essentially the same example. Suppose ρAB is a Bell-diagonal state with weight p on Φ and 1 p evenly spread over the remaining A 2 1 Bell states. The local state 0 | 〉 − 0 | | − on system B is the same for all Bell states, so there is no advantage to applying a nontrivial recovery map on B; hence R (A B) = p . On the other hand, using the pretty good recovery leads to R (A B) = Tr[ρ2 ], opt | ρ 0 pg | ρ AB which then gives the righthand side. Bounds in the other direction can be obtained by choosing M to be the pretty good measurement and using (4) in (8), or E to be the pretty good recovery and using (6) in (9). However, this leads back to the obvious lower bounds P (X B) P (X B) and R (A B) R (A B) . opt | ρ ≥ pg | ρ opt | ρ ≥ pg | ρ
3.2 Uncertainty and monogamy relations
Again choosing the optimal measurement or recovery map but now using the relationship between D1/2 and the fidelity gives
1 2 F(ρ , π σ )2 P (X B) + X 1 1 P (X B) , (14) XB X ⊗ B ≤ X q opt | ρ Æ| | − q − opt | ρ | | 1 2 F(ρ , π σ )2 R (A B) + A 2 1 1 R (A B) . (15) AB A ⊗ B ≤ A 2 q opt | ρ Æ| | − q − opt | ρ | | In the case of classical B the former bound was reported by Sason and Verdú [2, Equation 109]. Employing the “L distribution” again yields equality in both. Thus, the former is necessarily stronger than the bound reported by the author in [4, Equation 23] as well the bound discovered by Coles [5, Equation 6], We can use (14) to completely characterize the region of allowed guessing probabilities in the three party
uncertainty game considered in [4]. Suppose ρABC is a tripartite quantum state and ψXB is the classical- quantum state resulting from measuring an observable X on system A and ignoring C, while ξZC is the classical-quantum state resulting from measuring the conjugate observable Z on A and ignoring B. An im- mediate question is what are the allowed values of P(X B) Λ and P(Z C) Γ . To determine the boundary | ψ, | ξ, of the set, start with the uncertainty relation for min and max entropy [23], which can be expressed as max F(ψ , π σ )2 P (Z C) . Combining this with (14) gives σ XB X ⊗ B ≥ opt | ξ 2 A P (Z C) P (X B) + A 1 1 P (X B) . (16) | | opt | ξ ≤ q opt | ψ Æ| | − q − opt | ψ In principle, we could also interchange the two guessing probabilities to obtain another bound, but in fact this leads back to the same inequality. The bound also tightens the relation between fringe visibility and path
3 distinguishability in symmetric multipath interferometers, Theorem 1 of [5], as these quantities are rescaled versions of the two guessing probabilities. Equality can be attained in (16) by, unsurprisingly, a state involving an “L distribution”. In particular, 1 p consider the case of trivial B and C, and θ the state with amplitudes pp for 0 and − 0 for x with | 〉A 0 | 〉 Ç A 1 | 〉 x 1, . . . , A 1 . Always guessing X = 0 and Z = 0 leads to equality. That this is optimal is| |− to be expected, ∈{ | | − } as it is easily seen that the state is a superposition of X = 0 and Z = 0 eigenstates. Thus the question of determining the region of allowed guessing probabilities, raised in [4], is completely solved. Moreover, (16) has an elegant geometric interpretation. Letting m = A , x = P (X B) , and z = | | opt | ψ P (Z C) , it can be easily verified that the boundary is that of the ellipse opt | ξ (x + z 1)2 (x z)2 − + − = 1 (17) 1/m (m 1)/m − in the region 1/m x, z 1. For arbitrary m, these are precisely the ellipses that just fit in the unit square. ≤ ≤ Analogously to the use of (14) in the guessing game, (15) implies a bound on monogamy of entanglement; specifically, on the possible values of R(A B) E and R(A C) E for an arbitrary tripartite state ρ . In this case, | ρ, | ρ, ′ ABC using the duality of min and max entropy [14], which can be expressed as max F(ρ , π σ )2 = R(A B) , σ AC A ⊗ C | ρ we obtain 2 A 2R (A C) R (A B) + A 2 1 1 R (A B) . (18) | | opt | ρ ≤ q opt | ρ Æ| | − q − opt | ρ Equality can be attained by a superposition of entanglement with B and entanglement with C, namely 1/2 Ψ = N − cos θ Φ 0 + sin θ Φ 0 , with the normalization constant N = 1 + sin 2θ/d for ABC AB C AC B | 〉 | 〉 | 〉 | 〉 | 〉 2 d = A . Choosing trivial recovery maps, we obtain R(A B)Ψ,I = (d cosθ + sin θ) /(d(d + sin 2θ)) and | | 2 | R(A C)Ψ,I = (d sin θ +cos θ) /(d(d +sin 2θ)). Comparing (18) and (16), it is apparent that the latter satisfies | 2 the ellipse equation with x = R(A B)Ψ , z = R(A C)Ψ , and m = d . It is then straightforward to check that | ,I | ,I the particular values of R(A B)Ψ and R(A C)Ψ satisfy (17). | ,I | ,I In fact, Ψ was used in [6] to investigate the limits of what they term “singlet monogamy” and its relation | 〉 to optimal cloning. The scenario they consider is nearly the same as here, except that the optimal channel in the recovery operation is restricted to be unitary and, importantly, they also consider monogamy involving more than two auxiliary parties. The state Ψ was conjectured to give the optimal bound, their Equation 6, | 〉 and the above derivation shows that their conjecture holds true for monogamy relations of three systems.
4 Discussion and open problems By simple application of the data processing inequality, we have given new and useful bounds involving fidelity and guessing probabilities of optimal and pretty good measurements, as well as for the corresponding quantities for entanglement recovery. These allow the complete characterization of the allowed guessing probababilities when two different parties try to simultaneously predict the value of one of two conjugate measurements on a quantum system, as well as an analogous statement for the allowed entanglement fidelities two parties can each locally create with a common system. It would be interesting to determine if the Rényi divergence at orders besides α = 2, is related to other ∞ particular guessing or entanglement recovery strategies, as this would immediately give new bounds. We can report the following partial result for α = 3 and the “quadratically-weighted” variant of the pretty good 1/2 2 2 1/2 1/2 2 2 measurement, i.e. using Λ = ϕ¯− p ϕ ϕ¯− , forϕ ¯− = p ϕ (discussed, e.g. in [24, Section 2.2]). x x x Px x x Suppose the ϕx all commute, so B is essentially a classical random variable Y . Then the average guessing 3 2 probability in this case is Pquad(X Y )ρ = ( PX Y (x, y) )/( PX Y (x′, y) ). Bounding the denominator | Py Px Px′ 2 1 2 from above by ( PX Y (x′, y)) , one finds that D3(ρXB, πX ρB) log X Pquad(X B). Employing (8) with Px′ ⊗ ≤ 2 | | | α = 3 yields the relation 3 (1 Popt(X Y )) P (X Y ) P (X Y )3 + − | . (19) quad | ρ ≥ opt | ( X 1)2 | | − Unfortunately, this is weaker than the bound P (X Y ) P (X Y )2 shown in [25, Theorem 10] and quad | ρ ≥ opt | ρ also valid for non-commuting ensembles. Nonetheless, this approach can presumably be easily extended to higher weights, e.g. cubic as considered in [26], and may prove useful there. One might also relate particular measurement strategies to other particular choices of the second argument to the divergence and investigate the implications of the data processing inequality in that context. For instance, [27, Theorem 4] shows that 1 1 log X Ppg(X B)ρ D2(ρXB, X ρXB + (1 X )ρX ρB). | | | ≥ | | − | | ⊗ Acknowledgments. I thank Raban Iten for useful conversations. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) via the National Centre of Competence in Research “QSIT”.
4 References [1] R. Iten, J. Renes, and D. Sutter, “Pretty good measures in quantum information theory”, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 63, 1270–1279 (2017), arXiv:1608.08229 [quant-ph]. [2] I. Sason and S. Verdú, “Arimoto-Rényi Conditional Entropy and Bayesian M-ary Hypothesis Testing”, (2017), arXiv:1701.01974 [cs.IT]. [3] M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, “The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory”, Nature Physics 6, 659–662 (2010), arXiv:0909.0950 [quant-ph]. [4] J. M. Renes, “Uncertainty relations and approximate quantum error correction”, Physical Review A 94, 032314 (2016), arXiv:1605.01420 [quant-ph]. [5] P. J. Coles, “Entropic framework for wave-particle duality in multipath interferometers”, Physical Review A 93, 062111 (2016), arXiv:1512.09081 [quant-ph]. [6] A. Kay, D. Kaszlikowski, and R. Ramanathan, “Optimal Cloning and Singlet Monogamy”, Physical Review Letters 103, 050501 (2009), arXiv:0901.3626 [quant-ph]. [7] A. Rényi, “On Measures of Entropy and Information”, in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathe- matical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Contributions to the Theory of Statistics (1961), pp. 547–561. [8] M. Tomamichel, Quantum Information Processing with Finite Resources, Vol. 5, SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Physics (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016), arXiv:1504.00233 [quant-ph]. [9] M. Müller-Lennert, F. Dupuis, O. Szehr, S. Fehr, and M. Tomamichel, “On quantum Rényi entropies: A new general- ization and some properties”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 54, 122203 (2013), arXiv:1306.3142 [quant-ph]. [10] M. M. Wilde, A. Winter, and D. Yang, “Strong Converse for the Classical Capacity of Entanglement-Breaking and Hadamard Channels via a Sandwiched Rényi Relative Entropy”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 331, 593– 622 (2014), arXiv:1306.1586 [quant-ph]. [11] S. Arimoto, “Information measures and capacity of order α for discrete memoryless channels”, in Topics in Informa- tion Theory - 2nd Colloquium, Vol. 16, Colloquia Mathematica Societatis János Bolyai (1977), pp. 41–52. [12] A. Teixeira, A. Matos, and L. Antunes, “Conditional Rényi Entropies”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 58, 4273–4277 (2012). [13] S. Fehr and S. Berens, “On the Conditional Rényi Entropy”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60, 6801–6810 (2014). [14] R. König, R. Renner, and C. Schaffner, “The Operational Meaning of Min- and Max-Entropy”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 55, 4337–4347 (2009), arXiv:0807.1338 [quant-ph]. [15] V.P.Belavkin, “Optimal multiple quantum statistical hypothesis testing”, Stochastics 1, 315 (1975). [16] P. Hausladen and W. K. Wootters, “A ‘Pretty Good’ Measurement for Distinguishing Quantum States”, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2385 (1994). [17] H. Buhrman, M. Christandl, P. Hayden, H.-K. Lo, and S. Wehner, “Possibility, impossibility, and cheat sensitivity of quantum-bit string commitment”, Physical Review A 78, 022316 (2008), arXiv:1302.5902 [quant-ph]. [18] M. H. Yassaee, M. R. Aref, and A. Gohari, “A technique for deriving one-shot achievability results in network in- formation theory”, in 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (July 2013), pp. 1287–1291, arXiv:1303.0696 [cs.IT]. [19] M. Berta, P.J. Coles, and S. Wehner, “Entanglement-assisted guessing of complementary measurement outcomes”, Physical Review A 90, 062127 (2014), arXiv:1302.5902 [quant-ph]. [20] H. Barnum and E. Knill, “Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 2097–2106 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0004088. [21] P.A. Devijver, “On a New Class of Bounds on Bayes Risk in Multihypothesis Pattern Recognition”, IEEE Transactions on Computers C-23, 70–80 (1974). [22] I. Vajda, “Bounds on the minimal error probability on checking a finite or countable number of hypotheses”, Problems of Information Transmission 4, 9–19 (1968). [23] M. Tomamichel and R. Renner, “Uncertainty Relation for Smooth Entropies”, Physical Review Letters 106, 110506 (2011), arXiv:1009.2015 [quant-ph]. [24] V.P.Belavkin and V.P.Maslov, “Design of Optimal Dynamic Analyzers: Mathematical Aspects of Wave Pattern Recogni- tion”, in Mathematical Aspects of Computer Engineering (Mir, Moscow, 1987), pp. 146–237, arXiv:quant-ph/0412031. [25] J. Tyson, “Two-sided estimates of minimum-error distinguishability of mixed quantum states via generalized Holevo– Curlander bounds”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 50, 032106 (2009), arXiv:0907.2094 [quant-ph]. [26] M. A. Ballester, S. Wehner, and A. Winter, “State Discrimination With Post-Measurement Information”, IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory 54, 4183–4198 (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0608014. [27] S. Beigi and A. Gohari, “Quantum Achievability Proof via Collision Relative Entropy”, IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory 60, 7980–7986 (2014), arXiv:1312.3822 [quant-ph].
5