This paper introduces a quantum measurement method invariant under squeezing operations to test displacement parameters of Gaussian states, comparing its effectiveness with classical heterodyne-based tests.
Contribution
It develops a squeezing-invariant quantum measurement for hypothesis testing of displacement parameters in Gaussian states, providing a new approach for quantum state analysis.
Findings
01
Calculated the type II error probability for pure states.
02
Demonstrated the invariance property of the measurement under squeezing.
03
Compared the quantum test with classical heterodyne-based tests.
Abstract
We consider a hypothesis testing problem for displacement parameters of n independent copies of an m-mode squeezed quantum Gaussian state whose mixture parameter is known. Given n>1, we construct a quantum measurement as a test using an observable which is invariant by n-fold tensor product of any m-mode squeezing operator. For a pure state case, we calculate the type II error probability of this test. We compare this test with a Hotelling's T-squared test which is based on heterodyne measurements.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture · Quantum Information and Cryptography · Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Full text
A squeezing invariant measurement
to test displacement
of
quantum Gaussian states
Yoshiyuki Tsuda
Abstract
We consider
a hypothesis testing problem
for displacement parameters of
n independent copies of
an m-mode squeezed
quantum Gaussian state
whose mixture parameter is known.
Given n≥2,
we construct
a quantum measurement
as a test
using
an observable
which is invariant by
n-fold tensor product of
any m-mode squeezing operator.
For a pure state case,
we calculate
the type II error probability
of this test.
We compare
this test
with
a Hotelling’s T-squared test
which is based on heterodyne measurements.
1 Introduction
In quantum hypothesis testing
[1],
it is important to test
whether
the displacement parameter
of
several independent copies of
a quantum Gaussian state
[2]
is zero or not.
Kumagai and Hayashi
[3]
have studied this problem
in a situation that
the mixture parameter is unknown
and that
the state is not squeezed.
They constructed
a Positive Operator Valued Measurement
(POVM)
as a test
which is invariant by
some unitary actions.
Using the invariance,
they proved that
their test is optimal
in a minimax criterion.
On the other hand,
if the states
are squeezed
by an unknown squeezing action,
then,
even if
the mixture parameter
is known,
we have not obtained
an optimal test.
For example,
we will need
such a test
when
we should check
a displacement channel
by setting a squeezed probe
which is
generated by
a squeezing device which is
not completely controlled.
One of reasonable measurements
for this problem
might be
the Hotelling’s T-squared test
[4]
using data from
heterodyne measurements
[5].
We call
this test
the Heterodyne-Hotelling (HH) test.
Let
ρ^θ,N
be an m-mode non-squeezed
quantum Gaussian state
parameterized by
a displacement vector
θ∈Cm
and by
a mixture value
N≥0.
Let
S^η be
an m-mode squeezing operator
parameterized by
a matrix
η.
The m-mode squeezed
quantum Gaussian state is
defined by
ρ^θ,η,N=S^ηρ^θ,NS^η∗.
If there are
n independent copies of
ρ^θ,η,N,
and
if mn independent
heterodyne measurements
are applied to
ρ^θ,η,N⊗n,
then
we obtain
n independent random vectors
obeying
a common
2m-dimensional
normal distribution.
If n≥2m+1,
then
the sample covariance matrix
Σˉn is invertible
by probability one,
and
the Hotelling’s T-squared statistic
T2
can be defined using Σˉn−1.
Let
μ=2m, and
let
ν=n−μ.
If
θ
is
the zero vector
0m∈Cm,
then
FHH=(n−1)−1(ν/μ)T2
obeys
Fμ,ν,
the central F distribution
with
μ and ν
degrees of freedom.
(See [6].)
Choose a constant
α
as
a level (of significance).
(See [7].)
Define a critical point
c
as
a solution to the equation
Pr{FHH>c∣θ=0m}=α.
The HH test
TαHH
of level α
is
a decision rule by which
θ=0m is accepted
if FHH≤c is observed.
Even if
N
is unknown,
TαHH can be defined.
However,
if n≤2m,
then
TαHH
can not be defined
for the sake of
non-invertibility of
Σˉn.
Moreover,
even if N is zero,
T0HH
is a trivial test
in a sense that
c
is infinity.
Furthermore,
in a minimax criterion,
TαHH
is not optimal.
In this paper,
assuming
N is known
and
η is unknown,
we propose a new test.
Since the new test is
invariant by
the action of
S^η⊗n,
it is said to be
Squeezing Invariant (SI).
The SI test
of level α
is denoted by
TαSI.
If
N is unknown,
then
TαSI is not defined.
However,
for the following three reasons,
TαSI
is
superior to
TαHH.
First,
n≥2 is enough
to define
TαSI.
Second,
if N=0,
then
T0SI
is not a trivial test.
Third,
if N=0,
then,
in a minimax criterion,
TαSI
dominates
TαHH.
In Sec. 2,
we will setup the problem
by defining
words and symbols.
In Sec. 3,
we will construct
TαHH and TαSI.
In Sec. 4,
we will give six theorems
and a numerical comparison.
In Sec. 5,
we will give proofs of the theorems.
2 Setups
We define words and symbols.
2.1 What is quantum hypothesis testing?
Let H
be a Hilbert space.
For f∈H,
let f∗
be the dual vector,
and let
∥f∥=f∗f
be the norm.
Let
L(H)
be the set of
linear operators
on H.
Let
I^H∈L(H)
be the identity.
Let
X∗ be the adjoint of
X∈L(H).
Let
U(H)⊂L(H)
be the set of unitary operators.
If X∈L(H) is positive,
then we write X≥0.
Let
Tr[X] be the trace of
X∈L(H).
The set of density operators is given by
S(H)={ρ^∈L(H)∣ρ^≥0,Tr[ρ^]=1}.
Consider
a quantum system described by
H whose state
ρ^∈S(H)
is unknown.
Let
S0 and S1
be subsets of
S(H),
where
the intersection
S0∩S1
is empty.
Assume that
either
ρ^∈S0 or
ρ^∈S1 is true.
When we need to accept
the null hypothesis
H0:ρ^∈S0
or the alternative hypothesis
H1:ρ^∈S1,
it is said that
we test
[TABLE]
Let
Π^0 and Π^1
be positive operators satisfying
Π^0+Π^1=I^H.
A test for
(1)
is
a two-valued POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}
by which
Hk is accepted
if Π^k is observed.
Let
T
be a test with POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}.
There are two types of mistakes
caused by T.
The type I error is
acceptance of H1
while H0 is true.
The type II error is
acceptance of H0
while H1 is true.
Hence,
the type I error probability is
defined by
αρ^[T]=Tr[ρ^Π^1]
as a function of
ρ^∈S0,
and
the type II error probability is
defined by
βρ^[T]=Tr[ρ^Π^0]
as a function of
ρ^∈S1.
A level (of significance) is
an upper bound for αρ^[T].
If supρ^∈S0αρ^[T]≤α
holds,
then
T is called
a test of level α.
If α is small,
and if H1 is accepted,
then
one may be confident that
H1 is really true
because the risk of type I error is negligible.
This method was
proposed by
[1]
as a generalization of
the classical statistical hypothesis testing theory,
which is described in
[7].
For any α
with 0≤α≤1,
there exists a test of level α.
Let
Tαtriv
be a test
defined by
Π^0=(1−α)I^H.
For any ρ^∈S0,
it holds that
αρ^[Tαtriv]=α.
Hence,
Tαtriv
is a test of level α,
and is called
a trivial test
of level α.
If T1 and T2 are tests
of a common level α,
then they are compared by
the type II error probabilities.
If
[TABLE]
hold,
then we conclude that
T1 dominates T2.
If a test T
dominates
Tαtriv,
then there exists
ρ^∈S1 such that
βρ^[T]<1−α.
In many cases,
however,
the condition
(2)
is so strict that
we can not
complete
the comparison.
Hence,
we use
a minimax criterion
instead of
(2).
Consider a case where
ρ^∈S0∪S1
is parameterized by
θ∈Θ and ξ∈Ξ as
ρ^θ,ξ.
If there exists
Θ1⊂Θ such that
S1={ρ^θ,ξ∣θ∈Θ1,ξ∈Ξ},
then
we are not interested in
the true value of ξ.
In such a case,
θ is called
the parameter of interest,
and ξ is called
the parameter of nuisance.
(In this sense,
the displacement
is the parameter of interest,
and the squeezing
is the parameter of nuisance.)
The condition
(2)
is modified as
[TABLE]
If T1 and T2
of a common level α
satisfy
the condition
(3),
then
we conclude that
T1 domintates T2
in the minimax criterion.
If a test T of level α
satisfies
supξ∈Ξβρ^θ,ξ[T]=1−α(∀θ∈Θ1),
then,
in the minimax criterion,
T is no better than
Tαtriv.
Kumagai and Hayashi
[3]
studied
a theory of
the minimax criterion
in quantum hypothesis testing,
and they showed that
an optimality
in the minimax criterion
is concerned with
unitary invariance.
Let θ∈Θ
be the parameter of interest,
and
let ξ∈Ξ
be the parameter of nuisance.
Let U:Ξ→U(H) be a map
given as
ξ↦Uξ.
Assume that
there exists
ξ0∈Ξ
such that
ρ^θ,ξ=Uξρ^θ,ξ0Uξ∗
holds
for any θ∈Θ
and
for any ξ∈Ξ.
A test T
whose POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}
satisfies
Uξ∗Π^0Uξ=Π^0(∀ξ∈Ξ)
is said to be invariant by U.
If T is invariant by U,
then it holds that
[TABLE]
Kumagai and Hayashi [3]
proved that
a test is invariant by such U
if the test is optimal
in the minimax criterion.
We do not prove optimality
of
TαSI.
However,
we prove that
TαSI
is SI,
and that,
if the mixture
N is zero,
then
TαSI
dominates
Tαtriv
in the minimax criterion.
Moreover,
we prove that
TαHH
does not satisfy
(4),
which is
a necessary condition
for T to be SI.
Furthermore,
we prove that
TαHH
is no better than
Tαtriv
in the minimax criterion.
Hence,
TαSI
dominates
TαHH
in the minimax criterion.
2.2 Notations of sets of matrices
To parameterize
multi-mode squeezing operators,
we use several sets of matrices.
Let
N
be the set of positive integers..
For any m,n∈N,
let
MatKm,n
be the set of
m-by-n matrices
whose entries belong to
K,
which will be
C
or
R.
For X∈MatCm,n,
the transpose
is denoted by
tX∈MatCn,m,
the entry-wise complex conjugate is
denoted by
Xˉ∈MatCm,n,
and
the adjoint
tXˉ
is denoted by
X∗∈MatCn,m.
Let
MatKm
be
MatKm,m.
The set of
anti-hermitian matrices
is defined by
AntKm={A∈MatKm∣A=−A∗}.
The set of symmetric matrices
is defined by
SymKm={S∈MatKm∣S=tS}.
Define
Sqzm⊂MatC2m
by
[TABLE]
For
η∈Sqzm,
the upper-left submatrix A∈AntCm
is called the anti-hermitian part
of η,
and
the upper-right submatrix
S∈SymCm
is called the symmetric part
of η.
2.3 Multi-mode squeezed quantum Gaussian states
Let
H
be
L2(R),
the set of
C-valued
square-integrable
functions
of a real coordinate variable
x∈R.
The inner product
of f,g∈H
is defined by
f∗g=∫Rf(x)g(x)dx,
where
zˉ is the conjugate of
z∈C.
A single-mode
electromagnetic field is
described by
H.
(See
[8] and [9].)
For θ∈C,
the coherent vector
∣θ⟩∈H
is defined by
[TABLE]
Let
⟨θ∣
be
∣θ⟩∗.
For θ∈C,
and for N≥0,
the single-mode non-squeezed
quantum Gaussian state
ρ^θ,N∈S(H)
is defined by
For m∈N,
an m-mode system is described by
H⊗m.
For
θ=t(θ1,θ2,...,θm)∈MatCm,1,
and
for N≥0,
the m-mode non-squeezed
quantum Gaussian state
ρ^θ,N∈S(H⊗m)
is defined by
ρ^θ,N=ρ^θ1,N⊗ρ^θ2,N⊗⋯⊗ρ^θm,N.
Define
q^∈L(H)
by
q^f(x)=xf(x),
and
define
p^∈L(H)
by
p^f(x)=−idf(x)/dx,
where
i=−1.
They satisfy
q^=q^∗,
p^=p^∗
and
[q^,p^]=q^p^−p^q^=iI^,
where
I^∈L(H) is the identity.
The annihilation operator
a^∈L(H)
is defined by
a^=(q^+ip^)/2.
It holds that
[a^,a^∗]=I^,
and that
[TABLE]
For
i∈{1,2,...,m},
the i-th annihilation operator
a^i∈L(H⊗m)
is defined by
a^i=I^⊗(i−1)⊗a^⊗I^⊗(m−i).
For
η∈Sqzm,
let
Ai,j
and
Si,j
be the (i,j)-th entries
of the anti-hermitian part
and
of the symmetric part,
respectively,
and let
[TABLE]
An m-mode squeezing operator
S^η∈U(H⊗m)
is defined by
S^η=exp(s^η).
The m-mode
squeezed quantum Gaussian state
ρ^θ,η,N∈S(H⊗m)
is defined by
ρ^θ,η,N=S^ηρ^θ,NS^η∗.
2.4 Our hypothesis testing problem
Suppose that
a quantum state
of the form
ρ^θ,η,N⊗n∈S(H⊗mn)
is given.
We call
m∈N the mode size,
n∈N the sample size,
θ∈MatCm,1 the displacement parameter,
η∈Sqzm the squeezing parameter
and
N≥0 the mixture parameter.
We assume that
θ
and
η are unknown,
and that
N is known.
Our problem is
to test
[TABLE]
where
0m∈MatCm,1
is the zero vector.
The squeezing parameter
η∈Sqzm
is a nuisance parameter
because
(\refeqhypo)
does not depend on
η.
Hence,
the minimax criterion
(3)
is specified by
Θ1={θ∈MatCm,1∣θ=0m}
and by
Ξ=Sqzm.
For a subspace
K⊂H⊗mn,
and for
L^∈L(H⊗mn),
let
L^K⊂H⊗mn
be
{L^f∣f∈K}.
If
S^η⊗nK=K
holds for any
η∈Sqzm,
then
K is said to be Squeezing Invariant (SI).
If L^∈L(H⊗mn)
satisfies
L^=(S^η⊗n)∗L^S^η⊗n(∀η∈Sqzm),
then
L^ is said to be
SI.
A test
with POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}
is said to be SI
if Π^0 is SI.
2.5 Definition of ai,j
For
i∈{1,2,...,m}
and
for
j∈{1,2,...,n},
the (i,j)-th annihilation operator
a^i,j∈L(H⊗mn)
is defined by
[TABLE]
3 Constructions of TαSI and TαHH
3.1 Construction of TαSI
Assume that n≥2.
We first
construct
an observable
T^SI∈L(Hmn),
which is positive and SI.
For
j,k∈{1,2,...,n},
let
v^j,k=∑i=1m(a^i,k∗a^i,j−a^i,j∗a^i,k).
We will show,
in Theorem 1,
that
v^j,k
is SI.
Moreover,
by Lemma 14,
v^j,k
is unitarily equivalent to
[TABLE]
For k∈{1,2,...,n−1},
let
r^k=arctan(k)v^k,k+1,
and let
R^k=exp(r^k)∈U(H⊗mn).
Let
R^=R^n−1R^n−2⋯R^1∈U(H⊗mn).
Let
T^SI=∑k=1n−1R^∗v^k,nv^k,n∗R^.
Because of
v^k,nv^k,n∗≥0,
we have
T^SI≥0.
Moreover,
since
v^j,k
is SI,
T^SI
is SI.
Next,
we construct the SI test
of level α∈[0,1].
For t∈R,
define
a Hilbert subspace
Kt⊂H⊗mn
by
[TABLE]
Since
T^SI is SI,
Kt is SI.
Since
T^SI≥0
holds,
s<0 implies
Ks={0}.
Let
K^t∈L(H⊗mn)
be the projection on
Kt.
Since
Kt
is SI,
K^t is SI.
Hence,
for any
η∈Sqzm,
it holds that
Tr[ρ^θ,η,N⊗nK^t]=Tr[ρ^θ,N⊗nK^t].
Assume that N
is known.
For
α∈[0,1],
let
s,t,w∈R
be solutions to
[TABLE]
Let
Π^0=(1−w)K^s+wK^t,
and let
Π^1=I^⊗mn−Π^0.
The SI test
TαSI
is defined by
the POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}.
3.2 Construction of TαHH
Let
F be the set
of Borel subsets of
R2.
A single-mode heterodyne measurement
is a POVM
defined by
[TABLE]
where
i=−1.
For η∈Sqzm,
let
A∈AntCm
be the anti-hermitian part,
and let
S∈SymCm
be the symmetric part.
Define
μθ∈MatR2m,1
and
Gη∈MatR2m
by
[TABLE]
respectively.
Define
μθ,η∈MatR2m,1
and
Ση,N∈MatR2m
by
[TABLE]
respectively.
By
Lemma 30,
applying mn independent
single-mode
heterodyne measurements
to ρ^θ,η,N⊗n,
we obtain
n independent
2m-dimensional random vectors
X1,X2,...,Xn
according to
a common 2m-dimensional
normal distribution
whose mean vector is
μθ,η
and
whose covariance matrix is
Ση,N;
say
N2m(μθ,η,Ση,N).
Let
Xˉn
be the sample mean vector
n−1∑j=1nXj,
and let
Σˉn
be the sample covariance matrix
(n−1)−1∑j=1n(Xj−Xˉn)(tXj−tXˉn).
Assume that n≥2m+1.
Then,
Σˉn has the inverse
Σˉn−1
by probability one.
The Hotelling’s T-squared statistic
is defined by
T2=n(tXˉn)Σˉn−1Xˉn.
Let
μ=2m,
ν=n−2m,
FHH=(n−1)−1(ν/μ)T2
and
λ=n(tμθ,η)Ση,N−1μθ,η.
Then,
FHH
obeys
Fμ,ν;λ,
the non-central F distribution
with μ and ν degrees of freedom
and with non-centrality
λ.
The probability density function of
Fμ,ν;λ is
[TABLE]
where
B(x,y)
is the beta function.
(See [6].)
If θ=0m,
then λ=0
and thus
FHH obeys
Fμ,ν=Fμ,ν;0
the central F distribution.
Define
the critical point c
as a solution to the equation
∫c∞p0(f)df=α.
The HH test TαHH
is a test
by which
H0 is accepted
if FHH≤c is observed.
For
z=t(z1,z2,...,zm)∈MatCm,1,
define
\big{|}\vec{z}\big{\rangle}\in\mathcal{H}^{\otimes m}
by
\big{|}\vec{z}\big{\rangle}=|z_{1}\rangle\otimes|z_{2}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes|z_{m}\rangle.
For
Z=(z1,z2,...,zn)∈MatCm,n,
define
∣Z⟩∈H⊗mn
by
|Z\rangle=|\vec{z}_{1}\rangle\otimes\big{|}\vec{z}_{2}\big{\rangle}\otimes\cdots\otimes\big{|}\vec{z}_{n}\big{\rangle}.
Let ⟨Z∣ be ∣Z⟩∗.
The POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}
for TαHH
is given by
[TABLE]
where
xi,j and yi,j
are (i,j)-th entries of
Re(Z) and Im(Z),
respectively.
4 Theorems and a numerical comparison
Let
m
be the mode size,
n be the sample size,
θ
be the displacement parameter,
η be the squeezing parameter,
N be the mixture parameter,
and
α be the level.
The first theorem implies that
v^j,k∈L(H⊗mn),
R^=R^n−1R^n−2⋯R^1∈U(H⊗mn),
T^SI∈L(H⊗mn),
Kt⊂H⊗mn,
K^t∈L(H⊗mn)
and
TαSI
are all SI.
Theorem 1**.**
For any η∈Sqzm,
and for any j,k∈{1,2,...,n},
it holds that
(S^η⊗n)∗v^j,kS^η⊗n=v^j,k.
A vector f∈H⊗mn
is regarded as a function
f:MatRm,n→C,
where
the (i,j)-th entry
xi,j
of the matrix variable
X∈MatRm,n
is specified by
a^i,jf=(xi,jf+∂f/∂xi,j)/2.
If
f(X)=f(XeA) holds
for any A∈AntRn,
then
f(X) is said to be
Mode-wisely Rotationally Invariant
(MwRI).
If m=1 and if n≥2,
then
an MwRI function is a radial function
of n variables.
Theorem 2**.**
The Hilbert subspace
K0
is the set of
square-integrable MwRI functions.
Consider the case of n=2.
Then,
T^SI=v^1,2v^1,2∗
holds
because
R^∗v^1,2R^=v^1,2
holds.
Let X be a random variable
given by observing T^SI.
Let
T^=−iv^1,2.
where i=−1.
It holds that
T^∗=T^
and that
T^SI=T^2.
Let Y be a random variable
given by observing T^.
For any state,
the probability distribution of
X is
equal to
that of Y2.
For a random variable Z,
the probability distribution
can be identified by
the characteristic function
φZ(r)=E[eirZ],
where
E[W] is the expected value of
a random variable W.
Let
NBm(p)
be the negative binomial distribution
whose probability function is
f(x)=(m+x−1x)(1−p)mpx.
If Z obeys NBm(p),
then it holds that
φZ(r)=(1−p)m(1−peir)−m.
Let
Poi(λ)
be the Poisson distribution
whose probability function is
f(x)=e−λλx/(x!).
If W obeys Poi(λ),
then it holds that
φW(r)=eλ(eir−1).
Define
γ(r)
and
ψs(r)
by
[TABLE]
Theorem 3**.**
(i)
If n=2,
then it holds that
[TABLE]
(ii)
Assume that
F, G,
Pk
and Qk(k∈N)
are mutually independent
random variables,
where
F and G obey
NBm(N/(N+1)),
and where
Pk and Qk obey
Poi((N+1)k+1∥θ∥2Nk−1).
If n=2,
then
the probability distribution
of Y
is that of
F−G+∑k=1∞(kPk−kQk).
For a test to be SI,
it is necessary
that the type II error probability
does not depend on
η∈Sqzm.
In the following theorem,
(i) implies that
TαHH
is not SI.
Moreover,
(ii),implies that
TαHH
is no better than
Tαtriv
in the minimax criterion.
Theorem 5**.**
*(i)
If θ=0m,
then βρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]
depends on η∈Sqzm.
(ii)
It holds that
supη∈Sqzmβρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]=1−α.*
For the case of
m=1,
n=3
and N=0,
the type II error probabilities of
TαSI
and
TαHH
are plotted in Figure.
The figure says that
βρ^θ,η,0⊗3[TαSI]<βρ^θ,η,0⊗3[TαHH]
if θ≒0,
and that
βρ^θ,η,0⊗3[TαSI]>βρ^θ,η,0⊗3[TαHH]
if θ≫0.
If η=O2
We can evaluate
βρ^θ,O2,0⊗3[TαSI]
with
βρ^θ,O2,0⊗3[TαHH]
as follows.
Theorem 6**.**
*Consider the case of
m=1,
n=3,
η=O2,
N=0
and
0<α<1.
(i)
There exists s>0
such that,
if 0<∣θ∣<s,
then
βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαSI]<βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαHH]
holds.
(ii)
There exists t>0
such that,
if θ>t,
then
βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαSI]>βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαHH]
holds.*
Let
m be the mode size,
and let
n be the sample size.
For any μ,ν∈N,
let
Matm,nμ,ν
be the set of μ-by-ν matrices
whose entries belong to
L(H⊗mn).
Identifying
1 with I^⊗mn,
we regard that
MatCμ,ν
is a vector subspace of
Matm,nμ,ν.
Let
Matm,nμ
be
Matm,nμ,μ.
We will use
L∈L(H⊗mn)
which can be written by
a linear combination of
entries of
X∈Matm,nμ,ν.
Define a linear map
trμ:Matm,nμ→L(H⊗mn)
by
trμ[X]=∑i=1μXi,i,
where
Xi,j is the (i,j)-th entry of
X.
For
X∈Matm,nμ,ν
and for
L∈L(H⊗mn),
define
XL,LX,[X,L]∈Matm,nμ,ν
by
(XL)i,j=Xi,jL,
(LX)i,j=LXi,j
and
[X,L]=XL−LX,
respectively.
If X∈MatCμ,ν
and L∈L(H⊗mn),
then
it holds that
[TABLE]
where
Oμ,ν∈MatCμ,ν
is
the zero matrix.
For
X∈Matm,nλ,μ
and for
Y∈Matm,nμ,ν,
define the product
XY∈Matm,nλ,ν
by
(XY)i,j=∑k=1μXi,kYk,j.
For
X∈Matm,nμ,ν,
define
X∗∈Matm,nν,μ
by
(X∗)i,j=(Xj,i)∗,
and
define
tX∈Matm,nν,μ
by
(tX)i,j=Xj,i.
The operations
X↦X∗
and
X↦tX
are commutative
as
(tX)∗=t(X∗),
and it holds that
(tX∗)i,j=Xi,j∗.
For X∈Matm,nλ,μ,
for Y∈Matm,nμ,ν
and
for C∈MatCμ,ν,
it holds that
(XY)∗=Y∗X∗
and that
t(XC)=(tC)(tX).
Moreover,
for
X∈Matm,nμ
and
for
C∈MatCμ,
it holds that
[TABLE]
For j∈{1,2,...,n},
define
aj∈Matm,nm,1
and
\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{j}\in\mathrm{Mat}_{m,n}^{2m,1}
by
[TABLE]
respectively.
Define
a~m,n∈Matm,nm,n
by
a~m,n=(a1,a2,...,an).
Define
\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}\in\mathrm{Mat}_{m,n}^{2m,n}
by
\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}=(\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{1},\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{2},...,\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{n}).
For μ∈N,
let Iμ∈MatRμ
be the identity matrix,
let Oμ∈MatRμ
be the zero matrix,
and let
[TABLE]
If n=1,
then,
it holds that
\hat{s}_{\eta}=2^{-1}\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{1}^{*}K_{m}\eta\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{1}-\underaccent{\tilde}{c}_{\eta}\hat{I}^{\otimes m},
where
\underaccent{\tilde}{c}_{\eta}=4^{-1}\mathrm{tr}_{2m}[K_{m}\eta]\in\sqrt{-1}\mathbb{R}.
For any m,n∈N,
and
for any η∈Sqzm,
define
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta}\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes mn})
by
[TABLE]
Then,
it holds that
\exp(\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta})=\hat{S}_{\eta}^{\otimes n}.
For any
A∈AntCm,
define
u^A∈L(H⊗mn)
by
[TABLE]
For η∈Sqzm,
if the anti-hermitian part
is A,
and
if the symmetric part
is Om,
then it holds that
\hat{u}_{A}=\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta}.
For A∈AntCn,
define
v^A∈L(H⊗mn)
by
[TABLE]
For j,k∈{1,2,...,n}
with j<k,
define Jj,k∈AntRn
by
[TABLE]
If j=k,
let Jj,k=On.
If j>k,
let Jj,k=−Jk,j.
It holds that
v^Jj,k=v^j,k.
By Eq. (5),
for any
A∈AntCm
and for any
B∈AntCn,
it holds that
We first consider
how s^η is represented
in the case of n=1.
To simplify the notation,
\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{1}\in\mathrm{Mat}_{m,1}^{2m,1}
is denoted by
\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}={{}^{t}}(\hat{a}_{1},\hat{a}_{2},...,\hat{a}_{m},\hat{a}_{1}^{*},\hat{a}_{2}^{*},...,\hat{a}_{m}^{*}).
Lemma 1**.**
If n=1,
then,
for any m∈N,
and
for any η∈Sqzm,
it holds that
[\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a},\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat s}_{\eta}]=\eta\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}.
Proof.
Let A∈AntCm
be the anti-hermitian part
of η,
and let
S∈SymCm
be the symmetric part
of η.
For i∈{1,2,...,m},
let
[TABLE]
Then,
for any i≤m,
it holds that
[TABLE]
where
ηi∈MatC1,2m
is the i-th row vector of η.
Similarly,
let
[TABLE]
This definition is equivalent to
[TABLE]
For any i≤m,
it holds that
[TABLE]
By Eqs.
(16)
and
(17),
we obtain
[\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a},\hat{s}_{\eta}]=\eta\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}.
∎
Then,
for any n≥1,
we obtain a representation of
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta}
on \underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}.
Lemma 2**.**
For any m,n∈N,
and
for any η∈Sqzm,
it holds that
[\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n},\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta}]=\eta\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}.
Proof.
For any i∈{1,2,...,m},
and
for any j,k∈{1,2,...,n}
with
j=k,
it holds that
[\hat{a}_{i,j},\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{k}]=[\hat{a}_{i,j}^{*},\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}_{k}]=O_{2m,1}.
Hence,
by Lemma
1,
we obtain
[\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n},\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta}]=\eta\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}.
∎
Lemma 3**.**
For any A∈AntCm,
it holds that
[a~m,n,u^A]=Aa~m,n
and that
[ta~m,n∗,u^A]=Aˉ(ta~m,n∗).
Proof.
Applying
Lemma 2
to the case where
the symmetric part of η is Om,
we obtain
the statement.
∎
Lemma 4**.**
For any A∈AntCn,
it holds that
[a~m,n,v^A]=−a~m,nAˉ
and that
[ta~m,n∗,v^A]=−ta~m,n∗A.
Proof.
By Lemma 3,
it holds that
[ta~m,n,v^A]=A(ta~m,n)
and that
[a~m,n∗,v^A]=Aˉa~m,n∗.
By transposing,
we obtain
the statement.
∎
Lemma 5**.**
For any m,n∈N,
and for any
B∈AntRn,
it holds that
[\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n},\hat{v}_{B}]=-\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}B.
Proof.
By
Lemma 4,
and by Bˉ=B,
we have
[\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n},\hat{v}_{B}]=-\underaccent{\tilde}{a}_{m,n}B.
∎
Lemma 6**.**
For any η∈Sqzm
and
for any B∈AntRn,
it holds that
[\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta},\hat{v}_{B}]=0.
Proof.
By
Eq. (12),
it holds that
[Kmη,v^B]=O2m.
Hence,
we have
Using Jj,k∈AntRn
of (14),
it holds that
v^j,k=v^Jj,k.
Hence,
by Lemma 6,
it holds that
[\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta},\hat{v}_{j,k}]=0.
As
\hat{S}_{\eta}^{\otimes n}=\exp(\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat u}_{\eta}),
we obtain
(S^η⊗n)∗v^j,kS^η⊗n=v^j,k.
∎
5.3 Other properties of u^A and v^B
We will use
the following lemma in Secs.
5.4,
5.7
and
5.8.
Lemma 7**.**
For any m,n∈N,
and for any A,B∈AntCn,
it holds that
[v^A,v^B]=v^[A,B].
Proof.
By
Eq. (12),
it holds that
[A,v^B]=On.
Hence,
we have
We consider how
v^j,k∈L(H⊗mn)
is represented by
f(X)∈H⊗mn
where X∈MatRm,n.
Lemma 9**.**
For any r∈R,
it holds that
erv^j,kf(X)=f(XerJj,k).
Proof.
Let xi,j
be the (i,j)-th entry
of X.
It holds that
v^j,k=∑i=1m(a^i,k∗a^i,j−a^i,j∗a^i,k)=∑i=1m(xi,k∂/∂xi,j−xi,j∂/∂xi,k).
Let
(si,j,k,φi,j,k)
be a polar coordinate of
(xi,j,xi,k)
defined by
xi,j=si,j,kcosφi,j,k
and
xi,k=si,j,ksinφi,j,k.
Then,
it holds that
[TABLE]
and so that
v^j,k=−∑i=1m∂/∂φi,j,k.
As
e−t∂/∂φ=∑k=0∞(−t∂/∂φ)k/k! holds,
it holds that
e−t∂/∂φφn=∑k=0n(nk)φn−k(−t)k=(φ−t)n.
Hence,
we obtain
\exp(r\hat{v}_{j,k})f(X)=f({{}^{t}}[\exp(-rJ_{j,k})({{}^{t}}X)])=f\big{(}X\exp(rJ_{j,k})\big{)}.
∎
For L^∈L(H⊗mn),
let
Null(L^)⊂H⊗mn
be the nullspace
{f∈H⊗mn∣L^f=0}.
The following lemma shows that
⋂k=1n−1Null(v^k,n)
is the set of
square-integrable MwRI functions.
Lemma 10**.**
It holds that
⋂k=1n−1Null(v^k,n)=⋂A∈AntRnNull(v^A).
Proof.
By Lemma 7,
it holds that
[v^i,j,v^j,k]=v^k,i
for any
i,j,k∈{1,2,...,n}.
Hence,
it holds that
[TABLE]
Hence,
we have
⋂k=1n−1Null(v^k,n)=⋂i=1n⋂j=1nNull(v^i,j).
Since
Jj,k∈AntRn
holds,
⋂i=1n⋂j=1nNull(v^i,j)⊃⋂A∈AntRnNull(v^A) holds.
Since any v^A
is a linear combination of
v^j,k,
we have
⋂i=1n⋂j=1nNull(v^i,j)⊂⋂A∈AntRnNull(v^A).
Hence,
we obtain the statement.
∎
Let
T^=∑k=1n−1v^k,nv^k,n∗.
Then,
it holds that
Null(T^)=⋂k=1n−1Null(v^k,nv^k,n∗).
Since
Null(v^k,nv^k,n∗)=Null(v^k,n∗v^k,n)=Null(v^k,n)
holds,
we have
⋂k=1n−1Null(v^k,nv^k,n∗)=⋂k=1n−1Null(v^k,n).
By Lemma
10,
Null(T^)
is the set of
square-integrable MwRI functions.
Since
T^SI=R^∗T^R^
holds,
we have
K0=Null(T^SI)=R^∗Null(T^).
By
R^=R^n−1R^n−2⋯R^1,
and Rk=exp(arctan(k)v^k,k+1),
we have
R^∗Null(T^)=Null(T^).
∎
5.5 Actions of u^A and v^B on θ
For θ∈C,
the displacement operator
D^θ∈U(H)
is defined by
D^θ=exp(d^θ),
where
d^θ=θa^∗−θˉa^.
It holds that
[TABLE]
because of
[a^,d^θ]=θI^,
and
[a^∗,d^θ]=θˉI^,
respectively.
Using Taylor expansion,
for r∈R,
we have
D^rf(x)=exp(−ir2p^)f(x)=f(x−2r).
By Baker-Hausdorff formula
[8],
it holds that
D^r+is=e−irsei2sq^e−i2rp^
for r,s∈R.
Hence,
we have
[TABLE]
For
z=t(z1,z2,...,zm)∈MatCm,1,
let
\big{|}\vec{z}\big{\rangle}=|z_{1}\rangle\otimes|z_{2}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes|z_{m}\rangle\in\mathcal{H}^{\otimes m}.
For
Z=(Z1,Z2,...,Zn)∈MatCm,n,
let
∣Z⟩=∣Z1⟩⊗∣Z2⟩⊗⋯⊗∣Zn⟩∈H⊗mn.
For W∈MatCm,n,
let
[TABLE]
and
define
a displacement operator
D^W∈U(H⊗mn)
by
D^W=exp(d^W).
By Eq.
(19),
it holds that
\hat{D}_{W}\big{|}O_{m,n}\big{\rangle}=|W\rangle,
where
Om,n∈MatCm,n
is the zero matrix.
For
A∈AntCm,
let
U^A=exp(u^A)∈U(H⊗mn).
For B∈AntCn,
let
V^B=exp(v^B)∈U(H⊗mn).
Lemma 11**.**
For any A∈AntCm,
for any B∈AntCn
and
for any Z∈MatCm,n,
it holds that
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma
8,
it holds that
U^AV^B=V^BU^A.
Hence,
we just need to prove
\hat{U}_{A}\hat{V}_{B}|Z\rangle=\big{|}e^{A}Ze^{-\bar{B}}\big{\rangle}.
By Lemmas
3
and
4,
it holds that
U^A∗V^B∗d^WV^BU^A=d^e−AWeBˉ.
By Eq (15),
it holds that
\hat{U}_{A}\hat{V}_{B}\big{|}O_{m,n}\big{\rangle}=\big{|}O_{m,n}\big{\rangle}.
Hence,
[TABLE]
is obtained.
∎
For
Z=(Z1,Z2,...,Zn)∈MatCm,n,
and
for N≥0,
let
ρ^Z,N∈S(H⊗mn)
be
ρ^Z1,N⊗ρ^Z2,N⊗⋯⊗ρ^Zn,N.
Lemma 12**.**
For any A∈AntCm,
for any B∈AntCn,
for any Z∈MatCm,n
and
for any N≥0,
it holds that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let
σ^=U^AV^Bρ^Z,NV^B∗U^A∗.
In the case of
N=0,
by Lemma 11,
we obtain
σ^=ρ^eAZe−Bˉ,0.
Consider
the case of
N>0.
By Lemma
8,
it holds that
σ^=V^BU^Aρ^Z,NU^A∗V^B∗.
By Lemma 11,
it holds that
[TABLE]
where
∥W−Z∥2=trm[(W−Z)(W∗−Z∗)],
and where
ui,j
and
vi,j
are
the (i,j)-th entries of
Re(W) and Im(W),
respectively.
Replace
Re(eAWe−Bˉ)
by
R∈MatRm,n,
and replace
Im(eAWe−Bˉ)
by
S∈MatRm,n.
Let
uj,vj,rj and sj∈MatRm,1
be
j-th column vectors of
Re(W),
Im(W),
R and S,
respectively.
Define
u,v,r and s∈MatRmn,1
by
[TABLE]
respectively.
Let
ri,j and si,j
be
the (i,j)-th entries of
R and S,
respectively.
Then,
it holds that
r+−1s=C(u+−1v),
where
C∈MatCmn
is a unitary matrix
given by
the Kronecker product
of eB and eA
as
C=eB⊗eA.
Let
D=B⊗Im+In⊗A∈AntCmn.
Then,
it holds that
C=eD.
Define
w,t∈MatR2mn,1
and
E∈AntR2mn by
[TABLE]
respectively.
Then,
it holds that
t=eEw
and that
det[eE]=exp(tr2mn[E])=1.
Hence,
the Jacobian of the replacement
of
eEw
by
t
is one.
Hence,
we have
[TABLE]
where
T=eAWe−Bˉ.
Since
[TABLE]
holds,
we obtain
σ=ρ^eAZe−Bˉ,N.
∎
Lemma 13**.**
For any θ∈MatCm,1,
it holds that
R^ρ^θ,N⊗nR^∗=ρ^0m,N⊗(n−1)⊗ρ^nθ,N.
Proof.
Let 1n∈MatRn,1
be a vector whose entries are all one,
and let
en∈MatRn,1
be a unit vector whose n-th entry is one.
It holds that
ρ^θ,N⊗n=ρ^θ(t1n),N
and that
ρ^0m,N⊗(n−1)⊗ρ^nθ,N=ρ^nθ(ten),N.
Let
Rk=exp[(arctank)Jk,k+1]∈MatRn,
and
let
R=Rn−1Rn−2⋯R1∈MatRn.
By Lemma 12,
it holds that
R^ρ^θ,N⊗nR^∗=ρ^θ[t(R1n)],N.
If t∈[0,π/2),
then
cost=1/1+tan2t
and
sint=tant/1+tan2t
hold.
Hence,
cos(arctank)=1/k+1
and
sin(arctank)=k/k+1
hold.
Hence,
we have
[TABLE]
The k-th and k+1-th row vectors
of RkRk−1⋯R1
are recursively obtained
by calculating
the 2-by-2 submatrix as
[TABLE]
Hence,
the n-th row vector
of R
is
t(1/n1n).
Since R is an orthogonal matrix,
it holds that
R1n=nen.
∎
5.6 Some properties related to the Fock vectors
Let
N^∈L(H)
be
the number operator
a^∗a^.
It holds that
[a^,N^]=a^,
and so that
e−irN^a^eirN^=eira^
(∀r∈R),
where
i=−1.
Let
N0
be
N∪{0}.
For n∈N0,
the n-th Fock vector,
or the n-th number vector,
fn∈H
is defined by
fn=(1/n!)(a^∗)n∣0⟩.
It holds that
a^fn=nfn−1,
a^∗fn=n+1fn+1
and
N^fn=nfn.
By Baker-Hausdorff formula,
the displacement operator
D^θ∈U(H)
satisfies
D^θ=e−∣θ∣2/2eθa^∗e−θˉa^
for θ∈C.
Hence
we have
[TABLE]
Hence,
by the power series calculation,
we have
[TABLE]
Moreover,
{fn}n=0∞
is a complete orthonormal basis
of H
because
fn∗g=0(∀n∈N0)
is equivalent to
∫Rei2sxg(x)dx=0(∀s∈R).
Hence,
it holds that
N^=∑n=0∞nfnfn∗.
Calculating the Gaussian mixture of ∣θ⟩⟨θ∣
using the form of
(\refeqfockcoherent),
we have
For j,k∈{1,2,...,n}
with j<k,
define Kj,k∈AntCn
by
[TABLE]
For k>j,
let Kj,k=−Kk,j.
Let Kj,j=On.
The operator
d^j,k
defined in
(7)
is equal to
v^Kj,k.
In Sec. 5.7,
we will use
the following lemma.
Lemma 14**.**
111This lemma was suggested by Prof. K. Matsumoto.
For any j,k∈{1,2,..,n},
let
U^∈U(H⊗mn)
be
exp((π/4)v^Jj,k),
and
let
V^∈U(H⊗mn)
be
exp((π/4)v^Kj,k).
Then,
it holds that
U^∗V^∗v^j,kV^U^=d^j,k.
Proof.
Let
U=\exp\Big{[}\frac{\pi}{4}\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\
1&0\end{pmatrix}\Big{]},
and let
V=\exp\Big{[}\frac{\pi}{4}\begin{pmatrix}i&0\\
0&-i\end{pmatrix}\Big{]}.
As
U=21(11−11)
and
V=(eiπ/400e−iπ/4),
it holds that
U∗V∗Jj,kVU=Kj,k.
By Lemma 7,
we have
U^∗V^∗v^j,kV^U^=d^j,k.
∎
In quantum optical experiments,
the unitary operators
U^ and V^
of the above lemma
can be realized by
phase-shifting
and
beam-splitting,
respectively.
Moreover,
T^j,k=−−1d^j,k
is an observable
whose POVM can be realized by
arithmetic subtraction
of data
obtained by number measurements.
Hence,
if n=2,
then
TαSI
can be realized by
beam-splitters
and photon counters.
5.7 Proof of Theorem 3 (Negative binomial and Poisson distributions)
Let
N^∈L(H)
be
a^∗a^.
Let
hθ,N(r)
be
Tr[ρ^θ,NeirN^],
where
i=−1.
We write
hθ,N(r)
using
γ(r)
and
ψs(r)
of
(11).
If N=0,
then
γ(r)
is one,
and
by
Lemma 16,
we have
hθ,0(r)=γ(r)ψ∣θ∣(r).
Hereafter,
assume that
N>0.
For
x,y∈R,
let z∈C
be
x+iy,
and let
fθ,N(z)
be
exp(−∣z−θ∣2/N).
It holds that
[TABLE]
By Lemma
11,
we have
e^{ir\hat{N}}|z\rangle=\big{|}e^{ir}z\big{\rangle}.
By
Eq. (21),
we have
⟨z∣eirz⟩=exp(eir∣z∣2−∣z∣2).
Hence,
⟨z∣eirN^∣z⟩fθ,N(z)
is
exp(−gθ,N(z)),
where
gθ,N(z)=∣z−θ∣2/N+(1−eir)∣z∣2.
Let
cN,r be
1/N+1−eir.
For w∈C,
let
μw∈MatR2,1
be
t(Re(w),Im(w)).
Then,
it holds that
[TABLE]
We can factorize
hθ,N(r)
to
ψ∣θ∣(r)
and
h0,N(r)
as
[TABLE]
By Lemma 15,
h0,N(r)
is
γ(r).
Hence,
we have
hθ,N(r)=γ(r)ψ∣θ∣(r).
∎
Next,
we prove
(i) of
Theorem 3
for the case of m=1.
Lemma 18**.**
If m=1,
and
if n=2,
then
it holds that
φY(r)=γ(r)γ(−r)ψ∣θ∣(r)ψ∣θ∣(−r).
Proof.
By Lemma
13,
it holds that
φY(r)=Tr[ρ^0,N⊗ρ^2θ,Nexp(rv^1,2)].
Let
U^=exp((π/4)v^J1,2),
and let
V^=exp((π/4)v^K1,2).
By Lemma
12,
it holds that
U^∗V^∗ρ^0,N⊗ρ^2θ,NV^U^=ρ^eiπ/4θ,N⊗2.
By
Lemma 14,
it holds that
U^∗V^∗v^1,2V^U^=d^j,k.
Hence,
we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma
17,
we have
φY(r)=γ(r)γ(−r)ψ∣θ∣(r)ψ∣θ∣(−r).
∎
For any random variable Z,
and for any constant c∈R,
the characteristic functions
of Z and cZ
satisfy
[TABLE]
For any mutually independent random variables
Z and W,
the characteristic functions of
Z, W and S=Z+W satisfy
(i)
Let θk
be the k-th entry of
θ∈MatCm,1.
By Lemma
18,
and by
Eq.
(24),
we have
[TABLE]
(ii)
Let
S=F−G+∑k=1∞(kPk−kQk).
By Eqs. (23)
and (24),
it holds that
[TABLE]
Since F and G obey
NBm(N(N+1)−1),
it holds that
φF(r)=φG(r)=γ(r).
Let
λk=∥θ∥2Nk−1(N+1)−k−1.
Since
Pk and Qk obey
Poi(λk),
it holds that
φPk(r)=φQk(r)=exp[λk(eir−1)].
As
[TABLE]
holds,
we have
φS(r)=γ(r)γ(−r)ψ∥θ∥(r)ψ∥θ∥(−r).
∎
5.8 Proof of Theorem 4 (Type II error probability of TαSI for N=0)
For
μ,ν∈N,
let
TXμ,ν
be the tangent space of
MatRμ,ν
at
X∈MatRμ,ν.
Let
xi,j
be the coordinate variable
for the (i,j)-th entry
of
X∈MatRμ,ν.
Then,
a basis of
TXμ,ν
is
{∂/∂xi,j∣X∣1≤i≤μ,1≤j≤ν}.
For
Y∈MatRμ
and
for
Z∈MatRν,
let
fY,Z:MatRμ,ν→MatRμ,ν
be a map given by
X↦YX(tZ).
The pushforward
dfY,Z∣X:TXμ,ν→TfY,Z(X)μ,ν
at X∈MatRμ,ν
is given by
dfY,Z∣X(∂/∂xi,j∣X)=∑m=1μ∑n=1νYm,iZn,j∂/∂xm,n∣fY,Z(X),
where
Mk,l
is the (k,l)-th entry of
a matrix M.
For X∈MatRμ,ν
and for K∈N,
let
P={P1(X),P2(X),...,PK(X)}⊂MatRμ
and
Q={Q1(X),Q2(X),...,QK(X)}⊂MatRν
be sets of
K matrices
which satisfy
∑k=1Ktrν[tMPk(X)MQk(X)]>0
for any non-zero matrix
M∈MatRμ,ν.
The inner product
(u,v)XP,Q
of
u,v∈TXμ,ν
is defined by
(∂/∂xp,q∣X,∂/∂xr,s∣X)XP,Q=∑k=1KPk,p,r(X)Qk,s,q(X),
where
Pk,i,j(X)
and
Qk,i,j(X)
are the (i,j)-th entries of
Pk(X) and Qk(X),
respectively.
Let
∥u∥XP,Q
be
(u,u)XP,Q.
If
P={Iμ}
and
Q={Iν}
for any X∈MatRμ,ν,
then
the inner product
is said to be
Euclidean.
The pullback of
(⋅,⋅)fY,Z(X)P,Q
by
fY,Z
is
(⋅,⋅)XP′,Q′,
where
P′⊂MatRμ
and
Q′⊂MatRν
consist of
tYPk(fY,Z(X))Y
and
tZQk(fY,Z(X))Z,
respectively.
Let
SORn
be
{eA∣A∈AntRn},
the set of
special orthogonal matrices.
For R∈SORn,
let
TR⊂TRn,n
be the tangent space
of
SORn⊂MatRn
at R.
We use
(⋅,⋅)RP,Q
by restricting the space
TRn,n
to TR.
The dimension of
TR
is
dn=n(n−1)/2.
If C⊂TR
is a cuboid
framed by edge vectors
v1,v2,...,vdn∈TR
which are mutually orthogonal
with respect to
(⋅,⋅)RP,Q,
then the volume
volRP,Q[C]
is
∏k=1dn∥vk∥RP,Q.
Let
FSORn
be the set of Borel subsets of
SORn.
Let
μP,Q:FSORn→[0,∞)
be a measure on SORn
given by
volRP,Q[⋅].
For L∈SORn,
and for
M⊂SORn,
let LM⊂SORn
be
{Lx∣x∈M}.
The following lemma implies that,
if
the inner product is Euclidean,
then
μP,Q is a left-invariant Haar measure.
Lemma 19**.**
If
P=Q={In},
then,
for any L∈SORn,
and for any
M∈FSORn
it holds that
μP,Q(LM)=μP,Q(M).
Proof.
Let
fL:SORn→SORn
be
U↦LU,
and let
dfL∣U:TU→TLU
be the pushforward.
For any U∈SORn
and
for any u,v∈TU,
we have
(dfL(u),dfL(v))LU{In},{In}=(u,v)U{In},{In}.
Let
C⊂M
be any infinitesimal cuboid,
and let
R∈C be one of the vertices.
Then,
C
is identified by
mutually orthogonal edge vectors
v1,v2,...,vdn∈TR.
It holds that
volLRP,Q[LC]=volRP,Q[C].
Hence,
we have
μP,Q(LM)=μP,Q(M).
∎
Let
μ:FSORn→[0,∞)
be
μP,Q
with
P=Q={In}.
For U∈SORn,
let
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{U}\in\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes mn})
be
exp(v^logU).
By Lemma 7,
for any
L,R∈SORn,
it holds that
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{L}\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{R}=\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{LR}.
Moreover,
by Lemma 9,
it holds that
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{L}\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{R}f(X)=\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{L}f(XR)=f(XLR).
Hence,
SORn
acts on the left of H⊗mn
by
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}:\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\to\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes mn}).
Let
W^∈L(H⊗mn)
be
\mu(\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n})^{-1}\int_{\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{U}\mu(dU).
Lemma 20**.**
For any mode size m≥1,
it holds that
K^0=W^.
Proof.
For any f∈H⊗mn,
and for any L∈SORn,
it holds that
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{L}\hat{W}f=\mu(\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n})^{-1}\int_{\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}f(XLU)\mu(dU).
Let
U′
be
LU.
By
Lemma 19,
it holds that
μ(dU)=[μ(dU)/μ(dU′)]μ(dU′)=μ(dU′).
Hence,
it holds that
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{L}\hat{W}f=\hat{W}f.
By Theorem 2,
we have
W^f∈K0.
If
g∈K0,
then
it holds that
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{U}g=g
for any U∈SORn.
Hence,
we have
W^g=μ(SORn)−1∫SORngμ(dU)=g.
As a result,
W^
is the projection
on K0.
∎
Let
Sn−1⊂MatR1,n
be
the set of unit row vectors.
For M⊂Sn−1,
and for U∈SORn,
let
MU⊂Sn−1
be
{vU∣v∈M}.
Let FSn−1
be the set of Borel subsets of
Sn−1.
If a measure
λ:FSn−1→[0,∞)
satisfies
λ(MU)=λ(M)
(∀M∈FSn−1,
∀U∈SORn),
then
λ
is said to be
rotationally uniform.
For
v∈Sn−1,
let
TvS⊂Tv1,n
be the tangent space of
Sn−1⊂MatR1,n
at v.
We use
the inner product
(⋅,⋅)vP,Q
by restricting the space
to TvS.
Since
elements of
P are scalars,
we assume,
without loss of generality,
that
P={I1}
and that
Q={Q(v)},
where
Q(v)∈SymRn
is a positive matrix
which may depend on
v.
Let
(⋅,⋅)vQ=(⋅,⋅)v{I1},{Q(v)},
and let
∥⋅∥vQ=∥⋅∥v{I1},{Q(v)}.
The dimension of
TvS
is
n−1.
If
C∈TvS
is a cuboid with edge vectors
v1,v2,...,vn−1∈TvS
which are mutually orthogonal
with respect to
(⋅,⋅)vQ.
then
the volume
volvQ[C]
is
∏k=1n−1∥vk∥vQ.
Let
λQ:FSn−1→[0,∞)
be the measure given by
volvQ[⋅].
Lemma 21**.**
If
λQ:FSn−1→[0,∞)
is rotationally uniform,
then there exists
c>0 such that,
for any v∈Sn−1,
Q(v)
is
cIn.
Proof.
For
U∈SORn,
define
fU:Sn−1→Sn−1
by
Sn−1∋v↦vU−1=v(tU).
For any
U∈SORn,
for any v∈Sn−1,
and for any
u,v∈TvS,
it holds that
(dfU(u),dfU(v))vU−1{Q(v)}=(u,v)v{tUQ(v)U}.
The group action
(U,v)↦fU(v)
is transitive,
that is,
for any v∈Sn−1,
the orbit
{fU(v)∣U∈SORn}
is Sn−1.
For
v∈Sn−1,
let
Σv⊂SORn
be
{U∈SORn∣fU(v)=v},
the set of stabilizers of
v.
For any v∈Sn−1,
Σv
is isomorphic to
SORn−1.
For
v∈Sn−1,
define a group representation
ρv:Σv→GL(TvS)
by
U↦dfU∣v.
Then,
ρv
is irreducible.
Since
λQ
is rotationally uniform,
it is necessary that,
for any
v∈Sn−1,
for any
R∈Σv,
and for any
u,v∈TvS,
(ρv(R)u,ρv(R)v)vQ
is
(u,v)vQ,
and so that,
for any
v∈Sn−1,
and for any
R∈Σv,
tRQ(v)R
is
Q(v).
By Schur’s lemma,
there exists
a function
φ:Sn−1→R
such that
Q(v)=φ(v)In.
(See [10].)
By the positivity of
the inner product,
φ(v)
is positive
for any
v∈Sn−1.
By the transitivity
of fU,
φ(v)
is constant.
∎
For
v∈Sn−1,
define a measure
λv:FSn−1→[0,∞)
by
\lambda_{\vec{v}}(M)=\mu\big{(}\{U\in\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\mid\vec{v}U^{-1}\allowbreak\in M\}\big{)}.
Lemma 22**.**
For any v∈Sn−1,
λv
is rotationally uniform.
Proof.
Choose
M∈FSn−1
and
U∈SORn,
arbitrarily.
It holds that
{L∈SORn∣vL−1∈MU}=U−1{R∈SORn∣vR−1∈M}.
By Lemma 19,
we have
λv(MU)=μ(U−1{R∣vR−1∈M})=μ({R∣vR−1∈M})=λv(M).
∎
Let
λ1:FSn−1→[0,∞)
be the rotationally uniform measure
with λ1(Sn−1)=1.
Consider the case of m=1,
and,
for
r=(r1,r2,...,rn)∈MatR1,n,
let
\big{|}\vec{r}\big{\rangle}\in\mathcal{H}^{\otimes n}
be
∣r1⟩⊗∣r2⟩⊗⋯⊗∣rn⟩.
Lemma 23**.**
If the mode size m is one,
then,
for any r≥0,
and
for any u∈Sn−1,
it holds that
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}r\vec{u}\big{\rangle}=\int_{\mathcal{S}^{n-1}}\big{|}r\vec{v}\big{\rangle}\lambda_{1}(d\vec{v}).
Proof.
By Lemma 20,
it holds that
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}r\vec{u}\big{\rangle}=\mu(\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n})^{-1}\int_{\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n}}\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{U}\big{|}r\vec{u}\big{\rangle}\mu(dU).
By Lemma 11,
it holds that
\underaccent{\tilde}{\hat V}_{U}\big{|}r\vec{u}\big{\rangle}=\big{|}r\vec{u}U^{-1}\big{\rangle},
and so that
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}r\vec{u}\big{\rangle}=\mu(\mathrm{SO}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n})^{-1}\int_{\mathcal{S}^{n-1}}\big{|}r\vec{v}\big{\rangle}\lambda_{\vec{u}}(d\vec{v}).
By Lemma 22,
we have
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}r\vec{u}\big{\rangle}=\int_{\mathcal{S}^{n-1}}\big{|}r\vec{v}\big{\rangle}\allowbreak\lambda_{1}(d\vec{v}).
∎
Let
T⊂Rn−2
be
[0,π)n−2,
and let
T⊂Rn−1
be
T×[0,2π).
For
k∈{1,2,...,n−1},
let
tk
be the coordinate variable
of the k-th entry of
t∈T.
We define
unit row vectors
ν0,ν1,...,νn−1∈Sn−1
which are
parameterized by
t∈T,
as follows.
Let
ν0∈Sn−1
be
(1,O1,n−1).
For
k∈{1,2,...,n−1},
let
νk∈Sn−1
be
[TABLE]
Define
φ:T→Sn−1
by
φ(t)=νn−1.
For
k∈{1,2,...,n},
let
xk
be the coordinate variable
of the k-th entry of
v∈Sn−1.
The pushforward
dφ(∂/∂ti∣t)
is
∑j=1n(∂xj/∂ti)∂/∂xj∣φ(t).
Let
Ji∈MatR1,n
be a row vector whose
j-th entry is
∂xj/∂ti.
Then,
as the pullback of
the Euclidean inner product for
Tφ(t)S,
the inner product of
∂/∂ti∣t
and
∂/∂tj∣t
is given by
[TABLE]
For k∈{1,2,...,n−1},
let
[TABLE]
and
let
Dk=∂Rk/∂tk∈MatRn.
Let
Rj,k=RjRj+1⋯Rk.
If j>k,
let
Rj,k
be
In.
It holds that
νk=ν0R1,k
and that
Ji=νi−1DiRi+1,n−1.
Lemma 24**.**
It holds that
∥dφ(∂/∂tk∣t)∥νn−1{In}=ck,
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
Define
Ek∈MatRn by
[TABLE]
It holds that
Dk(tDk)=Ek.
Since the k-th entry of
νk−1 is ck,
it holds that
νk−1Ek(tνk−1)=ck2.
Hence,
we have
Jk(tJk)=ck2.
Since,
for j<k,
tj
belongs to
[0,π),
it holds that
sintj≥0,
and so that
ck2=ck.
∎
Lemma 25**.**
222This lemma was suggested by Prof. F. Tanaka.
If j=k,
then
dφ(∂/∂tj∣t)
is orthogonal to
dφ(∂/∂tk∣t)
with respect to
the Euclidean inner product.
Proof.
Define
Ak∈AntRn
and
Fk∈MatRn
by
[TABLE]
respectively.
Then,
it hoolds that
Rk(tDk)=Ak
and that
FkAkFk=On.
Assume that j<k.
Let
νj,k=νj−1DjRj+1,k.
Then,
it holds that
Jj(tJk)=νj,k−1Ak(tνk−1),
and that
[TABLE]
Hence,
we have
Jj(tJk)=0.
∎
Let
P⊂Tνn−1S
be a parallelepiped
framed by
{dφ(∂/∂tk∣t)∣k=1,2,...,n−1}.
Let
[TABLE]
Lemma 26**.**
*If the inner product of
Tνn−1S
is Euclidean,
then
(i) the volume of
P
is
∏k=1n−2sinn−k−1tk,
and
(ii) the area
∣Sn−1∣
of
Sn−1
is
∏k=1n−1sk,*
Proof.
(i) By Lemma
25,
P
is a cuboid
with respect to
the Euclidean inner product.
By Lemmas
24,
we have
volνn−1{In}[P]=∏k=1n−2sinn−k−1tk.
(ii) By taking integral of (i),
we obtain (ii).
∎
For r≥0,
define
gr∈H⊗n
by
[TABLE]
Lemma 27**.**
If the mode size m is one,
then
for any r∈MatR1,n,
it holds that
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}\vec{r}\big{\rangle}=g_{\|\vec{r}\|}.
Proof.
By Lemma
23,
we have
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}\vec{r}\big{\rangle}=\int_{\mathcal{S}^{n-1}}\big{|}\|\vec{r}\|\vec{v}\big{\rangle}\lambda_{1}(d\vec{v}).
By Lemma
21,
the integration by
λ1
is calculated by
the Euclidean inner product.
By Lemma
26,
we have
\hat{K}_{0}\big{|}\vec{r}\big{\rangle}=g_{\|\vec{r}\|}.
∎
Lemma 28**.**
Assume that m=1.
For r∈MatR1,n,
it holds that
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Eq. (\refeqinnerproduct),
for any r≥0,
it holds that
Since the POVM
{Π^0,Π^1}
of
TαSI
is given by
Π^0=(1−α)K^0,
we have
βρ^θ,0⊗n[TαSI]=(1−α)βρ^θ,0⊗n[T0SI].
Let
um∈MatRm,1
be the unit vector
whose first entry is one.
For
θ∈MatCm,1,
let
A∈AntCn
be a solution to the equation
eAθ=∥θ∥um.
Let
Em∈MatRm,n
be
(um,um,...,umn).
By Lemma
12,
it holds that
U^Aρ^θ,0⊗nU^A∗=ρ^∥θ∥Em,0.
Let
K^0′∈L(H⊗n)
be K^0
for m=1.
Then,
it holds that
Tr[ρ^∥θ∥Em,0K^0]=Tr[ρ^∥θ∥E1,0K^0′]Tr[ρ^0E1,0K^0′]m−1.
By Lemma
28,
we have the statement.
∎
By Eq. (3.12) of
Leonhardt [8],
the Fourier transform of
the Wigner function of
ρ^∈S(H) is
Fρ^(u,v)=Tr[ρ^exp(−iuq^−ivp^)],
where
i=−1,
q^=(a^+a^∗)/2
and
p^=−i(a^−a^∗)/2.
For k∈{1,2,...,m},
let
q^k=(a^k+a^k∗)/2∈L(H⊗m)
and let
p^k=−i(a^k−a^k∗)/2∈L(H⊗m).
Let
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
The Fourier transform of the Wigner function of
ρ^∈S(H⊗m) is
Fρ^=Tr[ρ^exp(−i(tw)r)].
Let
Fθ,η,N(u,v)=Fρ^θ,η,N(u,v).
We use
μθ
and
Gη
defined in
(8).
Lemma 29**.**
It holds that
[TABLE]
Proof.
First,
define
L∈MatC2m
and
\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}\in\mathrm{Mat}_{m,1}^{2m,1}
by
[TABLE]
respectively.
Let
z=−i(u+iv)/2∈MatCm,1,
and let
\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec z}={{}^{t}}({{}^{t}}\vec{z},\vec{z}^{*})\in\mathrm{Mat}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2m,1}.
Let
\hat{D}_{\vec{z}}=\exp(\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}^{*}K_{m}\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec z})\in\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes m}).
Then,
we have
[TABLE]
By Eq. (19),
we have
\hat{D}_{\vec{z}}\big{|}\vec{0}_{m}\big{\rangle}=\big{|}\vec{z}\big{\rangle}.
By Eq. (21),
we have
\big{\langle}\vec{0}_{m}\big{|}\vec{z}\big{\rangle}=\exp(-\|\vec{u}\|^{2}/4-\|\vec{v}\|^{2}/4).
Hence,
we obtain
[TABLE]
Next,
we have
L∗eηL=exp(L∗ηL)=Gη.
Moreover,
it holds that
F_{\vec{\theta},\eta,0}=\big{\langle}\vec{0}_{m}\big{|}\hat{D}_{\vec{\theta}}^{*}\hat{S}_{\eta}^{*}\exp(-i({{}^{t}}\vec{w})L^{*}\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a})\hat{S}_{\eta}\hat{D}_{\vec{\theta}}\big{|}\vec{0}_{m}\big{\rangle}.
By Lemma 1,
it holds that
\hat{S}_{\eta}^{*}\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}\hat{S}_{\eta}=e^{\eta}\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}.
By Eq. (18),
it holds that
\hat{D}_{\vec{\theta}}^{*}\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}\hat{D}_{\vec{\theta}}=\underaccent{\tilde}{\vec a}+\sqrt{2}L\vec{\mu}_{\vec{\theta}}\hat{I}^{\otimes m}.
Hence,
we have
Let
Wρ^(x,y) be the Wigner function of
ρ^∈S(H).
By the overlap formula,
it holds that
Tr[ρ^σ^]=2π∬R2Wρ^(x,y)Wσ^(x,y)dxdy.
(See (3.22) of [8].)
Moreover,
by the Parseval’s formula,
it holds that
Tr[ρ^σ^]=(2π)−1∬R2Fρ^(u,v)Fσ^(u,v)dudv.
Let
ν=μz−Gημθ.
By Lemma
29,
we have
[TABLE]
Let
w′=w+iΣη,N−1ν/2.
Then,
the argument of the exponential function
of (30)
is equal to
−(tw′)Ση,Nw′−(tν)Ση,N−1ν/2.
Calculating the Gausian intagration
and multiplying π−m,
we obtain
the statement.
∎
Let
κ=tμθ,ηΣη,N−1μθ,η.
Lemma 31**.**
For any r>0,
for any θ∈MatCm,1\{0m}
and
for any N≥0,
there exists
η∈Sqzm
such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let
ζ∈Sqzm
be
log(r)(OmImImOm).
Then,
Gζ
is
(rImOmOmr−1Im).
Let
u∈MatRm,1
be any real column vector.
Then,
it holds that
μu=μu,O2m=(u0m),
and that
[TABLE]
Let
A∈AntCm
be a diagonal matrix
satisfying
e−Aθ∈MatRm,1.
Let
s=e−Aθ.
Let
U=(eAOmOme−A).
Let
η∈Sqzm
be
UζU∗.
There exists
an orthogonal matrix
R∈MatR2m
such that
Gη=RGζ(tR)
and
tRμθ=(s0m).
Hence,
it holds that
Let
λ
be
nκ.
Let
pλ(f)
be the probability density function of
Fμ,ν;λ
defined in
(10).
Let
c
be the critical point of level α,
that is,
the solution to
∫c∞p0(f)df=α.
Lemma 32**.**
For any m≥1,
for any n≥2m+1,
for any θ∈MatCm,1,
for any η∈Sqzm,
for any N≥0
and for any
α∈(0,1),
there exists
δ>0
such that
βρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]=1−α−(1−α−δ)λ/2+o(λ)
holds
as λ
goes to zero.
Proof.
Let
q(f)=\partial p_{\lambda}(f)/\partial\lambda\big{|}_{\lambda=0}.
It holds that
[TABLE]
Let
δ=(μ+ν)∫0c(μf+ν)−1fp0(f)df.
Then,
it holds that
∫0cq(f)df=(δ−1+α)/2.
Hence,
we have
βρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]=1−α+(δ−1+α)λ/2+o(λ)
as λ→0.
∎
(i)
By Lemma
31,
λ depends on
η.
By Lemma 32,
βρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]=∫0cpλ(f)df
depends on η.
(ii)
By Eq. (10),
βρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]=∫0cpλ(f)df
is greater than
e−λ/2(1−α).
By
Lemma 31,
for any ε∈R
with 0<ε<1−α,
there exists
η∈Sqzm
such that
tμθ,ηΣη,N−1μθ,η<2log[(1−α)/(1−α−ε)],
that is,
βρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]>1−α−ε.
Hence,
we have
supη∈Sqzmβρ^θ,η,N⊗n[TαHH]=1−α.
∎
5.10 Proof of Theorem 6(Comparison of βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαSI] with βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαHH])
We compare orders
of type II error probabilities
for
∥θ∥≒0
and for
∥θ∥≫0.
Lemma 33**.**
For any m≥1,
for any n≥2
and for any α∈[0,1),
it holds that
βρ^θ,0⊗n[TαSI]=1−α−(1−α)n∥θ∥2+o(∥θ∥2)
as ∥θ∥2 goes to zero.
Proof.
Let
f(r)=e−nr∫0πenrcosφ(sinφ)n−2dφ.
It holds that
[TABLE]
and that
f(0)=B((n−1)/2,1/2).
By
Theorem 4,
it holds that
βρ^θ,0⊗n[TαSI]=(1−α)f(∥θ∥2)/B((n−1)/2,1/2).
Hence,
we have
βρ^θ,0⊗n[TαSI]−1+α=−(1−α)n∥θ∥2+o(∥θ∥2)
as
∥θ∥2→0.
∎
Lemma 34**.**
If m=1,
n=3
and
N=0,
then,
for any α∈[0,1),
it holds that
βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαSI]=O(∣θ∣−2)
as ∣θ∣ goes to infinity.
Proof.
Let
r=3∣θ∣2,
let
s=e−r/B(1,1/2),
and let
t=∫0πercosφsinφdφ.
By Theorem
4,
it holds that
βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαSI]=(1−α)st.
We can calculate
t as
[TABLE]
Hence,
we have
βρ^θ,0⊗3[TαSI]=(1−α)(1−e−2r)/[rB(1,1/2)]=O(∣θ∣−2)
as
∥θ∥2→∞.
∎
Let
λ=n(tμθ,η)Ση,N−1μθ,η.
Let
pλ(f)
be the probability density function of
f
given in (10).
Lemma 35**.**
For any m≥1,
for any n≥2m+1,
for any θ∈MatCm,1,
for any η∈Sqzm,
for any N≥0
and for any c>0,
there exists t>0 such that
∫0cpλ(f)df=o(e−tλ)
as λ goes to infinity.
Proof.
Let
A0=∫0cpλ(f)df.
Replace
μf/(μf+ν)
by x.
The Jacobian of this replacement is
df/dx=(dx/df)−1=x−1(1−x)−1f.
Let
b0=μc/(ν+μc).
Let
[TABLE]
It holds that
A0=∫0b0∑k=0∞qkrk(x)dx.
Choose
b1∈(b0,1)
arbitrarily.
There exists
k0∈N
such that,
for any k≥k0
and for any
x∈(0,b0),
[TABLE]
holds.
Let
Rk=∫0b0rk(x)dx.
By (32),
for any k≥k0,
it holds that
Rk+1<b1Rk.
Let
A1=∑k=0k0−1qkRk,
and let
A2=A0−A1=∑k=k0∞qkRk.
It holds that
[TABLE]
For any s>0,
it holds that
[TABLE]
Let
t=2−1min{(1−b1)/2,(1−e−s)/2}.
By (33)
and (34),
we have
A0=o(e−tλ)
as
λ→∞.
∎