text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The production of heavy hadrons ($`H`$) in $`e^+e^{}`$annihilation provides a laboratory for the study of heavy-quark ($`Q`$) jet fragmentation. This is commonly characterised in terms of the observable $`x_H`$ $``$ $`2E_H/\sqrt{s}`$, where $`E_H`$ is the energy of a $`B`$ or $`D`$ hadron containing a $`b`$ or $`c`$ quark, respectively, and $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the c.m. energy. In contrast to light-quark jet fragmentation one expects  the distribution of $`x_H`$, $`D(x_H)`$, to peak at an $`x_H`$-value significantly above 0. Since the hadronisation process is intrinsically non-perturbative $`D(x_H)`$ cannot be calculated directly using perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). However, the distribution of the closely-related variable $`x_Q`$ $``$ 2$`E_Q/\sqrt{s}`$ can be calculated perturbatively  and related, via model-dependent assumptions, to the observable quantity $`D(x_H)`$; a number of such models of heavy-quark fragmentation have been proposed . Measurements of $`D(x_H)`$ thus serve to constrain both perturbative QCD and the model predictions. Furthermore, the measurement of $`D(x_H)`$ at different c.m. energies can be used to test QCD evolution, and comparison of $`D(x_B)`$ with $`D(x_D)`$ can be used to test heavy-quark symmetry . Finally, the uncertainty on the forms of $`D(x_D)`$ and $`D(x_B)`$ must be taken into account in studies of the production and decay of heavy quarks, see eg. ; more accurate measurements of these forms will allow increased precision in tests of the electroweak heavy-quark sector.

We have measured the inclusive weakly-decaying $`B`$-hadron scaled energy distribution $`D(x_B)`$ in $`Z^0`$ decays. Earlier studies  used the momentum spectrum of the lepton from semi-leptonic $`B`$ decays to constrain the mean value $`<x_B>`$ and found it to be approximately $`0.70`$; this is in agreement with the results of similar studies at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 29 and 35 GeV . In more recent analyses  $`D(x_B)`$ has been measured by reconstructing $`B`$ hadrons via their $`B`$ $``$$`DlX`$ decay mode. In this case the reconstruction efficiency is intrinsically low due to the small branching ratio for $`B`$ hadrons to decay into the high-momentum leptons used in the tag. Also, the reconstruction of the $`B`$-hadron energy using calorimeter information usually has poor resolution for low $`B`$ energy, resulting in poor sensitivity to the shape of the distribution in this region.

We present the results of a new method for reconstructing $`B`$-hadron decays and the $`B`$ energy inclusively, using only charged tracks, in the SLD experiment at SLAC. We used the upgraded charge-coupled device (CCD) vertex detector, installed in 1996, to reconstruct $`B`$-decay vertices with high efficiency and purity. Combined with the micron-size SLC interaction point (IP), precise vertexing allowed us to reconstruct accurately the $`B`$ flight direction and hence the transverse momentum of tracks associated with the vertex with respect to this direction. Using the transverse momentum and the total invariant mass of the associated tracks, an upper limit on the mass of the missing particles was found for each reconstructed $`B`$-decay vertex, and was used to solve for the longitudinal momentum of the missing particles, and hence for the energy of the $`B`$ hadron. In order to improve the $`B`$ sample purity and the reconstructed $`B`$-hadron energy resolution, $`B`$ vertices with low missing mass were selected. The method is described in Section 3. In Section 4 we compare our reconstructed $`D(x_B)`$ with the predictions of heavy-quark fragmentation models. We also test several functional forms for this distribution. In Section 5 we describe the unfolding procedure used to derive our estimate of the true underlying $`D(x_B)`$. In Section 6 we discuss the systematic errors. In Section 7 we summarize the results. Our measurement based on a data sample one-third the size of that used here is reported in Refs. .

## 2 Apparatus and Hadronic Event Selection

This analysis is based on roughly 350,000 hadronic events produced in $`e^+e^{}`$annihilations at a mean center-of-mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=91.28`$ GeV at the SLAC Linear Collider (SLC), and recorded in the SLC Large Detector (SLD) in 1997 and 1998. A general description of the SLD can be found elsewhere . The trigger and initial selection criteria for hadronic $`Z^0`$ decays are described in Ref. . This analysis used charged tracks measured in the Central Drift Chamber (CDC)  and in the upgraded Vertex Detector (VXD3) . Momentum measurement was provided by a uniform axial magnetic field of 0.6T. The CDC and VXD3 give a momentum resolution of $`\sigma _p_{}/p_{}`$ = $`0.010.0026p_{}`$, where $`p_{}`$ is the track momentum transverse to the beam axis in GeV/$`c`$. In the plane normal to the beamline the centroid of the micron-sized SLC interaction point (IP) was reconstructed from tracks in sets of approximately thirty sequential hadronic $`Z^0`$ decays with a precision of $`\sigma _{IP}^{r\varphi }4\pm 2`$ $`\mu `$m. The IP position along the beam axis was determined event by event using charged tracks with a resolution of $`\sigma _{IP}^z`$ $``$ 20 $`\mu `$m. Including the uncertainty on the IP position, the resolution on the charged-track impact parameter ($`d`$) projected in the plane perpendicular to the beamline was $`\sigma _d^{r\varphi }`$ = 8$``$33/$`(p\mathrm{sin}^{3/2}\theta )`$ $`\mu `$m, and the resolution in the plane containing the beam axis was $`\sigma _d^z`$ = 10$``$33/$`(p\mathrm{sin}^{3/2}\theta )`$ $`\mu `$m, where $`\theta `$ is the track polar angle with respect to the beamline. The event thrust axis  was calculated using energy clusters measured in the Liquid Argon Calorimeter .

A set of cuts was applied to the data to select well-measured tracks and events well contained within the detector acceptance. Charged tracks were required to have a distance of closest approach transverse to the beam axis within 5 cm, and within 10 cm along the axis from the measured IP, as well as $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.80`$, and $`p_{}>0.15`$ GeV/c. Events were required to have a minimum of seven such tracks, a thrust-axis polar angle w.r.t. the beamline, $`\theta _T`$, within $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T|<0.71`$, and a charged visible energy $`E_{vis}`$ of at least 20 GeV, which was calculated from the selected tracks, which were assigned the charged pion mass. The efficiency for selecting a well-contained $`Z^0q\overline{q}(g)`$ event was estimated to be above 96% independent of quark flavor. The selected sample comprised 218,953 events, with an estimated $`0.10\pm 0.05\%`$ background contribution dominated by $`Z^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ events.

For the purpose of estimating the efficiency and purity of the $`B`$-hadron selection procedure we made use of a detailed Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the detector. The JETSET 7.4  event generator was used, with parameter values tuned to hadronic $`e^+e^{}`$annihilation data , combined with a simulation of $`B`$ hadron decays tuned  to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ data and a simulation of the SLD based on GEANT 3.21 . Inclusive distributions of single-particle and event-topology observables in hadronic events were found to be well described by the simulation . Uncertainties in the simulation were taken into account in the systematic errors (Section 6).

## 3 $`B`$-Hadron Selection and Energy Measurement

### 3.1 $`B`$-Hadron Selection

The $`B`$ sample for this analysis was selected using a ‘topological vertexing’ technique based on the detection and measurement of charged tracks, which is described in detail in Ref. . Each hadronic event was divided into two hemispheres by a plane perpendicular to the thrust axis. In each hemisphere the vertexing algorithm was applied to the set of ‘quality’ tracks having (i) at least 23 hits in the CDC and 2 hits in VXD3; (ii) a combined CDC and VXD3 track fit quality of $`\chi ^2/N_{dof}<`$8; (iii) a momentum ($`p`$) in the range 0.25$`<p<`$55 GeV/$`c`$, (iv) an impact parameter projection in the $`r\varphi `$ plane of less than 0.3 cm, and a projection along the $`z`$ axis of less than 1.5 cm; (v) an $`r\varphi `$ impact parameter error no larger than 250 $`\mu `$m.

Vertices consistent with photon conversions or $`K^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ decays were discarded. In hemispheres containing at least one found vertex the vertex furthest from the IP was retained as the ‘seed’ vertex. Those events were retained which contained a seed vertex separated from the IP by between 0.1 cm and 2.3 cm. The lower bound reduces contamination from non-$`B`$-decay tracks and backgrounds from light-flavor events, and the upper bound reduces the background from particle interactions with the beam pipe. A sample of 76,421 event hemispheres was selected.

In each hemisphere, a vertex axis was defined as the straight line joining the IP to the vertex, which was located at a distance $`D`$ from the IP. For each quality track not directly associated with the vertex, the distance of closest approach to the vertex axis, $`T`$, and the distance from the IP along the vertex axis to the point of closest approach, $`L`$, were calculated. Tracks satisfying $`T<1`$ mm and $`L/D>0.3`$ were added to the vertex. These $`T`$ and $`L`$ cuts were chosen to minimize false track associations to the seed vertex, since typically the addition of a false track has a much greater kinematic effect than the omission of a genuine $`B`$-decay track, and hence has more effect on the reconstructed $`B`$-hadron energy. Our Monte Carlo studies show that, on average, this procedure attaches 0.85 tracks to each seed vertex, 91.9% of the tracks from tagged true $`B`$ decays are associated with the resulting vertices, and 98.0% of the vertex tracks are from true $`B`$ decays.

The large masses of the $`B`$ hadrons relative to light-flavor hadrons make it possible to distinguish $`B`$-hadron decay vertices from those vertices found in events of primary light flavor using the vertex invariant mass, $`M`$. However, due to the effect of those particles missed from being associated with the vertex, which are mainly neutrals, $`M`$ cannot be fully determined. In the rest frame of the decaying $`B`$ hadron, $`M`$ can be written

$$M=\sqrt{M_{ch}^2+P_t^2+P_{chl}^2}+\sqrt{M_0^2+P_t^2+P_{0l}^2}$$
(1)
where $`M_{ch}`$ and $`M_0`$ are the total invariant masses of the set of vertex-associated tracks and the set of missed particles, respectively. $`P_t`$ is the momentum sum, transverse to the $`B`$ flight direction, of the vertex-associated tracks, which, by momentum conservation, is identical to the transverse momentum sum of the missed particles. $`P_{chl}`$ and $`P_{0l}`$ are the respective momentum sums along the $`B`$ flight direction. In the $`B`$ rest frame, $`P_{chl}=P_{0l}`$. Using the set of vertex-associated charged tracks, we calculated the total momentum vector $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ch}`$ and its component transverse to the flight direction $`P_t`$, and the total energy $`E_{ch}`$ and invariant mass $`M_{ch}`$, assuming the charged-pion mass for each track. The lower bound for the mass of the decaying hadron, the ‘$`P_t`$-corrected vertex mass’,

$$M_{Pt}=\sqrt{M_{ch}^2+P_t^2}+|P_t|$$
(2)
was used as the variable for selecting $`B`$ hadrons. Our simulations show that the majority of non-$`B`$ vertices have $`M_{Pt}`$ less than 2.0 GeV/$`c^2`$. However, occasionally the measured $`P_t`$ may fluctuate to a much larger value than the true $`P_t`$, causing some charm-decay vertices to have $`M_{Pt}`$ larger than 2.0 GeV/$`c^2`$. To reduce this contamination, we calculated the ‘minimum $`P_t`$’ by allowing the IP and the vertex to float to any pair of locations within the respective one-sigma error ellipsoids. We substituted the minimum $`P_t`$ in Equation (2) and used this modified $`M_{Pt}`$ as our variable for selecting $`B`$ hadrons .

Figure 1 shows the distribution of $`M_{Pt}`$ for the selected sample of hemispheres containing a vertex, and the corresponding simulated distribution. $`B`$-hadron candidates were selected by requiring $`M_{Pt}`$ $`>`$ 2.0 GeV/$`c^2`$. We further required $`M_{Pt}2\times M_{ch}`$ to reduce the contamination from fake vertices in light-quark events . A total of 42,093 hemispheres were selected, with an estimated efficiency for selecting a true $`B`$-hemisphere of 43.7%, and a sample purity of 98.2%. The contributions from light-flavors in the sample were 0.34% for primary $`u,d`$ and $`s`$ hemispheres and 1.47% for $`c`$ hemispheres.

### 3.2 $`B`$-Hadron Energy Measurement

The energy of each $`B`$ hadron, $`E_B`$, can be expressed as the sum of the reconstructed-vertex energy, $`E_{ch}`$, and the energy of those true $`B`$-decay particles that were missed from the vertex, $`E_0`$. $`E_0`$ can be written

$$E_0^2=M_0^2+P_t^2+P_{0l}^2$$
(3)
The two unknowns, $`M_0`$ and $`P_{0l}`$, must be found in order to obtain $`E_0`$. One kinematic constraint can be obtained by imposing the $`B`$-hadron mass, $`M_B`$, on the vertex. From Equation (1) we derive the following inequality,

$$\sqrt{M_{ch}^2+P_t^2}+\sqrt{M_0^2+P_t^2}M_B,$$
(4)
where equality holds in the limit that both $`P_{0l}`$ and $`P_{chl}`$ vanish in the $`B`$-hadron rest frame. Equation (4) effectively sets an upper bound on $`M_0`$, $`M_{0max}`$:

$$M_{0max}^2=M_B^22M_B\sqrt{M_{ch}^2+P_t^2}+M_{ch}^2.$$
(5)
The lower bound is zero. Hence

$$0M_0^2M_{0max}^2,$$
(6)
and we expect to obtain a good estimate of $`M_0`$, and therefore of the $`B`$-hadron energy, when $`M_{0max}^2`$ is small.

We used our simulation to study this issue. We find that the true value of $`M_0`$ tends to cluster near its maximum value $`M_{0max}`$. Figure 2 shows the relative deviation of $`M_{0max}`$ from the true $`M_0`$ for all $`B`$ hadrons, assuming $`M_B=`$ 5.28 GeV/$`c^2`$ in Eq. (5). Although approximately 20% of the $`B`$ hadrons are $`B_s^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, which have larger masses than the $`B^0`$ and $`B^\pm `$, the values of $`M_{0max}`$ obtained using $`M_B`$=5.28 GeV/$`c^2`$ are typically within about 10% of $`M_0`$. The distribution of the reconstructed $`M_{0max}^2`$ for vertices in the selected-hemisphere sample is shown in Figure 3; the negative tail is an effect of detector resolution. The simulation is in good agreement with the data, and implies that the non-$`B`$ background is concentrated at high $`M_{0max}^2`$; this is because most of the light-flavor vertices have small $`M_{Pt}`$ and therefore, due to the strong negative correlation between $`M_{Pt}`$ and $`M_{0max}`$, large $`M_{0max}`$.

Because, for true $`B`$ decays, $`M_0`$ peaks near $`M_{0max}`$, we set $`M_0^2`$ = $`M_{0max}^2`$ if $`M_{0max}^2`$ $``$0, and $`M_0^2`$ = 0 if $`M_{0max}^2`$ $`<`$0. We then calculated $`P_{0l}`$:

$$P_{0l}=\frac{M_B^2(M_{ch}^2+P_t^2)(M_0^2+P_t^2)}{2(M_{ch}^2+P_t^2)}P_{chl},$$
(7)
and hence $`E_0`$ (Equation (3)). We divided the reconstructed $`B`$-hadron energy, $`E_B^{rec}=E_0+E_{ch}`$, by the beam energy, $`E_{beam}`$, to obtain the reconstructed scaled $`B`$-hadron energy, $`x_B^{rec}`$.

The resolution of $`x_B^{rec}`$ depends on both $`M_{0max}^2`$ and the true $`x_B`$, $`x_B^{true}`$. Using our simulation we found that vertices that have $`M_{0max}^2<1.0(GeV/c^2)^2`$ are often poorly reconstructed; we rejected them from further analysis. Vertices with small values of $`|M_{0max}^2|`$ are typically reconstructed with better resolution and an upper cut on $`M_{0max}^2`$ was hence applied. For an $`x_B`$-independent $`M_{0max}^2`$ cut we found that the efficiency for selecting $`B`$ hadrons is roughly linear in $`x_B`$. In order to obtain an approximately $`x_B`$-independent selection efficiency we required:

$$M_{0max}^2<\left\{1.1+0.007(E_{beam}E_B^{rec})+4.0exp[(E_B^{rec}5.5)/3.5]\right\}^2,$$
(8)
where the two ad hocterms that depend on $`E_B^{rec}`$ increase the efficiency at lower $`B`$-hadron energy.

In addition, in order to reduce the light-flavor background, each vertex was required to contain at least 3 quality tracks with a normalized impact parameter greater than 2. This cut reduces the dependence of the reconstructed $`B`$-hadron energy distribution on the light-flavor simulation in the low-energy region.

A total of 4,164 hemispheres contained vertices that satisfied these selection cuts. Figure 4 shows the distribution of $`M_{0max}^2`$; the simulation and data are in good agreement. We calculated that the efficiency for selecting $`B`$ hadrons is 4.17% and the $`B`$-hadron purity is 99.0%, with a $`uds`$ (charm) background of 0.4% (0.6%). The efficiency as a function of the true $`x_B`$ value, $`x_B^{true}`$, is shown in Figure 5. The dependence is weak except for the lowest $`x_B`$ region; the efficiency is substantial, even just above the kinematic threshold.

We examined the energy resolution of this technique using simulated events. The distribution of the normalized difference between the true and reconstructed scaled $`B`$-hadron energies, $`(x_B^{rec}x_B^{true})/x_B^{true}`$, was fitted with the sum of two Gaussians. A feature of the analysis is that the distribution is symmetric and the fitted means are consistent with zero. The fit yields a core width (the width of the narrower Gaussian) of 9.6% and a tail width (the width of the wider Gaussian) of 21.2%, with the narrower Gaussian representing a population fraction of 83.6%. Figure 6 shows the core and tail widths as a function of $`x_B^{true}`$, where, in order to compare the widths from different $`x_B`$ bins, the ratio between the core and tail populations was fixed to that obtained above. The $`x_B`$-dependence of the resolution is weak. The resolution is good even at low $`B`$ energy, which is an advantage of this energy reconstruction technique.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the reconstructed scaled $`B`$-hadron energy; the simulated distribution is also shown. The small non-$`B`$ background, the high $`B`$ selection efficiency over the full kinematic coverage, and the good energy resolution combine to give a much improved sensitivity of the data to the underlying true shape of the $`B`$ energy distribution (see next section). The distribution of the non-$`B`$ background was subtracted bin-by-bin to yield $`D^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$, which is shown in Fig. 8.

The JETSET event generator used in our simulation is based on a perturbative QCD ‘parton shower’ for production of quarks and gluons, together with the phenomenological Peterson function  (Table 1)***We used a value of the Peterson function parameter $`ϵ_b`$ = 0.006 . to account for the fragmentation of $`b`$ and $`c`$ quarks into $`B`$ and $`D`$ hadrons, respectively, within the iterative Lund string hadronisation mechanism . It is apparent that this simulation does not reproduce the data (Figure 7); the $`\chi ^2`$ for the comparison is 70.3 for 16 binsWe excluded from the comparison several bins that contained very few events; see Section 4.1..

## 4 The Shape of the $`B`$-Hadron Energy Distribution

### 4.1 Tests of $`b`$-Quark Fragmentation Models $`f(z,\beta )`$

We tested models of $`b`$-quark fragmentation. Since the resulting fragmentation functions are usually functions of an experimentally-inaccessible variable $`z`$, eg.$`z=(E+p_{})_H/(E+p_{})_Q`$ or $`z=p_{}^{}{}_{H}{}^{}/p_{}^{}{}_{Q}{}^{}`$, where $`p_{}`$ represents the hadron momentum along the primary heavy-quark momentum vector, it is necessary to use a Monte Carlo generator to produce events according to a given input fragmentation function $`f(z,\beta )`$, where $`\beta `$ represents the set of model arbitrary parameters.

We considered the phenomenological models of the Lund group , Bowler , Peterson et al.  and Kartvelishvili et al. . We also considered the perturbative QCD calculations of Braaten et al. (BCFY) , and of Collins and Spiller (CS) . Table 1 contains a list of the models. We implemented in turn each fragmentation model in JETSET and generated events without detector simulation. In addition, we tested the UCLA fragmentation model  with default parameter settings, as there is no explicit parameter for controlling the $`B`$-hadron energy. We also tested the HERWIG  event generator, and used both possible settings of the parameter switch cldir. cldir=1 forces the heavy hadron to continue in the heavy-quark direction in the hadronisation-cluster decay rest frame, and thereby hardens the fragmentation function. cldir=0 suppresses this feature and yields a softer fragmentation function.

In order to make a consistent comparison of each model with the data we adopted the following procedure. For each model starting values of the arbitrary parameters, $`\beta `$, were assigned and the corresponding fragmentation function $`f(z,\beta )`$ was used to produce the scaled weakly-decaying $`B`$-hadron energy distribution, $`D_{model}^{true}(x_B^{true},\beta )`$ before simulation of the detector. The corresponding reconstructed distribution, $`D_{model}^{rec}(x_B^{rec},\beta )`$, was derived from the reconstructed distribution generated with our default model, $`D_{default}^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ (Fig. 7), by weighting events at the generator level with the weight factor $`D_{model}^{true}(x_B^{true},\beta )`$/$`D_{default}^{true}(x_B^{true})`$. The resulting reconstructed distribution was then compared with the data distribution, and the $`\chi ^2`$ value, defined as

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{N_i^{data}rN_i^{MC}}{\sigma _i}\right)^2$$
(9)
was calculated, where $`N`$ is the number of bins used in the comparison, $`N_i^{data}`$ is the number of entries in bin $`i`$ in the data distribution, and $`N_i^{MC}`$ is the number of entries in bin $`i`$ in the simulated distribution$`r`$ is the factor by which the total number of entries in the simulated distribution was scaled to the number of entries in the data distribution; $`r`$ $``$ 1/12.. $`\sigma _i`$ is the statistical error on the deviation of the observed number of entries for the data from the expected number of entries in bin $`i`$, which can be expressed as

$$\sigma _i^2=\left(\sqrt{rN_i^{MC}}\right)^2+\left(r\sqrt{N_i^{MC}}\right)^2,$$
(10)
where $`\left(\sqrt{rN_i^{MC}}\right)^2`$ is the expected statistical variance on the observed number of entries in bin $`i`$, assuming the model being tested is correct, and $`\left(r\sqrt{N_i^{MC}}\right)^2`$ is the statistical variance on the expected number of entries in bin $`i`$. Since the $`\chi ^2`$-test is not statistically effective for bins with a very small number of entries, the third, the fourth, and the last three bins in Figure 7 were excluded from the comparison.

For each model we varied the values of the parameters $`\beta `$ and repeated the above procedure. The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ was found by scanning through the input parameter space, yielding a set of parameters which give an optimal description of the reconstructed data by the fragmentation model in question. The resulting distributions are shown in Figure 8. Table 2 lists the results of the comparisons.

We conclude that with our resolution and our current data sample, we are able to distinguish among these fragmentation models. Within the context of the JETSET fragmentation scheme, the Lund and Bowler models are consistent with the data with $`\chi ^2`$ probabilities of 31% and 35%, respectively, the Kartvelishvili model is consistent with the data at the 1% level, while the Peterson, BCFY and CS models are found to be inconsistent with the data. The UCLA model is consistent with the data at a level of 6% $`\chi ^2`$ probability. The HERWIG model with cldir=0 is confirmed to be much too soft; using cldir=1 results in a harder distribution and a substantial improvement, but it is still too soft relative to the data.

### 4.2 Tests of Functional Forms $`f(x_B,\lambda )`$

We considered the more general question of what functional forms, $`f(x_B,\lambda )`$, can be used as estimates of the true scaled $`B`$-energy distribution. We considered the functional forms of the BCFY, CS, Kartvelishvili, Lund, and Peterson groups in terms of the variable $`x_B^{true}`$. In addition we considered ad hocgeneralisations of the Peterson function (‘F’), an 8th-order polynomial (‘P8’) and a ‘power’ function. These functions are listed in Table 3. Each function vanishes at $`x_B=0`$ and $`x_B=1`$.

For each functional form, a testing procedure similar to that described in subsection 4.1 was applied. The fitted parameters $`\lambda `$ and the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ values are listed in Table 4. The corresponding $`D_{model}^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ are compared with the data in Figure 9.

Two sets of optimised parameters were found for the generalised Peterson function F: ‘F1’, obtained by setting the parameter $`b`$ (Table 3) to infinity, behaves like $`x_B`$ as $`x_B`$ $``$0 and $`(1x_B)^3`$ as $`x_B`$ $``$1 and yields a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of 18%; ‘F2’, obtained by setting $`b`$ to zero, has a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of 1.0%. A constrained polynomial of at least 8th-order was needed to obtain a $`\chi ^2`$ probability greater than 0.1%. The Peterson function reproduces the data with a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of about 1%. The remaining functional forms are found to be inconsistent with the data. The widths of the BCFY and CS functions are too large to describe the data; the Kartvelishvili, Lund and ‘power’ functions vanish too fast as $`x_B`$ $``$0. We conclude that, within our resolution and with our current data sample, we are able to distinguish among these ad hocfunctional forms.

## 5 Correction of the $`B`$-Energy Distribution

In order to compare our results with those from other experiments and potential future theoretical predictions it is necessary to correct $`D^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ for the effects of detector acceptance, event selection and analysis bias, as well as for bin-to-bin migrations caused by the finite resolution of the detector and the analysis technique. Due to the known rapid variation of the a prioriunknown true $`B`$-energy distribution at large $`x_B`$, any correction procedure will necessarily be model-dependent. We chose a method that allows explicit evaluation of this model-dependence and which gives a very good estimate of the true energy distribution using all of the above models or functional forms that are consistent with the data.

We applied a $`25\times 25`$ matrix unfolding procedure to $`D^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ to obtain an estimate of the true distribution $`D^{true}(x_B^{true})`$, where $`x_B^{true}`$ refers to the weakly-decaying $`B`$ hadron:

$`D^{true}(x_B^{true})=ϵ^1(x_B^{true})E(x_B^{true},x_B^{rec})D^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ (11)
where $`E`$ is a matrix to correct for bin-to-bin migrations, and $`ϵ`$ is a vector representing the efficiency for selecting true $`B`$-hadron decays. $`E`$ and $`ϵ`$ were calculated from our MC simulation; the matrix $`E`$ incorporates a convolution of the input fragmentation function with the resolution of the detector. $`E(i,j)`$ is the number of vertices with $`x_B^{true}`$ in bin $`i`$ and $`x_B^{rec}`$ in bin $`j`$, normalized by the total number of vertices with $`x_B^{rec}`$ in bin $`j`$.

We evaluated $`E`$ by using in turn the Monte Carlo simulation weighted according to each input generator-level true $`B`$ energy distribution found to be consistent with the data in Section 4. We considered in turn each of the eight consistent distributions, using the optimised parameters listed in Tables 2 and 4. The matrix $`E`$ was then evaluated by examining the population migrations of true $`B`$ hadrons between bins of the input scaled $`B`$ energy, $`x_B^{true}`$, and the reconstructed scaled $`B`$ energy, $`x_B^{rec}`$. Using each $`D_{model}^{true}(x_B^{true})`$, the data distribution $`D^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ was then unfolded according to Equation (11) to yield $`D^{true}(x_B^{true})`$, which is shown for each input fragmentation function in Figure 10. It can be seen that the shapes of $`D^{true}(x_B^{true})`$ differ systematically among the input scaled $`B`$-energy distributions. These differences were used to assign systematic errors.

## 6 Systematic Errors

We considered sources of systematic uncertainty that potentially affect our measurement. These may be divided into uncertainties in modelling the detector and uncertainties on experimental measurements serving as input parameters to the underlying physics modelling. For each source of systematic error, the Monte Carlo distribution $`D_{default}^{true}(x_B^{true})`$ was re-weighted and then the resulting new reconstructed distribution, $`D_{new}^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$, was compared with the data $`D^{rec}(x_B^{rec})`$ by repeating the fitting and unfolding procedures described in Sections 4 and 5. The differences in both the shape and the mean value of the $`x_B^{true}`$ distribution relative to the default procedure were considered.

Ad hoc corrections were applied to the simulations of four track-related quantities to account for discrepancies w.r.t. the data, namely the tracking efficiency and the distributions of track $`p_{}`$, polar angle and the projection of the impact parameter along the $`z`$ axis. In each case a systematic error was assigned (see Table 5) using half the difference between the results obtained with the default and corrected simulations.

A large number of measured quantities relating to the production and decay of charm and bottom hadrons are used as input to our simulation. In $`b\overline{b}`$events we considered the uncertainties on: the branching fraction for $`Z^0`$ $``$$`b\overline{b}`$; the rates of production of $`B^\pm `$, $`B^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ mesons, and $`b`$ baryons; the lifetimes of $`B`$ mesons and baryons; and the average $`B`$ hadron decay charged multiplicity. In $`c\overline{c}`$events we considered the uncertainties on: the branching fraction for $`Z^0`$ $``$$`c\overline{c}`$, the charmed hadron lifetimes, the charged multiplicity of charmed hadron decays, the production of $`K^0`$ from charmed hadron decays, and the fraction of charmed hadron decays containing no $`\pi ^0`$s. We also considered the rate of production of $`s\overline{s}`$ in the jet fragmentation process, and the production of secondary $`b\overline{b}`$and $`c\overline{c}`$from gluon splitting. The world-average values and their respective uncertainties  were used in our simulation and are listed in Table 5. Most of these variations affect the normalisation, but have very little effect on the shape or the mean value. In no case do we find a variation that changes our conclusion about which models and functions are consistent with the data. The systematic errors on the mean value are listed in Table 5.

Other relevant systematic effects such as variation of the event selection cuts and the assumed $`B`$-hadron mass were also found to be very small. As a cross-check, we varied the $`M_{0max}`$ cut (Equation (8)) used to select the final $`B`$ sample and repeated the analysis procedure. In each case, conclusions about the shape of the $`B`$ energy distribution hold. In each bin, all sources of systematic uncertainty were added in quadrature to obtain the total systematic error.

The model-dependence of the unfolding procedure was estimated by considering the envelope of the unfolded results shown in Figure 10. Since eight models or functions are consistent with the data, in each bin of $`x_B^{true}`$ we calculated the average value of these eight unfolded results as well as the r.m.s. deviation; the average was taken as our central value and the deviation was assigned as the unfolding uncertainty. Figure 11 shows the final corrected $`x_B`$ distribution $`D(x_B)`$. The data are listed in Table 6 Since two of the eight functions (the Kartvelishvili model and the Peterson functional form) are only in marginal agreement with the data, and the 8th-order polynomial has an unphysical behavior near $`x_B=1`$, this r.m.s. may be considered to be a rather reasonable envelope within which the true $`x_B`$ distribution is most likely to vary. The model dependence of this analysis is significantly smaller than that of previous direct $`B`$-energy measurements, indicating the enhanced sensitivity of our data to the underlying true energy distribution.

The statistical correlation matrix is shown in Table 7.

## 7 Summary and Conclusions

We have used the excellent tracking and vertexing capabilities of SLD to reconstruct the energies of $`B`$ hadrons in $`e^+e^{}`$$``$$`Z^0`$ events over the full kinematic range by applying a new kinematic technique to an inclusive sample of reconstructed $`B`$-hadron decay vertices. The $`B`$ selection efficiency of the method is 4.2% and the resolution on the $`B`$ energy is about 9.6% for roughly 83% of the reconstructed decays. The energy resolution for low-energy $`B`$ hadrons is significantly better than in previous measurements.

We compared our measurement with several models of $`b`$-quark fragmentation. The Bowler, Lund and Kartvelishivili et al.models, implemented within the JETSET string fragmentation scheme, describe our data, as does the UCLA model. None of the Braaten et al., Collins-Spiller or Peterson et al.models implemented within JETSET, nor HERWIG, describes the data.

The raw scaled $`B`$-energy distribution was corrected for bin-to-bin migrations caused by the resolution of the method, and for selection efficiency, to derive an estimate of the underlying true distribution for weakly-decaying $`B`$ hadrons produced in $`Z^0`$ decays. Systematic uncertainties in the correction were evaluated and found to be significantly smaller than those of previous direct $`B`$-energy measurements. The final corrected $`x_B`$ distribution $`D(x_B)`$ is shown in Figure 11. This result is consistent with, and supersedes, our previous measurements . It is also consistent with a recent precise measurement

It is conventional to evaluate the mean of this $`B`$-energy distribution, $`<x_B>`$. For each of the seven parameter-dependent functions that provide a reasonable description of the data we evaluated $`<x_B>`$ from the distribution that corresponds to the optimised parameter(s); these are listed in Table 2 and Table 4. For the UCLA model, which contains no arbitrary parameters relating to $`b`$-quark fragmentation, we evaluated $`<x_B>`$ from the corresponding unfolded distribution shown in Fig. 10; this yields $`<x_B>`$ = 0.712. We took the average of the eight values of $`<x_B>`$ as our central value, and defined the model-dependent uncertainty to be the r.m.s. deviation. We obtained

$`<x_B>=0.709\pm 0.003(stat.)\pm 0.003(syst.)\pm 0.002(model),`$ (12)
It can be seen that $`<x_B>`$ is relatively insensitive to the variety of allowed forms of the shape of the fragmentation function.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the personnel of the SLAC accelerator department and the technical staffs of our collaborating institutions for their outstanding efforts on our behalf.

Work supported by Department of Energy contracts:

DE-FG02-91ER40676 (BU), DE-FG03-91ER40618 (UCSB), DE-FG03-92ER40689 (UCSC),

DE-FG03-93ER40788 (CSU), DE-FG02-91ER40672 (Colorado), DE-FG02-91ER40677 (Illinois),

DE-AC03-76SF00098 (LBL), DE-FG02-92ER40715 (Massachusetts), DE-FC02-94ER40818 (MIT),

DE-FG03-96ER40969 (Oregon), DE-AC03-76SF00515 (SLAC), DE-FG05-91ER40627 (Tennessee),

DE-FG02-95ER40896 (Wisconsin), DE-FG02-92ER40704 (Yale);

National Science Foundation grants:

PHY-91-13428 (UCSC), PHY-89-21320 (Columbia), PHY-92-04239 (Cincinnati),

PHY-95-10439 (Rutgers), PHY-88-19316 (Vanderbilt), PHY-92-03212 (Washington);

The UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (Brunel, Oxford and RAL);

The Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy

(Bologna, Ferrara, Frascati, Pisa, Padova, Perugia);

The Japan-US Cooperative Research Project on High Energy Physics (Nagoya, Tohoku);

The Korea Research Foundation (Soongsil, 1997).

## ∗∗List of Authors

Koya Abe,(24) Kenji Abe,(15) T. Abe,(21) I. Adam,(21) H. Akimoto,(21) D. Aston,(21) K.G. Baird,(11) C. Baltay,(30) H.R. Band,(29) T.L. Barklow,(21) J.M. Bauer,(12) G. Bellodi,(17) R. Berger,(21) G. Blaylock,(11) J.R. Bogart,(21) G.R. Bower,(21) J.E. Brau,(16) M. Breidenbach,(21) W.M. Bugg,(23) D. Burke,(21) T.H. Burnett,(28) P.N. Burrows,(17) A. Calcaterra,(8) R. Cassell,(21) A. Chou,(21) H.O. Cohn,(23) J.A. Coller,(4) M.R. Convery,(21) V. Cook,(28) R.F. Cowan,(13) G. Crawford,(21) C.J.S. Damerell,(19) M. Daoudi,(21) N. de Groot,(2) R. de Sangro,(8) D.N. Dong,(13) M. Doser,(21) R. Dubois, I. Erofeeva,(14) V. Eschenburg,(12) E. Etzion,(29) S. Fahey,(5) D. Falciai,(8) J.P. Fernandez,(26) K. Flood,(11) R. Frey,(16) E.L. Hart,(23) K. Hasuko,(24) S.S. Hertzbach,(11) M.E. Huffer,(21) X. Huynh,(21) M. Iwasaki,(16) D.J. Jackson,(19) P. Jacques,(20) J.A. Jaros,(21) Z.Y. Jiang,(21) A.S. Johnson,(21) J.R. Johnson,(29) R. Kajikawa,(15) M. Kalelkar,(20) H.J. Kang,(20) R.R. Kofler,(11) R.S. Kroeger,(12) M. Langston,(16) D.W.G. Leith,(21) V. Lia,(13) C. Lin,(11) G. Mancinelli,(20) S. Manly,(30) G. Mantovani,(18) T.W. Markiewicz,(21) T. Maruyama,(21) A.K. McKemey,(3) R. Messner,(21) K.C. Moffeit,(21) T.B. Moore,(30) M. Morii,(21) D. Muller,(21) V. Murzin,(14) S. Narita,(24) U. Nauenberg,(5) H. Neal,(30) G. Nesom,(17) N. Oishi,(15) D. Onoprienko,(23) L.S. Osborne,(13) R.S. Panvini,(27) C.H. Park,(22) I. Peruzzi,(8) M. Piccolo,(8) L. Piemontese,(7) R.J. Plano,(20) R. Prepost,(29) C.Y. Prescott,(21) B.N. Ratcliff,(21) J. Reidy,(12) P.L. Reinertsen,(26) L.S. Rochester,(21) P.C. Rowson,(21) J.J. Russell,(21) O.H. Saxton,(21) T. Schalk,(26) B.A. Schumm,(26) J. Schwiening,(21) V.V. Serbo,(21) G. Shapiro,(10) N.B. Sinev,(16) J.A. Snyder,(30) H. Staengle,(6) A. Stahl,(21) P. Stamer,(20) H. Steiner,(10) D. Su,(21) F. Suekane,(24) A. Sugiyama,(15) A. Suzuki,(15) M. Swartz,(9) F.E. Taylor,(13) J. Thom,(21) E. Torrence,(13) T. Usher,(21) J. Va’vra,(21) R. Verdier,(13) D.L. Wagner,(5) A.P. Waite,(21) S. Walston,(16) A.W. Weidemann,(23) E.R. Weiss,(28) J.S. Whitaker,(4) S.H. Williams,(21) S. Willocq,(11) R.J. Wilson,(6) W.J. Wisniewski,(21) J.L. Wittlin,(11) M. Woods,(21) T.R. Wright,(29) R.K. Yamamoto,(13) J. Yashima,(24) S.J. Yellin,(25) C.C. Young,(21) H. Yuta.(1)

(1)Aomori University, Aomori, 030 Japan, (2)University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, (3)Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH United Kingdom, (4)Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, (5)University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, (6)Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523, (7)INFN Sezione di Ferrara and Universita di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy, (8)INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044 Frascati, Italy, (9)Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218-2686, (10)Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, (11)University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, (12)University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, (13)Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, (14)Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, 119899 Moscow, Russia, (15)Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464 Japan, (16)University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, (17)Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3RH, United Kingdom, (18)INFN Sezione di Perugia and Universita di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy, (19)Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom, (20)Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, (21)Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, (22)Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea 156-743, (23)University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, (24)Tohoku University, Sendai, 980 Japan, (25)University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, (26)University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, (27)Vanderbilt University, Nashville,Tennessee 37235, (28)University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105, (29)University of Wisconsin, Madison,Wisconsin 53706, (30)Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511.


format: text

text:
# Quantum universal variable-length source coding

## I Introduction

As was proven by Schumacher , and Jozsa and Schumacher , we can compress the unknown source state into the length $`nH(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ with a sufficiently small error when the source state on $`n`$ quantum systems obeys the $`n`$-i.i.d. distribution of the known probability $`p`$, where $`\overline{\rho }_p:=_\rho p(\rho )\rho `$ and $`H(\rho )`$ is the von Neumann entropy $`Tr\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$. Jozsa and Schumacher’s protocol depends on the mixture state $`\overline{\rho }_p`$. Concerning the quantum source coding, there are two settings: blind coding, in which the input is the unknown quantum state, and visible coding, in which the input is classical information which determines the quantum state that we want to send, i.e., the encoder knows the input quantum state. In this paper, we treat only blind coding. In our setting, we allow mixed states as input states.

In blind coding, Koashi and Imoto  proved that even if we allow mixed states as input states without trivial redundancies, the minimum admissible length is $`nH(\overline{\rho }_p)`$. Depending only on the coding length $`nR`$, Jozsa et al.  constructed a code which is independent of the distribution which the input obeys. In their protocol, if and only if the minimum admissible length of the distribution $`p`$ is less than $`nR`$, we can decode with a sufficiently small error. This kind code is called a quantum universal fixed-length source code.

In the classical system, depending on the input state, the encoder can determine the coding length. Such a code is called a variable-length code. Using this type code, we can compress any information without error. When we suitably choose a variable-length code for the probability distribution $`p`$ of the input, the coding length is less than $`nH(p)`$, except for a small enough probability. In particular, Lynch  and Davisson  proposed a variable-length code with no error, in which the coding length is less than $`nH(p)`$ except for a small enough probability under the distribution $`p`$. Such a code is called a universal variable-length source code. Today, their code can be regarded as the following two-stage code: at the first step, we send the empirical distribution (i.e., the type) which indicates a subset of data, and in the second step, we send information which indicates every sequence belonging to the subset .

This paper deals with quantum data compression in which the encoder determines the coding length, according to the input state. In order to make this decision, he must measure the input quantum system. After this measurement, depending on the data, the encoder compresses the final state of this measurement and sends its data and the compressed state. This type code is called a quantum variable-length source code. However, in general, the encoder knows only that the input state is written as a separable state $`\rho _{x_1}\rho _{x_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{x_n}`$. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the coding length without destruction of the input state.

In particular, independently of the probability distribution $`p`$, we construct the code satisfying the following conditions: the average error concerning to Bures distance tends to $`0`$. The probability that the coding length is greater than $`nH(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, tends to $`0`$. Such a code is called a quantum universal variable-length source code. In our construction, similarly to Keyl and Werner , an essential role is played by the representation theory of the special unitary group and the symmetric group on the tensored space. In our code, the encoder performs a quantum measurement closely related to irreducible decomposition of the two groups, and its resulting data can be approximately regarded as a quantum analogue of type. Thus, our code can be regarded as a quantum analogue of Lynch-Davisson code ,. Of course, if we can estimate the entropy $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, we can compress the coding rate to the admissible rate $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ with a probability close to 1. However, when we perform a naive measurement for the estimation of $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, the input state is destroyed. Therefore, in our code, it is the main problem to treat the trade-off between the estimation of $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ and the non-demolition of the input state.

One might consider that the universal variable code can be easily realized as follows. First, use the $`nϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is small, states for the estimation of $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$. Second, apply Jozsa et. al. protocol  by setting $`R=H(\overline{\rho }_p)+ϵ`$, and apply to $`n(1ϵ)`$ states. If we consider individual error (24), this code successfully compress the source. However, in our paper, like Jozsa et. al. , we consider the total Bures distance (1) between the input state and the output state. In this criterion, ‘naive estimate and compress’ strategy destroys the input state a lot. The detail will be discussed in section 6. (Note also that our criterion (1) is different from Krattenthanler and Slater’s criterion  and Schumacher and Westmoreland’s criterion .)

In this paper, we discuss the universality for the probability family $`𝒫`$ consisting of predicted probabilities on $`𝒮()`$. For any probability family $`𝒫`$ on $`𝒮()`$, we define universality of a quantum variable-length source code and evaluate the exponent of the probability that the coding length is greater than the minimum admissible length, which is called the overflow probability. However, unfortunately, in our approach, it is difficult to construct a quantum universal variable-length source code whose error exponentially tends to $`0`$ in the blind setting. In the visible coding case, it is possible to construct such a code. This topic will be discussed in another paper.

We summarize quantum fixed-length source coding in section II. After this summary, we state our mathematical setting and the main results in section III. Our proofs and our construction of code are given in sections V and IV. Moreover, as is demonstrated in section VI, in the 2-dimensional case, a naive code destroys the state and is not used as a quantum universal variable-length source code.

## II Summary of quantum fixed-length source coding

Let $``$ be a finite-dimensional Hilbert space that represents the physical system of interest and let $`𝒮()`$ be the set of density operators on $``$. Consider a source of quantum state which produces the state $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_n:=\rho _1\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _n`$ with probability the i.i.d. distribution $`p^n`$ of the probability $`p`$ on $`𝒮()`$. In fixed-length source coding, a sequence of states $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_n`$ is compressed to the state in a smaller Hilbert space $`_n^n`$, whose dimension is $`e^{nR}`$. Here, the encoder and the decoder is a trace-preserving completely positive (TP-CP) map $`E^n`$ and $`D^n`$, respectively. The average of the total error is given by

$`ϵ_{n,p}(E^n,D^n):={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)b^2(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n,D^nE^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)),`$ (1)
where Bures distance is defined as

$`b(\rho ,\sigma ):=\sqrt{1Tr\left|\sqrt{\rho }\sqrt{\sigma }\right|}.`$
Note that the support of $`p`$ does not necessarily consist of pure states. In this setting, we focus the infimum of the rate with which the average error goes to zero. The infimum is called the minimum admissible rate $`R_p`$ of $`p`$, and is defined by

$`R_p:=inf\left\{lim\; sup{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}dim_n\right|\{(_n,E^n,D^n)\},ϵ_{n,p}(E^n,D^n)0\}.`$
The number $`nR_p`$ is called minimum admissible length. When the source has no trivial redundancy in the sense following, it is calculated as

$`R_p=H(\overline{\rho }_p):=Tr\overline{\rho }_p\mathrm{log}\overline{\rho }_p,`$
where $`\overline{\rho }_p:=_{\rho 𝒮()}p(\rho )\rho `$. The direct part was proven by Schumacher ,and Jozsa and Schumacher , and the converse part was proven by Barnum et al.  in the pure state case. In the mixed case, Koashi and Imoto  discussed this problem as follows. Indeed, if the source has trivial redundancies, we can compress up to more than the rate $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$. We consider the source to have trivial redundancy if the support $`𝒮(p)`$ of $`p`$ satisfies the following. The Hilbert space $``$ is decomposed as (2) satisfying the conditions (i) and (ii):

$`={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}_{J,l}_{K,l}`$ (2)
(i) Any element $`\rho 𝒮(p)`$ is commutative with $`P_l`$, where $`P_l`$ denotes the projection to the subspace $`_{J,l}_{K,l}`$.

(ii) The state $`\frac{Tr_{_{J,l}}P_l\rho P_l}{TrP_l\rho }`$ is independent of $`\rho 𝒮(p)`$.

Precisely, we should state that the conditions (i) and (ii) hold almost everywhere for $`p`$. In this case, without loss of information, we can transform $`\rho `$ to $`_lTr_{_{K,l}}P_l\rho P_l`$. When the encoder sends the state $`_lTr_{_{K,l}}P_l\rho P_l`$ instead of $`\rho `$, the decoder can recover the state $`\rho `$ from the state $`_lTr_{_{K,l}}P_l\rho P_l`$. This fact implies that we can compress up to the rate $`H\left(_\rho p(\rho )_lTr_{_{K,l}}P_l\rho P_l\right)`$, i.e. $`R_pH\left(_\rho p(\rho )_lTr_{_{K,l}}P_l\rho P_l\right)`$. Koashi and Imoto also proved the opposite inequality, i.e. proved the equation

$`R_p=H\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}p(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}Tr_{_{K,l}}P_l\rho P_l\right),`$ (3)
where the RHS of (3) is given by the finest decomposition satisfying (i) and (ii). Following their proof, we can understand that if $`lim\; sup\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}dim_n<R_p`$,

$`lim\; infϵ_{n,p}(E^n,D^n)>0,`$ (4)
which is called the weak converse. When the support of $`p`$ consists of pure states, if $`lim\; sup\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}dim_n<R_p=H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, we obtain

$`limϵ_{n,p}(E^n,D^n)=1,`$ (5)
which is called the strong converse, and was proven by Winter  in the first time. A more simple proof was given by Hayashi . However, the strong converse in the mixed states case is an open problem. Moreover, in the pure states case, the optimal exponent of average error was treated by Hayashi .

## III Quantum universal variable-length source coding

In the variable-length case, we need describe a quantum measurement with state evolution, by using an instrument consisting of a decomposition $`𝐄^{}=\{𝐄_\omega ^{}\}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$, by CP maps from $`𝒮()`$ to $`𝒮()`$ under the condition $`_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}Tr𝐄_\omega ^{}(\rho )=1,\rho 𝒮()`$. When we perform the instrument $`𝐄^{}=\{𝐄_\omega ^{}\}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ for an initial state $`\rho `$, we get the data $`\omega `$ and the final state $`\frac{𝐄_\omega ^{}(\rho )}{Tr𝐄_\omega ^{}(\rho )}`$ with the probability $`Tr𝐄_\omega ^{}(\rho )`$. A quantum variable-length encoder $`𝐄`$ is given by a measurement process $`𝐄^{}`$ and encoding process $`E_\omega ^{\prime \prime }`$ depending the data $`\omega `$, which is a TP-CP map from $`𝒮()`$ to $`𝒮(_\omega )`$, where the Hilbert space $`_\omega `$ depends on the data $`\omega `$, as

$`𝐄_\omega =E_\omega ^{\prime \prime }𝐄_\omega ^{}.`$
Therefore, any quantum variable-length encoder $`𝐄`$ consists of a decomposition $`𝐄=\{𝐄_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$, by CP maps from $`𝒮()`$ to $`𝒮(_\omega )`$ under the condition $`_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}Tr𝐄_\omega (\rho )=1,\rho 𝒮()`$. For a detail about instruments, see Ozawa .

The decoder is given by a set of TP-CP maps $`𝐃=\{𝐃_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$, which presents the decoding process depending the data $`\omega `$. A pair of an encoder $`𝐄=\{𝐄_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and a decoder $`𝐃=\{𝐃_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is called a quantum variable-length source code on $``$. The coding length is described by $`\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }|+\mathrm{log}dim_\omega `$, which is a random variable obeying the probability $`\mathrm{P}_\rho ^𝐄(\omega ):=Tr𝐄_\omega (\rho )`$ when the input state is $`\rho `$. Of course, any quantum variable-length source code can be regarded as a quantum fixed-length source code whose length is the maximum of $`\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }|+\mathrm{log}dim_\omega `$.

When the state $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_n`$ on $`^n`$ obeys the i.i.d. distribution $`p^n`$ of the probability $`p`$ on $`𝒮()`$, the error of decoding for a variable-length code $`(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$ on $`^n`$ is evaluated by Bures distance as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{}}Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)b^2(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n,D_{\omega _n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}{Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}}\right)),`$
and the average error is given by

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n):={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{}}Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)b^2(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n,D_{\omega _n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}{Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}}\right)).`$ (6)
In this case, the data $`\omega _n`$ obeys the probability:

$`\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}(\omega _n):={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)=Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\overline{\rho }_p^n).`$ (7)
A sequence $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ of quantum variable-length source code is called universal for a probability family $`𝒫`$ on $`𝒮()`$ if

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)0`$
for any probability $`p𝒫`$.

As guaranteed by Theorem 1, we can reduce the coding rate to the admissible rate $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ with a sufficiently small error and a probability infinitely close to $`1`$, asymptotically, i.e. there exists a quantum universal variable-length source code $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ satisfying that

$`lim\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)H(\overline{\rho }_p)+ϵ\right\}=0,ϵ>0,p𝒫.`$ (8)
Conversely, if a quantum variable-length source code $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ is universal for a family $`𝒫`$ and

$`lim\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}=0,`$ (9)
then $`RR_p`$ because the inequality (9) implies the existence of a fixed-length code with the rate $`R`$ and an asymptotically small error. When two probabilities $`p,q𝒫`$ satisfy that $`\overline{\rho }_p=\overline{\rho }_q`$, equation (7) guarantees that $`\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}=\mathrm{P}_{q^n}^{𝐄^n}`$. Thus, any quantum universal variable-length source code $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ satisfies the inequality

$`inf\left\{R\right|lim\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}=0\}\underset{q𝒫:\overline{\rho }_p=\overline{\rho }_q}{sup}R_q.`$
Therefore, the inequalities

$`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ $`\underset{\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}:\text{univ. for }𝒫}{sup}inf\left\{R\right|lim\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}=0\}`$
$`\underset{q𝒫:\overline{\rho }_p=\overline{\rho }_q}{sup}R_q`$ (10)
hold. When the support of $`p`$ consists of pure states, since the admissible rate $`R_p`$ equals $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, the RHS of (10) equals $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ i.e. our code is optimal. However, in the mixed states case, the admissible rate $`R_p`$ of a probability $`p`$ is rarely less than $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$. (See equation (3).) In this rare case, our code cannot up to the admissible rate $`R_p`$. When for any $`\rho 𝒮()`$ there exists a probability $`q𝒫`$ such that $`\overline{\rho }_q=\rho `$ and $`R_q=H(\overline{\rho }_q)`$, the RHS of (10) equals $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, although the admissible rate $`R_p`$ is less than $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$. In this case, our code is optimal for any probability $`p𝒫`$.

Next, we discuss the exponent of the overflow probability: $`\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{\frac{1}{n}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}`$.

###### Theorem 1

For any family $`𝒫`$, there exists a quantum variable-length source code $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ on $`^n`$ which satisfies the condition that $`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$ tends to $`0`$ uniformly for $`p𝒫`$ and that

$`lim{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}=\underset{q𝒫:H(\overline{\rho }_q)R}{inf}\underset{V:\text{unitary}}{\mathrm{min}}D(\overline{\rho }_qV\overline{\rho }_pV^{}),`$ (11)
where $`D(\rho \sigma )`$ is quantum relative entropy $`Tr\rho (\mathrm{log}\rho \mathrm{log}\sigma )`$.

Of course, when the set $`𝒮:=\{\overline{\rho }_p|p𝒫\}`$ is unitary invariant, the RHS equals $`inf_{q𝒫:H(\overline{\rho }_q)R}D(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p)`$. We construct a quantum variable-length source code satisfying (11) in section IV. Indeed, as is guaranteed by the following theorem, our code is optimal in the sense of the exponent of the decreasing rate of the overflow probability when $`inf_{q𝒫:H(\overline{\rho }_q)R}\mathrm{min}_{V:unitary}D(\overline{\rho }_qV\overline{\rho }_pV^{})=inf_{q𝒫:R_q>R}D(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p)`$.

###### Theorem 2

If a sequence $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ of quantum variable-length source codes on $`^n`$ is universal for a family $`𝒫`$, then

$`lim\; sup{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}\underset{q𝒫:R_q>R}{inf}D(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p).`$ (12)
Of course, when the family consists of all probabilities on $`𝒮()`$, the RHS of (11) and the RHS of (12) coincide, i.e. our code is optimal in the sense of the exponent of the overflow probability.

## IV Construction of a quantum variable-length source code

First, we construct a universal quantum variable-length source code that achieves the optimal rate (11) for the family of all probabilities on $`𝒮()`$. This family is covariant for the actions of the $`d`$-dimensional special unitary group $`SU(d)`$, and any $`n`$-i.i.d. distribution $`p^n`$ is invariant for the action of the $`n`$-th symmetric group $`S_n`$ on the tensored space $`^n`$. Thus, our code should satisfy the invariance for these actions on $`^n`$.

Now, we focus on the irreducible decomposition of the tensored space $`^n`$ concerning the representations of $`S_n`$ and $`SU(d)`$, and define the Young index $`𝐧`$ as,

$`𝐧:=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_d),{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}n_i=n,n_in_{i+1},`$
and denote the set of Young indices $`𝐧`$ by $`Y_n`$. Young index $`𝐧`$ uniquely corresponds to the irreducible unitary representation of $`S_n`$ and the one of $`SU(d)`$. Now, we denote the representation space of the irreducible unitary representation of $`S_n`$ ($`SU(d)`$) corresponding to $`𝐧`$ by $`𝒱_𝐧`$ ($`𝒰_𝐧`$), respectively. In particular, regarding a unitary representation of $`SU(d)`$, Young index $`𝐧`$ gives the highest weight of the corresponding representation. Then, the tensored space $`^n`$ is decomposed as follows; i.e. $`^n`$ is equivalent with the following direct sum space under the representation of $`S_n`$ and $`SU(d)`$.

$`^n={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}𝒲_𝐧,𝒲_𝐧:=𝒰_𝐧𝒱_𝐧.`$
For details, see Weyl , Goodman and Wallach , and Iwahori . The efficiency of this representation method was discussed from several viewpoints. Regarding fixed-length source coding, it was discussed by Jozsa et. al. . Regarding quantum relative entropy, it was by Hayashi. Regarding quantum hypothesis testing, it wsa by Hayashi. Regarding estimation of spectrum, it was by Keyl and Wener.

In the following, for an intuitive explanation of our construction, we naively construct a good variable-length code in the case $`=^2`$. For this construction, we fixed a strictly increasing sequence $`\stackrel{}{a}:=\{a_i\}_{i=1}^{l+1}`$ of real numbers such that $`\frac{1}{2}=a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_l<a_{l+1}=1`$. We define the encoder $`𝐄^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ whose data set $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ by

$`_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ $`:=_{\frac{𝐧}{n}:\frac{n_1}{n}[a_i,a_{i+1})}𝒲_𝐧i=1\mathrm{}l1`$
$`_l^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ $`:=_{\frac{𝐧}{n}:\frac{n_1}{n}[a_l,a_{l+1}]}𝒲_𝐧`$
$`𝐄_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}(\rho _n)`$ $`:=P_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}\rho _nP_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n},\rho _n𝒮().`$
and define the decoder $`𝐃_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ as the embedding from $`_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ to $`^n`$, where we denote the projection to $`_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ by $`P_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$. When the larger eigenvalue of the mixture $`\overline{\rho }_p`$ belongs to the interval $`[a_i,a_{i+1})`$, as is guaranteed by Lemma 5 in Appendix A, if the larger eigenvalue of the mixture $`\overline{\rho }_p`$ does not lie on the boundary on the interval $`[a_i,a_{i+1})`$, the probability $`Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_i^{\stackrel{}{a},n}`$ tends to $`1`$. Thus, we can prove $`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\stackrel{}{a},n},𝐃^{\stackrel{}{a},n})0`$. Its speed depends on the divergence between the probability and the boundary. Of course, if we choose $`a_{i+1}a_i`$ to be sufficiently small, the coding length is close to the entropy $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ with almost probability $`1`$. However, when the larger eigenvalue lies on the boundary, the state is demolished, as is caused by the same reason of Lemma 2. In this case, similarly to Lemma 2, we can prove

$`limϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\stackrel{}{a},n},𝐃^{\stackrel{}{a},n})>0.`$
Now, we assume that the interval $`a_{i+1}a_i(i=2,\mathrm{},l1)`$ is $`\delta `$ and that $`a_2a_1,a_{l+1}a_l<\delta `$. Then, our code is uniquely defined by the choice of $`a_2(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\delta )`$. For the non-demolition of initial states, we construct a variable-length code, by choosing $`a_2\{\frac{k}{n}|\frac{k}{n}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\delta ),k\}`$ at random. In this protocol, we can expect that the average error tends to $`0`$ for any probability $`p`$ on $`𝒮(^2)`$. Note that the set $`\{\frac{k}{n}|\frac{k}{n}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\delta ),k\}`$ corresponds to the data set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. In order to achieve the rate $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, we need to choose the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ so that $`\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|0`$. It is essential for our code to restrict $`a_2`$ to this lattice $`\{\frac{k}{n}|k\}`$.

Moreover, for a fixed number $`n`$, when $`\delta `$ is large, the demolition of initial state seems small and the coding length seems long. Therefore, roughly speaking, in this code for a finite number $`n`$, by choosing $`\delta `$, we can treat the trade off between the coding length and the non-demolition of the input state.

Next, we generalize the above code to the $`d`$-dimensional case, and evaluate its average error. In order to satisfy the universality and the condition (11), we need choose $`\delta `$ depending on $`n`$, more carefully. For $`\delta >0`$ we define a subset $`Y_{\delta ,n}`$ of $`^d`$ as

$`Y_{\delta ,n}:=\left\{𝐤^d\right|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}k_i=n,𝐧Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }\},`$
and define an operator $`M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ for any element $`𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}`$ as

$`M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}P_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$
$`P_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }}{}}P_𝐧`$
$`U_{𝐩,\delta }`$ $`:=\left\{𝐪^d\right|𝐩𝐪\delta \}`$
$`C_{1,d}(x)`$ $`:=\mathrm{\#}\left\{𝐤^d\right|𝐤x,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}k_i=0\},`$
where $`P_𝐧`$ denotes the projection to $`𝒲_𝐧`$.

The number $`\mathrm{\#}\left\{𝐤^dU_{𝐧,n\delta }\right|_{i=1}^dk_i=n\}`$ is independent for $`𝐧Y_n`$ and equals $`C_{1,d}(n\delta )`$. Thus, we have the relations

$`P_𝐧{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}P_𝐧={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}\left\{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}\right|𝐧Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }\}}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}P_𝐧=P_𝐧,`$
which implies the condition

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}=I.`$
The encoder $`𝐄^{\delta ,n}`$ whose data set is $`Y_{\delta ,n}`$ is defined by

$`_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_n:𝐧𝐤n\delta }{}}𝒲_𝐧`$
$`𝐄_𝐤^{\delta ,n}(\rho _n)`$ $`:=\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}}\rho _n\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}},\rho _n𝒮(^n),`$
and the decoder $`𝐃_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ is defined as the embedding from $`_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ to $`^n`$.

As is proven in Appendixes B and C, the quantum variable-length source code $`(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})`$ on $`^n`$ satisfies

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})\underset{\delta _1:0<\delta _1<\delta }{inf}1{\displaystyle \frac{C_{2,d}(n\delta _1)}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nC_{3,d}(\delta \delta _1)^2\right)\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^{\delta ,n}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|Y_{\delta ,n}|+\mathrm{log}dim_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)R\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5d}{n}}\mathrm{log}(n+d)+\underset{𝐪_+^{d,1}:H(𝐪)R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)}{inf}\underset{𝐪^{}_+^{d,1}:𝐪𝐪^{}2\delta }{inf}D(𝐪^{}𝐩),`$ (14)
where

$`C_{2,d}(x)`$ $`:=\underset{𝐩^d:_ip_i=0}{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{\#}\left\{𝐤^d\right|𝐤𝐩x,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}k_i=0\},`$
$`C_{3,d}`$ $`:=\underset{𝐪,𝐩_+^{d,1}}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \frac{D(𝐪𝐩)}{𝐩𝐪^2}},`$ (15)
$`_+`$ $`:=\{x|x0\},_+^{d,1}:=\left\{𝐩_+^d\right|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i=1\},`$
and $`𝐩_+^{d,1}`$ denotes the probability $`(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_d)`$, where $`p_i`$ is eigenvalue of $`\overline{\rho }_p`$ and $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_d`$. In this paper, we use an italic alphabet $`p`$ for denoting a probability on $`𝒮()`$ while we use a bold alphabet $`𝐩`$ for denoting a probability $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_d)`$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$. Note that the RHS of (13) is independent of $`p`$. Our main point is simultaneously reducing $`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})`$ and $`\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^{\delta ,n}}\left\{\frac{1}{n}\left(\mathrm{log}|Y_{\delta ,n}|+\mathrm{log}dim_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)R\right\}`$. The RHS of (14) decreases as $`\delta `$ increases while the relation between the RHS of (13) and $`\delta `$ is not necessarily simple. However, letting $`\delta :=n^{1/4}`$ and $`\delta _1:=n^{1/4}n^{1/3}`$, we can check that the RHS of (13) tends to $`0`$, and that the RHS of (14) tends to the RHS of (11). Thus, we obtain Theorem 1 when $`𝒫`$ consists of all probabilities on $`𝒮()`$.

If we adopt another criterion:

$`ϵ_{n,p}^{\prime \prime }(𝐄^n,𝐃^n):={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{}}Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)\left(1\left(Tr\left|\stackrel{}{\rho }_nD_{\omega _n}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}{Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}}\right)\right|\right)^2\right),`$
we have the following inequality instead of (13):

$`ϵ_{n,p}^{\prime \prime }(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})\underset{\delta _1:0<\delta _1<\delta }{inf}1{\displaystyle \frac{C_{2,d}(n\delta _1)}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nC_{3,d}(\delta \delta _1)^2\right)\right)^2,`$ (16)
which is proven in Appendix C.

Next, deforming the code $`(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})`$, we construct a universal quantum variable-length source code that achieves the optimal rate in the general case with no trivial redundancy. Define the set $`Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮)`$ as

$`Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮):=\left\{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}\right|\rho 𝒮,𝐩(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{𝐤}{n}}\delta _1\},`$
where $`𝐩(\rho )`$ consists eigenvalues of $`\rho `$ such that $`p_1(\rho )\mathrm{}p_d(\rho )`$. In particular, $`𝐩=𝐩(\overline{\rho }_p)`$. Note that $`𝒮`$ is defined after Theorem 1, and is different from $`𝒮(p)`$. When the data $`𝐤`$ belongs to $`Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮)`$, we send the state $`\frac{𝐄_𝐤^{\delta ,n}(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}{Tr𝐄_𝐤^{\delta ,n}(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}`$. Otherwise, we send only the classical information $`0`$, except for $`Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮)`$. Then, the data set of the encoder is $`Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮):=Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮)\{0\}`$. The decoder is defined as

$`𝐃_𝐤^{\delta ,\delta _1,n,𝒮}`$ $`:=𝐃_𝐤^{\delta ,n},𝐤Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮).`$
As is proven in Appendixes B and C, the quantum variable-length source code $`(𝐄^{\delta ,\delta _1,n,𝒮}𝐃^{\delta ,\delta _1,n,𝒮})`$ on $`^n`$ satisfies

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,\delta _1,n,𝒮},𝐃^{\delta ,\delta _1,n,𝒮})1{\displaystyle \frac{C_{2,d}(n\delta _1)}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nC_{3,d}(\delta \delta _1)^2\right)\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{p^n}^{𝐄^{\delta ,\delta _1,n,𝒮}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮)|+\mathrm{log}dim_{𝐤,n,\delta }\right)R\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5d}{n}}\mathrm{log}(n+d)`$
$`+\underset{𝐪_+^{d,1}:H(𝐪)R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)\rho 𝒮,𝐪𝐩(\rho )\delta _1}{\mathrm{min}}\left(\underset{𝐪^{}_+^{d,1}:𝐪𝐪^{}2\delta }{\mathrm{min}}D(𝐪^{}𝐩)\right),`$ (18)
for $`p𝒫`$. Note that $`D(\mathrm{p}(\rho )\mathrm{p}(\sigma ))=\mathrm{min}_{V:\text{unitary}}D(\rho V^{}\sigma V)`$. Letting $`\delta :=n^{1/4}`$ and $`\delta _1:=n^{1/4}n^{1/3}`$, we can show that the RHS of (17) tends to $`0`$, and that the RHS of (18) tends to the RHS of (11).

## V Optimality of the exponent of the overflow probability

Next, we prove Theorem 2. When the support of any element $`p`$ of $`𝒫`$ consists of pure states, i.e. the pure states case, we can prove Theorem 2 by using the monotonicity of quantum relative entropy because the strong converse (5) holds in quantum fixed-length pure state source coding, as is explained in section II. However, in the mixed states case, we cannot use this strategy, and we need the following lemma called the strong converse part of quantum Stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing proven by Ogawa and Nagaoka  as an alternative. Its another proof was given by Hayashi.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ be density operators on $``$. If any sequence of operators $`\stackrel{}{T}=\{T_n\}`$ on $`^n`$ satisfies that $`0T_nI`$ and that $`lim\; infTr\rho ^nT_n>0`$, then the inequality

$`lim\; sup{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}Tr\sigma ^nT_nD(\rho \sigma )`$
holds.

Since the monotonicity of quantum relative entropy corresponds to the weak converse part of quantum Stein’s lemma, the former strategy can be regarded as the combination of the strong converse part (5) of quantum fixed-length pure state source coding and the weak converse part of quantum Stein’s lemma, and the latter proof can be regarded as the combination of the weak converse part(4) of quantum fixed-length source coding and the strong converse part of quantum Stein’s lemma.

First, for the reader’s convenience, we give the former proof which is simpler than the latter but is applied only in the pure states case. After this proof, we give a more sound proof which can be used in the general case. Let $`p`$ and $`q`$ be an arbitrary elements of $`𝒫`$, and $`R`$ be arbitrary real number such that $`R`$ is less than the minimum admissible rate of $`q`$, i.e., $`R<R_q`$. In particular, we assume that the support of $`q`$ consists of pure states. For a quantum variable-length source code $`\{(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)\}`$ for a family $`𝒫`$, deforming the code $`(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$, we define the fixed-length code $`(E^{R,n},D^{R,n})`$ as follows. When the data $`\omega _n`$ satisfies

$`\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}nR,`$ (19)
we send classical information which indicates condition (19). Otherwise, we send the data $`\omega _n`$ and the state $`\frac{𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}{Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)}`$. In the decoding process, if we receive the classical information which indicates condition (19), we regard a quantum state $`\rho _R`$ out of the original space $`^n`$ as the decoded state. Note that $`b(\rho _R,\rho )1`$ for any state $`\rho 𝒮(^n)`$. Otherwise, we perform the operation $`𝐃_{\omega _n}^n`$ as the decoding process. Since the maximum of this code is less than $`nR`$, we can regard it as a fixed-length code whose length is $`nR`$.

From the construction of the fixed-length code $`(E^{R,n},D^{R,n})`$, we can easily check that

$`ϵ_{n,q}(E^{R,n},D^{R,n})`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{P}_{q^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)<R\right\}ϵ_{n,q}\left(𝐄^n,𝐃^n|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)<R\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{P}_{q^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\},`$
where $`ϵ_{n,q}\left(𝐄^n,𝐃^n|\frac{1}{n}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)<R\right)`$ denotes the conditional average of the total error under the condition $`\frac{1}{n}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)<R`$. Thus, we have the inequality

$`ϵ_{n,q}(E^{R,n},D^{R,n})ϵ_{n,q}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{P}_{q^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}\left(1ϵ_{n,q}\left(𝐄^n,𝐃^n|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right)\right)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{P}_{q^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}=\mathrm{P}_{\overline{\rho }_q^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}.`$ (20)
Since the support of $`q`$ consists of pure states and $`H(\overline{\rho }_q)=R_q>R`$, we obtain the relation:

$`ϵ_{n,q}(E^{R,n},D^{R,n})1`$
which is called the strong converse part of the quantum fixed-length pure state source coding. Since the universality guarantees the relation

$`ϵ_{n,q}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)0,`$ (21)
we have

$`\mathrm{P}_{n,q}:=\mathrm{P}_{\overline{\rho }_q^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R\right\}1.`$ (22)
Using the monotonicity of quantum relative entropy, we have

$`nD(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p)=D(\overline{\rho }_q^n\overline{\rho }_p^n)\mathrm{P}_{n,q}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{P}_{n,q}}{\mathrm{P}_{n,p}}}+\left(1\mathrm{P}_{n,q}\right)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{P}_{n,q}}{1\mathrm{P}_{n,p}}},`$
where we define $`\mathrm{P}_{n,p}`$ similarly to (22). Since $`\left(1\mathrm{P}_{n,q}\right)\mathrm{log}(1\mathrm{P}_{n,p})0`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{n,p}}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{nD(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p)+h(\mathrm{P}_{n,q})}{n\mathrm{P}_{n,q}}}D(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p),`$
where $`h(x)`$ is the binary entropy $`x\mathrm{log}x(1x)\mathrm{log}(1x)`$. Now, we obtain inequality (12) in the pure states case.

Next, we proceed the general case. It follows from (4) and the inequality $`R<R_q`$ that we have

$`lim\; infϵ_{n,q}(E^{R,n},D^{R,n})>0.`$ (23)
From (20) and (21), the relation $`lim\; inf\mathrm{P}_{n,q}>0`$ holds. There exists a POVM $`M^n=\{M_{\omega _n}^n\}_{\omega _n}`$ such that

$`Tr\rho _nM_{\omega _n}^n=Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\rho _n),\rho _n𝒮(^n).`$
Letting

$`T_n:={\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n:\frac{1}{n}\left(\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|+\mathrm{log}dim_{\omega _n}\right)R}{}}M_{\omega _n}^n,`$
we have $`\mathrm{P}_{n,q}=Tr\overline{\rho }_q^nT_n`$ and $`\mathrm{P}_{n,p}=Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nT_n`$. Thus, Lemma 1 guarantees that

$`lim\; sup{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{P}_{n,p}D(\overline{\rho }_q\overline{\rho }_p).`$
Now, the proof is completed.

## VI Discussion

In our code, the nonzero number $`\delta `$ is essential. One may expect that the quantum variable-length source code $`\{(𝐄^{0,n},𝐃^{0,n})\}`$ is universal. However, this code destroys the input state by a quantum measurement as follows.

###### Lemma 2

Assume that $`d=2`$ and $`\{|e_1,|e_2\}`$ is a CONS of $`^2`$. If the support of $`p`$ is pure states $`\{|e_1e_1|,|e_2e_2|\}`$, the average error $`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{0,n},𝐃^{0,n})`$ does not tends to $`0`$.

As is understood from our proof of Theorem 1, bound (11) cannot be achieved unless $`\delta `$ tends to $`0`$. It seems essential to approximate the nonzero number $`\delta >0`$ to $`0`$.

If we discuss quantum universal coding under another error $`ϵ_{n,p}^{}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$ instead of $`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$ ( c.f. (6)):

$`ϵ_{n,p}^{}(𝐄^n,𝐃^n)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮()}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{}}Tr𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)b^2(\rho _i,𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)_i))`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{}{\rho }_n`$ $`=\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _n`$
$`𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)_i`$ $`=Tr_{_1\mathrm{}_{i1}_{i+1}\mathrm{}_n}𝐄_{\omega _n}^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n),`$
we can use several strategies for quantum universal coding. For example, if we use $`nϵ`$ states only for the estimation of $`H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$, we can reduce the error $`ϵ_{n,p}^{}`$ to zero, asymptotically, by use of Jozsa et. al. protocol . However, in this strategy, we cannot reduce the error $`ϵ_{n,p}`$ because the demolition of the first $`nϵ`$ states is crucial for this criterion.

Next, we discuss how rapidly the average error $`ϵ_{n,p}`$ tends to $`0`$ in our code. Assume that $`d=2`$ and $`\{|e_1,|e_2\}`$ is a CONS of $`^2`$. Unless $`\delta _n>0`$ satisfies $`|\delta _n|<1`$, the coding length always equals $`2n`$. Then, we can assume that $`|\delta _n|<1`$.

###### Lemma 3

If the support of $`p`$ is pure states $`\{|e_1e_1|,|e_2e_2|\}`$, the relation

$`lim{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta _n,n},𝐃^{\delta _n,n})=0,`$ (25)
holds for any sequence $`\{\delta _n\}`$ satisfying $`|\delta _n|<1`$.

Therefore, it seems impossible to construct a universal code whose average error $`ϵ_{n,p}`$ exponentially tends to $`0`$.

In general, even if $`R_p=H(\overline{\rho }_p)`$ for $`p𝒫`$, the RHS of (11) does not necessarily coincide with the RHS of (12). For example, when

$`𝒫`$ $`=\{p_t|t(0,1/2)\},H(\overline{\rho }_{p_t})=R_{p_t},`$
$`\overline{\rho }_{p_t}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (t)+(1t)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (t)& (12t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)\\ (12t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)& (1t)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (t)+t\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (t)\end{array}\right)`$
and $`\theta `$ is continuous and one-to-one, the both sides of (10) coincide with $`H(\overline{\rho }_{p_t})`$ while the RHS of (11) is strictly smaller than the RHS of (12) as follows. For $`t_1,t_0(0,1/2)`$, we can calculate as:

$`\underset{t(0,1/2):H(\overline{\rho }_{p_t})h(t_1)}{inf}\underset{V:unitary}{\mathrm{min}}D(\overline{\rho }_{p_t}V\overline{\rho }_{p_{t_0}}V^{})=`$ $`d(t_1,t_0)`$
$`\underset{t(0,1/2):R_{p_t}>h(t_1)}{inf}D(\overline{\rho }_{p_t}\overline{\rho }_{p_{t_0}})=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta (t)\theta (t))d(t_1,t_0)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta (t)\theta (t))d(t_1,1t_0).`$
where

$`h(t)`$ $`:=t\mathrm{log}t(1t)\mathrm{log}(1t)`$
$`d(t,t^{})`$ $`:=t\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{t^{}}}+(1t)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{1t^{}}}.`$
Thus, its difference equals $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta (t)\theta (t))\left(d(t_1,1t_0)d(t_1,t_0)\right)>0`$. This gap is closely related to the ambiguity of the large deviation-type bounds in quantum estimation . It seems very hard to match the upper bound and the lower bound concerning the exponent of the overflow probability in the general case.

## VII Conclusion

We construct a quantum variable-length code satisfying equation (11). This is optimal in the sense of Theorem 2 when the family $`𝒫`$ consists of probabilities on $`𝒮()`$ with no trivial redundancies. However, in our code the average error does not exponentially vanish. The construction of such a code seems to be difficult.

## Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Professor H. Nagaoka and Dr. A. Winter for useful comments. They also thank an anonymous referee for useful comments.

## Appendix

## A Representation theoretical type method

For our proof, we need the following two lemmas.

###### Lemma 4

The relation

$`dim𝒱_𝐧`$ $`C(𝐧)(n+d)^{2d}(n+d)^{2d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nH\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧}{n}}\right)\right)`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\#}\{𝐧|𝐧Y_n\}`$ $`(n+1)^d`$ (27)
$`dim𝒰_𝐧`$ $`(n+1)^d`$ (28)
holds, where $`C(𝐧)`$ is defined as

$`C(𝐧):={\displaystyle \frac{n!}{n_1!n_2!\mathrm{}n_d!}}.`$
Proof:  Inequality (27) is trivial. Using Young index $`𝐧`$, the basis of $`𝒰_𝐧`$ is described by $`\{e_𝐧^{}\}_{𝐧^{}Y^𝐧}`$, where $`Y^𝐧`$ is defined as

$`Y^𝐧:=\{𝐧^{}=\{n_i^{}\}^d|\begin{array}{c}_in_i^{}=_in_i,\hfill \\ _{i=1}^mn_{s(i)}^{}_{i=1}^mn_i,\hfill \\ 1md1,\hfill \\ s\text{ is any permutation}\hfill \end{array}\}.`$
Thus, we obtain (28). Note that the correspondence $`𝐧^{}`$ and $`e_𝐧^{}`$ depends on the choice of Cartan subalgebra, i.e. the choice of basis of $``$.

According to Weyl , Iwahori , the following equation holds, and it is evaluated as

$`dim𝒱_𝐧`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(n_1+d1)!(n_2+d2)!\mathrm{}n_d!}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}(n_in_ji+j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{n_1!n_2!\mathrm{}n_d!}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}(n_in_ji+j)C(𝐧)(n+d)^{2d}`$
$`(n+d)^{2d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nH\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧}{n}}\right)\right).`$
The following is essentially equivalent to Keyl and Werner’s result . For the reader’s convenience, we give a simpler proof.

###### Lemma 5

Assume that $`𝐩`$ is the spectrum of $`\rho `$ such that $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_d`$. The following relations

$`TrP_𝐧\rho ^n`$ $`(n+d)^{3d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧}{n}}𝐩\right)\right)`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\frac{𝐧}{n}}{}}TrP_𝐧\rho ^n`$ $`(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(n\underset{q}{\mathrm{min}}D(𝐪𝐩)\right)`$ (30)
hold for a subset $``$ of $`_+^{d,1}`$.

Proof:  Let $`𝒰_𝐧^{}`$ be an irreducible representation of $`SU(d)`$ in $`^n`$, which is equivalent to $`𝒰_𝐧`$. We denote its projection by $`P_𝐧^{}`$. Now, we choose the basis $`\{e_𝐧^{}\}_{𝐧^{}Y^𝐧}`$ of $`𝒰_𝐧^{}`$ depending the basis $`\{e_i\}`$ of $``$. The base $`e_𝐧^{}`$ is the eigenvector of $`\rho ^n`$ with the eigenvalue $`_{i=1}^da_i^{n_i^{}}`$. Since $`𝐧^{}`$ is majorized by $`𝐧`$, we can calculate the operator norm by

$`P_𝐧^{}\rho ^nP_𝐧^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}a_i^{n_i},`$ (31)
where $`X:=sup_xXx`$. from (26), (28) and (31), the relations

$`TrP_𝐧\rho ^n`$ $`=dim𝒱_𝐧\times TrP_𝐧^{}\rho ^n(n+d)^{3d}C(𝐧){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}a_i^{n_i}`$
$`=(n+d)^{3d}\mathrm{Mul}(𝐚,𝐧)`$
hold, where we denote the multinomial distribution of $`𝐚`$ by $`\mathrm{Mul}(𝐚,)`$. Thus, we obtain (29). Inequality (27) guarantees

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\frac{𝐧}{n}}{}}TrP_𝐧\rho ^n(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(n\underset{𝐪}{inf}D(𝐪𝐩)\right).`$
## B Proof of (14) and (18)

First, we prove inequality (14). For a sufficiently large integer $`n`$, the relations

$`|Y_{\delta ,n}|\mathrm{\#}\{𝐤^d|k_i0\}(n+1)^d`$
hold. Since $`dim𝒰_𝐧(n+d)^d`$, for any $`𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}`$, we have

$`\mathrm{log}|Y_{\delta ,n}|+\mathrm{log}dim_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ $`d\mathrm{log}(n+1)+\underset{𝐧Y_{\delta ,n}U_{𝐤,n\delta }}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{log}dim𝒰_𝐧+\mathrm{log}dim𝒱_𝐧`$
$`4d\mathrm{log}(n+d)+\underset{𝐧Y_{\delta ,n}U_{𝐤,n\delta }}{\mathrm{max}}nH\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧}{n}}\right).`$
From (30), we have

$`TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\overline{\rho }_p^n`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|Y_{\delta ,n}|}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}(n+d)^{3d}\underset{𝐧^{}Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧^{}}{n}}𝐩\right)\right)`$
$`(n+d)^{4d}\underset{𝐧^{}Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧^{}}{n}}𝐩\right)\right)`$
$`(n+d)^{4d}\underset{𝐪U_{\frac{𝐤}{n},\delta }_+^{d,1}}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left(𝐪𝐩\right)\right).`$
Thus,

$`\mathrm{P}_{\overline{\rho }_p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|Y_{\delta ,n}|+\mathrm{log}dim_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)R\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}:\underset{𝐧Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }}{\mathrm{max}}H(\frac{𝐧}{n})R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)}{}}TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\overline{\rho }_p^n`$
$`|Y_{\delta ,n}|(n+d)^{4d}\underset{𝐧Y_n:H(\frac{𝐧}{n})R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝐧^{}Y_n:𝐧𝐧^{}2\delta n}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧^{}}{n}}𝐩\right)\right)`$
$`(n+d)^{5d}\underset{𝐪_+^{d,1}:H(𝐪)R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝐪^{}_+^{d,1}:𝐪𝐪^{}2\delta }{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left(𝐪^{}𝐩\right)\right).`$
Then, we obtain (14).

Next, we proceed to (18). Since $`|Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮)||Y_{\delta ,n}|`$, we have

$`\mathrm{P}_{\overline{\rho }_p^n}^{𝐄^n}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}|Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮)|+\mathrm{log}dim_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)R\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮):\underset{𝐧Y_nU_{𝐤,n\delta }}{\mathrm{max}}H(\frac{𝐧}{n})R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)}{}}TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\overline{\rho }_p^n`$
$`|Y_{\delta ,n}|(n+d)^{4d}\underset{𝐧Y_n:H(\frac{𝐧}{n})R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d),\rho 𝒮,\frac{𝐧}{n}𝐩(\rho )\delta _1}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝐧^{}Y_n:𝐧𝐧^{}2\delta n}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐧^{}}{n}}𝐩\right)\right)`$
$`(n+d)^{5d}\underset{𝐪_+^{d,1}:H(𝐪)R\frac{4d}{n}\mathrm{log}(n+d)\rho 𝒮,𝐪𝐩(\rho )\delta _1}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{𝐪^{}_+^{d,1}:𝐪𝐪^{}2\delta }{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{exp}\left(nD\left(𝐪^{}𝐩\right)\right).`$
Then, we obtain (18).

## C Proof of (13), (16) and (17)

We can evaluate the average error as

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n\left(1Tr\left|\sqrt{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}}}{TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}}}\right|\right)`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}\sqrt{TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}Tr\sqrt{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}}\sqrt{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}}`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}\sqrt{TrM_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}Tr\sqrt{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}\sqrt{M_𝐤^{\delta ,n}}\sqrt{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n}`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)\left(TrP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\rho }_n𝒮(^n)}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)TrP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ (32)
$`=1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},`$ (33)
where inequality (32) follows from Jensen’s inequality concerning the convex function $`xx^{3/2}`$.

The relations

$`C_{2,d}(n\delta _1)`$ $`\mathrm{\#}\left(Y_{\delta ,n}U_{n𝐩,n\delta _1}\right),0<\delta _1<\delta `$ (34)
$`P_𝐤^{\delta ,n}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_nU_{n𝐩,n(\delta \delta _1)}}{}}P_𝐧,𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}U_{n𝐩,n\delta _1}`$ (35)
hold. Using Lemma 5, and equations (35) and (15), we have

$`TrP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\overline{\rho }_p^n`$ $`1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(n\underset{qU_{𝐩,\delta \delta _1}}{\mathrm{min}}D(𝐪𝐩)\right)`$
$`1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nC_{3,d}(\delta \delta _1)^2\right).`$ (36)
It follows from (34) and (36) that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}U_{n𝐩,n\delta _1}}{}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{2,d}(n\delta _1)}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nC_{3,d}(\delta \delta _1)^2\right)\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}.`$ (37)
Inequality (13) follows from (33) and (37).

Similarly to (33), we can prove

$`ϵ_{n,p}^{\prime \prime }(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^2,`$
which implies (16).

In the general case, similarly to (33), we can prove that

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n}(𝒮)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}.`$ (38)
Since $`Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮)U_{n𝐩,n\delta _1}=Y_{\delta ,n}U_{n𝐩,n\delta _1}`$, we can prove that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,\delta _1,n,+}(𝒮)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}U_{n𝐩,n\delta _1}}{}}\left(Tr\overline{\rho }_p^nP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{2,d}(n\delta _1)}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(1(n+d)^{4d}\mathrm{exp}\left(nC_{3,d}(\delta \delta _1)^2\right)\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}.`$ (39)
Inequality (17) follows from (38) and (39).

## D Proof of Lemma 2

In this case, the average error is calculated as

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{0,n},𝐃^{0,n})`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n}{}}p(\stackrel{}{e}_n)\left(\stackrel{}{e}_n|P_𝐧|\stackrel{}{e}_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n}{}}p(\stackrel{}{e}_n){\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_n}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{e}_n|P_𝐧|\stackrel{}{e}_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}},`$
where $`\stackrel{}{e}_n:=e_{i_1}e_{i_2}\mathrm{}e_{i_n}^n`$. We define $`𝐧(\stackrel{}{e}_n):=(n_1(\stackrel{}{e}_n),n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n))`$ by

$`n_i(\stackrel{}{e}_n):=\mathrm{\#}\{j[1,n]|e_{i_j}=e_i\}.`$ (40)
Now, we focus a typical element $`\stackrel{}{e}_n`$, i.e. $`\frac{n_i(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n}p_i`$. The number satisfying (40) is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}\right)`$, and $`dim𝒱_𝐧^{}=\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)1}\right)\right)`$, where $`𝐧(\stackrel{}{e}_n)=(n_1(\stackrel{}{e}_n),n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n))Y_n`$. Then,

$`\stackrel{}{e}_n|P_{𝐧(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}|\stackrel{}{e}_n`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}}\right)^1\left(\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)1}}\right)\right)`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \frac{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n_1(\stackrel{}{e}_n)+1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{n_1(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n}+\frac{1}{n}\frac{n_2(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n}}{\frac{n_1(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n}+\frac{1}{n}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}.`$
Since $`x^{\frac{3}{2}}+y^{\frac{3}{2}}(x+y)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ for $`0<x,y<1`$, we can evaluate

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_n}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{e}_n|P_𝐧|\stackrel{}{e}_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝐧Y_n\{𝐧^{}\}}{}}\stackrel{}{e}_n|P_𝐧|\stackrel{}{e}_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}+\left(\stackrel{}{e}_n|P_𝐧^{}|\stackrel{}{e}_n\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}<1.`$
Therefore,

$`limϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{0,n},𝐃^{0,n})`$ $`1\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)>0.`$
## E Proof of Lemma 3

For any $`𝐧Y_n,\delta _n>0`$, we denote $`([n_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _n],n[n_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _n])Y_{\delta ,n}`$ by $`𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)`$, where $`[x]`$ is defined as the maximum integer $`n`$ satisfying $`nx`$. The element $`𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)`$ satisfies

$`𝐧=(n_1,n_2)U_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n),\delta _n}`$
$`(n_1+1,n_21)U_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n),\delta _n}.`$
For any $`\delta >0`$, we have

$`ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{e}_n)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}(TrP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{e}_n)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)Y_{\delta ,n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}(TrP_𝐤^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{e}_n)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{e}_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n:\frac{n_i(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n}p_i}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{e}_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n(TrP_{𝐤(𝐧,\delta _n)}^{\delta ,n}\stackrel{}{\rho }_n)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{e}_n:\frac{n_i(\stackrel{}{e}_n)}{n}p_i}{}}p^n(\stackrel{}{e}_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{1,d}(n\delta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|Y_n|}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right).`$
Note that the RHS is independent of $`\delta >0`$. Thus,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}ϵ_{n,p}(𝐄^{\delta ,n},𝐃^{\delta ,n})`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|Y_n|}}+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(\mathrm{log}2(n+1)^2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{p_1}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)\right)0.`$
Therefore, we obtain (25).