# Quantum Clone and States Estimation for 𝑛-state System

## Abstract

We derive a lower bound for the optimal fidelity for deterministic cloning a set of $`n`$ pure states. In connection with states estimation, we obtain a lower bound about average maximum correct states estimation probability.

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 03.65.Bz, 89.70.+c

Quantum no-cloning theorem  has prohibited cloning and estimating an arbitrary quantum state exactly by any physical means in a consequence of linearity of quantum theory. The unitarity of quantum theory does not allow to clone (identify) no-orthogonal states though orthogonal states can be cloned (identified) perfectly . However, clone and estimation of quantum states with a limited degree of success are always possible. Universal quantum cloning machine (UQCM)  acts on any unknown quantum state and produce optimal approximate copies. This machine is called universal because it produces copies that are state-independent. State-dependent quantum cloning machines is designed to clone states belonging to a finite set and may be divided into two main categories: deterministic , probabilistic  and hybrid . Deterministic state-dependent cloning machine generates approximate clones with probability 1. Deterministic exact clone violates the no-cloning theorem, thus perfectly clone must be probabilistic. Probabilistic quantum cloning machines can clone states perfectly, though the success probability cannot be unit all the time. It is shown that a set of non-orthogonal states can be probabilistically cloned if and only if the states are linearly independent. Hybrid clone interpolates between deterministic and probabilistic ones, that is, the copies (not exact) are better than those in deterministic clone, but the success probability (less than 1) is greater than probabilistic exact clone. Universal quantum states estimation were considered in Ref. , given $`M`$ independent realizations. What’s more, we  have discussed general states discrimination strategies for state-dependent system.

Optimal results for two-state deterministic clone have been obtained in Ref. . In this letter we consider deterministic clone for a set of $`n`$ pure states $`\left\{|\psi _i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$. When $`|\psi _i`$ are non-orthogonal, they cannot be cloned perfectly. What we require is that the final states should be most similar as the target states, that is, the fidelity between the final and target states should be optimal. We derive a lower bound for the optimal fidelity of the cloning machine. Applying it to states estimation, we obtain the lower bound about average maximum correct identification probability in deterministic states estimation.

A quantum state-dependent cloning device is a quantum machine which performs a prescribed unitary transformation on an extended input which contains $`M`$ original states in system $`A`$ and $`NM`$ blank states in system $`B`$ with $`N`$ output copies. The unitary evolution transfers states as follows

$$U|\psi _i^M_A|\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}_B=|\alpha _i\text{,}$$
(1)   
where $`|\psi _i^M_A=|\psi _i_1\mathrm{}|\psi _i_M`$ are the $`M`$ original states, $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}_B`$ are the blank states and $`|\alpha _i`$ are the output cloned states. The $`n\times n`$ inter-inner-products of Eq. (1) yield the matrix equation<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*We notice the preserving inner-product property of unitary transformation, that is, if two sets of states $`\{|\varphi _1,|\varphi _2,\mathrm{},|\varphi _n\}`$ and $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1,|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2,\mathrm{},|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n\}`$ satisfy the condition $`\varphi _i\varphi _j=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j`$, there exists a unitary operate $`U`$ to make $`U|\varphi _i=|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$).

$$X^{(M)}=\stackrel{~}{X}\text{,}$$
(2)   
where $`n\times n`$ matrices $`\stackrel{~}{X}=\left[\alpha _i|\alpha _j\right]`$, $`X^{(M)}=\left[\psi _i|\psi _j^M\right]`$.

We require a figure of merit to characterize how closely our copies $`|\alpha _i`$ resemble exact copies $`|\psi _i^N`$. Denoting the priori probability of the state $`|\psi _i^M`$ by $`\eta _i`$, one interesting measure of the final states is the global fidelity introduced by Bru$`\beta `$ et al. , which is defined formally as

$$F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _i\left|\alpha _i|\psi _i^N\right|^2.$$
(3)   
As a criterion for optimality of the state-dependent cloner, the unitary evolution $`U`$ should maximize the global fidelity $`F`$ of $`n`$ final states $`|\alpha _i`$ with respect to the perfect cloned states $`|\psi _i^N`$. We focus here on the global fidelity since it has an important interpretation in connection with states estimation .

Now the remained problem is to find the maximum value of the fidelity $`F`$, which means optimal clone. It is equivalent to the problem of maximizing $`F`$ under the condition of Eq. (2). This problem is a nonlinear programming and fairly difficult to solve. Nevertheless a lower bound of the optimal fidelity could still be derived by adopting an auxiliary function $`F^{^{}}`$, which is defined as

$$F^{^{}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _i\left|\psi _i^N\alpha _i\right|.$$
(4)   
Such function also describes how closely our output copies resemble exact copies. There exists a bound between $`F`$ and $`F^{^{}}`$ (see below, inequality (9)), therefore a bound for $`F`$ may be obtained by optimizing $`F^{^{}}`$.

We find that the optimal output states $`|\alpha _i`$ must lie in the subspace spanned by the exact clones $`|\psi _i^N`$. This conclusion may be easily come to with the method of Lagrange Multipliers (please refer to , where $`n=2`$) and here we omit the proof.

If a set of states $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$ fulfil Eq. (2), that is, $`X^{\left(M\right)}=\stackrel{~}{X}=\left[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j\right]`$, there must exist a unitary transformation $`V`$ satisfies $`V|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i=|\alpha _i`$, thus we can vary $`V`$ to optimize $`F^{^{}}`$ with chosen states $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$. Suppose $`\left|\psi _i^N\alpha _i\right|=\lambda _i\psi _i^N\alpha _i`$ with $`\lambda _i\left\{\pm 1\right\}`$ in the optimal situation (the determination of $`\lambda _i`$ will be shown in later part), the optimal $`F^{^{}}`$ is

$$F_{opt}^{^{}}=\underset{V}{\mathrm{max}}F^{^{}}=\underset{V}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _i\lambda _i\psi _i^N\left|V\right|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\right|.$$
(5)   
Choose $`n`$ orthogonal states $`|\chi _i`$ which span a space $``$ and the space spanned by $`|\psi _i^N`$ is a subspace of $``$We consider space $`\left\{|\psi _i^N,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$ may be a subspace of $``$ since $`|\psi _i`$ may be linear-dependent and cannot span a $`n`$-dimensional Hilbert space.. Set $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{ij}|\chi _j`$, $`|\psi _i^N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_{ij}|\chi _j`$ on the orthogonal bases $`|\chi _i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, we get

$$F_{opt}^{^{}}=\underset{V}{\mathrm{max}}\left|tr\left(\eta \lambda BVA^+\right)\right|=\underset{V}{\mathrm{max}}\left|tr(VO)\right|=tr\sqrt{O^+O},$$
(6)   
where $`A=\left[a_{ij}\right]`$, $`B=\left[b_{ij}\right]`$, $`\eta =diag(\eta _1,\eta _2,\mathrm{},\eta _n)`$, $`\lambda =diag(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$, $`O=A^+\eta \lambda B`$. We have used the freedom in $`V`$ to make the inequality as tight as possible. To do this we have recalled  that $`\underset{V}{\mathrm{max}}\left|tr(VO)\right|=tr\sqrt{O^+O}`$, where $`O`$ is any operator and the maximum is achieved only by those $`V`$ such that

$$VO=e^{i\nu }\sqrt{O^+O},$$
(7)   
where $`\nu `$ is arbitrary. Generally, we choose $`\nu =0`$.

As we require above, $`\lambda _i`$ should satisfy $`\lambda _i\psi _i^N\left|V\right|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i0`$. This condition can be represented as $`\chi _i\left|\lambda BVA^+\right|\chi _i0`$, which means the diagonal elements of matrix $`\lambda BVA^+`$ should be positive. Since $`\lambda _i\left\{\pm 1\right\}`$, a simple method to determine $`\lambda _i`$ is to enumerate the $`2^n`$ possible results of $`\lambda =diag(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ and verify which one fulfils above inequality. With a chosen basis $`|\chi _i`$, matrix $`A`$, $`B`$ can be given by equations $`A^+A=X^{\left(M\right)}`$ and $`B^+B=X^{\left(N\right)}`$ respectively, $`V`$ can be represented with parameters $`\lambda _i`$, thus above postcalculation method can determine matrix $`\lambda `$ and then give the maximum $`F_{opt}^{^{}}`$. According to Eq. (6), we obtain a tight upper bound for the function $`F^{^{}}`$,

$$F^{^{}}tr\sqrt{B^+\lambda \eta X^{\left(M\right)}\eta \lambda B}.$$
(8)   
The fidelity $`F`$ of the cloning machine is constrained by the following inequality

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\eta _i\left|\alpha _i|\psi _i^N\right|^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\eta _i\right)`$ (9)   
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\eta _i\left|\alpha _i|\psi _i^N\right|\right)^2=\left(F^{^{}}\right)^2,`$ (10)   
where the equation is met if and only if $`\left|\alpha _i|\psi _i^N\right|`$ are constant. Obviously $`F`$ is not always optimal even if $`F^{^{}}`$ is optimal. However optimal $`F`$ should be greater than or equal to $`\left(F_{opt}^{^{}}\right)^2`$. When $`n=2`$ and $`\eta _1=\eta _2`$, equation in Ineq. (9) is satisfied and gives the optimal results, which has been provided in Ref. .

State-dependent clone has a close connection with states estimation in the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Given infinite copies of $`n`$ non-orthogonal states, we can discriminate them exactly with probability 1. On the other hand, if we can discriminate $`n`$ states, we can obtain infinite copies. There are two ways in which an attempt to discriminate between non-orthogonal states; it can give either an erroneous or an inconclusive result . In the following we will consider a strategy without inconclusive results using above results in the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$. In fact, since the optimal output states $`|\alpha _i`$ lie in the subspace spanned by the exact clones $`|\psi _i^N`$, Eq. (1) may be rewritten as

$$U|\psi _i^M|\mathrm{\Sigma }^{NM}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{ij}|\psi _j^N\text{,}$$
(11)   
where $`c_{ij}=\psi _j^N\alpha _i`$. If $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\left\{|\psi _j^N,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n\right\}`$ are orthogonal. After the evolution, the cloning system is measured and if $`|\psi _j^{\mathrm{}}`$ is obtained, the original state is estimated as $`|\psi _j^M`$. The states estimation is correct with probability $`\left|c_{ii}\right|^2`$ when $`j=i`$. If $`ji`$, errors occur with probability $`\underset{ji}{}\left|c_{ij}\right|^2`$. The inter-inner products of Eq. (10) give the matrix equation in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$,

$$X^{(M)}EE^+=0,$$
(12)   
where $`E=\left[c_{ij}\right]`$. The diagonal elements is corresponding to the probabilities of correct states estimation while non-diagonal elements to those of error. This equation describes the bound between the maximum probabilities of correct discrimination and those of incorrect one. In fact, this result is a special case of that we have derived in . In Ref. , we have consider two possible ways in which an attempt to discriminate between non-orthogonal states can fail, by giving either an erroneous or an inconclusive result. Above strategy just gives an erroneous result with some probability. Our principal result in Ref.  is the matrix inequality which prescribes the bound among the probabilities of correct, error and inconclusive discrimination results. Such bound may have intriguing implications for quantum communication theory and cryptography  since it offers a potential eavesdropper increased flexibility by a compromise between inconclusive and erroneous results.

An important optimality criterion of the states estimation is the average maximum correct probability, that is, $`P=_i\eta _i\left|c_{ii}\right|^2=F`$ in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$It is the reason why we choose the definition of $`F`$ as that in Eq. (3).. In this situation $`|\psi _j^N`$ are orthogonal, thus matrix $`B=I_n`$. Applying Eq. (8) and (9), we obtain

$$P=\underset{i}{}\eta _i\left|c_{ii}\right|^2\left(tr\sqrt{\lambda \eta X^{(M)}\eta \lambda }\right)^2.$$
(13)   
Such $`F`$ is not always optimal bound of the average maximum probability of correct states estimation, however, the optimal one is always greater than $`\left(tr\sqrt{\lambda \eta X^{(M)}\eta \lambda }\right)^2`$.

We note that above bound about $`F`$ and $`P`$ have the meaning in average. They describe the optimality approach to the final states we can reach in average of the $`n`$ initial states and does not mean the best for each initial state. However, since we do not know which one the initial state is in the clone or estimation process, such average may be the most important value to describe the efficiencies of cloning (estimating) machines.

In summary, we have derived a lower bound for the optimal fidelity for the state-dependent quantum clone. In connection with states estimation, we obtained the matrix inequality which describes the bound between the maximum probabilities of correct discrimination and those of incorrect one. A lower bound about average maximum probability of correct identification has also been presented. Our results give some bounds which the optimal cloner and states estimation can be better than in average, however, we have not found a limit which optimal cloner can reach at most. It is still an open question needed to be explored.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

* Electronic address: cfli@ustc.edu.cn

Electronic address: gcguo@ustc.edu.cn