arxiv:quant-ph/ v2 5 Oct 2005

Transcription

1 Probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton arxv:quant-ph/ v2 5 Oct 2005 Koj Azuma, 1, Junch Shmamura, 1,2, 3 Masato Koash, 1,2, 3 and Nobuyuk Imoto 1,2, 3 1 Dvson of Materals Physcs, Department of Materals Engneerng Scence, Graduate School of Engneerng Scence, Osaka Unversty, Toyonaka, Osaka , Japan 2 CREST Photonc Quantum Informaton Project, Honmach, Kawaguch, Satama , Japan 3 SORST Research Team for Interactng Carrer Electroncs, Honmach, Kawaguch, Satama , Japan (Dated: October 6, 2005) We consder probablstc clonng of a state chosen from a mutually nonorthogonal set of pure states, wth the help of a party holdng supplementary nformaton n the form of pure states. When the number of states s 2, we show that the best effcency of producng m copes s always acheved by a two-step protocol n whch the helpng party frst attempts to produce m 1 copes from the supplementary state, and f t fals, then the orgnal state s used to produce m copes. On the other hand, when the number of states exceeds two, the best effcency s not always acheved by such a protocol. We gve examples n whch the best effcency s not acheved even f we allow any amount of one-way classcal communcaton from the helpng party. PACS numbers: Hk, Ud I. INTRODUCTION The mpossblty of determnstc clonng of nonorthogonal pure states s well known as the noclonng theorem [1, 2]. The best one can do s to carry out weaker tasks, such as allowng the copes to be naccurate [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], or allowng a falure to occur wth a nonzero probablty (probablstc clonng) [11]. Another way to enable the clonng s to provde some hnts n the form of a quantum state. Jozsa has consdered [12] how much or what knd of supplementary nformaton ˆρ s requred to make two copes ψ ψ from the orgnal nformaton ψ. He has shown that for any mutually nonorthogonal set of orgnal states { ψ }, whenever two copes ψ ψ are generated wth the help of the supplementary nformaton ˆρ, the state ψ can be generated from the supplementary nformaton ˆρ alone, ndependently of the orgnal state,.e., ψ ˆρ CPTP ψ ψ = ˆρ CPTP ψ, (1) where CPTP stands for a completely postve tracepreservng map, mplyng that the transformaton can be done determnstcally. Ths result, dubbed the stronger no-clonng theorem, mples that the supplementary nformaton must be provded n the form of the result ψ tself, rather than a help, thereby oblteratng the necessty of the clonng task tself. An nterestng queston occurrng here s whether we can fnd a smlar property n the case of probablstc clonng when we ask how much ncrease n the success probablty s obtaned wth the help of supplementary Electronc address: azuma@q.mp.es.osaka-u.ac.jp nformaton. Suppose that the success probablty of clonng the th state ψ wthout any help s. If we are drectly gven a rght copy of state ψ wth probablty q, the success probablty would ncrease to = q +(1 q ). Hence the counterpart of the stronger no-clonng theorem n probablstc clonng wll be the mplcaton ψ ˆρ ψ ψ q = ˆρ ψ, ψ ψ ψ (2) wth = q +(1 q ). In other words, t mples that the best usage of the supplementary nformaton s to probablstcally create a copy ψ from t, ndependently of the orgnal state. If there are cases where the above mplcaton s not true, t follows that the supplementary nformaton can help drectly the process of the clonng task n those cases. Then, the next queston wll be to ask what knd of nteracton should occur between the supplementary nformaton and the orgnal nformaton. In ths paper, we consder probablstc clonng of mutually nonorthogonal pure states when supplementary nformaton s gven as a pure state. We prove that when the number of the possble orgnal states s 2, the above mplcaton s true, namely, the supplementary nformaton only serves to provde a copy wth a nonzero probablty and t does not drectly help the process of the clonng. On the other hand, when we have more than two states to choose from, the above mplcaton s not always true. To see ths, t s convenent to assume two partes, Alce and ob, respectvely holdng the orgnal nformaton and the supplementary nformaton. We gve examples n whch there s a gap between the effcency when ob only communcates to Alce wth a one-way classcal channel and the effcency when they fully cooperate through a quantum channel.

2 2 Ths paper s organzed as follows. In Sec. II, we provde defntons and basc theorems used n later sectons. We dscuss the two-state problem n Sec. III and prove that the property smlar to the stronger no-clonng theorem holds n ths case. In Sec. IV, we gve examples wth three or more states and show that there s a gap between the success probabltes n the scenaros wth classcal communcaton and quantum communcaton. Secton V concludes the paper. II. PROAILISTIC TRANSFORMATION THEOREM Throughout ths paper, we consder a class of machnes that conducts probablstc transformaton of nput pure states nto output pure states. We denote by { Φ Ψ } =1,...,n a machne havng the followng propertes. () It receves a quantum state as an nput, and returns a quantum state as an output, together wth one bt of classcal output ndcatng whether the transformaton has been successful or not. () When the nput quantum state s Φ, the transformaton succeeds wth probablty, and the successful output state s Ψ. Note that f the output states { Ψ } form an orthonormal set, namely, (, j)( Ψ Ψ j = δ j ), the machne carres out unambguous dscrmnaton of the set { Φ } wth success probabltes { }. A necessary and suffcent condton for the exstence of a machne { Φ Ψ } =1,...,n s gven by the followng theorem. Theorem 1. There exsts a machne { Φ Ψ } =1,...,n f and only f there are normalzed states P () ( = 1,...,n) such that the matrx X ΓY Γ s postve semdefnte, where X := [ Φ Φ j ], Y := [ Ψ Ψ j P () P (j) ] and Γ := dag( 1, 2,..., n ) are n n matrces. Ths theorem can be proved by a smlar way as n the probablstc clonng theorem by Duan and Guo [11]. A general descrpton of a machne { Φ A Ψ A } =1...,n for system A s gven by a untary operaton Û actng on system A and an ancllary system E, whch s ntally prepared n a state Σ E, followed by a projecton measurement on E to determne whether the transformaton s successful or not. Hence the machne { Φ A Ψ A } =1...,n exsts ff there are a untary Û, normalzed states { P () E }, and unnormalzed states { Ω AE } such that and Û( Φ A Σ E ) = Ψ A P () E + Ω AE (3) E P (j) Ω AE = 0 (4) for all, j. Takng the nner products between the equatons (3) wth dfferent values of, we obtan X = ΓY Γ + Ω, (5) where matrx Ω := [ Ω Ω j ] s postve semdefnte [11]. Hence t s necessary that X ΓY Γ be postve semdefnte. Conversely, f X ΓY Γ s postve semdefnte for a gven set of { P () E }, there exst a untary Û and unnormalzed states { Ω AE } satsfyng Eqs. (3) and (4), as shown n Ref. [11]. Theorem 1 s thus proved. When the ntal state s chosen from the set { Φ } wth a pror probablty p, we may defne the overall success probablty tot of a machne as tot := p. (6) In ths case, we can defne the maxmum success probablty totmax as totmax := max {} p, (7) where the maxmum s taken over all combnatons { } for whch there exsts a machne { Φ Ψ } =1,...,n. When the number of possble nput states s 2, we can explctly determne the achevable regon ( 1, 2 ) from theorem 1. Corollary 1. Let η n := Φ 1 Φ 2 and η out := Ψ 1 Ψ 2. There exsts a machne { Φ Ψ } =1,2 f and only f 1 0, 2 0, and (1 1 )(1 2 ) η n + η out (8) Proof. Wthout loss of generalty, we may assume η n = Φ 1 Φ 2 and η out = Ψ 1 Ψ 2. Snce Tr[X ΓY Γ] 0, X ΓY Γ s postve semdefnte ff det[x ΓY Γ] 0, or equvalently, (1 1 )(1 2 ) η n η out P (1) P (2) (9) Snce the left-hand sde (LHS) of Eq. (9) s no larger than the LHS of Eq. (8), Eq. (8) s necessary for the exstence of a machne. Conversely, whenever Eq. (8) holds and η n η out 1 2, we can satsfy Eq. (9) by choosng P () P (j) = 1 and there exsts a machne. When η n < η out 1 2, we can satsfy Eq. (9) by choosng P (1) P (2) = η n /(η out 1 2 ), and hence there exsts a machne also n ths case, provng the corollary. When η n > η out, the regon ( 1, 2 ) determned by Eq. (8) s convex, and s bounded by the lne 1 = 0, the lne 2 = 0, and the curve specfed by the equalty n Eq. (8), whch connects the ponts ( 1, 2 ) = (0, 1 ηn 2 ) and ( 1, 2 ) = (1 ηn 2, 0) through the pont 1 = 2 = (1 η n )/(1 η out ). When η n η out, 1 = 2 = 1 satsfes Eq. (8), namely, a determnstc 1 machne { Φ Ψ } =1,2 exsts. Note that Eq. (8) stll forbds regons of ( 1, 2 ) close to (1, 0) and (0, 1), reflectng the ndstngushablty of the two nput states.

3 3 III. PROAILISTIC CLONING OF TWO STATES WITH SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION In ths secton, we consder the case where one makes m copes of states { ψ 1, ψ 2 } wth the help of supplementary nformaton n the form of pure states { φ 1, φ 2 }. We show that t s always better to try frst the producton of m 1 copes of the orgnal nformaton from the supplementary nformaton alone, ndependently of the orgnal state, whch s mpled by the followng theorem. Theorem 2. If there exsts a machne then there exst a machne and a machne wth { ψ φ ψ m } =1,2, { ψ A ψ m } =1,2 { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2 + (1 )A ( = 1, 2). (10) efore the proof of ths theorem, several remarks may be n order. If the orgnal nformaton s held by Alce, and the supplementary nformaton by ob, theorem 2 mples that the optmal performance s always acheved just by one-bt classcal communcaton from ob to Alce as follows: ob, who possesses the supplementary state φ, frst runs the machne { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2, and tells Alce whether the tral was successful or not. In the successful case, Alce just leaves her state ψ as t s, and hence they obtan m copes n total. If ob s attempt has faled, Alce runs the machne { ψ A ψ m } =1,2. The total success probablty for nput state ψ φ n ths protocol s gven by + (1 )A. Hence, by theorem 2, we see that the above protocol s as good as any other protocol n whch Alce and ob communcate through quantum channels. Note that when { ψ } ncludes no par of dentcal states, lm m ψ ψ j m = δ j holds for any j. Hence n the lmt m the machne { ψ φ ψ m } =1,...,n effectvely carres out unambguous dscrmnaton of the set { ψ φ }. Therefore, n ths lmt theorem 2 reproduces the results n Ref. [13], namely, local operatons and classcal communcaton acheves the global optmalty of unambguous dscrmnaton of any two pure product states wth arbtrary a pror probablty p. When the ntal state ψ φ s chosen wth probablty p, t follows from theorem 2 that the maxmum overall success probablty totmax s acheved by the above two-step protocol. For a specal case of p 1 = p 2 = 1/2, we can drectly confrm ths as follows. The maxmum overall success probablty totmax can easly be calculated by optmzng ( )/2 over the regon n corollary 1, and t s found to be totmax = 1 αβ 1 α m, (11) where α := ψ 1 ψ 2 and β := φ 1 φ 2. 1 also shows the exstence of a machne { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2 wth 1 = 2 = Corollary 1 β 1 α m 1 (12) and a machne { ψ A ψ m } =1,2 wth A 1 = A 2 = 1 α 1 α m. (13) Hence, usng these machnes n the two-step protocol, we obtan an overall success probablty 1 + (1 1 ) A 1 = 1 αβ 1 α m, (14) whch concdes wth totmax. For cases wth general (p 1, p 2 ), t s even dffcult to represent totmax n an explct form, but theorem 2 states that totmax s always acheved by the two-step protocol. Proof of Theorem 2. When φ 1 φ 2 ψ 1 ψ 2 m 1, from corollary 1, there exsts a machne { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2 wth 1 = 2 = 1, and theorem 2 obvously holds. We thus assume φ 1 φ 2 > ψ 1 ψ 2 m 1 n the followng. Let R be the regon of ponts ( 1, 2 ) for whch a machne { ψ φ ψ m } =1,2 exsts. We frst show that t suffces to prove theorem 2 for the cases where 1 2 and ( 1, 2 ) s on a boundary of the achevable regon R, namely (see corollary 1), (1 1 )(1 2 ) αβ + α m 1 2 = 0. (15) For any other pont ( 1, 2 ) n the regon R wth 1 2, we can fnd a pont ( 1, 2 ) on the boundary wth 1 2 satsfyng = y ( = 1, 2) wth y 1. If theorem 2 holds for ( 1, 2 ), there are machnes wth A and satsfyng + (1 )A. Ths mples that theorem 2 also holds for ( 1, 2). The cases 1 < 2 follow from the symmetry. Consder a pont ( 1, 2 ) on the boundary and satsfyng 1 2. Let x := 2 / 1. From Eq. (15) we have (1 1 )(1 x 1 ) αβ + α m x 1 = 0. (16) For the machne { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2, we choose (1, 2 ) as the pont satsfyng 2 = x 1 and beng on the boundary (for ths machne), namely, satsfyng (1 1 )(1 2 ) β + α m 1 = 1 2 (1 1 )(1 x 1 ) β + α m 1 x 1 = 0. (17)

4 4 Let us defne ( A 1, A 2 ) by 1 A 1 := A 2 := , (18) = 1 x 1 1 x 1. (19) For ths choce, + (1 )A = holds for = 1, 2. Hence we only have to show the exstence of a machne { ψ A ψ m } =1,2 wth (1 A, A 2 ) defned above. Now, consder a protocol n whch ob runs machne { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2 and Alce does nothng. Ths protocol can be vewed as a machne { ψ φ ψ m } =1,2, and hence (1, 2 ) s n the regon R. Then, the ponts (0, 0), (1, 2 ), ( 1, 2 ) should be on a straght lne n ths order, and 1 1 holds. Hence, from Eqs. (18) and (19), we have and A 1 0, A 2 0. (20) Usng Eqs. (16) (19), we obtan (1 A 1 )(1 A 2 ) = (1 1 )(1 x 1 ) (1 1 )(1 x 1 ) A 1 A 2 = = = α β α m 1 x 1 β α m 1 x 1 x(1 1 ) (1 1 )(1 x 1 ) x(1 1 ) β α m 1 x 1 Hence t s not dffcult to show that (1 A1 )(1 A2 ) α + α m A 1 A 2 (21). (22) = 0. (23) From corollary 1, there exsts a machne { ψ A ψ m } =1,2 wth (1 A, 2 A ), and theorem 2 s proved. IV. PROAILISTIC CLONING WITH SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THREE OR MORE STATES When the number of the possble states s 3 or more, Theorem 2 s not always true, and there may exst a better protocol than just runnng machnes { φ ψ m 1 } =1,2,...,n and { ψ A ψ m } =1,2,...,n. We wll gve such an example n ths secton, and also show that a somewhat stronger statement holds about how the supplementary and the orgnal nformaton should be combned to gve the optmal performance. For ths purpose, we assume that two separated partes, Alce and ob, have the orgnal nformaton ψ and the supplementary nformaton φ, respectvely. We do not care whch of the partes produces the copes, as long as they produce m copes of ψ n total, namely, the task s successful when ψ A φ ψ m k A ψ k, ( = 1, 2,..., n), (24) for any nteger k. We consder two scenaros dependng on the allowed communcaton between Alce and ob. Scenaro I. Alce and ob can use a one-way quantum channel from ob to Alce. Note that ths scenaro s equvalent to the case where a sngle party havng both the orgnal and the supplementary nformaton runs a machne { ψ φ ψ m } =1,...,n, and ts success probabltes are determned by theorem 1. Scenaro II. Alce and ob can use only a one-way classcal channel from ob to Alce. Note that the two-step protocol n the last secton s ncluded n ths scenaro. In what follows, we construct an example showng a gap between the two scenaros. Consder an n-dmensonal Hlbert space, and choose an orthonormal bass { j } j=1,...,n. Let us defne n normalzed states { µ j } j=1,...,n as follows: µ j := 1 (n 1)z 2 j z j, (25) where z 0. The nner product between any par of the states s gven by µ µ j = z [(n 2)z 2 ] 1 (n 1)z 2 (26) for j. The rght-hand sde s zero for z = 0, and s 1/(n 1) for z = 1/ n(n 1). y contnuty, we see that for any α [ 1/(n 1), 0], there exsts a set of n normalzed states { µ j } j=1,...,n satsfyng µ µ j = α for j. Now we consder a problem of producng m copes of a state chosen randomly (p j = 1/n) from the set { ψ j } j=1,...,n satsfyng ψ ψ j = α = α ( 0 < α < 1 ) n 1 (27) for any j, each accompaned by supplementary nformaton { φ j } j=1,...,n satsfyng φ φ j = β = 1 n 1 (28) for any j. oth sets of states, { ψ j } j=1,...,n and { φ j } j=1,...,n, exst because they are specal cases of the set { µ j } j=1,...,n above. Let totmax I and II totmax be the maxmum overall probabltes n scenaros I and II, respectvely. We show that for any n 3 and any m 2, there s a gap between the two scenaros (totmax I > totmax) II for suffcently small (but nonzero) α.

5 5 Frst, we derve a lower bound for totmax I, wrtten as I totmax 1 β α 1 β α m = n 1 α n 1 α m. (29) Ths relaton can be proved va theorem 1 wth Φ = ψ φ and Ψ = ψ m as follows. We separate the cases dependng on the party of m. When m s even, we take = 1 β α 1 α m ( > 1 β α 1 β α m and P P j = 1 for any, j. Then we obtan X ΓY Γ = ) (30) β α α m Z, (31) 1 α m where Z s an n n matrx defned by 1 1 Z := (32) 1 1 Snce the egenvalues of Z are only 0 (n 1 degeneracy) and n (no degeneracy), Z s postve semdefnte and so s X ΓY Γ. Hence, by theorem 1, there exsts a machne satsfyng Eq. (30), and Eq. (29) holds n ths case. When m s odd, we take = 1 β α 1 β α m (33) and P P j = β = 1/(n 1) for any j. Then we obtan X ΓY Γ = 1 α m 1 β α Z, (34) 1 β α m whch s postve semdefnte. y theorem 1, there exsts a machne satsfyng Eq. (33), and Eq. (29) holds also n ths case, namely, rrespectve of m. Next, we derve an upper bound on totmax II. We start by provng the followng lemma. Lemma 1. Consder a lnearly ndependent set of n states { Ψ 1, Ψ 2,..., Ψ n }, and another set of n states { Φ 1, Φ 2,..., Φ n } satsfyng n b Φ = 0. (35) =1 If b j 0, there s no machne { Φ Ψ } =1,...,n wth j > 0. Proof. Suppose that there exsts a machne { Φ Ψ } =1,...,n. From theorem 1, n n matrx X ΓY Γ s postve semdefnte. Then, for the vector b = (b 1, b 2,..., b n ) T satsfyng the Eq. (35), we have b (X ΓY Γ)b 0. (36) Snce b Xb = 0 from Eq. (35), we have b ( ΓY Γ)b 0. Snce the lnear ndependence of { Ψ } mples that Y s postve defnte, t follows that Γb = 0, and hence b = 0 for all. Then, b j 0 mples j = 0. In the problem at hand, the set of states { ψ k } s lnearly ndependent for any nteger k 1 snce the egenvalues of the n n matrx [ ψ ψ j k ] = (1 α k )I + α k Z are only 1 α k > 0 (n 1 degeneracy) and 1 + (n 1)α k > 0 (no degeneracy), where I s the n n dentty matrx. The set { φ } satsfes φ = 0 snce,j φ φ j = n + n(n 1)β = 0. Then, we see from lemma 1 that any machne { φ ψ k } =1,...,n has zero success probablty, 1 = 2 = = n = 0. In scenaro II, ths fact mples that all of the m copes must be produced by Alce, and ob s role s just to provde classcal nformaton to help Alce s operaton. Hence, we are allowed to lmt ob s acton to a POVM measurement { E ˆ µ } appled to hs ntal state φ, provdng outcome µ wth probablty p µ := φ E ˆ µ φ. Dependng on the outcome µ receved from ob, Alce runs a machne { ψ (µ) ψ m } =1,...,n to produce m copes of state ψ. Snce the ntal state ψ s randomly chosen (p = 1/n), the overall success probablty s ) II tot = µ p µ ( n =1 p µ (µ), (37) where p µ := p µ p and p µ := p µ p /p µ. From theorem 1, Γ (µ) := dag( (µ) 1, (µ) 2,..., n (µ) ) should satsfy ( ) b X Γ (µ) Y Γ (µ) b 0 (38) for any b. Here the elements of matrces X and Y are gven by X j = (1 α)δ,j + α and Y j = [(1 α m )δ,j + α m ] P I P (j). If we choose b = ( p 1 µ, p 2 µ,..., p n µ ), we have 0 1 α m 1 p µ (µ),j( ) α,j( ) p µ p j µ p µ p j µ (µ) (µ) j P I P (j) p µ (µ) α,j( ) p µ p j µ +(n 1) α m p µ (µ), (39) where we have used 2 p µ p j µ (µ) (µ) j p µ (µ) + p j µ (µ) j and P I P (j) 1. Usng ths relaton, we obtan totmax II 1 α,j( ) µ p µ p µ p j µ 1 (n 1) α m. (40)

6 6 We further bound the term n the numerator by usng p µ p µ = p µ p = φ E ˆ µ φ /n, the completeness relaton ˆ µ E µ = ˆ1, and the Cauchy-Schwarz nequalty p µ p µ p j µ = 1 φ E n ˆ µ φ φ j E ˆ µ φ j µ 1 n µ µ φ ˆ E µ φ j 1 n φ φ j = From Eqs. (40) and (41), we obtan II totmax 1 n(n 1). (41) 1 α 1 (n 1) α m. (42) Combnng Eqs. (29) and (42), we obtan I totmax II totmax (n 2) α (1 + α m n α m 1 ) (n 1 α m )[1 (n 1) α m ], whch shows that totmax I > II enough postve number. totmax V. SUMMARY (43) when α s a small In ths paper, we have dscussed probablstc clonng of a mutually nonorthogonal set of pure states { ψ 1,..., ψ n }, wth the help of supplementary nformaton. It has turned out that the stuaton s qute dfferent for n = 2 and for other cases. When n = 2, the role of the supplementary nformaton s lmted to just produce copes on ts own, ndependently of the orgnal state. Ths property s qute smlar to the property n determnstc clonng, stated n the stronger no-clonng theorem. For n 3, such a smple property does not hold any longer. We assumed that the orgnal and the supplementary nformaton are held by separated partes, and asked what knd of communcaton s requred to acheve the optmal performance. We have found examples n whch the optmum performance cannot be acheved even f we allow any amount of classcal communcaton from the party wth the supplementary nformaton to the other. If we lmt to the one-way communcaton scenaros, ths result means that a nonclasscal nteracton between the supplementary and the orgnal nformaton helps to mprove the performance. On the other hand, f we allow the flow of nformaton n the other drecton, we are not sure the gap stll exsts. Analyss of such two-way protocols wll be an nterestng problem. The cases where the set { ψ } ncludes a mutually orthogonal par, or the cases where supplementary nformaton s provded as a mxed state are also worth nvestgatng. Acknowledgements We thank R. Namk, S.K. Ozdemr, and T. Yamamoto for helpful dscussons. Ths work was supported by 21st Century COE Program by the Japan Socety for the Promoton of Scence and by a MEXT Grant-n-Ad for Young Scentsts () No [1] W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, Nature (London) 299, 802 (1982). [2] H.P. Yuen, Phys. Lett. 113A, 405 (1986). [3] V. uzek and M. Hllery, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1844 (1996). [4] D. Mozyrsky, V. Prvman, and M. Hllery, Phys. Lett. A 226, 253 (1997). [5] N. Gsn and. Huttner, Phys. Lett. A 228, 13 (1997). [6] V. uzek, V. Vedral, M.. Pleno, P.L. Knght, and M. Hllery, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3327 (1997). [7] M. Hllery and V. uzek, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1212 (1997). [8] D. ruß, D.P. DVncenzo, A. Ekert, C.A. Fuchs, C. Macchavello, and J.A. Smoln, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2368 (1998). [9] N. Gsn and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2153 (1997). [10] D. ruß, A. Ekert, and C. Macchavello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2598 (1998). [11] L.M. Duan and G.C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4999 (1998). [12] R. Jozsa, quant-ph/ [13] Y.X. Chen and D. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 64, (2001).