arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 30 Oct 2006

Transcription

1 Probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two auxlary systems arxv:quant-ph/061045v1 30 Oct 006 Lvjun L, Daowen Qu Department of Computer Scence, Zhongshan Unversty, Guangzhou 51075, People s Republc of Chna Abstract In probablstc clonng wth two auxlary systems, we consder and compare three dfferent protocols for the success probabltes of clonng. We show that, n certan crcumstances, t may ncrease the success probablty to add an auxlary system to the probablstc clonng machne havng one auxlary system, but we always can fnd another clonng machne wth one auxlary system havng the same success probablty as that wth two auxlary systems. PACS: a, Ud Keywords: Probablstc clonng; Quantum clonng; Quantum communcaton 1. Introducton In quantum nformaton processng, the untarty and lnearty of quantum physcs lead to some mpossbltes the no-clonng theorem [1,,3] and the no-deletng prncple [4]. The lnearty of quantum theory makes an unknown quantum state unable to be perfectly coped [1,] and deleted [4], and two nonorthogonal states are not allowed to be precsely cloned and deleted, as a result of the untarty [3,5,6], that s, for nonorthogonal pure states ψ 1 and ψ, no physcal operaton n quantum mechanc can exactly acheve the transformaton ψ ψ ψ ( = 1,). Ths has been generalzed to mxed states and entangled states [7,8]. Remarkably, these restrctons provde a valuable resource n quantum cryptography [9], because they forbd an eavesdropper to gan nformaton on the dstrbuted secret key wthout producng errors. Ths research s supported by the Natonal Natural Scence Foundaton (Nos , ), the Research Foundaton for the Doctoral Program of Hgher School of Mnstry of Educaton (No ), and the Natural Scence Foundaton of Guangdong Provnce (No ) of Chna. Correspondng author. E-mal address: ssqdw@mal.sysu.edu.cn (D. Qu) 1

2 For detaled revew of quantum clonng, we refer to [10]. We brefly recall some prelmnares regardng quantum clonng. In general, there are two knds of cloners. One s the unversal quantum copyng machne frstly ntroduced by Bu zek and Hllery [11], and ths knd of machnes s determnstc and does not need any nformaton about the states to be cloned, so t s state ndependent. The other knd of cloners s state dependent, snce t needs some nformaton from the states to be cloned. Furthermore, ths knd of clonng machnes may be dvded nto three fashons of clonng: frst s probablstc clonng proposed frstly by Duan and Guo [1,13], and then by Chefles and Barnett [14] and Pat [15], that can clone lnearly ndependent states wth nonzero probabltes; second s determnstc clone frst nvestgated by Bruß et al. [16] and then by Chefles and Barnett [17]; thrd s hybrd cloners studed by Chefles and Barnett [14], that combne determnstc cloners wth probablstc clonng. Recently Jozsa [18] and Horodeck et al. [19] further clarfed the no-clonng theorem and the no-deletng prncple from the vewpont of conservaton of quantum nformaton, and n lght of ths pont of vew two copes of any quantum state contan more nformaton than one copy; n contrast, two classcal states have only the same nformaton as any one of the two states. Specfcally, Jozsa [18] verfed that f supplementary nformaton, say a mxed state ρ s supplemented, then there s a physcal operaton f and only f there exsts physcal operaton ψ ρ ψ ψ (1) ρ ψ () where by physcal operaton we mean a completely postve trace-preservng map, and ψ s any gven fnte set of pure states contanng no orthogonal par of states. Ths result was called stronger no-clonng theorem and mples that the supplementary nformaton must be provded as the copy ψ tself, snce the second copy can always be generated from the supplementary nformaton, ndependently of the orgnal copy. Therefore, ths result may show the permanence of quantum nformaton; that s, to get a copy of quantum state, the state must already exst somewhere. It s worth stressng that, f ψ contan orthogonal pars, then the stronger no-clonng theorem verfed by Jozsa does not hold agan. Indeed, recently, Azuma et al. [0] proved that, for any par-wse nonorthogonal set of orgnal states { ψ } =1,,,n, f { ψ } =1,,,n s rreducble,.e., t can not be dvded nto two nonempty sets S 1 and S such that any state n S 1 orthogonal to any state n S, then there exsts a set of supplementary states { φ } =1,,,n such that the followng transformaton can not be acheved over local operaton and classcal communcaton (LOCC): ψ φ LOCC ψ ψ ( = 1,,,n). (3)

3 As we stated above, clonng quantum states wth a lmted degree of success has been proved always possbly. A natural ssue s that f the supplementary nformaton s added n Duan and Guo s probablstc clonng [1,13] and Pat s novel clonng machne (NCM) [15], then whether the optmal effcency of the machne may be ncreased. Ths problem was postvely addressed by Azuma et al. [1] and Qu []. Azuma et al. [1] dscussed probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of one auxlary system. It turns out that when the set of nput states contans only two states, 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. When the set of nput states contans more than two states, such a property does not hold any longer. Qu [] dealt wth the NCM wth supplementary nformaton, and presented an equvalent characterzaton of such a quantum clonng devce n terms of a two-step clonng protocol n whch the orgnal and the supplementary partes are only allowed to communcate wth classcal channel. In ths Letter, we nvestgate probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two auxlary systems (for brevty, we sometmes call t two auxlary systems) va three scenaros. Ths remander of the paper s organzed as follows. In Secton, we provde related basc results and then ntroduce three protocols used n later sectons. We descrbe the three protocols n terms of dfferent communcaton channels between the orgnal party and the two supplementary partes: frst, the orgnal party and two supplementary partes are n quantum communcaton; second, the orgnal party and the frst supplementary party are n quantum communcaton, but the frst supplementary party and the second one are n classcal communcaton; thrd, the orgnal party and the frst supplementary party are n classcal communcaton, but the two supplementary partes are n quantum communcaton. In Secton 3, we prove our man result expressed by Corollary 4, Theorem 5 and Corollary 6; n partcular, we show that, when the two states have the same a pror probablty chosen, the best effcency of producng m copes s acheved by the frst protocol and the thrd protocol. Furthermore, we also show that, n certan crcumstances, by addng an auxlary system, we may ncrease the maxmum success probablty of the probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of only one auxlary system. However, we always can fnd another probablstc clonng wth one auxlary system havng the same success probablty as that wth two auxlary systems. Fnally, n Secton 4, we summarze our results obtaned, menton some potental of applcatons, and address a number of related ssues for further consderaton.. Prelmnares In ths secton, we serve to recall Jozsa s stronger no-clonng theorem [18] and the prob- 3

4 ablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of one auxlary system dealt wth by Azuma et al. [1]. Then we present three clonng protocols of probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two auxlary systems, that wll be manly dscussed n Secton 3. Frst we recollect Duan and Guo s probablstc clonng machne. We denote by U B ( φ Σ PB 0 ) = r B ψ m χ b PB 1 + r B Ψ bp ( = 1,,...,n) (4) a machne havng the followng propertes: () t receves a quantum state from a gven set { φ } as an nput and return quantum states as an output φ m, together wth a normalzed state χ b and one bt of classcal output PB ndcatng whether the transformaton has been successful or not; () when the nput quantum state s φ, the transformaton succeeds wth probablty r B, and the successful output states are m copes of ψ. A necessary and suffcent condton for the exstence of Duan and Guo s probablstc machne s gven by the followng Theorem 1. Theorem 1 ([1]). There exsts a machne U B ( φ Σ PB 0 ) = r B ψ m χ b PB 1 + r B Ψ bp, = 1,,...,n, (5) f and only f there are normalzed states PB 0 and P B ( = 1,,,n) such that the matrx X ΓY Γ s postve semdefnte, where U B s a untary operator, Σ s a blank state, χ b s a normalzed state, Ψ bp are normalzed states of the composte system BP, and PB Ψj bp = 0 ( = 1,,,n; j = 1,,,n), X = [ φ φ j ], Y = [ ψ ψ j m PB P j B ] and Γ = dag(r1 B,rB,,rB n ) are n n matrces. If the number of the possble orgnal states s two, then the necessary and suffcent condton s as follows: Corollary ([1]). Denote η n = φ 1 φ and η out = ψ 1 ψ. There exsts a machne U B ( φ PB 0 ) = r B ψ PB 1 + r B Ψ bp, = 1,, (6) f and only f r1 B 0,rB 0, and (1 r1 B)(1 rb ) η n + η out r1 BrB 0, where U B s a untary operator, Ψ bp are normalzed states of the composte system BP, P B ( = 0,1,) are probe states and normalzed, and PB Ψj bp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,). Jozsa [18] consdered how much or what knd of supplementary nformaton φ s requred to make two copes ψ ψ from the orgnal nformaton ψ. He showed that for any mutually nonorthogonal set of orgnal states ψ, whenever two copes ψ ψ are generated wth the help of the supplementary nformaton φ, the state ψ can be generated from the supplementary nformaton φ alone, ndependently of the orgnal state. Ths s descrbed by the followng theorem: 4

5 Theorem 3 (Stronger no-clonng theorem [18]). Let ψ ( = 1,,...,n) be any fnte set of pure states contanng no orthogonal pars of states. Let φ be any other set of states ndexed by the same labels. Then there s a physcal operaton U AB ( ψ φ PAB r 0 ) = AB ψ ψ PAB + 1 r AB Ψ abp, = 1,,,n, (7) f and only f there s a physcal operaton U B ( φ P 0 B ) = r B ψ P B + 1 r B Ψ bp, = 1,,,n, (8) where U AB and U B are untary operators, PAB ( = 0,1,,n) and P B ( = 0,1,,n) are probe states and normalzed, Ψ abp are normalzed states of the composte system ABP and PAB Ψj abp = 0 ( = 1,,,n; j = 1,,,n), Ψ bp are normalzed states of the composte system BP and PB Ψj bp = 0 ( = 1,,,n; j = 1,,,n). Here, the supplementary states φ ( = 1,,...,n) are thought of as some pure states. Motvated by the stronger no-clonng theorem, Azuma et al. [1] dscussed probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of one auxlary system. They showed that when the set of nput states contans only two states, 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. When the set of nput states contans more than two states, such a property does not hold any longer. Now we consder probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two auxlary systems. We may have the followng three protocols: Scenaro I. Alce, Bob, and Vctor can use two one-way quantum channels to communcate each other. One s between Vctor and Bob, and the other s between Bob and Alce. In ths case, a sngle party havng both the orgnal and the supplementary nformaton runs a machne descrbed by U( ψ φ (1) φ () Σ P 0 ) = r I ψ m χ P + 1 r I Ψ abvp, = 1,, (9) where r I s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput states ψ φ (1) φ (), Σ s a blank state, P ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ abvp are normalzed states of the composte system ABV P, P Ψ j abvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U s a untary operator, and, here and n the follow-up, χ s a normalzed state, playng as a memory. Before presentng Scenaro II, we should understand the fact that n the same condton, the success probablty of clonng m 1 copes s not less than that of clonng m copes (m ). Accordng to Corollary, the condton requred by clonng m copes s that (1 r B1 )(1 rb ) η n + α m r1 BrB 0, = 1,, (10) 5

6 and the condton requred by clonng m 1 copes s that (1 r B1 )(1 rb ) η n + α m 1 r B 1 rb 0, = 1,. (11) It s clear that f r B satsfy Eq. (10), they also satsfy Eq. (11). That s to say, f we succeed n clonng m copes, we can clone m 1 copes n the same success probablty. So, the success probablty of clonng m 1 copes s not less than that of clonng m copes. Scenaro II. If the orgnal nformaton s held by Alce, and the supplementary nformaton by Bob and Vctor, respectvely. In ths case, Vctor and Bob can use a one-way classcal channel. Bob and Alce can use a one-way quantum channel. In ths Scenaro, there are two ways to clone m copes of nput state ψ. The frst one s that: Vctor, who possesses the supplementary state φ (), frst runs the machne U V ( φ () Σ PV 0 ) = r V ψ m 1 χ v PV + 1 r V Ψ vp, = 1,, (1) where r V s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput state φ (), Σ s a blank state, and PV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ vp are normalzed states of the composte system V P, P V Ψj vp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U V s a untary operator, χ v s a normalzed state, then Vctor tells Alce and Bob whether the tral was successful or not. In the successful case, Alce and Bob just leave ther states ψ φ (1) as they are, and hence they obtan m copes n total. If Vctor s attempt has faled, Alce and Bob run the machne U AB ( ψ φ (1) Σ PAB ) 0 = r AB ψ m χ ab PAB + 1 r AB Ψ abp, = 1,, (13) where r AB s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput states ψ φ (1), Σ s a blank state, and PAB ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ abp are normalzed states of the composte system ABP, PAB Ψj abp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U AB s a untary operator, χ ab s a normalzed state. So, the total success probablty of clonng ψ for nput states ψ φ (1) n ths protocol s gven by r II = r V + (1 r V )rab. If we change the φ () form of the equalty, we get that r II = r AB + (1 r AB )r V. The second one s as follows: Alce and Bob frst run the machne (13), then Bob tells Vctor whether the tral was successful or not. In the successful case, Vctor just leaves hs state φ () as t s, and hence they obtan m copes n total. If Alce and Bob s attempt has faled, Vctor runs the machne U V ( φ() Σ P 0 V ) = r V ψ m χ v P V + 1 r V Ψ vp, = 1,, (14) where r V s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput state φ (), Σ s a blank state, and P V ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ vp are normalzed states of the composte system V P, P j V Ψ vp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U V s a untary operator, 6

7 χ v s a normalzed state. So, the total success probablty of clonng ψ for nput states ψ φ (1) n ths protocol s gven by r II = r AB + (1 r AB )r V. φ () Accordng to the fact that the success probablty of clonng m 1 copes s not less than that of clonng m copes, we have r V r V. So, r III r III. That s to say, n Scenaro II, the optmal performance s always acheved by the frst way. Scenaro III. If the orgnal nformaton s held by Alce, and the supplementary nformaton by Bob and Vctor, respectvely. In ths case, Vctor and Bob can use a one-way quantum channel. Bob and Alce can use a one-way classcal channel. Smlar to Scenaro II, n ths case, we can prove that the optmal performance s always acheved as follows: Vctor and Bob, who possess the supplementary states φ (1) and φ (), respectvely, frst run the machne U BV ( φ (1) φ () Σ PBV 0 ) = r BV ψ m 1 χ bv PBV + 1 r BV Ψ bvp, = 1,, (15) where r BV s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput states φ (1) and φ (), Σ s a blank state and P BV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ bvp are normalzed states of the composte system BV P, P BV Ψj bvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U BV s a untary operator, χ bv s a normalzed state. Then Vctor and Bob tell 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 the attempt of Vctor and Bob has faled, Alce runs the machne U A ( ψ Σ PA 0 ) = r A ψ m χ a PA 1 + r A Ψ ap, = 1,, (16) where r A s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput state ψ, Σ s a blank state, and PA ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ ap are normalzed states of the composte system AP, P A Ψj ap = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U A s a untary operator, χ a s a normalzed state. So, the total success probablty of clonng ψ for nput states ψ φ (1) n ths protocol s gven by r III = r BV + (1 r BV )r A. φ () Now, based on the three protocols above, we are ready to calculate ther maxmum success probabltes and nvestgate ther relatonshps n next secton. 3. Probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two auxlary systems Throughout ths paper, we consder { ψ 1, ψ } as the orgnal states. { φ (1) 1, φ(1) } } are supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two and { φ () 1, φ() auxlary systems. For convenence, we denote ψ 1 ψ = α, φ (1) 1 φ(1) = β, φ() 1 φ() = γ. Let P be the pror probablty of ψ, and, let r I, r II, r III be the total success probabltes n Scenaro I, II, III, respectvely. Let r I, rii, r III 7 denote the success probabltes of

8 clonng ψ n Scenaro I, II, III, respectvely. Clearly, we have the followng relatonshps: r I = P 1 r1 I +P r I, rii = P 1 r1 II +P r II, riii = P 1 r1 III +P r III. Moreover, by rmax I, rii max, riii max we mean the maxmum values of r I, r II, r III, respectvely. Before presentng the man result, we verfy a corollary as follows, whch wll be used n the proof of Theorem 5. Corollary 4. Denote η n = φ 1 φ and η out = ψ 1 ψ. Suppose that η n > η out. If there exsts a machne U B ( φ P 0 B ) = r B ψ PB + 1 r B Ψ bp, = 1,, (17) where U B s a untary operator, Ψ bp are normalzed states of the composte system BP, P B ( = 0,1,) are probe states and normalzed, P B Ψj bp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), rb (=1,) are the success probabltes of clonng ψ, then we can conclude that r B 1 and rb satsfy r B 1 + rb 1 η n 1 η out. (18) Proof. Accordng to Corollary, f there exsts a machne U B ( φ PB ) 0 = r B ψ PB + 1 r B Ψ bp, = 1,, where U B s a untary operator, Ψ bp are normalzed states of the composte system BP, PB ( = 0,1,) are probe states and normalzed, P B Ψj bp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), then we have (1 r B1 )(1 rb ) η n + η out r B 1 rb 0. (19) And t s known that (1 r B1 )(1 rb ) η n + η out r B 1 rb (1 rb 1 ) + (1 rb ) η n + η out r B 1 + rb where the equalty holds f and only f r1 B = rb. Usng Eqs. (19) and (0), we get (0) That s to say, (1 r B 1 ) + (1 rb ) η n + η out r B 1 + rb 0. (1) Thus, we conclude that 1 rb 1 + rb η n + η out r B 1 + rb 0. () r B 1 + rb 1 η n 1 η out, (3) 8

9 where the equalty holds f and only f r B 1 = rb. Now we can present the man result. Theorem 5. The relatonshps of the three Scenaros above are as follows: 1. When β α m 1 or γ α m 1, the maxmum success probabltes of the three Scenaros are equal to 1.. When β > α m 1 and γ > α m 1, there are two cases: (1) If α m < βγ α m 1, we have r I max = riii max > rii max. () If α m 1 < βγ 1 and P 1 = P, we conclude that rmax I = rmax III rmax, II and only f γ = 1 or β = 1, we get the equalty rmax I = riii max = rii max. Proof. 1. When γ α m 1 or β α m 1, from Corollary, there exsts a machne descrbed by U V ( φ () Σ PV 0 ) = r V ψ m 1 χ v PV 1 + r V Ψ vp, = 1,, (4) satsfyng r1 V = rv = 1, where rv s the success probablty wth the nput state φ (), Σ s a blank state, and PV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ vp are normalzed states of the composte system V P, P V Ψj vp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U V s a untary operator, χ v s a normalzed state. So, we have the equalty r II Or, there exsts a machne U AB ( ψ φ (1) Σ PAB 0 ) = r AB = r V + (1 r V )rab = 1. ψ m χ ab PAB + 1 r AB Ψ abp, = 1,, (5) satsfyng r1 AB = r AB = 1, where r AB s the success probablty wth the nput states ψ φ (1), Σ s a blank state, and PAB ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, ψabp are normalzed states of the composte system ABP, P AB Ψj abp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U AB s a untary operator, χ ab s a normalzed state. We also have r II = r V + (1 r V )rab = 1. Because γ α m 1 or β α m 1, we have αβγ α m 1, and thus there exsts a machne U( ψ φ (1) φ () Σ P 0 ) = r I ψ m χ P + 1 r I Ψ abvp, = 1,, (6) satsfyng r I 1 = ri = 1, where ri s the success probablty wth the nput states ψ φ (1) φ (), Σ s a blank state, and P ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ abvp are normalzed states of the composte system ABV P, P Ψ j abvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U s a untary operator, χ s a normalzed state. 9

10 Because γ α m 1 or β α m 1, we have βγ α m, and thus there exsts a machne U BV ( φ (1) φ () Σ P 0 BV ) = r BV ψ m 1 χ bv PBV + 1 r BV Ψ bvp, = 1,, (7) satsfyng r1 BV = r BV = 1, where r BV s the success probablty wth the nput states φ (1) and φ (), Σ s a blank state and PBV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, = 0 ( = 1,; j = Ψ bvp are normalzed states of the composte system BV P, P BV Ψj bvp 1,), U BV s a untary operator, χ bv s a normalzed state. So, we have r III r BV )r A = As a result, we conclude that r III = r II = r BV + (1 = r I = 1. So, n ths case, ri max = riii max = rii max =. When β > α m 1 and γ > α m 1, we have the two cases as follows: 1) If α m < βγ α m 1, from Corollary, there exsts a machne U( ψ φ (1) φ () Σ P 0 ) = r I ψ m χ P + 1 r I Ψ abvp, = 1,, (8) wth r I 1 = ri = 1, where ri s the success probablty wth the nput states ψ φ (1) φ (), Σ s a blank state, and P ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ abvp are normalzed states of the composte system ABV P, P Ψ j abvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U s a untary operator, χ s a normalzed state. So, we conclude And there also exsts a machne U BV ( φ (1) Σ PBV 0 ) = φ () r BV r I max = 1. (9) ψ m 1 χ bv PBV + 1 r BV Ψ bvp, = 1,, (30) wth r1 BV = r BV = 1, where r BV s the success probablty wth the nput states φ (1) and φ (), Σ s a blank state and PBV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ bvp are normalzed states of the composte system BV P, PBV Ψj bvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U BV s a untary operator, χ bv s a normalzed state. So, we get r III and r III = P 1 r1 III + p r III = 1. As a consequence, we have = r BV + (1 r BV )r A = 1, r III max = 1. (31) Snce r II 1 holds n any case and the success probablty of Scenaro II can not be 1 n ths case, together wth r II = P 1 r1 II + P r II, we clearly have rii < 1. So, we conclude Usng Eqs. (9,31,3), we conclude that r I max = r III max = 1 > r II max. r II max < 1. (3) 10

11 ) If α m 1 < βγ 1 and P 1 = P = 1, we nvestgate the relatonshps between the three Scenaros as follows: In Scenaro I, there exsts a machne U( ψ φ (1) φ () Σ P 0 ) = r I ψ m χ P + where r I s the success probablty wth the nput states ψ φ (1) 1 r I Ψ abvp = 1,, (33) φ (), Σ s a blank state, and P ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ abvp are normalzed states of the composte system ABV P, P Ψ j abvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U s a untary operator, χ s a normalzed state. In ths machne, η n = αβγ and η out = α m. Accordng to Corollary 4, we conclude that r I = ri 1 + ri 1 αβγ 1 α m. (34) The equalty (34) holds f and only f r1 I = ri. Therefore, we have In Scenaro II, there also exsts a machne U V ( φ () Σ P 0 V ) = r I max = 1 αβγ 1 α m. (35) r V ψ m 1 χ v P V + 1 r V Ψ vp, = 1,, (36) where r V s the success probablty wth the nput state φ (), Σ s a blank state, and PV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ vp are normalzed states of the composte system V P, PV Ψj vp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U V s a untary operator, χ v s a normalzed state. In ths case, η n = γ and η out = α m. Accordng to Corollary 4, we conclude that And there exsts another machne U AB ( ψ φ (1) Σ P 0 AB ) = r υ 1 + rυ r AB ψ m χ ab P AB + 1 γ 1 α m. (37) 1 r AB Ψ abp, = 1,, (38) where r AB s the success probablty wth the nput states ψ φ (1), Σ s a blank state, and PAB ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, ψ abp are normalzed states of the composte system ABP, PAB Ψj abp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U AB s a untary operator, χ ab s a normalzed state. In ths machne, η n = αβ and η out = α m. Accordng to Corollary 4, we conclude that r1 AB + r AB 1 αβ 1 α m. (39) 11

12 So, we have r II = rv 1 + (1 rv 1 )rab 1 = rv 1 + rv + rv + (1 rv )rab + rab 1 + r AB rv 1 rab (40) 1 + r V rab (41) 1 γ 1 αβ + 1 α m 1 1 α m 1 γ 1 αβ 1 α m 1 1 α m (4) = (1 γ )( αβ α m ) + (1 αβ )(1 α m 1 ) (1 α m )(1 α m 1. (43) ) Also, the above equalty holds f and only f r1 AB = r AB and r1 V = rv. Consequently, we have r II max = (1 γ )( αβ α m ) + (1 αβ )(1 α m 1 ) (1 α m )(1 α m 1. (44) ) As well, we can compare the success probablty of Scenaro I wth that of Scenaro II. Because we get rmax II rmax I = (1 γ )( αβ α m ) + (1 αβ )(1 α m 1 ) (1 α m )(1 α m 1 1 αβγ ) 1 α m (45) = (1 γ ) α m ( β 1) (1 α m )(1 α m 1 ) (46) 0, (47) r II max ri max. (48) In scenaro III, there exsts a machne U BV ( φ (1) φ () Σ P 0 BV ) = r BV ψ m 1 χ bv P BV + 1 r BV Ψ bvp, = 1,, (49) where r BV s the success probablty wth the nput states φ (1) and φ (), Σ s a blank state and PBV ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ bvp are normalzed states of the composte system BV P, PBV Ψj bvp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U BV s a untary operator, χ bv s a normalzed state. In ths machne, η n = βγ and η out = α m 1. Accordng to Corollary 4, we conclude that r1 BV + r BV 1 βγ 1 α m 1. (50) And there exsts a machne U A ( ψ Σ P 0 A ) = r A ψ m χ a PA + 1 r A Ψ ap, = 1,, (51) 1

13 where r A s the success probablty wth the nput state ψ, Σ s a blank state, and PA ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ ap are normalzed states of the composte system AP, PA Ψj ap = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U A s a untary operator, χ a s a normalzed state. In ths case, η n = α and η out = α m. Accordng to Corollary 4, we conclude that So, we have r III = rbv 1 + (1 r BV 1 )r A 1 = rbv 1 + r BV r A 1 + ra + ra 1 + ra 1 α 1 α m. (5) + rbv + (1 r BV )r A rbv 1 r A 1 + rbv r A (53) (54) 1 βγ 1 α + 1 α m 1 1 α m 1 βγ 1 α 1 α m 1 1 α m (55) = (1 βγ )(1 α m ) + (1 α )(1 α m 1 ) (1 βγ )(1 α ) (1 α m )(1 α m 1 ) (56) = 1 αβγ 1 α m. (57) Also, the above equalty holds f and only f r1 AB = r AB and r1 V = rv. As a result, r III max = 1 αβγ 1 α m. (58) As well, we can compare the success probablty of Scenaro I wth that of Scenaro III. Because we get rmax III ri max = 1 αβγ 1 α m 1 αβγ = 0, (59) 1 α m r III max = r I max. (60) By usng Eqs. (45-48) and Eq. (60), we conclude that rmax I = rmax III rmax. II If γ 1 and β 1, we have rmax I > rii max, and only f γ = 1 or β = 1, we get the equalty rmax I = rmax III = rmax. II Based on the above proof, we fnd that, by addng one auxlary system, t s possble to ncrease the success probablty for probablstc clonng machne wth one auxlary system. However, gven a probablstc clonng machne wth two auxlary systems, we always can establsh an probablstc clonng machne wth one auxlary system, whose success probablty s the same as that wth two auxlary systems. We further descrbe ths by the followng corollary. 13

14 Corollary 6. When P 1 = P, β > α m 1, γ > α m 1 and β 1, γ 1, by means of addng an auxlary system descrbed by states { φ () 1, φ() }, we may ncrease the maxmum success probablty of the clonng machne wth only one auxlary system descrbed by states { φ (1) 1, φ(1) }. However, gven a probablstc clonng machne wth two auxlary systems descrbed by states { φ (1) 1, φ(1) } and { φ() 1, φ() }, respectvely, we always can fnd another probablstc clonng machne wth only one auxlary system descrbed by states, φ(3) }, satsfyng the condton: φ(3) 1 φ(3) = φ(1) 1 φ(1) φ() clonng machnes have the same maxmum success probablty. { φ (3) 1 1 φ(), such that the two Proof. Clearly, we have r AB and accordng to Scenaro II, we have + (1 r AB )r V r AB, (61) r II = r AB + (1 r AB )r V (6) where r AB are the success probabltes of clonng state ψ wth supplementary nformaton contaned n quantum states of one auxlary system descrbed by { φ (1) 1, φ(1) }. Let rab be the total success probablty wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of one auxlary system, that s to say, Because r II = P 1 r1 II + P r II, we conclude that So, we have where r AB max denotes the maxmum value of r AB. r AB = P 1 r AB 1 + P r AB. (63) r II r AB. (64) r II max rab max, (65) Accordng to Theorem 5 and Eq. (65), f P 1 = P, β > α m 1, γ > α m 1 and β 1, γ 1, we have r I max > r AB max. (66) That s to say, we may ncrease the maxmum success probablty of clonng through addng an auxlary system descrbed by states { φ () 1, φ() }. When auxlary system descrbed by states { φ (3) 1 φ (3) 1 φ(3) = φ(1) 1 φ(1) φ() 14, φ(3) } satsfes that 1 φ(), (67)

15 we can consder n Scenaro III the product state φ (1) φ () as a state φ (3) of one auxlary system. So, by changng Scenaro III, we can descrbe t as follows: If the orgnal nformaton s held by Alce, and the supplementary nformaton { φ (3) 1, φ(3) } by John. John and Alce can use a one-way classcal channel. In ths case, the optmal performance s always acheved as follows: John frst runs the machne U J ( φ (3) Σ PJ 0 ) = r J ψ m 1 χ j PJ + 1 r J Ψ jp, = 1,, (68) where r J s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput state φ (3), Σ s a blank state and PJ ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ jp are normalzed states of the composte system JP, PJ Ψj jp = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U J s a untary operator, χ j s a normalzed state, and afterwards John 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 the attempt of Vctor and Bob has faled, Alce runs the machne U A ( ψ Σ PA ) 0 = r A ψ m χ a PA + 1 r A Ψ ap, = 1,, (69) where r A s the success probablty of clonng ψ wth the nput state ψ, Σ s a blank state, and PA ( = 0,1,) are normalzed states of the probe P, Ψ ap are normalzed states of the composte system AP, PA Ψj ap = 0 ( = 1,; j = 1,), U A s a untary operator, χ a s a normalzed state. So, the total success probablty of clonng ψ for nput state ψ φ (3) n ths protocol s gven by r III = r J + (1 rj )ra. In ths case, φ (3) 1 φ(3) = φ(1) 1 φ(1) φ() 1 φ(). The process of calculatng riii max s smlar to the proof of Theorem 5. As a result, we can consder r III max as the maxmum success probablty wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of one auxlary system { φ (3) 1, φ(3) }. Furthermore, accordng to Theorem 5, when P 1 = P, the equalty r I max = r III max always holds. In other words, there always exsts a machne wth one auxlary system whose maxmum success probablty of clonng s equal to that wth two auxlary systems. It seems as f we could permanently ncrease the probablty of success. Startng from one scheme wth one auxlary system { φ (1) 1, φ(1) }, we can add second auxlary system { φ () 1, φ() } and thus ncrease the probablty of success. And we can always fnd another probablstc clonng wth one auxlary system { φ (3) 1, φ(3) } havng the same probablty of success as the prevous one wth two auxlary systems. As we have now a probablstc clonng wth one auxlary system, we can add second auxlary system ncreasng the probablty of success ones more. Contnung ths cyclc argument, we can permanently ncrease the probablty of success. Nevertheless, n fact, t s not lke ths. Accordng to Corollary 6, the probablty ncrease should saturate at 1. Frstly, startng from one scheme wth one auxlary system 15

16 { φ (1) 1, φ(1) }, we can add second auxlary system { φ() 1, φ() } satsfyng the condton β > α m 1, γ > α m 1, β 1, γ 1, and thus ncrease the probablty of success. Secondly, we can always fnd another probablstc clonng wth one auxlary system descrbed by states { φ (3) 1, φ(3) }, satsfyng the condton that φ(3) 1 φ(3) = φ(1) 1 φ(1) φ() 1 φ(), havng the same probablty of success as the prevous one wth two auxlary systems. (However, we should note that the nner product of states φ (3) 1 and φ(3) s less than β.) If we contnue ths cyclc argument, we can ncrease the probablty of success. However, notably, when the nner product of states of auxlary system s not more than α m 1, t does not satsfy the condton of Corollary 6. So, we can not permanently contnue ths cyclc argument. Accordng to Theorem 5, when the nner product of states of auxlary system s not more than α m 1, the maxmum success probablty s Concludng remarks In ths Letter, we consdered three probablstc clonng protocols n terms of dfferent communcaton channels between the orgnal party and the two supplementary partes: frst, the orgnal party and two supplementary partes are n quantum communcaton; second, the orgnal party and the frst supplementary party are n quantum communcaton, but the frst supplementary party and the second one are n classcal communcaton; thrd, the orgnal party and the frst supplementary party are n classcal communcaton, but the two supplementary partes are n quantum communcaton. In partcular, we show that, when the two states have the same a pror probablty chosen, the best effcency of producng m copes s acheved by the frst and the thrd protocols. Furthermore, we also show that, n certan crcumstances, by addng an auxlary system, we may ncrease the maxmum success probablty of the probablstc clonng wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of only one auxlary system. However, we always can fnd another probablstc clonng wth one auxlary system havng the same success probablty as that wth two auxlary systems. Probablstc clonng may get precse copes wth a certan probablty, so, mprovng the success rato s of mportance. We hope that our results would provde some useful deas n preservng mportant quantum nformaton, parallel storage of quantum nformaton n a quantum computer, and quantum cryptography. An nterestng problem s what s the case for the two states to be cloned havng dfferent pror probabltes chosen. As well, novel clonng machne by Pat [15] wth supplementary nformaton contaned n the quantum states of two auxlary systems stll merts consderaton. Moreover, f the supplementary nformaton s gven as a mxed state or we have more than two auxlary systems, then the probablstc clonng devces are stll worth consderng. We would lke to explore these questons n future. 16

17 Acknowledgement The authors would lke to thank the anonymous referee and Professor P.R. Holland, Edtor for ther nvaluable comments and suggestons that greatly help to mprove the qualty of ths paper. References [1] W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, Nature 99 (198) 80. [] D. Deks, Phys. Lett. A 9 (198) 71. [3] H.P. Yuen, Phys. letter. A 113 (1986) 405. [4] A.K. Pat and S.L. Braunsten, Nature 404 (000) 164. [5] G.M. D rano and H.P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 83. [6] D. W. Qu, Phys. Rev. A 65 (00) [7] H. Barnum, C.M. Caves, C.A. Fuchs, R. Jozsa and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 818. [8] M. Koash and N. Imoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 464. [9] N. Gsn, G. Rbordy, W. Tttel and H. Zbnden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (00) 145. [10] V. Scaran, S. Iblsdr, N. Gsn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (005) 15. [11] V. Bu zek and M. Hllery, Phys. Rev. A 54 (1996) [1] L.M. Duan and G.C. Guo, Phys. Lett. A 43 (1998) 61. [13] L.M. Duan and G.C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) [14] A. Chefles and S. M. Barnett, J. Phys. A 31 (1998) [15] A. K. Pat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 849. [16] D. Bruß, D. P. DVncenzo, A. Ekert, C. A. Fuchs, C. Macchavello and J. A. Smoln, Rhys. Rev. A 57 (1998) 368. [17] A. Chefles and S.M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999) 136. [18] R. Jozsa, IBM J. RES. DEV. 48 (004) 79. [19] M. Horodeck, R. Horodeck, A. Sen and U. Sen, quant-ph/

18 [0] K. Azuma, M. Koash, H.Katsura, and N. Imoto, quant-ph/ [1] K. Azuma, J. Shmamura, M. Koash and N. Imoto, Phys. Rev. A 7 (005) [] D.W. Qu, J. Phys. A 39 (006) Also quant-ph/