<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JQIS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Quantum Information Science</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-5751</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jqis.2014.41006</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JQIS-43826</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Approximate Quantum State Sharings via Pair of Private Quantum Channels
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ong</surname><given-names>Pyo Chi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kabgyun</surname><given-names>Jeong</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>School of Computational Sciences, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul, Korea</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Mathematical Sciences, Seoul Na-tional University, Seoul, Korea</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>kgjeong6@kias.re.kr(KJ)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>15</day><month>02</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>04</volume><issue>01</issue><fpage>64</fpage><lpage>70</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>13</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2014</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>22</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2014</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>12</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
   We investigate a quantum communication protocol, of so-called approximate quantum state sharing (AQSS), that protocol is basically based on pair of private quantum channels. In this paper, we prove that the scheme is secure against any external and internal attacks of wiretapping in principle. Although the protocol leaks small amount of information corresponding to a security parameter , the scheme still preserves its information-theoretic security.  
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Quantum State Sharing; (Approximate) Private Quantum Channel; Trace Norm</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Quantum physics promises perfect and well-defined randomness, in this way, most of all quantum information-theoretic primitives try to offer an unconditional security given by the quantum randomness. For examples, quantum key distribution protocols such as BB84 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref1">1</xref>]  and B92 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref2">2</xref>]  highly depend on prerequisite random measurements, assigning randomness, for some quantum states.</p><p>Instead of such random measurements on quantum states, we can consider a direct randomizing technique for quantum encodings through a quantum channel. (Mathematically quantum channel is a completely positive and trance-preserving map.) These randomizing procedures can be efficiently accomplished by exploiting the notion of private quantum channel (PQC) or quantum one-time pad [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref3">3</xref>] . In the paper, we are interesting to special scheme of an approximate version of encryption/decryption, although it is not perfect but we can make use of the protocol to attempt to reduce some quantum operation resources. We also call the map to randomizing quantum states as random unitary channel (RUC) in the sense of quantum channel. In the future, we will use the meaning of private quantum channel as equivalent as random unitary channel. There are several methods for approximate randomizing quantum states, for examples, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref6">6</xref>] . We here adapt the encoding/decoding logic of the work of Hayden et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>] , and use the proof of Dickinson and Nayak’s trace norm method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref6">6</xref>] . There are many applications of the private quantum channel in quantum information science [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref7">7</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref8">8</xref>]  and it is mostly originated from the approximate version of PQC.</p><p>In this paper, we propose an approximate quantum state sharing (AQSS) scheme in which participants use two parallel approximate private quantum channels (APQC). The scheme reduces a secret and random string (classical pre-shared key) of about one-half as compare to the complete PQC protocol. Actually our protocol naturally includes the famous quantum secret sharing protocols [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref9">9</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref10">10</xref>]  in broad sense. Furthermore, quantum states in itself are able to operate some quantum tasks, though those are not possible in classical regime. Assume that if there is a quantum computer only activated by a bipartite quantum state (or bipartite quantum key), then our protocol AQSS may achieve the goal efficiently, and also offers new opportunities for quantum information processing.</p><p>We briefly review the key-sharing efficiency of AQSS for using pair of random unitary channels. Assume that (a sender) Charlie prepares a pure quantum state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\86890303-73a0-4bde-bd3a-a76831272654.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (two-qudit) and transmits the state to another distant receivers Alice and Bob through two independent RUCs. The transmitted state is generally maximally-mixed state. Then, for the state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\25530b78-fd36-421f-beb0-4f9074e609d5.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, perfect randomization protocol requires exactly the amount of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\76034b70-885b-4eee-80fd-c1535bd13316.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-bits of unitary operations (<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\b85e3350-39c4-487b-8290-6f33ef7b014b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-bits for Alice and Bob, respectively), where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\bca82e40-77e7-4a65-8f74-af050f0b59b5.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is the dimension of the input quantum state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\034da7f2-0aa7-4ed1-b293-2e2b8241635c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> through each random unitary channels. On the other hand, the construction of Hayden et al.’ method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>]  for a pair of random unitary channels implies that only <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\4570d055-90a7-40fc-9249-60316c2b6a80.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-bits of unitaries are sufficient. In other words, perfect quantum state sharing (QSS) protocol by using bilateral PQCs needs to <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\77789e57-e791-4e69-9197-7fce0384df5f.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>- bits of shared secret information, while the approximate QSS protocol (by using bilateral PQCs) demands about only <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\686a562a-2460-459c-8d45-e2878c523ff0.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> bits of classical information. Note that the works in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref5">5</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref6">6</xref>]  give a similar result, but the lower bound for the key-information is little bit improved.</p><p>After an introduction to the definition of random unitary channel, we shortly mention about special properties of a destruction of quantum states in Section 2. Main part follows in Section 3. In Section 3, we present our AQSS protocol based on two approximate PQCs, and investigate the information-theoretic security of AQSS under considering two attacks such as exterior and interior strategies, respectively. We finally conclude our results in Section 4.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Random Unitary Channel and Its Properties</title><p>Now we define random unitary channel (or private quantum channel), and then explicitly construct the approximate version of private quantum channel. For any density matrices <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\ca9727a2-24a3-4cb0-9df8-3b6002bce367.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> a completely positive and trace-preserving map <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\32789754-2127-4a37-8ac6-7217ccbcee3d.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is said to be <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\0096af66-3790-4d9c-8892-4416b1537204.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-randomizing, if</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119273"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\7e28e66a-0b80-4369-b65c-3325810821f3.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where the trace norm is defined by<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\a0523faa-b785-49f2-91f5-ed599f6b77c8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\855b30d8-e147-4203-baf0-69cc1eef21ea.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> denotes the bounded linear operator on <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\77fc888e-9f9d-40b9-92d4-25803737cbbc.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>- dimensional (complex) Hilbert space <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\86477e34-fa61-4855-895e-df53691e0c3f.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> The character <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\f4e46235-e59e-4f3c-8dd5-6e9898282fa9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> represents the <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\2e6bcfcb-13e7-4eee-9a3f-7d1c5d14d718.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> identity matrix on the space. This definition directly induces the notion of the RUC or PQC. That is, for every <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\03f738cd-053f-494e-a750-c921d73a3597.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> a quantum channel <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\8ddc687c-9731-4005-af62-7f810e53d357.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is called to private quantum channel, if the following construction</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119274"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\a634d8cb-ca0c-4034-8868-54da614dd1e2.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>is <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\177666b3-9f29-4278-b9e9-4a4641c02366.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-randomizing, where the unitary operator <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\adca6c29-2174-40f4-be20-16ce4e2b9da0.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> live in a unitary group<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\ab57639d-08a7-4048-95ae-9c9906c2bd72.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, and the probability<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\73115d06-013e-49cb-b2ed-9a5cd4619d70.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>’s are all positive and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\e143e884-69de-4ff3-95a3-ab4c72b11465.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Notice that the parameter <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c7dd3ef8-3ccf-4bec-ba0c-381bf5ccb0ff.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is closely related to the number of Kraus (operation) elements for establishing the private quantum channel. The perfect PQC demands on exactly <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\151e8bb5-5761-411d-b74f-7abc47153ba7.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>and this optimality condition is proved by several groups [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref11">11</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>For the approximate constructions of PQC, it was known that for all <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\f2762b41-533a-446b-9303-8b5aaf6dbf76.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> there exist a private quantum channel, in sufficiently larger dimension <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3f450c50-3ca0-4738-a129-422fc9c10cd1.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\62e3a2ae-1426-416e-84ca-9b741743e0f0.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> can be taken to be <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\f4ae0bc4-ab5b-4c5c-9e73-d4d22847ea82.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>]  and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\9e1db213-7edb-4b8c-ab04-c13035a372ce.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref13">13</xref>]  where<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\a663f30b-c4fe-478e-a4ad-e2d55024167e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>’s are chosen randomly according to the unitarily invariant measure (or Haar measure). We here fix the number <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\2edf6916-aa68-473d-a38c-80fcb667e0b2.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> of having exactly <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\376e47b9-0694-47df-842d-2647919bde0e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> from the Theorem 1 in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref13">13</xref>] . As mentioned in Introduction, most applications of private quantum channel are closely connected to the approximate version of the private quantum channel [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>] . That is, approximate PQC is the main tool for constructing following AQSS protocol.</p><p>The security of PQC is conserved by the argument of the accessible information in which leakage information is less than sufficiently small<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\164214d4-1940-4616-b3a3-7092f63d1880.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Although small leakage-information can be attacked to an eavesdropper (Eve), the Bob’s decoding state is almost equal to the Alice’s original state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\41af7780-2e64-4bf5-8b85-1fdf09a3ddca.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> describes the total procedure of PQC. (The double line describes a classical channel for secret bits between Alice and Bob.)</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Bilateral Private Quantum Channel</title><p>In this subsection we introduce a bilateral form of private quantum channels. These channels will be used to create following (approximate) QSS scheme in Section 3. First of all, we consider that two one-way independent PQCs are constituted between a sender Charlie and a receiver Alice, and Charlie and another receiver Bob, simultaneously. Then, let us define two PQCs, following the definition of Equation (2), such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119275"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\1ae48106-74f4-41e4-b277-c7c52361b5f7.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>are <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\d51e560f-3c92-4789-875c-cf80c59bb71e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-randomizing maps, where we fix a probability as equally weighted probabilities <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\83754c97-bd34-4856-92ba-505967a0bf05.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\f977d06a-3abc-4cad-b5cc-04bb85f1b4f8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>for all<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\443f526c-5b46-453c-b7f5-9abccbcdab7a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. For convenience, the number of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\e24c60f5-0db1-472e-9fdb-1a3c97d6c0a9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is fixed exactly equal to<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\04221871-0527-45ad-a2d0-d2698ad88c5e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, i.e.,<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\63b117e7-bee8-4175-83cb-851b0daf95c1.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>As mentioned above, for an approximate, but secure, state sharing of any bipartite quantum states (either separable or entangled), those two channels play an important role to making approximate quantum state sharing scheme later.</p><p>For given <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\2cdd24c2-e57c-439a-8e0f-6d5fed2deb6c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\bc0e8ff2-74b2-4148-b713-7a78358d5e6b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, and for all input<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\7a67d029-3acc-45bb-9d8a-3a3441569261.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, we can bound the trace norm for the difference between a channel-output state of product channel <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c0cbc9db-5b32-48d6-8af3-122521122422.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and the maximally mixed state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\494c3922-21e8-4276-b039-5776d586f437.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119276"><label>(4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\381aaee9-b36c-4fd8-bb16-5dc825307e9d.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where a security parameter <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\69235ca9-bd63-4bb2-a1b4-b3a2dd6b611c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is small and positive, but less than 1. The inequality above asserts that all encoding states are information-theoretically secure. Unfortunately, for any entangled state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\57479b76-bb87-4a43-8d9a-dbb11d06402d.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, calculation of the bound is not a trivial task.</p><p>Here we notice that the efficiency argument for the randomizing procedure is intimately related to the destruction of correlations in the quantum states [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref14">14</xref>] . Another words, if we desire to completely destroy the total correlation in the channel-output states, then we are needed to unitary operations of the amount of corresponding to the quantum mutual information<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\83b85ba7-306a-48d7-8790-3df5751a59a6.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\dbd8558b-c562-4b2b-98ac-0cea092a2b4b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> the von Neumann entropy for given quantum state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\427e8319-c72a-473a-9562-f6aadd614927.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> For example, a maximally entangled state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\4120bd6f-fbff-4feb-b040-d2e3b0cec07b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> has precisely<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\59579597-35f0-4f43-adb3-23bf801c291b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, so we guess the asymptotic amount of quantum operations needed. Formally speaking, the Equation (4), can be inferred from triangle inequality with respect to the</p><p>trace norm on two PQCs, i.e., suppose that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3c739050-f33e-405d-8ca8-b27fa502bbf9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\daebb41c-0c11-4ed7-9a26-cace58013a6c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, then we have<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\50e15779-7a98-42a3-a95f-829582e22f13.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. (See the proof of the Proposition 1 in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref14">14</xref>] .) In Appendix of this paper, we examine the inequality precisely by exploiting the relation between the trace and Hilbert-Schmidt norms.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Approximate Quantum State Sharing Protocol</title><p>In this section we construct a scheme of so-called approximate quantum state sharing. Suppose that Charlie-Alice and Charlie-Bob are linked by independent two quantum communication channels of such approximate private quantum channels, which endow the outputs of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\7bacc895-0de4-4aca-a079-572a7eafb14b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-dimensional maximally mixed states, respectively. First of all, Charlie prepares (arbitrary) bipartite quantum state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\27d86ab1-cd6e-46ba-9ff3-419c4213b003.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, it does not matter the state of pure or mixed. He wants to securely transmit <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c518f2af-6a79-4014-9d76-4018bd11e989.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> to Alice and Bob together, and then to reconstruct the cleft state to original one on Alice and Bob’s site via mutual cooperation. The total procedure of transmitting-reconstructing scheme, for a bipartite quantum state sharing, is quite simple, more specifically the scheme has only three steps:</p><p>• Sender Charlie prepares two-qudit<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\7c4400fe-2f1c-429b-a565-759f76f6f7ed.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, and transmit the state through the channel <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\470f3f6f-45b8-4c1c-9101-0decd23a14fb.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> to two receivers Alice and Bob.</p><p>• Distant two parties Alice and Bob just hold the state they received, until they need the information of the quantum state.</p><p>• When Alice and Bob want to reveal the original state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\0d7ce959-d987-4bda-b8ae-e66294ccb596.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, they must clearly cooperate in a single location. They perform inverse unitary operations based on the locally shared classical secret-key information.</p><p>The security check of the AQSS protocol is divided by two cases of exterior and interior attacks. Actually the security is based on information-theoretic assumption, which means that the intercepted states by Eve have sufficiently higher von Neumann entropy. Thus any attacks on the channel are impossible to be obtained any information to revealing the original quantum information.</p><p>First, let us take account of an attack accomplished by an external Eve. Suppose that if Eve intercepts the state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3b8c25f4-a3c4-4c86-8f84-f96786fc7e71.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, we hope that the state has higher entropic condition. In this reason, we propose that the entropy of the channel-output state to be following</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119277"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\c295f7fa-7e65-423c-90cc-71e36c20938c.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\68bab7db-8ab7-45aa-9f02-675abb26c4dd.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> goes to infinity. (The notation “<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3ebc1b4d-f244-46b7-a4dd-13b0cd9617ba.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>” denotes that left side is “approximately equal to” right side.) We do not know the accurate description for the state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\01d5e4a3-7471-4e8e-855a-72937c7eb61a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> right now, so we divide the input state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\b7a6da8f-396d-47a5-90ef-51ed85e51fa8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> into cases of separable and entangled, and prove its entropic condition. If product state is given, then it is possible to prove the inequality Equation (4) easily. Since, by using the triangle inequality once again with respect to the trace norm, the following inequality <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\d2aad7e8-2baa-493d-94b8-1974323da1a2.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> holds for any<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\f9a18a2d-3cba-48a9-91b1-7eb28969e88d.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. If we generally assume that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\14c2f3a3-ebea-44b7-be78-49711a4a4251.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> a separable state, then we have</p><p><img src="htmlimages\6-1300106x\23885065-9088-46e0-856f-ffb4da561dfd.png" /></p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119278"><label>(6)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\0881b884-3966-4869-aff1-bb0496819a8f.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119279"><label>(7)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\5ee28259-87ec-41fc-8b13-ac714b831c89.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p><img src="htmlimages\6-1300106x\01bf2ba6-c1d6-4f1d-a350-699abacb3599.png" /></p><p>where the inequalities Equations (6) and (7) are derived from the norm convexity and triangle inequality, respectively. Thus any separable inputs for the product channel are very close to the maximally mixed state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\de3e903c-64a9-4ed2-9955-fcab8fb24e44.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. This implies that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\24c5d02e-4c6b-458c-9bb6-978972e58bcd.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is equal to<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\955a28ff-9419-40d1-83fb-f7fcaf8fd7e0.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>For the separable input cases, there is another proof that depends on the dimension parameter <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\a64803c7-2d67-4fc6-b781-14a86a5191da.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\5d484d8d-705a-4b59-9aa9-985e71f1d726.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>: We can prove that the expectation value for the difference between the output of the quantum channel and the maximally mixed state (with respect to the trace norm) is bounded by a small quantity (dimension related)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119280"><label>(8)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\fce91910-109b-4b98-84cd-ea0810b8b3bf.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\efc56c4c-afb8-4f04-8738-452eff5e23e8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> denotes the total expectation of <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\2674e2d6-4e27-4313-ac1c-ecf4d47b5926.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\7375ef24-fb4e-473d-a321-0d3f7c056700.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for the independent PQCs <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\dac5a9f0-8eac-4f22-a480-e796d3011816.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\ca55e728-0558-4010-87a5-e47712f1aad5.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, respectively. The Appendix in this paper shows that the inequality Equation (8) can be derived precisely by exploiting the relation between the trace norm and Hilbert-Schmidt norm. As mentioned above, when one takes <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\e6a0f296-1679-4201-89e2-93bb73aef15c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\56a8ac7f-bd21-4f5a-a2ca-8d92bbf57af9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119281"><label>(9)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\d5ddb4f6-489e-4dfc-9def-1b5ee0956214.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>This implies that Eve’s attack is impossible in principle. Then how can we treat of entangled input states? Although direct proof is impossible, there is an evidence for the statement on Equation (5). The Theorem III.3 in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>]  states that, for a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\fd6e1d0f-8f9f-4661-8a79-dac6987360f9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>which is implemented by using local operation and classical communication (LOCC),</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\54dd4b44-096f-4494-98ba-7b1e2eba62fd.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>is true, where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\d77097c9-f0bf-4fc6-8228-e9d5227b0b22.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3b5ab0cc-e666-476e-9102-8e9585af5f86.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with a maximally entangled state such that <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\437bb1a7-ad60-40bb-a902-c93ca04963c8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\34113e83-5fc3-40c3-969c-bab895596c22.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Natural extension to channel <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\b4f26908-aa9a-4ee9-a88c-14278ed706ae.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is possible via adding the channel<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\e827e3d8-fcfa-4fcb-8160-759102dfc33c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>: Define <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3feb6c4a-89f5-4b24-b95c-c7f52699305a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\4e4b8ac9-1b0e-4776-9a39-7415a21c7a4e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> then also we have <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3048405c-ad1e-46c8-b1aa-ee3d0093249e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> Therefore, we can conclude that an output state of the product channel, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\a4228e42-d9bb-4da6-840c-1f528d29301b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, is close to <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\450e1a76-3bb7-4756-ab14-53038e267aaa.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> under the LOCC-implemented POVM. In this reason, any input entangled states <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\8493d05d-b4a1-4aaf-8091-a68ea12b9a00.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> through the product channel <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\969c545d-5b30-450b-9f65-50528d5a0f0e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> has always high entropy condition for<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\bbf55381-8e9f-49cc-9a8a-a14b1d6c2474.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>Second, we take care of a situation when Alice or Bob is malicious. Assume that Bob intercepts the Alice’s state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\89865518-143a-4e81-99a7-768da2586bb9.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, but Bob’s state decoded will be</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119282"><label>(10)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\d152b115-eb3a-420d-a028-487500d417ca.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <sup>*</sup> denotes the inverse (unitary) operation for Bob’s PQC<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\efbe243e-78bd-4d0d-8d07-2cfd70915843.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, so <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\7d8689bc-162e-4bdb-9f74-c9b1a043b2e8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for the resulting state has still higher entropy such as<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\ce5cb086-eb1c-4130-8058-c106b59ce6e4.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Because the intercepted state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c9c30f3d-0eff-4495-a9fb-3b404c7c685a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is almost maximally mixed state by the definition of PQC<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\336f86df-4f3f-479e-a3da-53690f8b71e3.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Thus, Bob cannot obtain any information for <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\6a739fc4-a072-4111-9915-93d28ec53b9c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> without Alice's secret key information. Symmetrically, Alice’s attack is also useless. In other words, Charlie’s aim of sharing a quantum state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\164d449b-9252-45ca-bb21-9f4975cd246b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> between Alice and Bob can be securely accomplished. At least two attacks of external and internal eavesdroppings cannot break the security condition of our AQSS protocol. Furthermore, only cooperation between Alice and Bob always gives birth to the original state.</p><p>We notice that perfect protocol for QSS requires exactly <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\8d1161e5-8047-4513-ae91-eb3bc65edc84.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> unitary operators as mentioned above, while our protocol is only needed to total <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\9dfcc8b9-70da-4b83-ae3c-e2ff88ef21d6.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> unitaries. This fact directly implies that some shared key bits can be reduced about<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\fbbb393c-ba63-4547-ae86-e9d30afae8ce.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Because our AQSS is just needed <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\0f9bb4bc-4b92-4561-a96e-666d6234ee8b.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> secret bits, but perfect QSS is required <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\783ed2ba-52e0-4a6d-b874-ab991750a8ff.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> bits. In summary of this section, for any state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\57f0972b-0b52-4a36-b03b-f1100fc7aec1.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and a quantum channel <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\3cb2c2eb-35a7-45d5-8dfc-93d61bfc829a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (for an <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\03ae5e75-6a2c-4989-832e-dcf71a0a2fca.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> is arbitrary), assume that following inequality</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119283"><label>(11)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\54cb0838-4816-4bf7-a280-db4769dbf649.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Then, it is sufficient to create a perfect QSS <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\b94fe892-e5da-414c-9036-4a919c66f2dc.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\2cb36e13-eb0d-46a3-879a-3f0b8492f3e4.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> unitary operations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref4">4</xref>]  [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref6">6</xref>] . In the case, our approximate QSS via pair of two PQCs, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\6b9697b9-9a5e-42a8-bd3a-3fb6f0083c6c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, just consume of one-half secret classical bits. Thus we can say that it is efficient.</p><p>Finally we remark that a direct generalization is possible for the bipartite quantum state sharing (Equation (8)) scheme to a multiparty approximate quantum state sharing (MAQSS), and the secrecy is also preserved. Suppose that a situation of Charlie <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\7753af7a-ea63-4dc5-a926-ead738383ad1.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> prepares an <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\b91fcd15-6c13-45c6-b637-fd8e17b4156a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-qudit quantum state <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c157c8be-1083-49d5-bd72-e1b3b050d69a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> If they had secret bitstrings for PQCs between <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\d30fb8ef-4486-4c23-a660-114af72c824a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\99fb33f4-008c-4170-9aa9-9c64072f3483.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\d703e73c-0867-4869-9f4d-7738fde6c956.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\13fe551b-6f42-4c12-aa39-47b1ff2a8666.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and so on, then we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119284"><label>(12)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\fef75e71-675f-4541-9e1c-b4e7232332b8.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equation (12) implies that any exterior attacks are failed, as well as all interior attacks (including group conspiracy) are also to be frustrated, since, without secret-bits of another participants, it is similar to the two receiver cases. We briefly mention about the cost of secret classical information on MAQSS scheme. Roughly speaking, the perfect scheme requires <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\2d91253b-041e-41fd-8b76-7a3a8ae323c1.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> classical bits, but the MAQSS only <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\db467053-a632-4695-9175-7eb5d075aed0.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-bits are sufficient. As an alternative of the study on multiparty AQSS protocol, in the near future we will analyze that a generalized security proof of AQSS with respect to the Shatten <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\62635e3d-7728-4f09-a823-ef12d3410334.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>-norms beyond the trace case.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>We studied that an approximate quantum state sharing scheme is efficient from the classical information cost of view and the protocol is robust to the two kinds (internal and external) of wiretappings from the construction via bilateral private quantum channel. Especially, we analyzed that given protocol is strong under the channel-inputs of all separable and entangled quantum states. The proposed AQSS protocol basically depends on approximate private quantum channels, which are essentially equivalent to pair of independent random unitary channels. Although the protocol leaks small information corresponding to a security parameter<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\0a0643d2-fcab-4f0e-b93f-dece899e9551.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, we can conclude that the scheme preserves its information-theoretic security for any bipartite quantum states.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was partly supported by the IT R\&amp;D program of MOTIE/KEIT [10043464 (2013)].</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Appendix</title><p>For given two random unitary channels <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\260cda5f-b8a9-4534-be35-1a1ffa52004d.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\dc394675-0f18-4649-9e64-4a95e6915352.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> in Equation (3), and for all pure separable states<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\83beff57-7703-41cd-8d53-f376e28e43af.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119285"><label>(13)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\399d3bc6-9491-40f9-a6b5-ada72f25f445.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\672df906-46aa-4386-8fd1-c3e995f515e7.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> for any pure state<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\0f981e4f-8137-46f5-be67-fb6925e1fa5a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. (Note that this method is just an expansion of the statement, the chapter 3, in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref8">8</xref>] .)</p><p>Recall that the unitary operators are chosen randomly according to the unitarily invariant (Haar) measure, and if we take the expectation over all random selection of unitaries, then</p><p><img src="htmlimages\6-1300106x\4f39b077-eb36-4543-9d70-c1802be9432a.png" /></p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119286"><label>(14)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\e04d5b93-f88b-44e7-bd03-89081384e870.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119287"><label>(15)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\64508e40-dbb5-4da7-8022-6dcfa48fe3d3.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119288"><label>(16)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\f78f6ab1-8a66-4465-b02c-22832b44b33c.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>In Equation (14), we make use of the fact that the sets of unitary operators <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\eeaf411a-c6ab-496d-aad9-76b40af9d3ef.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\4e4c203a-b14f-4898-b31d-b1081340b08c.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> are chosen independently at random, and the Equation (15) is inherited from the definition of the Haar measure on the unitary group. (Notice that for any <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\67b0de73-ec28-44ab-b561-4000b8b94765.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> a Haar-distributed unitary set <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\5108210c-99c8-48b5-a3a4-b49968afe3ec.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> satisfies that</p><p><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\a683f3bf-ba21-4427-9ae9-3d3e9c2f2039.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>) The Equation (15) exploits the separable condition for<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\a8f19303-f11d-4704-820c-488b6c400b78.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>. Note that, for any rank <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\216b3206-b8e9-4ba5-9352-86eae3e20d19.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> matrix<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c5ec461f-3438-430c-a117-88a8f5f8348a.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\ce4954f2-f558-4e50-a878-6ef8eb8f003e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, actually it is the very Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. For any rank <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\73c57ff7-e135-461c-a26a-f625d3899f8f.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> matrix<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\d2b7e3bc-37a6-48b8-94fc-c638c7eef317.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, a generalization of the Corollary A.2 in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.43826-ref8">8</xref>]  directly shows that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119289"><label>(17)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\46452c95-2f28-498b-a76d-2e30be4b8e81.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Then, from considering the random variable <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\cd1c5b43-06b9-4ae1-b46f-8d2524534254.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> defined by <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="tmlimages\6-1300106x\c3cb8551-f626-4f03-99de-36eb63d2a01e.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and by using Equation (16), we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.43826-formula119290"><label>(18)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\6-1300106x\6d64619f-3a5f-409f-9207-3d5012a0e8b7.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.43826-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bennett, C.H. and Brassard, G. (1984) Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, 175-179.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bennett, C.H. (1992) Quantum Cryptography Using Any Two Nonorthogonal States. Physical Review Letters, 68, 3121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3121</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ambainis, A., Mosca, M., Tapp, A. and de Wolf, R. (2000) Private Quantum Channels. IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Sciences (FOCS), 547-553.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hayden, P., Leung, D., Shor, P.W. and Winter, A. (2004) Randomizing Quantum States: Constructions and Applications. Communication in Mathematical Physics, 250, 371-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00220-004-1087-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ambainis, A. and Smith, A. (2004) Small Pseudo-Random Families of Matrices: Derandomizing Approximate Quantum Encryption. Proceedings of RANDOM, LNCS 3122, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dickinson, P.A. and Nayak, A. (2006) Approximate Randomization of Quantum States With Fewer Bits of Key. AIP Conference Proceedings, 864, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2400876</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Harrow, A., Hayden, P. and Leung, D. (2004) Superdense Coding of Quantum States. Physical Review Letters, 92, Article ID: 187901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.187901</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bennett, C.H., Hayden, P., Leung, D., Shor, P.W. and Winter, A. (2006) Remote Preparation of Quantum States. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51, 56-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2004.839476</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hillery, M., Buzek, V. and Berthiaume, A. (1999) Quantum Secret Sharing. Physical Review A, 59, 1829.http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1829</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karlsson, A., Koashi, M. and Imoto, N. (1999) Quantum Entanglement for Secret Sharing and Secret Splitting. Physical Review A, 59, 162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.162</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nagaj, D. and Kerenidis, I. (2006) On the Optimality of Quantum Encryption Schemes. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 47, Article ID: 092102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2339014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouda, J. and Ziman, M. (2007) Optimality of Private Quantum Channels. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40, 5415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/40/20/011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aubrun, G. (2009) On Almost Randomizing Channels with a Short Kraus Decomposition. Communication in Mathematical Physics, 288, 1103-1116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-008-0695-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.43826-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Groisman, B., Popescu, S. and Winter, A. (2005) Quantum, Classical, and Total Amount of Correlations in a Quantum state. Physical Review A, 72, Article ID: 032317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.032317</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>