quantum information processing seeks to perform tasks which are impossible or not efficient with the use of conventional classical information processing , by using systems described by quantum mechanics .
we can consider two kinds of quantum information tasks based on the types input states : the classical input tasks and the quantum input tasks . whereas input states of the classical input tasks are quantum states but encode just classical information , input states of the quantum input tasks encodes quantum information , of which unit is described by a qubit @xmath0 where @xmath1 and @xmath2 are unknown complex parameters satisfying @xmath3 and @xmath4 and @xmath5 are a fixed basis of a qubit .
for example , quantum algorithms @xcite are classical input tasks and quantum error correcting codes @xcite and quantum universal optimal cloning @xcite are quantum input tasks .
to investigate yet unveiled full quantum potential of quantum information processing , it is necessary to understand properties of quantum input tasks .    in many quantum input tasks , how quantum information is encoded in the larger hilbert space of composite systems determines the main functionality of the tasks .
for example , in quantum error correcting codes , qubit information is encoded in a subspace of a larger hilbert space such that it can be still recovered after being influenced by certain errors ( or noises ) which map input qubit information into the whole hilbert space .
the encoding process can be described by a transformation of a computational basis @xmath6 where the original quantum information is given into a set of orthogonal states in the larger hilbert space @xmath7 . in this picture , the properties of encoding for a task are captured by the choice of a set of states @xmath7 , which represents _ how _ original quantum information is spread across the hilbert spaces of subsystems .    entanglement , or a non - local quantum correlation , of an _ individual _ state is an essential resource for performing quantum input tasks such as quantum teleportation @xcite , namely , the existence of entanglement is necessary for performing teleportation beyond the classical limit . to analyze _ non - local _ properties of spread quantum information described by the set of states
is a way to characterize how quantum information is spread by encoding . here , we use the word non - local to represent properties which are not fully accessible by just using local operations on the subspaces and classical communications ( locc ) but global operations on the whole systems . for individual states , the existence of this kind of non - locality is accompanied by the existence of entanglement .
however , it is also known that such non - local properties of a set of states can be essentially different from non - locality of individual states .
an important example is a set of nine product states which can not be locally discriminated by using locc presented in @xcite ( the `` non - locality without entanglement '' paper by bennet et al . ) . in this example
, there is no entanglement in the quantum states where classical information is encoded , therefore , no entanglement resource required for encoding classical information , but it is not possible to decode ( i.e. , identify encoded classical information ) deterministically locc , without using entanglement resources .
entanglement properties of each encoded state does not fully capture the non - local property appearing in the decoding process . as it had been also pointed out in the context of local copy and local state discrimination in @xcite , impossibility of tasks involving locc transformation of a set of states
implies _ non - locality beyond individual entanglement_.    for characterizing non - locality of the spread of quantum information , non - local resources required for decoding quantum information should be considered as well as for encoding quantum information , since required minimum resources for encoding process and decoding process are not necessary the same in locc transformations . in this paper , we focus on non - local resources required for decoding processes and investigate properties of an extreme case of spreading quantum information that does not consume non - local resources for decoding .
we study a simple but fundamental case of spreading qubit information into two - party states .
we present necessary and sufficient conditions for spreading qubit information into bipartite states such that qubit information can be extracted by only using locc between the two parties .
we call this task _ remote extraction_. in this task , since we have to investigate simultaneous transformations of _ two _ states @xmath8 under all possible locc , unlike the case of a single known pure bipartite state where lo - popescu theorem @xcite is applicable , the proof of necessity is involved and it consists of seven steps
. we also present the explicit form of the locc for achieving the perfect remote extraction .
interestingly , the obtained conditions indicate that qubit information can be asymmetrically spread into a bipartite state .
[ fig : asymmetricloccextraction ] ) .
there is a way of encoding to spread qubit information where it can be remotely extracted with unit probability at one of the parties but not at the other as long as they are using locc .
thus , we can introduce a non - local property of a set of states in an asymmetric manner for two parties , whereas entanglement properties of an _ individual _ bipartite pure state are always symmetric between the two parties due to schmidt decomposition .
this fact is another indication of the difference of non - locality of a set of states and an individual state .
, width=283 ]    the asymmetric property of spreading quantum information can be used for controlling the transmission of quantum information .
namely , we can distribute quantum information such that one of the party , say alice , can act as a controller of quantum information to support other party to extract full quantum information , but she can not obtain full quantum information for herself , as long as they are acting by locc .
therefore we can consider a simple two qubit device which globally encodes qubit information and also acts as a local `` switch '' for transmission of qubit information to one of the qubits .
from the viewpoint of controlling transmission of quantum information , it is also useful to spread quantum information into two parties such that alice s local operation can _ irreversibly destroy _ quantum information such that the state of bob s qubit after alice s operation is set to a _
pure _ state which does not contain quantum information , i.e. the parameters @xmath1 and @xmath2 . note that this process is not a randomizing process to transform bob s qubit to be in a completely mixed state . in this task
, a part of classical information of the parameter @xmath1 and @xmath2 can be retrieved .
we call this task _ remote destruction_. ( fig .
[ fig : loccdestruction ] ) such a way for spreading quantum information can be used another kind of `` switch '' for controlling quantum information transmission . using a similar technique for proving conditions of remote extraction
, we also present necessary and sufficient conditions for this task . spreading quantum information for remote destruction
can also be asymmetric between two parties , but we show that the conditions for remote destruction are incompatible for those of remote extraction .     and
@xmath2 ) .
note that some classical information represented by @xmath9 can be retrieved from the outcome of alice s measurement @xmath10 .
[ fig : loccdestruction],width=283 ]    this paper is organized as the following : in section [ statements ] , the definitions and precise statements of remote extraction and destruction are given . in section [ ext - sufficiency ] , we show the proof of sufficiency for remote extraction .
the preparations and outline of the proof of necessity are given in section [ ext - outline ] .
the proof of necessity consists of seven steps and they are presented in section [ ext - necessity ] .
the proof of conditions for remote destruction is presented in section [ des ] , and the summary and discussions are given in section [ summary ] .
we take two orthonormal vectors @xmath11 in two qubit hilbert space @xmath12 , which we will call _ basis states _ , and encode qubit information into a two - qubit state represented by @xmath13 .
we consider two qubits are spatially separated and one of the qubit is at alice s side and the other qubit is at bob s side .
the task of remote extraction is to extract qubit information at bob s side from the two - qubit state @xmath14 by using finite rounds of locc .
that is , we look for a finite round locc procedure @xmath15 such that    @xmath16    for arbitrary @xmath17 satisfying @xmath18 is a fixed orthonormal basis in @xmath19 and @xmath20 is an arbitrary vector in @xmath21 . throughout this paper
, we use a notation @xmath22 , and @xmath23 where @xmath24 and @xmath25 are complex conjugates of @xmath1 and @xmath2 , respectively .
we also denote the conjugation of a single qubit state @xmath26 with respect to an orthonormal basis @xmath27 of the qubit by @xmath28 .    the finite round locc procedure @xmath15 is given by a sequence of alice s measurements @xmath29 and bob s @xmath30 , where @xmath31 is an index for alice s @xmath32-th round measurement and @xmath33 is an index for bob s @xmath32the round measurement ( @xmath34 ) , satisfying the normalization conditions @xmath35 for each @xmath32 .
we use the notation @xmath36 .
it is easy to see that ( [ task ] ) is equivalent to @xmath37 for @xmath38 and all @xmath39 .
when there exists a locc procedure satisfying the condition of eq.([eq ] ) , we say that qubit information on the basis states @xmath11 can be _ deterministically extracted _ by locc at bob s side .
we call the pair of the state given by the right hand side of eq.([eq ] ) @xmath40 as the _ extracted form _ and @xmath41 with some unitary operator @xmath42 is said to be _ locally equivalent to the extracted form to bob_. we use these notations in our proof of remote extraction .
now our problem is to find the condition of the basis states @xmath43 satisfying eq.([eq ] ) . in this paper
, we prove the following theorem :    [ one ] qubit information spread between alice and bob @xmath44 can be deterministically extracted using only locc at bob s side @xmath45 if and only if the schmidt decompositions of the basis states @xmath46 are given by @xmath47 where @xmath48 are the schmidt coefficients satisfying @xmath49 and @xmath50 , and @xmath51 and @xmath52 are the schmidt basis of alice s qubit and @xmath53 is the schmidt basis of bob s qubit . if the conditions of eq.([cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) are satisfied , then @xmath54 are of the form @xmath55 using three real parameters @xmath56 , @xmath57 and @xmath58 .
we define a family of orthonormal basis @xmath59 labeled by positive real number @xmath60 , by @xmath61 where @xmath62 and @xmath63
. then if the pair of vectors @xmath64 is not locally unitary equivalent to the extracted form , all the measurements by alice on it are of the form    @xmath65    where @xmath66 is an unitary operator , @xmath67 and @xmath68 . on the other hand ,
all the measurements that bob carries out @xmath69 are scalar multiplications of unitary operators .    from the theorem
, we see that the schmidt coefficients of the basis states have to be identical for remote extraction , therefore the basis states should have , at least , same entanglement for remote extraction . on the other hand ,
the schmidt base of alice s qubit of the basis states are not necessary to be same . although the orthogonality condition of the basis states @xmath70 fixes one of the parameters to be @xmath71 , @xmath72 or @xmath73 for @xmath74 , we can choose @xmath57 and one of @xmath56 and @xmath58 in eq .
( [ ov ] ) arbitrary .
this property allows asymmetry of remote extraction ; we can encode qubit information such that the conditions for remote extraction at bob are satisfied but the conditions for remote extraction at alice are not satisfied .
we can also obtain necessary and sufficient conditions of the basis states for symmetric remote extraction , where the deterministic remote extraction at either alice or bob is possible depending on the choice of locc procedures from the theorem 1 .    [ both ]
extraction to either alice or bob is possible if and only if the schmidt decompositions of the basis states are given by @xmath75    thus , if a set of the basis states @xmath43 satisfies the conditions of remote extraction eqs .
( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) , but does not satisfy the conditions for the symmetric ones eqs .
( [ sym1 ] ) and ( [ sym2 ] ) , it gives an asymmetric way of spreading qubit information , where deterministic remote extraction is only possible at bob , not at alice .
for @xmath76 , any choice of two orthogonal ( maximally entangled ) states can be transformed into the forms of eqs .
( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) , therefore there is no asymmetric remote extraction .
however , for @xmath77 where the schmidt base are determined uniquely , asymmetry of ( perfect ) remote extraction is guaranteed as long as @xmath78 in eq .
( [ ov ] ) .
the case of @xmath79 presents an interesting picture how qubit information is spread between two parties in terms of symmetry and asymmetry ; for @xmath72 , qubit information is already extracted at bob from the beginning , and no qubit information can be extracted at alice by locc , for @xmath80 , qubit information is symmetrically shared between alice and bob , and for @xmath81 , qubit information is shared but asymmetrically .
we note that bob s operation is restricted to scalar multiplication of unitary operators for extracting qubit information at bob .
therefore , once one of the party performs an extraction measurement of the form of eq .
( [ measurement ] ) , qubit information can be only extracted to the party who has not performed the extraction measurement , even with the basis states allowing symmetric remote extraction .
the measurement condition also implies that one - way locc , where alice performs a projective measurement on her qubit in the @xmath82 basis and bob performs a conditional unitary operation depending on alice s measurement outcome is sufficient for remote extraction of qubit information .
the task of remote destruction is to _ irreversibly _ destroy spread qubit information by acting one of the party ( alice ) and to prevent extracting quantum information at the other party ( bob ) .
we assume that bob would not cooperate to destroy information , and also we would like to prevent recovery of quantum information even if classical information about alice measurement is known . we look for alice s measurement @xmath83 such that for arbitrary @xmath17 satisfying @xmath84 , @xmath85 for each @xmath10 . here , @xmath86 is some scalar which depends on @xmath87 , and @xmath88 are vectors that do not depend on @xmath87 .    in this paper
, we show the following :    [ distract ] deterministic remote destruction by alice is possible if and only if and only if the schmidt decompositions of the basis states are given by @xmath89 where @xmath90 , @xmath91 and @xmath51 is the schmidt base of alice s qubit and @xmath53 and @xmath92 are the schmidt basis of bob s qubit . if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 ( resp .
@xmath94 ) is @xmath95 , then the measurement operators for deterministic remote destruction @xmath83 are of the form @xmath96 where @xmath97 is an arbitrary vector , @xmath98 , and @xmath99 is an orthonormal basis diagonalizing a matrix    @xmath100    if the schmidt rank of both of @xmath93 and @xmath94 are @xmath101 , then the measurement operators @xmath83 are of the form @xmath102 here , the vector @xmath103 have to be @xmath104 or @xmath105 if @xmath106 and @xmath107 are not parallel to each other , while it can be an arbitrary vector if @xmath106 and @xmath107 are parallel to each other .
we see that the conditions given by eq .
( [ apple ] ) is identical for the conditions for deterministic remote extraction at _ alice _ , instead of bob
. therefore , the conditions for remote destruction by alice s measurement are incompatible for those of remote extraction by alice s measurement .
the conditions for symmetric remote destruction are also given by eqs .
( [ sym1 ] ) and ( [ sym2 ] ) , therefore , in the symmetric case , alice can determine whether destructing qubit information or letting bob to extract full qubit information by the choice of her measurement , but bob is also in the same position .
we first observe that if the conditions given by eqs .
( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) are satisfied , then the representation of the base of alice s qubit ( eq .  ( [ ov ] ) ) is obtained .
the case of @xmath108 or @xmath109 is trivial .
let us assume @xmath110 .
since @xmath93 and @xmath94 are orthogonal , the two base of alice s qubit appearing in eqs . ( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) have to satisfy @xmath111 if we represent the basis state @xmath112 by @xmath113 and another basis state @xmath114 by @xmath115 with complex parameters @xmath116 and @xmath117 satisfying @xmath118 , and a real parameter @xmath56 , the condition of eq.([iti ] ) implies @xmath119 . by introducing two real parameters @xmath58 and @xmath57 , @xmath116 and @xmath117
are represented by @xmath120 and @xmath121 , respectively .
thus , we obtain the representation of the basis of alice s qubit in eq .
( [ ov ] ) .
now we choose another basis of alice s qubit @xmath122 given by @xmath123 we will check that qubit information can be extracted to bob s qubit by alice s projective measurement described by @xmath124 followed by an appropriate unitary operation performed by bob depending on the measurement outcome of alice . if alice obtains the measurement result corresponding to @xmath125 , the basis states are transformed to @xmath126 @xmath127 if alice obtains the measurement result @xmath128 , the basis states are transformed to @xmath129 @xmath130 note that the resulting pairs are locally equivalent to the extracted form to bob .
hence , by choosing a suitable unitary operation transforming the basis of bob s qubit back to @xmath131 , spread qubit information can be faithfully extracted to bob s side by only using locc .
in our proof , we employ matrix representations of states . in this section ,
we first describe the matrix representation , and then introduce the key notion in our proof : _ extraction measurements ( e - measurements)_. we also present the outline of our proof of necessity for remote extraction consisting of seven steps .
let @xmath132 be a @xmath133-dimensional hilbert space , and let @xmath134 be an orthonormal basis of @xmath132 .
we consider a bi - partite system @xmath135 .
let @xmath136 be a maximal entangled state in @xmath135 .
the conjugation of a state @xmath137 with respect to @xmath138 is represented by @xmath139 .
the conjugation of an operator @xmath140 with respect to a basis @xmath141 is denoted by @xmath142 , i.e. , @xmath143 one can easily check that the useful relations @xmath144 , @xmath145 and @xmath146 .
these relations are extensively used in our proof .    by straight forward calculation
, we can check the following properties :    [ form ] +    1 .   for all @xmath147 ,
there exists unique @xmath140 such that @xmath148 .
2 .   @xmath149 3 .
@xmath150      an e - measurement performed by alice on a pair of orthonormal states @xmath43 is a measurement described by a set of measurement operators @xmath151 satisfying @xmath152 , which preserve orthogonality of the states @xmath153 for all @xmath10 and also equi - probability , namely , equal probability for measuring each basis state @xmath154 , while there exists @xmath10 such that @xmath155 . an e - measurement performed by bob is defined in the same manner .
an e - measurement is not always possible and the existence of the e - measurement restricts the form of @xmath43 . note that the final pair of extraction @xmath40 is measurable by e - measurement ( e - measurable ) of alice given by @xmath156 . on the other hand , we call another type of measurement such that @xmath157 for all @xmath10 , a _ c - measurement_. note that if extraction to bob is possible , alice should be able to perform the e - measurement on the last pair , otherwise extraction to bob at the next round is not possible .
now , we introduce a set of orthonormal base of alice s qubit , @xmath158 .
we define @xmath158 by a set of all orthogonal basis @xmath159 such that the decompositions @xmath160 satisfy @xmath161 of course , @xmath158 can be an empty set , depending on @xmath162 .
we call an element in @xmath158 , an orthonormal basis on which alice can perform an e - measurement .
in fact , we will see that if alice can operate an e - measurement @xmath83 on @xmath43 , then each @xmath163 have to be of the form @xmath164 where @xmath165 is a single qubit unitary , @xmath166 , and @xmath167 .
we also define @xmath168 in the same manner .
then it is obvious that for arbitrary single qubit unitary operators @xmath169 and a complex number @xmath170 , we have @xmath171      we prove the necessary conditions for remote extraction in the following seven steps :    _ step 1 : _ we prove that the orthogonality and equi - probability conditions should be satisfied for all rounds of locc . from this , we show that the local operations in the locc procedure have to be e - measurements or c - measurements .
_ step 2 : _ we show that if alice can perform an e - measurement @xmath83 on a pair @xmath43 , then @xmath158 is non - empty . furthermore , we see that each @xmath163 has to be of the form given by eq .
( [ mform ] ) .    _ step 3 : _ we derive the explicit form of the set @xmath158 when it is not empty .
we see that it is parameterized by a positive scalar @xmath172 .
_ step 4 : _ we derive the necessity conditions for both of alice and bob to be able to perform an e - measurement on a pair of states @xmath43 .
_ step 5 : _ using the result of _ step 4 _ , we prove that the following situation is impossible : alice performs some e - measurement @xmath83 on @xmath43 , and for all the results of her measurement @xmath173 , bob can sequently perform an e - measurement .
_ step 6 : _ we show that if deterministic remote extraction is possible , @xmath158 is not empty .    _ step 7 : _ we show that eqs .
( [ bunk ] ) and ( [ deco ] ) imply that the schmidt forms of @xmath11 to be given by eqs .
( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) .
we show that deterministic remote extraction requires that the two vectors ( unnormalized basis states ) have to be orthogonal to each other and have the same norm at every step in locc .
let us consider a locc described by a sequence of conditional local measurements of alice @xmath174 and bob @xmath30 , for @xmath34 .
each set of measurement operators @xmath175 , @xmath176 satisfies @xmath177 we use a notation @xmath178 , as introduced in section  [ statements ] , and denote the vectors at each step by @xmath179 where @xmath180 or @xmath181 .
as seen in section  [ statements ] , at the last turn ( @xmath182 ) , the two vectors are orthogonal @xmath183 and they have the same length @xmath184 .    by summing up with respect to @xmath185 , using the relation ( [ sum ] ) , we have @xmath186 and @xmath187 . repeating this summation procedure , we obtain @xmath188 and @xmath189 for all @xmath190 and @xmath191 ,
i.e. , the orthogonality and equi - probability conditions should be satisfied for all rounds in locc .
therefore , the local operations in the locc procedure have to be e - measurements or c - measurements .
as the c - measurements can not extract information on its own , we need the e - measurements .
we derive the necessity and sufficient conditions for alice to be able to carry out the e - measurement .
[ on ] if alice can carry out an e - measurement on a pair of orthonormal states @xmath43 in @xmath192 , then , @xmath158 is not empty .
furthermore , the e - measurement have to be of the form ( [ mform ] ) .    _
proof : _ let @xmath193 be an e - measurement by alice on @xmath43 . as it is the e - measurement , there exists @xmath10 such that @xmath194 .
as @xmath195 is positive , it can be diagonalized in a suitable basis @xmath159 .
we will show that @xmath166 . in the basis @xmath159 , we have @xmath196 where @xmath197 .
we define two matrices @xmath198 and @xmath199 for the matrix representation of the basis states @xmath200 and @xmath201 .
let us represent @xmath202 in this basis @xmath203 as @xmath204 as @xmath11 are orthogonal unit vectors satisfying @xmath205 and @xmath206 , we have @xmath207 the condition of the proposition is represented in this basis as @xmath208 and @xmath209 .
hence we have @xmath210 these conditions are rewritten in term of @xmath159 as follows : we have @xmath211 where @xmath212 it is easy to check that eq .
( [ alph ] ) is equivalent to @xmath213 and we conclude the basis @xmath159 is in @xmath158 . as @xmath159 was defined as a basis that diagonalizes @xmath195 , @xmath163 has to be of the form given by eq .
( [ mform ] ) , i.e. , the e - measurement have to be of the form of eq .
( [ mform ] ) .
@xmath214      we derive the explicit form of vectors in the set @xmath158 .
suppose that @xmath215 is not local unitary equivalent to the extracted form , and @xmath158 is not empty .
let us fix one element @xmath159 in @xmath158 .
then @xmath216 where @xmath217 is an orthonormal basis of @xmath218 , labeled by a positive real number @xmath60 : @xmath219 here , the phase factor @xmath220 is determined as follows : if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 is @xmath95 , then we have @xmath221 , @xmath222 , and we define a phase factor @xmath223 by @xmath224 . if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 is @xmath101 and @xmath43 is not local unitary equivalent to the extracted form , then we have @xmath225 , and we define the phase @xmath226 .    _
proof _ + from the equivalence of eqs .
( [ alph ] ) and ( [ vr ] ) , the matrix forms of the basis states , @xmath198 and @xmath199 , are represented by @xmath227 in the @xmath159 basis .
a general orthonormal basis can be written as @xmath228 and @xmath229 in terms of @xmath230 using a parameter @xmath231 . if @xmath232 , then the two basis states have to satisfy the condition @xmath233 and @xmath234 , for @xmath38 . by eq .
( [ mr ] ) , this condition is equivalent to @xmath235 these conditions are also equivalent to the following conditions @xmath236 if @xmath237 or @xmath238 we have @xmath239 , hence we obtain @xmath240 where @xmath241 .
however , it is easy to see @xmath242 for @xmath243
. therefore , if ( [ net1 ] ) or ( [ net2 ] ) holds , we can parameterize @xmath158 with a positive scalar @xmath244 .
it is also easy to see that if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 is @xmath95 , ( [ net1 ] ) holds .
furthermore , in this case , @xmath223 is given by @xmath224 .
on the other hand , if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 is @xmath101 and it is not local unitary equivalent to the extracted form , then eq .
( [ net2 ] ) holds . in this case , the phase is given by @xmath245 .
hence , in both cases , @xmath158 is @xmath60-parameterized .
@xmath214    by a direct calculation , complex conjugation of the vectors @xmath246 in @xmath247 are given by @xmath248 in the @xmath249 basis .
suppose that both of alice and bob can perform an e - measurement on a pair of basis states @xmath43 .
this assumption excludes the possibility that @xmath43 is local unitary equivalent to the extracted form at alice or bob from the beginning . since alice can perform an e - measurement
, @xmath158 is non - empty and its elements are @xmath60-parameterized @xmath250 as we have shown in _
step 3_. the vectors @xmath43 can be decomposed with respect to the elements of @xmath158 @xmath251 so that @xmath252 and @xmath253
. furthermore , every e - measurement by alice on @xmath43 is of the form @xmath254 where @xmath165 is a unitary operator , @xmath255 and @xmath256 . in _
step 4 _ , we show that under the assumption that both alice and bob can perform an e - measurement on @xmath43 , the vectors @xmath257 and @xmath258 satisfy @xmath259 and @xmath260 for all @xmath172 .    to prove this , note that if bob can perform an e - measurement , there exists a basis set @xmath261 satisfying @xmath262 for @xmath38 , from _ step 2_. note that @xmath202 can be represented as @xmath263 because of eq .
( [ tb ] ) .
let us represent the @xmath60-parameterized vectors in the @xmath264 basis : @xmath265 then @xmath266 are represented in the @xmath267 basis as @xmath268 where @xmath269 represents irrelevant elements for our evaluation .
hence eq .  ( [ ao ] ) implies @xmath270 it is easy to derive the relations @xmath271 and @xmath272 which imply @xmath273 for all @xmath274 .
representing @xmath202 in the @xmath159 basis , from the representation in eq .
( [ xi ] ) , we see    @xmath275    for all @xmath60 .
this implies @xmath276 .
but as we have a freedom about the choice of the fixed basis @xmath159 ( we could take @xmath277 ) , we obtain @xmath278 for all @xmath274 . in the matrix representation in eq .
( [ xi ] ) , we have @xmath279      let us consider the following situation : alice performs some e - measurement @xmath83 on @xmath43 , and for all the results of the measurements @xmath280 , bob can sequently perform another e - measurement .
can this situation occur ?
in this _ step 5 _ , we show this is not possible . by symmetry ,
the situation that interchanging alice s and bob s roles is also impossible .
if this situation occurs , the pair @xmath43 is not local unitary equivalent to the extracted form at bob .
therefore , @xmath158 should be @xmath60-parameterized and @xmath43 is decomposed as in eq .
( [ tb ] ) .
each @xmath163 is of the form of eq .
( [ mf ] ) .
as it is an e - measurement , there exists @xmath10 such that @xmath281 . after alice s e - measurement ,
the two basis states are transformed as @xmath282 and @xmath283 .
note that alice still can perform an e - measurement on this pair , ( with @xmath284 , @xmath285 , for example . ) now assume that bob can perform an e - measurement on @xmath286 , for all @xmath10 .
then , we have @xmath287 , and the pair of basis states @xmath286 have to satisfy @xmath288 by _ step 4_. as @xmath83 is an e - measurement , there exists @xmath10 such that @xmath289 . in the following ,
we see that if there exists @xmath10 such that @xmath281 , eqs .
( [ af ] ) and ( [ ef ] ) have at most one solution @xmath290 in @xmath291 .
note that eq .
( [ ef ] ) is equivalent to eq .
( [ to ] ) .
if @xmath292 , and @xmath293 are satisfied , we have @xmath294 for all @xmath60 from eq .
( [ te ] ) . from eq .
( [ af ] ) , this implies @xmath295 for all @xmath10 , which contradicts our assumption .
therefore , we have @xmath296 or @xmath297 . if @xmath298 and @xmath299 are satisfied , then eq .
( [ ef ] ) has the only solution @xmath300 .
if @xmath301 , we have @xmath302 .
this equation has one negative solution and one positive solution .
hence in any case , eqs .
( [ af ] ) and ( [ ef ] ) have at most one solution in@xmath303 .    if eqs .
( [ af ] ) and ( [ ef ] ) have no solution , we can conclude that the situation is impossible .
let us consider the case that there exists a unique solution @xmath304 . as each @xmath10 has to satisfy eqs .
( [ af ] ) and ( [ ef ] ) , we have @xmath305 for all @xmath10 . then by eq .
( [ af ] ) , we obtain @xmath306 for all @xmath10 , i.e. , the ratio of @xmath307 and @xmath308 is independent of @xmath10 .
furthermore , as there exists @xmath10 such that @xmath281 , the ratio @xmath309 is not @xmath101 .
therefore , we have @xmath310 as for @xmath311 , this is not equal to @xmath312 .
this contradicts the normalization condition of the measurement operator @xmath313 therefore , the situation we have considered can not occur .
suppose that remote extraction to bob s qubit is possible somehow . if @xmath43 is not local unitary equivalent to the extracted form , it should be possible to carry out the first e - measurement , for either alice or bob . if alice can carry it out
, @xmath158 is not empty . on the other hand ,
if alice can not perform the first e - measurement , bob have to be able to do it .
however , it is impossible from the following reason : recall that the final pair eq .
( [ eq ] ) is a pair of the basis states that alice can carry out an e - measurement .
as we consider only finite rounds of locc , this means at some point of locc , bob performs an e - measurement and after any result of bob s e - measurement , alice should be able to perform an e - measurement i.e. , the situation considered in _ step 5 _ should occur .
however , we have shown that it is impossible in _
step 5_. therefore , the extraction to bob s qubit is only available for the case that alice can perform the first e - measurement , i.e. , the case that @xmath158 is not empty .
furthermore , as we have seen above , bob can carry out only c - measurements in the extraction procedure .      in this _
step 7 _ , we represent the conditions of eq .
( [ bunk ] ) for @xmath158 in the schmidt form given by eqs .
( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) .
suppose that eq .
( [ bunk ] ) is satisfied and let @xmath314 be the schmidt decompositions of @xmath11 , respectively .
then we have @xmath315 by the relations @xmath316 and @xmath317 , @xmath318 , the vectors @xmath319 are represented in the basis parallel to @xmath320 as @xmath321 for @xmath322 and @xmath323 .
therefore , we have @xmath324 from these relations , we derive that @xmath325 , @xmath326 is parallel to @xmath327 , and @xmath328 is parallel to @xmath329 . by modifying the phase of @xmath330 and @xmath331 appropriately , we can take @xmath332 and @xmath333 .
finally , we present the explicit form of locc . by section [ ext - sufficiency ] , the basis @xmath159 represented by @xmath334 and @xmath335 is an element of @xmath158 .
therefore , if @xmath43 is not local unitary equivalent to the extracted form , all the elements in @xmath158 are @xmath60-parameterized by _ step 3 _ , with respect to @xmath336 , which is equal to the form of eq .
( [ labelt ] ) in the theorem .    by _ step 5 _
, bob can carry out only a c - measurement for remote extraction at bob , therefore , all @xmath337 are scalar multiplications of unitary operators . on the other hand , the form of alice s measurement on the pair of the states @xmath43 have to be @xmath338 , with a unitary operation @xmath165 , @xmath339 and @xmath340 .
for this @xmath163 and a nonzero scalar multiplication of a unitary operator @xmath341 , we can see @xmath342 if @xmath287 , from the argument in _ step 2_. note that if @xmath343 , the pair @xmath344 is locally unitary equivalent to the extracted form at bob .
thus , we obtain the form of alice s measurement given in the theorem [ one ] , inductively .
let @xmath345 , @xmath346 .
we consider the basis states in the matrix representation : @xmath347 .
first we show the following lemma .
[ odis ] suppose that there exists a matrix @xmath348 and vectors @xmath349 , @xmath350 satisfying the following property : for all @xmath351 , there exists @xmath352 such that @xmath353 then if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 ( resp .
@xmath94 ) is @xmath95 , @xmath354 where @xmath355 is an eigenvector of a matrix @xmath356 ( resp .
@xmath357 ) .
if the schmidt rank of both of @xmath93 and @xmath94 are @xmath101 and the basis states are represented by @xmath358 then one of the followings occurs :    1 .
@xmath359 2 .
@xmath360 3 .
@xmath320 and @xmath361 are parallel to each other and @xmath362 for an arbitrary vector @xmath355 .
_ proof _ + if the schmidt rank of @xmath363 is @xmath95 , and @xmath364 , @xmath365 has to be of rank @xmath101 .
we represent it as @xmath362 by introducing a vector @xmath355 .
then we have @xmath366 hence we obtain @xmath367 as the schmidt rank of @xmath93 is @xmath95 , the rank of @xmath368 is @xmath95 , i.e. , @xmath368 is invertible
. therefore , @xmath369 , and @xmath370 then we obtain @xmath371 as @xmath368 is invertible , we have @xmath372 hence @xmath355 is an eigenvector of @xmath356 .
the result is also unchanged for the case that schmidt rank of @xmath373 is @xmath101 .    on the other hand ,
suppose that the schmidt rank of both basis states @xmath93 and @xmath94 are @xmath101 .
we write @xmath374 . by the assumption , @xmath375 and @xmath376
have to be parallel .
from this fact , the statement holds .
@xmath214 +   + next we present the following lemma for the cases where the schmidt the schmidt rank of @xmath93 ( resp.@xmath94 ) is @xmath95 .
[ matrixform1 ] if the schmidt rank of @xmath93 ( resp.@xmath94 ) is @xmath95 , deterministic remote destruction is possible if and only if the matrix @xmath377 ( resp.@xmath378 ) is diagonalized by some orthonormal basis @xmath99 with eigenvalues @xmath379 .
furthermore , the measurement operators for deterministic remote destruction @xmath83 are of the form @xmath380 where @xmath97 is an arbitrary vector and @xmath98 .    _
proof : _ note that    @xmath381    if @xmath356 is diagonalized by an orthonormal basis @xmath382 with corresponding eigenvalues @xmath383 , then we have @xmath384 for @xmath385 .
we set @xmath386 . by defining @xmath387
, we obtain    @xmath388    hence we have @xmath389 and remote destruction is possible .
conversely , suppose that a measurement represented by @xmath390 of deterministic remote destruction is possible .
then , from lemma [ odis ] , we have @xmath391 , where @xmath103 is an eigenvector of @xmath356 .
if @xmath356 has only one eigenvector , then it is impossible to obtain @xmath392 .
therefore , @xmath356 has two eigenvectors .
however , if we can not take them orthogonal to each other , it is again impossible to have @xmath392 . therefore , @xmath356 has two orthogonal eigenvectors , which means that it is diagonalized by the orthonormal basis , and @xmath163 has to be given as in eq.([m2 ] ) .
the proof for the case that the schmidt rank of @xmath94 is @xmath95 is identical .
@xmath214    now we present a lemma for the cases where both of the basis states @xmath162 have the schmidt rank @xmath101 .    if the schmidt rank of both of @xmath93 and @xmath94 are @xmath101 , then deterministic remote destruction is possible if and only if @xmath393 are of the form @xmath394 where @xmath395 are orthogonal .
the measurement operators @xmath390 are of the form @xmath102 here , the vector @xmath103 have to be @xmath104 or @xmath105 if @xmath396 are not parallel to each other , while it can be an arbitrary vector if @xmath396 are parallel to each other .
_ proof : _ if @xmath162 are of the forms given by eq .
( [ s11 ] ) , then we can take @xmath397 for destruction .
conversely , suppose that by performing a measurement represented by @xmath390 , deterministic remote destruction is possible .
we represent the basis states as @xmath398 note that either @xmath399 or @xmath400 should hold . by lemma [ odis ]
, @xmath163 has to be either of the form _ 1 - 3 _ in the lemma .
if @xmath401 , we have @xmath400 and the situation _ 3 _ can not occur .
therefore , @xmath365 has to of the form @xmath402 or @xmath403 .
however , as we have @xmath401 , we also have @xmath404 and @xmath163s can not satisfy @xmath405 .
hence we obtain @xmath399 .
again by lemma [ odis ] , if @xmath320 and @xmath361 are not parallel , each @xmath163 has to be of the form @xmath406 , @xmath407 while if they are parallel , then @xmath391 for an arbitrary @xmath103 .
@xmath214    now , let us prove theorem  [ distract ] for remote destruction . from lemma [ matrixform1 ] ,
if @xmath408 has schmidt rank @xmath95 , destruction is possible if and only if @xmath409 for some orthogonal basis @xmath410 .
this is equivalent to @xmath411 using orthogonality condition @xmath412 , one can easily check that eq .
( [ apple ] ) implies eq .
( [ xzx ] ) .
below , we show that eq .
( [ xzx ] ) implies eq .
( [ apple ] ) .
+ now , using schmidt decomposition , we have @xmath413 representing @xmath414 in this basis as @xmath415 eq .
( [ xzx ] ) can be written as @xmath416 using the conditions @xmath417 we obtain @xmath418 and @xmath419 on the other hand , eq .
( [ xzx ] ) requires @xmath420 combining these relations , we see that @xmath421 have to be of the form @xmath422 substituting these , @xmath199 is given by @xmath423 note that @xmath424 and @xmath425 are orthogonal .
hence this decomposition in the matrix form gives the schmidt decomposition of the vector @xmath426 , and we obtain eq .
( [ apple ] ) .
in this paper , we present necessary and sufficient conditions for remote extraction and destruction of single - qubit information encoded and spread in two - qubit states .
the conditions show that there are ways to spread qubit information into a two - qubit hilbert space in a less `` non - local '' manner , namely , the recovery ( extraction ) of qubit information at one of the qubits and irreversible erasure ( destruction ) of qubit information can be achieved by measurements on only one of the qubits and classical communications , even though the encoded two qubit states are entangled in general .    the main part of the paper is devoted to the proof of necessity for remote extraction shown in seven steps . by introducing the notation of extraction measurements ( e - measurements ) , which are local measurements preserving orthogonality of the basis states for encoding and equal probability for measuring each basis state
, we evaluate the conditions of the basis states for the existence of e - measurements .
we have derived necessary and sufficient conditions for basis states for encoding and the explicit form of measurements .
necessary and sufficient conditions for remote extraction indicate the possibility of sharing qubit information between two parties in an asymmetric manner , namely , we can spread qubit information such that it can be remotely extracted to only one of the parties by using locc but not to the other party .
since impossibility of locc tasks implies the existence of a kind of non - locality , the possibility of asymmetric qubit information sharing indicates that such non - locality can be asymmetric between two parties .
the obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for remote destruction indicate that such asymmetric non - locality for irreversibly destroying qubit information can also be introduced , but the conditions for asymmetric cases are not compatible with those for remote extraction .
remote destruction by one of the parties is possible if and only if remote extraction at that party is possible .
if we consider alice s system in our model as an environment , it is a similar situation to _ quantum lost and found _ considered by gregoretti and werner in @xcite . in their paper , they have obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for extracting quantum information spread over the system and environment due to the system - environment coupling , by measuring the environment and performing conditional operations on the system . by using quantum information theoretical analysis , they have proven that extraction is possible if and only if when a map @xmath15 for the system state @xmath427 can be represented by the random unitary channel @xmath428 , where @xmath429 is a set of random unitary operators acting on the system qubit , and @xmath430 is probability satisfying @xmath431 .
we note that our remote extraction can be regarded as a special case where both the system and environment consist of a single qubit , however we consider the conditions for general locc whereas they consider only one - way ( from the environment to the system ) locc for quantum information extraction . in the case of the single qubit system - environment ,
a purification of the map @xmath15 gives a corresponding transformation describing the spread of qubit information to the two parties , the system and environment ; @xmath432 for arbitrary @xmath1 and @xmath2 , where @xmath433 is an orthonormal basis of the environment .
they are equivalent to our locc extraction conditions for basis states given by eqs .
( [ cond1 ] ) and ( [ cond2 ] ) .
therefore , the encoding conditions for remote extraction of qubit information spread into two - qubit states are same for both one - way locc and general locc , in spite of the inapplicability of the lo - popescu theorem to this task .
the authors are grateful to d. markham for discussions .
this work was supported by the sumitomo foundation , the asahi glass foundation , and the japan society of the promotion of science .
y. o. was supported by the coe21 program at graduate school of mathematical sciences , the university of tokyo .
m. m. was partially supported by the special coordination funds for promoting science and technology .
shor , in _ proc . ,
35th annnual symposium of foundation of computer science _ , ieee press ( 1994 ) ; l. grover , in _ proc .
28th anual acm symposium on the theory of compuation _
, 212 , acm press ( 1996 ) .
shor , phys .
a * 52 * , r2493 ( 1995 ) ; a.r .
calderbank and p.w .
shor , phys .
a * 54 * , 1098 ( 1996 ) ; a.m. steane , phys .
77 * , 793 ( 1996 ) .
v. buek and m. hillery , phys .
a * 54 * , 1844 ( 1996 ) .
bennett et.al .
lett . * 70 * , 1895 ( 1993 ) . c. h. bennett , d. p. divincenzo , c. a. fuchs , t. mor , e. rains , p. w. shor , j. a. smolin , and w. k. wootters , phys .
a * 59 * , 1070 ( 1999 ) .
m. owari and m. hayashi , phys . rev .
a * 74 * , 032108 ( 2006 ) h .- k . lo and s. popescu ,
a * 63 * , 022301 ( 2001 ) .
m. gregoretti and r. f. werner , j. mod . opt . * 50 * , 915 ( 2003 ) .