Transfer of scaled MQ-coherence matrices

G.Bochkin and A.I.Zenchuk

2
Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics, RAS, Chernogolovka, Moscow reg., 142432,
Russia
arXiv:1801.00292v2 [quant-ph] 10 Jan 2018

Abstract
We show that the mixed states of a certain structure can be transferred from the sender to the
receiver without twisting the matrix elements. The only effect of such state transfer is scaling of
some blocks of the transferred matrix, therewith equal scaling of certain blocks is possible. Such
block-scaled states can be transferred along homogeneous spin-1/2 chains. We consider the transfer
of two-qubit states and find out states admitting the perfect transfer of their zero-order coherence
matrices.

PACS numbers:

1
I. INTRODUCTION

The problem of remote state creation is an intensively developing direction in quantum

information processing. Having been formulated by Bose in [1] as a problem of a pure
state transfer, it has undergone many modifications since that time. First of all, we should
mention the papers regarding perfect state transfer based on the fully engineered spin chain
[2–4] and high-probability state transfer based on chains with remote [5, 6] and optimized
[7–11] end-bonds.
The next series of papers is referred to manipulating the parameters of the remotely
created states. Here, first of all, we shall quote the experiments with photons [12–14], where
photon polarizations appear as creatable parameters. The interest in other two-level systems
as material suitable for the remote state creation appears later in Refs.[15]. Recently, the
different aspects of state creation in spin-1/2 chains have been considered: optimization of
creatable region via the local unitary transformations of sender and extended receiver [16–
18], the remote manipulations of multi-quantum coherences [19], the creation of particular
two-qubit states [20].
The goal of this paper can be stated as follows. Coming from the results of intensive re-
search is a conclusion that the perfect state transfer is realizable only in very specific systems,
like fully engineered spin-1/2 chains, and therefore is quite hard to realize. This prompts
us to look for such states that can be transferred along a chain (presumably homogeneous)
with minimal, easily characterizable deformation.
In this regard we refer to Ref.[21], where the multiple quantum (MQ) coherence matrices
were shown to evolve independently. The interest in these matrices comes from the MQ
NMR dynamics where each of them contributes to the proper observable quantity (coherence
intensity) which can be detected in MQ NMR experiments. In turn, MQ NMR dynamics is a
powerful tool for studying the nuclear spin distributions in various systems [22, 23] including
a nanopore [24]. Therefore, there are numerous papers studying the coherence matrices as
a whole object (for instance, in terms of coherence intensities). In particular, the dynamics
and relaxation of MQ coherences in solids was considered in Ref.[25–29]. It was shown
in Ref.[21] that the MQ-coherence matrices do not twist during the evolution under the
Hamiltonian conserving the number of excited spins. However the matrix elements inside
of each such matrices do twist during the evolution. To partially overcome this twisting a

2
unitary transformation at the receiver side was used in [21] for a specific state-structure.
The mentioned untwisting tool of unitary transformation requires additional study. In-
stead, we show in this paper that each MQ-coherence matrix can evolve without twisting
its elements in the case of proper initial state. Moreover, in certain cases the evolution of
these matrices can be reduced to just multiplication by a constant parameter thus scaling
them. We also show that the sender’s zero-order coherence matrix of a special structure
can be perfectly transferred to the receiver’s zero-order coherence matrix. Furthermore we
show that the scaling coefficient can be the same for the higher order coherence matrices.
All these arguments are justified using an example of a two-qubit state transfer.
The paper has the following structure. General discussion of block-scaled states is given in
Sec.II. Transfer of one-qubit block-scaled states is considered in Sec.III. The detailed study
of two-qubit block-scaled state transfer is represented in Sec.IV. Basic results are discussed
in Sec.V. Analytical derivation of the two-qubit state evolution and explicit formulas for the
elements of the receiver’s density matrix is given in the Appendix, Sec.VI.

II. BLOCK-SCALED STATES

The purpose of the initial-state transfer from the sender to the receiver is obtaining
the sender’s initial-state at the receiver side at some time instant. However, generally, the
receiver’s state differs from the desired one. Usually the evolution mixes all the elements of
the initial state so that the elements of the receiver’s density matrix are linear combinations
of all the elements of the sender’s initial density matrix. However, there might be special
initial states and a special evolution Hamiltonian such that the elements of the receiver’s
density matrix are proportional to the appropriate elements of the sender’s density matrix
up to the normalization condition, i.e., for the M-qubit receiver,

ρ(R) (S) M M
nm = λnm ρnm , (n, m) 6= (2 , 2 ), (1)
M −1
2X
(R) (R)
ρ2M 2M = 1 − ρii , (2)
i=1

where λij do not depend on the initial state and the 2M × 2M density matrix ρ(R) is defined
as

ρR = T r/R ρ(t). (3)

3
 (R)
We select the diagonal element ρ2M 2M to satisfy the normalization condition, see Eq.(2),
although any diagonal element can be chosen for this purpose. The obtained results depend
on this choice, see Sec.III.
Relations (1,2) can be considered as a map of the elements of sender’s initial state density
matrix to the elements of the receiver’s density matrix. In particular, if the evolution
is governed by the Hamiltonian conserving the number of excitations in the system, for
instance, by the nearest neighbor XX-Hamiltonian
N
X
H= D(Iix I(i+1)x + Iiy I(i+1)y ), (4)
i=1

where D is a coupling constant, MQ-coherence matrices evolve independently. We recall

that the element of a density matrix ρ(R) contributes to the ±nth coherence matrix ρ(R;±n)
if it corresponds to the transition changing the excitation number by ±n. Such evolution
prompts us to represent the density matrix ρ(R) as the sum
M
X
(R)
ρ = ρ(R;i) , ρ(R;−i) = (ρ(R;i) )+ . (5)
i=1

Representing the sender’s and receiver’s zero-order coherence matrices as the sums

ρ(S;0) = e(4) + ρ̃(S;0) , ρ(R;0) = e(4) + ρ̃(R;0) , e(4) = diag(0, . . . , 0, 1), (6)
| {z }
2M −1

we can write system (1,2) in the form

(R;i) (i) (S;i)

ρnm = λnm ρnm , i = ±1, . . . , ±M, λ(−i) = (λ(i) )∗ (7)

ρ̃(R;0) (0) (S;0)

nm = λnm ρ̃nm ,

where star means complex conjugate.

Next, we can require that scaling factors of all elements inside of each particular matrix
(i)
in (7) are the same, λnm ≡ λ(i) . Then (7) reduces to the following map:

ρ(R;i) (t) = λ(i) (t)ρ(S;i) (0), i = 1, . . . , M (8)

ρ̃(R;0) (t) = λ(0) (t)ρ̃(S;0) (0).

In other words, evolution scales the blocks of sender’s initial state ρ(S) (0). We refer to the
receiver’s state (8) as the block-scaled one. It will be shown in examples of Secs.III and IV

4
that |λ(i) | < 1, i > 0, so that the evolution compresses the higher order coherence matrices.
While λ(0) (which is real) can be grater or less then unit.
Finally, we consider the case of equal scaling factors for coherence-matrices of all non-zero
orders |i| > 0 (uniform scaling): λ(±M ) = · · · = λ(±1) = λ± , i.e.,

ρ(R;i) = λ± ρ(S;i) , i = ±1, . . . , ±M, λ− = (λ+ )∗ (9)

ρ̃(R;0) = λ(0) ρ̃(S;0) .

Hereafter we study maps (8) and (9) with real scaling factors: λ(i) = λ(−i) , λ− = λ+ = λ.

III. COMMUNICATION LINE WITH ONE-QUBIT SENDER AND RECEIVER

Here we consider the model of N-node spin-communication line with one-node sender
and one-node receiver connected by the transmission line of N − 2 spins. The problem of
state evolution in such communication line was considered in Ref.[19], here we remind the
nesessary details.
The initial state in our model is a tensor product state

ρ0 = ρS0 ⊗ ρT L,B , (10)

where the sender’s state ρS0 is a pure one (we use the Dirac notations |0i and |1i for the
ground and excited spin states respectively):
 
1 − |a1 |2 a0 a∗1
ρS = (a0 |0i + a1 |1i)(h0|a∗0 + h1|a∗1 ) =   , |a0 |2 + |a1 |2 = 1, (11)
2
a∗0 a1 |a1 |

and the state of the rest of the system is the thermal equilibrium one:

ebIz
ρT L,B =
N −1 . (12)
2 cosh 2b

Here Ii± = Ixi ± iIyi , Iαi is the ith spin projection on the α-axis and H is the XX nearest
neighbor Hamiltonian (4). The receiver’s density matrix reads [19]
 b  −b 

e2 1 e 2 2 2 b N −1 ∗ ∗
2 cosh 2b
+ 2 2 cosh b
− 2|a 1 | |f (t)| − tanh a a
0 1 f (t)
ρR (t) = 
2
b  2− b   , (13)
N −1
− tanh 2b e 1 e 2 2 2
−2
a∗0 a1 f (t) 2 cosh b
− 2 2 cosh b
− 2|a1 | |f (t)|
2 2

5
where
N  1/2
X
εk t πk 2 πjk
f (t) = e g1k gN k , εk = cos , gjk = sin , j, k = 1, . . . , N.(14)
N +1 N +1 N +1
k=1

(R)
The partial restoring (7) with M = 1 reads (the element ρ22 provides normalization)

(R;1) (S;1)
ρ12 = λ(1) ρ12 , (15)
(R;0) (S;0)
ρ11 = λ(0) ρ11 . (16)

Relation (15) always holds and

 N −1
(1) ∗ b
λ =f − tanh , (17)
2

so that λ(1) is independent on the initial state. On the contrary, condition (16) yields

−2eb − |f |2 + 2|a1 |2 |f |2 (1 + eb )
λ(0) = . (18)
2(eb + 1)(|a1|2 − 1)

Therefore λ(0) depends on the initial state in general (through the parameter a1 ). However,
if
2eb
|f |2 = , (19)
1 + 2eb
then
2eb 2
λ(0) = b
≤ , b > 0, (20)
1 + 2e 3
which is independent on the initial state. It can be shown numerically that condition (19)
with f given in (14) can be satisfied for N ≤ 17. For the boundary value N = 17 we have
|f |2 = 0.673047 at t = 19.6551. In addition, one can simply verify that f is real for odd N
and imaginary for even N.
(R)
Another variant of the partial restoring reads (the element ρ11 provides normalization)

(R) (S)
ρ12 = λ(1) ρ12 , (21)
(R) (S)
ρ22 = λ(0) ρ22 . (22)

In this case α22 depends on the initial state (the parameter a1 ) as follows
2 − |f |2
λ(0) = |f |2 + . (23)
2|a1 |2 (1 + eb )

6
In the low temperature limit b → ∞ Eq.(23) reduces to

λ(0) = |f |2, (24)

which is independent on the initial state. In this limit we have

 
2 2 ∗ ∗
1 − |a1 | |f (t)| a0 a1 f (t)
ρR (t) =  . (25)
∗ 2 2
a0 a1 f (t) |a1 | |f (t)|
Thus, results of state restoring depend on our choice of the diagonal element providing
(R) (R)
normalization: the element ρ22 in formulas (15)-(20) and the element ρ11 in formulas
(21)-(25).

IV. COMMUNICATION LINE WITH TWO-QUBIT SENDER AND RECEIVER

We consider the model of N-node spin-communication line with the two-node sender and
two-node receiver connected through the transmission line of N − 4 spins. The initial state
of this system is a product state (10) where the sender’s state ρS0 is an arbitrary mixed
two-qubit state written as
1
ρS0 = E + a01 Iz1 + a02 Iz2 + a03 Iz1 Iz2 + a11 I2− + a∗11 I2+ + a12 Iz1 I2− + a∗12 Iz1 I2+ + (26)
4
a13 I1− I2+ + a∗13 I1+ I2− + a21 I1− + a∗21 I1+ + a22 I1− Iz2 + a∗22 I1+ Iz2 + a31 I1− I2− + a∗31 I1+ I2+ ,

and the rest of the system is in the thermal equilibrium state,

ebIz
ρT L,B =
N −2 . (27)
2 cosh 2b
Here H is the XX nearest neighbor Hamiltonian (4). We notice that the nearest-neighbor
Hamiltonian (4) and initial state (26), (27) enable the analytical study of the spin dynamics.
Using the Jordan-Wigner transformation [30, 31] we derive the evolution of the density
matrix ρ for a spin-1/2 chain of arbitrary length N and obtain the receiver’s state (3). The
applied analytical approach allows us to avoid the numerical calculations in 2N × 2N matrix
space and study the state-propagation in long chains. The basic steps in deriving a density
matrix for the receiver’s state are briefly outlined in the Appendix.
The receiver’s density matrix (3) can be represented as the sum of matrices ρR;n con-
tributing to the nth order coherence:
2
X
ρR = ρR;n , (28)
n=−2

7
and the explicit formulas for the non-zero elements of the matrices ρR;n can be found. Thus,
for the zero order coherence we have

(ρR;0 )ij = αij;11ρS11 + αij;22 ρS22 + αij;33 ρS33 + αij;44 ρS44 + αij;23 ρS23 + αij;32 (ρS23 )∗ , (29)

(i, j) = (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4), (2, 3), (3, 2),

For the first order coherence:

(ρR;1 )ij = αij;12 ρS12 + αij;13 ρS13 + αij;24 ρS24 + αij;34 ρS34 , (i, j) = (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 4), (3, 4), (30)

Finally, for the second order coherence we have

ρR;2 S
14 = α14;14 ρ14 . (31)

Thus, elements of each matrix ρR;n depend on the elements of the appropriate matrix ρS;n .
The analytical expressions for the coefficients αij;nm in formulas (29) –(31) are given in the
Appendix.

A. General properties of map (8)

We consider map (8) with M = 2,

ρ(R;2) = λ(2) ρ(S;2) , (32)

ρ(R;1) = λ(1) ρ(S;1) , (33)

ρ̃(R;0) = λ(0) ρ̃(S;0) , (34)

and, first, treat Eqs.(32) – (34) as independent maps. To clearly represent all details of creat-
ing the block-scaled states avoiding significant dumping we consider a short communication
line setting N = 6 in all numerical simulations.
The simplest map is Eq.(32). According to (31), the parameter λ(2) in this map reads

λ(2) (t) = α14;14 (t), (35)

(2)
which is the function of t (see Eq.(107)) with the maximum λopt = 0.8960 at t = 8.5153, see
Fig.1.
Next, map (33) concerning the first-order coherences is more complicated. It can be
written as

T (1) X (1) = λ(1) X (1) , (36)

8
 0.8

0.6

ΛH2L
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
t

FIG. 1: The parameter λ(2) as a function of t.

where, in view of (30), T (1) and X (1) read:

   
α12;12 α12;13 α12;24 α12;34 ρS12
   
α  ρS 
 13;12 α13;13 α13;24 α13;34 

13
T (1)  , X (1) = 
 
= . (37)
 α24;12 α24;13 α24;24 α24;34   ρS 
   24 
α34;12 α34;13 α34;24 α34;34 ρS34

Eq.(37) is nothing but the eigenvalue problem for the matrix T (1) , where λ(1) is the eigenvalue
and X (1) is the appropriate eigenvector. The 4 × 4 eigenvalue problem has four different
(1) (1)
eigenvalues in general, λi , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, associated with the normalized eigenvectors Xi ,
(1)
|Xi | = 1, which are defined up to the arbitrary factor c(1) . We consider only the real
eigenvalues and represent them on the plane (b, t) as shown in Fig.2.
Finally, map (34) can be written as

T (0) X (0) + B = λ(0) X (0) , (38)

9
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

FIG. 2: Four different eigenvalues λ(1) (see Eq.(36)) in decreasing order from (a) to (d)
over the plane (b, t).

10
where
 
α11;11 − α11;44 α11;22 − α11;44 α11;33 − α11;44 α11;23 α11;32
 
 22;11 − α22;44 α22;22 − α22;44 α22;33 − α22;44 α22;23 α22;32 
α

 
T (0) = 
 α33;11 − α33;44 ,
α33;22 − α33;44 α33;33 − α33;44 α33;23 α33;32  (39)
 
 α23;11 − α23;44 α23;22 − α23;44 α23;33 − α23;44 α23;23 α23;32 
 
α32;11 − α32;44 α32;22 − α32;44 α32;33 − α32;44 α32;23 α32;32
   
ρS11 α11;44
   
 ρS  α 
 22   22;44 
(0)
   
X = S = (40)
 ρ33  , B  α33;44  .
 
   
 ρS   α23;44 
 23   
(ρS23 )∗ α32;44

If det T (0) 6= 0, this map can be considered as a uniquely solvable linear system for X (0)
where λ(0) is an arbitrary real parameter.
We denote by ρ(X;1) and ρ̃(X;0) , respectively, the matrices ρ(S;1) and ρ̃(S;0) constructed on
the vectors X (1) and X (0) . We also denote by ρ(X;2) the matrix with all zero entries except
(X;2) (X;2) (S)
ρ14 = ρ41 = 1 and c(2) = ρ14 . Then maps (32) – (34) can be written as

ρ(R;2) (t, b) = (ρ(R;−2) (t, b))+ = λ(2) (t)c(2) ρ(X;2) (t, b), (41)
ρ(R;1) (t, b) = (ρ(R;−1) (t, b))+ = λ(1) (t, b)c(1) ρ(X;1) (t, b), (42)
ρ̃(R;0) (t, b) = λ(0) ρ̃(X;0) (t, b). (43)

In particular, if λ(i) = 1, i = 0, 1, 2, then ρ(R;i) ≡ ρ(S;i) = c(i) ρ(X;i) (c(0) = 1), which holds for
the perfect state transfer. Thus, the matrix

ρ(R) = ρ(R;0) + ρ(R;1) + ρ(R;−1) + ρ(R;2) + ρ(R;−2) (44)

depends on three constant parameters: λ(0) , c(1) and c(2) . ρ(R) . Among these three parame-
ters, only λ(0) is real by its definition (diagonal elements of a density matrix must be real)
However, for simplicity, we consider c(1) and c(2) to be real as well. These parameters are
not arbitrary but must provide positivity for the density matrix. Therefore, they fill some
bounded allowed region in the three dimensional space with the boundary depending on t
and b.

11
 B. Creatable regions in receiver’s state space

In this section we characterize the creatable region of the receiver’s state space in terms of
the parameters c(i) λ(i) , i = 1, 2 and λ(0) . However, we are most interested in creating a large
variety of higher-order coherence matrices. Therefore, we solve the optimization problem
(0)
of finding λopt , the time instance topt and the inverse temperature bopt that maximize the
creatable space in the plane of c(1) λ(1) and c(2) λ(2) . We consider three cases with λ(1) 6= λ(2)
(non-uniform scaling): (i) c(1) = 0, c(2) 6= 0, (ii) c(1) 6= 0, c(2) = 0, (iii) c(1) 6= 0, c(2) 6= 0, and
the case (iv) λ(1) = λ(2) , c(1) 6= 0, c(2) 6= 0 (uniform scaling of the higher order coherence
matrices). Numerical study shows that, if both c(1) 6= 0 and c(2) 6= 0, the creatable region at
fixed t, b and λ(0) fills the first quarter of the ellipse-like figure centered at coordinate origin
(1)
in the plane (c(1) λ(1) , c(2) λ(2) ). The semi-axes of this figure are cmax λ(1) (at c(2) = 0) and
(2)
cmax λ(2) (at c(1) = 0). We consider the area of this region as its characteristics which can be
(1) (2)
estimated as a product of the above semi-axes: S (12) = cmax λ(1) cmax λ(2) . We determine the
(0)
optimal values topt , bopt and λopt which maximize this quantity. In terms of notation
(i) (0)
copt = c(i) (topt , bopt , λopt), i = 1, 2, (45)
(i)
λopt = λ(i) (topt , bopt ), i = 1, 2,

the maximum of S (12) reads:

(12) (1) (1) (2) (2)
Smax = copt λopt copt λopt . (46)

If either c(2) = 0 or c(1) = 0, then the ellipse-like figure reduces to the interval and, instead of
(1) (2)
the area, we have the length of the interval, either S (1) = cmax λ(1) , or S (2) = cmax λ(2) . In this
(1) (2)
case the density matrix ρ(S) is positive if, respectively, 0 ≤ c(1) ≤ cmax or 0 ≤ c(2) ≤ cmax .
Accordingly, the maxima of S (i) read:
(1) (1) (1)
Smax = copt λopt , (47)
(2) (2) (2)
Smax = copt λopt . (48)

Now we consider the above four cases in more detail.

1. Case 1: λ(1) 6= λ(2) , c(1) = 0, c(2) 6= 0.

The parameter c(2) must provide for the non-negativity for the density matrix ρ(S) (0).
The optimization shows that the maximum of S (2) corresponds to b = bopt → ∞. In our case

12
 t=8.5153, ΛH0L=1.0837
0.30

H2L
0.28

max Λ
0.26

cH2L
0.24
0.22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
b
(a) (b)

(2)
FIG. 3: (a) The length of the interval S (2) = cmax λ(2) over the (λ0 , t)-plane at b = 10.
(2) (0) (2)
Maximum Smax = 0.3117 corresponds to topt = 8.5153, λopt = 1.0837, λopt = 0.8960 (b) The
(0)
length of the interval S (2) as a function of b at λopt and topt .

(2)
it is enough to set bopt = 10. We depict S (2) = cmax λ(2) as a function of λ(0) and t at b = 10
(0) (2)
in Fig.3a. Next we find topt and λopt which maximize S (2) : Smax = 0.3117 with topt = 8.5153
(0) (2) (0)
and λopt = 1.0837. In addition, λopt = 0.8960. At these optimal values of λopt and topt , the
length of the interval S (2) as a function of b is shown in Fig.3b. Finally, we construct the
(0) (0)
vector Xopt corresponding to the above optimal values topt , bopt and λopt :

 
0.40596
 
 0.15131 
 
(0)
 
Xopt =
 0.14467  .
 (49)
 
 0.00010i 
 
−0.00010i

2. Case 2: λ(1) 6= λ(2) , c(1) 6= 0, c(2) = 0.

Now the parameter c(1) must provide the non-negativity for the density matrix ρ(S) (0).
Similar to S (2) in Sec.IV B 1, S (1) is an increasing function of b, so its maximum corresponds
(1)
to b = bopt → ∞. Again we set bopt = 10. We depicture S (1) = cmax λ(1) as a function of λ(0)

13
 t=5.0325, ΛH0L=1.2201
0.25
0.20

H1L
max Λ
0.15

cH1L
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
b
(a) (b)

(1) (1)
FIG. 4: (a) The length of the interval S (1) = cmax λopt over the (λ0 , t)-plane at b = 10.
(1) (0) (1)
Maximum Smax = 0.2870 corresponds to topt = 5.0326, λopt = 1.2201, λopt = 0.8145 (b) The
(1) (0)
length of the interval S (1) = cmax λ(1) as a function of b at λopt and topt .

(0) (1)
and t at b = 10 in Fig.4a. Next we find topt and λopt which maximize S (1) : Smax = 0.2870
(0) (1)
with topt = 5.0326 and λopt = 1.2201. In addition, λopt = 0.8145. At these optimal values of
(0)
λopt and topt , the measure S (1) as a function of b is shown in Fig.4b. Finally, we construct
(0) (1) (0)
the vectors Xopt and Xopt corresponding to the above optimal values topt , bopt and λopt :
 
0.59440  

 0.12890 
 0.77790
   
   −0.62839i 
(0) (1)  
Xopt =  0.09232  , Xopt = 
 . (50)
   −0.00003i 
 −0.10707i   
 
−0.00004
0.10707i

3. Case 3: λ(1) 6= λ(2) , c(1) 6= 0, c(2) 6= 0.

Now the two parameters c(1) and c(2) must provide the non-negativity for the density
(1) (2) (1) (2)
matrix ρ(S) (0). The maximum of the measure S (12) = copt copt λopt λopt = 0.0189 corresponds
(0) (1) (2)
to topt = 5.3768, bopt = 5.3790, λopt = 1.2634 with λopt = 0.7613 and λopt = 0.2289. The
measure S (12) as a function of λ(0) and t at b = bopt is represented in Fig.5a, while S (12) as
(0)
a function of b at λopt and topt is shown in Fig.5b. The semi-axes of the optimized creatable

14
 t=5.3768, ΛH0L=1.2634

H1L H2L H2L

max Λ c max Λ
0.015

0.010

0.005

cH1L
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10
b
(a) (b)

(1) (2)
FIG. 5: (a) The measure S (12) = cmax cmax λ(1) λ(2) over the (λ0 , t)-plane at bopt = 5.3790.
(12) (0) (1)
The maximum Smax = 0.0189 corresponds to topt = 5.3768, λopt = 1.2634, λopt = 0.7613,
(2) (0)
λopt = 0.2289 (b) The measure S (12) as a function of b at λopt and topt . There is a
maximum at b = 5.3789.

(1) (1) (2) (2) (0)

region are copt λopt = 0.2448 and copt λopt = 0.0771. Finally, we construct the vectors Xopt
(1) (0)
and Xopt corresponding to the above optimal values topt , bopt and λopt :
 
0.51945  

 0.18237 
 0.88361
   
   −0.46820i 
(0) (1)  
Xopt  0.07949  , Xopt = 
=  . (51)
   −0.00216i 
 −0.11342i   
 
−0.00408
0.11342i

4. Case 4: λ(1) = λ(2) , c(1) 6= 0, c(2) 6= 0.

Finally, we can consider the case of uniform scaling of the higher-order coherence matrices
(9):

λ(2) = λ(1) = λ. (52)

The graph of the parameter λ over the (b, t)-plane form the curve shown in Fig.6. The
principal difference in this case is that the parameter b must be finite.

15
 t 4
2
0
0.3

0.2
Λ
0.1

0.0
0
1
b 2
3

FIG. 6: The parameter λ over the plane (b, t).

Again, the parameters c(1) and c(2) provide the non-negativity for the density matrix
ρ(S) (0). Similar to Sec.IV B 3, the creatable region can be characterized by the area S (12) This
measure is represented in Fig.7a as a function of points (b, t) on the curve in Fig.6 for three
(12)
values of λ(0) . The maximum Smax = 0.0086, corresponds to bopt = 2.3462, topt = 5.6651,
(0) (1) (2)
λopt = 1.2022 with λopt = 0.2956. The semi-axes are copt λopt = 0.0904 copt λopt = 0.0946 and
λopt = 0.2956.
(0) (1)
Finally, the vectors Xopt and Xopt corresponding to the above optimal values topt , bopt and
(0)
λopt read:

 
0.49962  

 0.20645 
 0.98333
   
   −0.15484i 
(0) (1)  
Xopt =
 0.08884  , Xopt = 
 . (53)
   −0.01482i 
 −0.07298i   
 
−0.09414
0.07298i

C. Initial states admitting perfect transfer of zero-order coherence matrix

Unlike the higher order coherences, the zero-order coherence matrix can be perfectly
transferred from the sender to the receiver, i.e. we can set λ(0) = 1 in map (34). It is
likely that this possibility is associated with the classical nature of this coherence. Thus, the
problem of state-restoring at the receiver side reduces to the operations with higher-order

16
 (1) (2)
FIG. 7: (a) The measure S (12) = cmax cmax λ2 as a function of the point (b, t) on the curve in
(0) (0)
Fig.6 at three values of the parameter λ(0) : λ(0) = λopt = 1.2022, λ(0) = 1.4 > λopt and
(0)
λ(0) = 1 < λopt . Dash-lines indicate the positions of the maxima.

coherence matrices which encode the quantum information of the transferred state.
In this section we consider the cases 1-4 of Sec.IV B and perform the optimization of the
creatable regions in the receiver’s state space setting λ(0) = 1. In all considered cases the
creatable region is smaller in comparison with the corresponding cases of Sec.IV B. The brief
results of optimization are below.

1. Case 1: c(1) = 0, c(2) 6= 0.

(2) (2)
In this case topt = 8.5153, bopt = 0, λopt = 0.8960 and the maximum of S (2) is Smax =
0.2240, which is smaller in comparison with the same parameter in Sec.IV B 1. The graph of
(0)
S (2) as a function of b at topt is given in Fig.8a. The appropriate vector Xopt corresponding
to the above optimal values topt and bopt read:

17
 t=8.5153, ΛH0L=1 t=5.1095, ΛH0L=1
0.20 0.10
0.08
H2L

H1L
0.15
max Λ

max Λ
0.06
0.10
cH2L

cH1L
0.04
0.05 0.02
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
b b
(a) (b)

t=5.5794, ΛH0L=1
0.0020
H1L H2L H2L
max Λ c max Λ

0.0015

0.0010

0.0005
cH1L

0.0000
0 2 4 6 8
b
(c)

FIG. 8: (a) Case 1: S (2) as a function of b at topt = 8.5153; (b) Case 2: S (1) as a function of
b at topt = 5.1095; (c) Case 3: S (12) as a function of b at topt = 5.5794.

 
0.25
 
 0.25 
 
(0)
 
Xopt =  0.25 

. (54)
 
 0 
 
0

2. Case 2: c(1) 6= 0, c(2) = 0.

(1)
In this case topt = 5.1095, bopt = 2.9830, λopt = 0.5444 and the maximum of S (1) is
(1)
Smax = 0.1111, which is smaller in comparison with the same parameter in Sec.IV B 2. The
(0)
graph of S (1) as a function of b at topt is given in Fig.8b. The appropriate vectors Xopt and

18
 (1)
Xopt corresponding to the above optimal values topt and bopt read:
 
0.90593  
 
 0.04588  0.79903
   
   −0.59916i 
(0) (1)  
Xopt  0.04588  , Xopt = 
=  . (55)
   −0.03034i 
 

 0 

−0.04046
0

3. Case 3: c(1) 6= 0, c(2) 6= 0.

(1) (2)
In this case topt = 5.5794, bopt = 2.0412, λopt = 0.2507, λopt = 0.2748 and the maximum
(12)
of S (12) is Smax = 0.0020, which is smaller in comparison with the same parameter in
(1) (1) (2) (2)
Sec.IV B 3. The lengths of semi-axes are copt λopt = 0.0713, copt λopt = 0.0280. Thus we see
that the creatable region is smaller then one obtained in Sec.IV B 3. The graph of S (12) as a
(0) (1)
function of b at topt is given in Fig.8c. The appropriate vectors Xopt and Xopt corresponding
to the above optimal values topt and bopt read:
 
0.78332  
 
 0.10173  0.94716
   
   −0.29378i 
(0) (1)  
Xopt =
 0.10173  , Xopt = 
 . (56)
  
 −0.03815i 


 0 

−0.12301
0

4. Case 4: λ(1) = λ(2) , c(1) 6= 0, c(2) 6= 0.

In this case topt = 5.5574, bopt = 2.0950, λopt = 0.2696. Then the maximum of S (12) is
(12)
Smax = 0.00199, which is smaller then the same parameter in Sec.IV B 4. The lengths of
(1) (2)
semi-axes are copt λopt = 0.0756, copt λopt = 0.0263. Thus we see that the creatable region is
smaller then one obtained in Sec.IV B 4. The graph of S (12) as a function of the points (b, t)
(0)
on the curve in Fig.6 is given in Fig.7, the lower curve. The appropriate vectors Xopt and

19
 (1)
Xopt corresponding to the above optimal values topt and bopt read:
 
0.79285  
 
 0.09757  0.93988
   
   −0.31891i 
(0) (1)  
Xopt  0.09757  Xopt = 
=  . (57)
   −0.03925i 
 

 0 

−0.11567
0

V. CONCLUSION

Since the problem of perfect state transfer is related with many difficulties in creating
the communication line, there is a necessity of finding the alternatives to this process. One
of them is discussed in our paper.
We propose a protocol of state-transfer from the sender to the receiver with minimal
state deformation. We reveal the states whose propagation from the sender to the receiver
result in the block-scaling of the density matrix. In our case, these blocks are the MQ-
coherence matrices, however other variants are admittable. Furthermore, for certain states
all higher-order coherence matrices (except the zero-order coherence matrix) are scaled by
the same factor. The block-scaled states are characterized by the three parameters λ(0) , c(1)
and c(2) ) parametrizing, respectively, the zero-, first and second-order coherence matrices.
Admittable values of these parameters provide the non-negativity for the transferred state,
so that they cover a bounded region in the space of these parameters. Assuming that the
quantum information is basically encoded into the higher-order coherence matrices, we study
the creatable region in terms of c(i) , i = 1, 2 at the optimal value of λ(0) . For simplicity, we
consider only real parameters c(1) and c(2) .
We shall remark that, although the quantum effects are most evident at low temperatures
(b → ∞), the optimal values of b in many our examples are finite (see Secs.IV B 3, IV B 4,
IV C). Perhaps, this means that the classical correlations prevail in the corresponding cases.
We also notice that the zero-order coherence matrices of certain sender’s states can be
perfectly transferred to the receiver, while this is impossible for the higher-order coherence
matrix. This effect must be related to the classical nature of this coherence. States having
this property are the least structurally deformed in comparison with other block-scaled
states.

20
 We also emphasize that the block-scale transfer is not related to the particular geometry
of a communication line. Splitting the density matrix into the set of MQ-coherence matrices
is prompted by the Hamiltonian preserving the excitation number in the spin system, so
that these matrices do not twist during the evolution. Otherwise evolution will be more
complicated and requires a special consideration.
The found states which can be transferred with the discussed minimal deformation can
be considered as candidates for the elementary state transferring information along a com-
munication line.
This work is partially supported by the program of RAS ”Element base of quantum
computers” (Grant No. 0089-2015-0220) and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
(Grants No.15-07-07928).

VI. APPENDIX. DERIVATION OF RECEIVER’S DENSITY MATRIX

A. Jordan-Wigner transformation

First, we recall some basic formulas of the Jordan-Wigner transformation [30, 31]. The
operators In± = Inx ± iIny generate the fermion operators cn and c+
n by the formulas:

j−1 j−1
Y Y
j−1
cj = (−2) Izi Ij− , c+
j = (−2) j−1
Izi Ij+ , (58)
i=1 i=1

which satisfy the anti-commutation relations

{cj , ci } = 0, {c+ + +
j , ci } = 0, {cj , ci } = δij , (59)

therefore Izj = c+ 1
j cj − 2 . We also introduce the operators βn as Fourier transforms of cn :

N  1/2
X 2 πkj
cj = gjk βk , gkj = sin , (60)
k=1
N +1 N +1

Then the Hamiltonian (4) in terms of the operators βn reads:

N
X πk
H= εk βk+ βk , εk = cos . (61)
k=1
N +1

and the following evident relations among the operators Iαj and cj :

21
 B. Evolution

Now we consider the evolution of the initial state ρ0 (10) and write it in the following
form convenient for the further analytical calculations:
1 −itH itH bIz r(t) bIz
ρ(t) = e r0 e e = e , r0 = ρ0 e−bIz1 e−bIz2 . (62)
Z Z
For convenience we represent r0 in the basis of matrices 4 × 4:

r0 = ã00 E + ã01 Iz1 + ã02 Iz2 + ã03 Iz1 Iz2 + ã11 I2− + ã12 I2+ + ã13 Iz1 I2− + ã14 Iz1 I2+ + (63)
ã15 I1− I2+ + ã16 I1+ I2− + ã21 I1− + ã22 I1+ + ã23 I1− Iz2 + ã24 I1+ Iz2 + ã31 I1− I2− + ã32 I1+ I2+ ,

where ãij are explicitly given in terms of aij :

1 
ã00 = 1 − a03 + (1 + a03 ) cosh(b) − 2(a01 + a02 ) sinh(b) , (64)
8
1 
ã01 = 2(a01 − a02 ) + 2(a01 + a02 ) cosh(b) − (1 + a03 ) sinh(b) ,
4
1  
ã02 = 2(a02 − a01 ) + 2(a01 + a02 ) cosh(b) − (1 + a03 ) sinh(b) ,
4
1  
ã03 = − 1 + a03 + (1 + a03 ) cosh(b) − 2(a01 + a02 ) sinh(b) ,
2
1  
−b −b
ã11 = 2(e + 1)a11 + (e − 1)a12 ,
4
1  
b ∗ b ∗
ã12 = 2(e + 1)a11 − (e − 1)a12 ,
4
1  
−b −b
ã13 = 2(e − 1)a11 + (e + 1)a12 ,
2
1  
b ∗ b ∗
ã14 = − 2(e − 1)a11 + (e + 1)a12 ,
2
ã15 = a13 , ã16 = a∗13 ,
1  −b −b

ã21 = 2(e + 1)a21 + (e − 1)a22 ,
4
1  
b ∗ b ∗
ã22 = 2(e + 1)a21 − (e − 1)a22 ,
4
1  
−b −b
ã23 = 2(e − 1)a21 + (e + 1)a22 ,
2
1  
b ∗ b ∗
ã24 = − 2(e − 1)a21 + (e + 1)a22 ,
2
ã31 = e−b a31 , ã32 = eb a∗31 ,

The time-dependence of the density matrix is embedded in the transition amplitudes:

N
X
fij = gik gkj e−itεk , i, j = N, N − 1, (65)
k=1

22
and the matrix r(t) = e−itH r0 eitH can be given the following form:
X X
r(t) = A0 + (A11
j jc + A12 +
c
j j ) + (A21 + 22 23 + +
j1 j2 cj1 cj2 + Aj1 j2 cj1 cj2 + Aj1 j2 cj1 cj2 ) + (66)
j j1 ,j2
X X
(A31 +
j 1 j 2 j 3 cj 1 cj 2 cj 3 + A32 + +
j 1 j 2 j 3 cj 1 cj 2 cj 3 ) + A41 + +
j 1 j 2 j 3 j 4 cj 1 cj 2 cj 3 cj 4
j1 ,j2 ,j3 j1 ,j2 ,j3 ,j4

where

ã01 ã02 ã03

A0 = ã00 − − + , (67)
2 2 4
ã13 ∗ ã23 ∗ ã14 ã24
A11
j = (ã11 − )f2j + (ã21 − )f1j , A12j = (ã12 − )f2j + (ã22 − )f1j ,
2 2 2 2
ã03 ã03
A21
j1 j2 = (ã01 −
∗
)f1j1 f1j2 + (ã02 − ∗
)f2j1 f2j2 ∗
+ ã15 f2j1 f1j ∗
+ ã16 f1j1 f2j ,
2 2 2 2

N
X
21
A0 = A21 22 ∗ ∗ 23
jj = ã01 + ã02 − ã03 , Aj1 j2 = −ã31 f1j1 f2j2 , Aj1 j2 = −ã31 f1j1 f2j2 ,
j=1

A31
j1 j2 j3
∗
= ã23 f2j1 f2j f ∗ − 2ã11 f1j1 f1j
2 1j3
∗
f∗ ,
2 2j3
N
X N
X
A31
j2 = A31
jjj2 = ∗
ã23 f1j 2
− ∗
2ã11 f2j 2
, A31
jj2 j = 0,
j=1 j=1
N
X
A32 ∗ ∗ 32
j1 j2 j3 = ã24 f1j1 f2j2 f2j3 − 2ã12 f2j1 f1j2 f1j3 , Aj2 = A32
j2 jj = ã24 f1j2 − 2ã12 f2j2 ,
j=1
N
X
A32 41 ∗ ∗
jj2 j = 0, Aj1 j2 j3 j4 = ã03 f1j1 f2j2 f1j3 f2j4 , ,
j=1
N
X N
X
A41;1
j2 j3 = A41
jj2 jj3 = ∗
−ã03 f2j2 f2j 3
, A41;2
j2 j3 = A41 ∗
j2 jj3 j = −ã03 f1j2 f1j3 ,
j=1 j=1
N
X N
X N
X
A41
jj2 j3 j = A41 41
j2 jjj3 = 0, A0 = A41
j1 j2 j1 j2 = −ã03 .
j=1 j=1 j1 ,j2 =1

C. Reduced density matrix

Now we construct the reduced density matrix ρ(R) describing the receiver’s state,

1
ρR = T r/R ρ(t) = ρ̃0 (t)ebIz , (68)
Z

23
calculating the trace of each term in expression (62). For the elements of this density matrix
we have the formulas (29-31) with the following relations between ρSij and aij :

1 1 1
ρS11 = (1 + 2a01 + 2a02 + a03 ), ρS12 = (2a∗11 + a∗12 ), ρS13 = (2a∗21 + a∗22 ), (69)
4 2 2
1 1
ρS14 = a∗31 , ρS22 = (1 + 2a01 − 2a02 − a03 ), ρS23 = a∗13 , ρS24 = (2a∗21 − a∗22 ),
4 2
3
S 1 S 1 ∗ S
X
∗
ρ33 = (1 − 2a01 + 2a02 − a03 ), ρ34 = (2a11 − a12 ), ρ44 = 1 − ρSnn .
4 2 n=1

In addition, the coefficients αij;nm are given by the following expressions:

2 N
1 2b b
X X
α11,11 = (e + e |fi,j |2 + (70)
(1 + eb )2 i=1 j=N −1
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
(f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )(f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )),
1
α11,22 = (−(eb + |f1,N |2 )(|f2,N −1 |2 − 1) + (71)
2(1 + cosh b)
(−eb f2,N + f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
−1 )f2,N + f1,N −1 (f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 + f1,N −1 (1 − |f2,N | ))),
1
α11,33 = (eb + |f2,N −1 |2 + |f2,N |2 − (72)
2(1 + cosh b)
∗ b 2 ∗ ∗ b ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (e + |f2,N | ) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 ) − f1,N (e f1,N + f2,N −1 (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N ))),
eb
α11,44 = ((|f1,N |2 − 1)(|f2,N −1 |2 − 1) − (73)
2(1 + cosh b)
∗ ∗ ∗ 2 ∗ ∗
(f2,N + f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N −1 )f2,N + f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (|f2,N | − 1) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 )),

∗
eb (f1,N −1 f2,N
∗ ∗
−1 + f1,N f2,N )
α11,23 = α11,32 = (74)
1 + eb

1
α22,11 = (−(|f1,N |2 − 1)(eb + |f2,N −1 |2 ) + (75)
(1 + eb )2
∗ b ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2
(f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N −1 − e f2,N )f2,N + f1,N −1 (f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 + f1,N −1 (1 − |f2,N | ))),
1
α22,22 = (eb (|f1,N |2 − 1)(|f2,N −1|2 − 1) + (76)
(1 + eb )2
eb (eb f2,N − f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N
∗ ∗ ∗ b 2 b ∗ ∗
−1 )f2,N + f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (1 + e |f2,N | ) − e f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 )),
1
α22,33 = (eb + |f2,N −1 |2 + eb (|f1,N |2 (eb + |f2,N −1 |2 ) − (77)
(1 + eb )2
∗ ∗ ∗ 2 ∗ ∗
(f2,N + f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N −1 )f2,N + f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (|f2,N | − 1) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 ))),
eb
α22,44 = b 2
(−(1 + eb |f1,N |2 )(|f2,N −1 |2 − 1) + (78)
(1 + e )
eb (f2,N ∗
+ f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N ∗ ∗ b 2 b ∗ ∗
−1 )f2,N − f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (1 + e |f2,N | ) − e f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 )),
∗ b ∗
∗
f1,N −1 f2,N −1 − e f1,N f2,N
α22,23 = α22,32 = (79)
1 + eb

24
 1
α33,11 = b 2
(eb + |f1,N |2 + |f2,N |2 − f2,N −1 ((eb + |f1,N |2 )f2,N
∗ ∗ ∗
−1 − f1,N f1,N −1 f2,N ) − (80)
(1 + e )
∗ b 2 ∗ ∗
f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (e + |f2,N | ) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 )),
1
α33,22 = (eb + |f1,N |2 + eb (−|f2,N |2 + (81)
(1 + eb )2
f2,N −1 ((eb + |f1,N |2 )f2,N∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2 ∗ ∗
−1 − f1,N f1,N −1 f2,N ) + f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (|f2,N | − 1) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 ))),
1
α33,33 = (|f2,N |2 + eb ((|f1,N |2 − 1)(|f2,N −1|2 − 1) − f1,N f2,N −1 f1,N
∗ ∗
−1 f2,N ) + (82)
(1 + eb )2
eb f1,N −1 (f1,N
∗ b 2 ∗ ∗
−1 (e + |f2,N | ) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 )),
1
α33,44 = − (|f1,N |2 + |f2,N |2 − 1 + (83)
2(1 + cosh b)
eb (f2,N −1 ((|f1,N |2 − 1)f2,N ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 2 ∗ ∗
−1 − f1,N f1,N −1 f2,N ) + f1,N −1 (f1,N −1 (|f2,N | − 1) − f2,N f1,N f2,N −1 ))),

∗
∗
f1,N f2,N − eb f1,N −1 f2,N
∗
−1
α33,23 = α33,32 = b
(84)
1+e

∗ ∗
f1,N −1 f1,N + f2,N −1 f2,N
α23,11 = , (85)
1 + eb
∗
f1,N −1 f1,N − eb f2,N −1 f2,N
∗
α23,22 = , (86)
1 + eb
∗
f2,N −1 f2,N − eb f1,N −1 f1,N
∗
α23,33 = , (87)
1 + eb
eb (f1,N −1 f1,N
∗ ∗
+ f2,N −1 f2,N )
α23,44 =− , (88)
1 + eb
∗
α23,23 = f1,N −1 f2,N , (89)
∗
α23,32 = f2,N −1 f1,N (90)

b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b b ∗
α12,12 = (e f2,N + (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f1,N −1 ), (91)
2 cosh 2b
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b b ∗
α12,13 =− b
(e f1,N + (f1,N −1 f2,N − f1,N f2,N −1 )f2,N −1 ), (92)
2 cosh 2
b
(−1)N e 2 tanhN −3 2b ∗
α12,24 = (f1,N − (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f2,N −1 ), (93)
2 cosh 2b
b
(−1)N e 2 tanhN −3 2b ∗
α12,34 = (f2,N + (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f1,N −1 ) (94)
2 cosh 2b

25
 b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b
α13,12 =− b
∗
(f1,N −1 f2,N f1,N + f2,N −1 (eb − |f1,N |2 )), (95)
2 cosh 2
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b
α13,13 = ∗
(f1,N f2,N −1 f2,N + f1,N −1 (eb − |f2,N |2 )), (96)
2 cosh 2b
b
(−1)N e 2 tanhN −3 2b
α13,24 = b
(f1,N −1 (|f2,N |2 − 1) − f1,N f2,N −1 f2,N
∗
), (97)
2 cosh 2
b
(−1)N e 2 tanhN −3 2b
α13,34 = (f2,N −1 (|f1,N |2 − 1) − f1,N −1 f2,N f1,N
∗
) (98)
2 cosh 2b

b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b
α24,12 = (f2,N −1 (|f1,N |2 − 1) − f1,N −1 f2,N f1,N
∗
), (99)
2 cosh 2b
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b
α24,13 = b
∗
(f1,N f2,N −1 f2,N + f1,N −1 (1 − |f2,N |2 )), (100)
2 cosh 2
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b
α24,24 =− (f1,N −1 + eb (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f2,N
∗
), (101)
2 cosh 2b
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b
α24,34 =− b
(f2,N −1 + eb (f1,N −1 f2,N − f1,N f2,N −1 )f1,N
∗
) (102)
2 cosh 2

b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b ∗
α34,12 =− b
(f2,N + (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f1,N −1 ), (103)
2 cosh 2
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b ∗
α34,13 = (f1,N − (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f2,N −1 ), (104)
2 cosh 2b
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b b ∗
α34,24 = b
(e (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f2,N −1 − f1,N ), (105)
2 cosh 2
b
(−1)N e− 2 tanhN −3 2b b ∗
α34,34 =− b
(e (f1,N f2,N −1 − f1,N −1 f2,N )f1,N −1 + f2,N ), (106)
2 cosh 2
α14,14 = f1,N −1 f2,N − f1,N f2,N −1 (107)

[1] S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901 (2003)

[2] M.Christandl, N.Datta, A.Ekert, and A.J.Landahl, Phys.Rev.Lett. 92, 187902 (2004)
[3] C.Albanese, M.Christandl, N.Datta, and A.Ekert, Phys.Rev.Lett. 93, 230502 (2004)
[4] P.Karbach and J.Stolze, Phys.Rev.A 72, 030301(R) (2005)
[5] G.Gualdi, V.Kostak, I.Marzoli, and P.Tombesi, Phys.Rev. A 78, 022325 (2008)

26
 [6] A.Wójcik, T.Luczak, P.Kurzyński, A.Grudka, T.Gdala, and M.Bednarska Phys. Rev. A 72,
034303 (2005)
[7] L. Banchi, T. J. G. Apollaro, A. Cuccoli, R. Vaia, and P. Verrucchi, Phys.Rev.A 82, 052321
(2010)
[8] A. Zwick and O. Osenda, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, (2011) 105302.
[9] L. Banchi, T. J. G. Apollaro, A. Cuccoli, R. Vaia and P. Verrucchi, New J. Phys. 13, 123006
(2011)
[10] T. J. G. Apollaro, L. Banchi, A. Cuccoli, R. Vaia, and P. Verrucchi, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012),
052319
[11] J.Stolze, G. A. Álvarez, O. Osenda, and A. Zwick in Quantum State Transfer and Network
Engineering. Quantum Science and Technology, ed. by G.M.Nikolopoulos and I.Jex, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, p.149 (2014)
[12] N.A.Peters, J.T.Barreiro, M.E.Goggin, T.-C.Wei, and P.G.Kwiat, Phys.Rev.Lett. 94, 150502
(2005)
[13] N.A.Peters, J.T.Barreiro, M.E.Goggin, T.-C.Wei, and P.G.Kwiat in Quantum Communica-
tions and Quantum Imaging III, ed. R.E.Meyers, Ya.Shih, Proc. of SPIE 5893 (SPIE, Belling-
ham, WA, 2005)
[14] G.Y. Xiang, J.Li, B.Yu, and G.C.Guo Phys. Rev. A 72, 012315 (2005)
[15] Liu, L.L., Hwang, T., Controlled remote state preparation protocols via AKLT states, Quan-
tum Inf.Process. 13, 1639-1650 (2014)
[16] A.I.Zenchuk, Phys. Rev. A 90, 052302(13) (2014)
[17] G. A. Bochkin and A. I. Zenchuk, Phys.Rev.A 91, 062326(11) (2015)
[18] G. Bochkin and A. Zenchuk, Extension of the remotely creatable region via the local unitary
transformation on the receiver side, Quntum Information and Computation, 16 (2016) 1349-
1364
[19] E.B.Fel’dman , E. I. Kuznetsova, A.I.Zenchuk, Quantum Inf. Proc. 15 (2016) 2521
[20] J.Stolze and A.I.Zenchuk, Quant. Inf. Proc. 15, (2016) 3347
[21] E.B.Fel’dman, A.I.Zenchuk, JETP 125, 1042 (2017)
[22] J. Baum, M. Munowitz, A. N. Garroway, and A. Pines, J. Chem. Phys. 83, 2015 (1985).
[23] S. I. Doronin, I. I. Maksimov, and E. B. Fel’dman, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 91, 597 (2000).
[24] S. I. Doronin, E. B. Fel’dman, and A. I. Zenchuk, J.Chem.Phys. 134, 034102 (2011)

27
[25] H.G. Krojanski and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 090501 (2004).
[26] H.G. Krojanski and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 150503 (2006).
[27] G. A. Alvarez and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 230403 (2010).
[28] H.J. Cho, P. Cappellaro, D. G. Gory, and C. Ramanathan, Phys. Rev. B 74, 224434 (2006).
[29] G.A.Bochkin, E.B.Fel’dman, S.G.Vasil’ev, V.I.Volkov, Chem.Phys.Lett. 680, 56 (2017).
[30] P.Jordan, E.Wigner, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928)
[31] H.B.Cruz, L.L.Goncalves, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 14, 2785 (1981)

28