text:
# The private classical capacity and quantum capacity of a quantum channel

## 1 Introduction

The correspondence between secret classical information and quantum information, after having been part of quantum information folklore for many years, was first explicitly studied by Collins and Popescu . The simplest example of this relationship is the ability to convert a maximally entangled Bell state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|0+|1|1)`$ shared by Alice and Bob into a secret classical key by local bilateral measurements in the $`\{|0,|1\}`$ basis. Since the initial state is pure and hence decoupled from the “environment”, so is the information about the measurement outcomes. The converse direction does not hold in the literal sense: there is no way to recover the entanglement once the measurement has been made. However, given a quantum resource such as a quantum channel, it is conceivable that a secret key generating protocol could be converted into a (pure) entanglement generating protocol by performing all the steps “coherently” , e.g. replacing probabilistic mixtures by quantum superpositions. The connection has been exploited in one direction by Shor and Preskill  in proving the secrecy of the BB84  quantum key distribution protocol by reduction from the entanglement-based protocol of Lo and Chau  via Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS)  codes. In a different context, an equivalence has recently been established between the noise thresholds for certain two-way protocols for secret key distillation and entanglement distillation .

The motivation for the present work is a paper by Schumacher and Westmoreland  in which an information theoretical approach to secret key generation is taken. They invoke standard classical results on wire-tap channels  to argue heuristically that the capacity of a noisy quantum channel $`𝒩`$ for generating a secret key should be lower bounded by the coherent information $`I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$  of the channel with respect to an arbitrary input density operator $`\rho `$. Our first main result is an exact expression for the channel capacity for secret key generation $`K(𝒩)`$. At the time of writing  it was only conjectured that the coherent information played a role in the quantum capacity $`Q(𝒩)`$. The quantum capacity theorem was originally stated by Lloyd , who also provided heuristic arguments for its validity. Other relevant early works include . It is only recently that a rigorous direct coding theorem has been reported by Shor  attaining the coherent information based upper bound of . Our second main result is a new proof of the direct coding theorem via an entanglement generation protocol based, in turn, on our secret key generation protocol. Shor’s proof  is based on random subspace codes (see also ). Our code turns out to be related to a generalization of CSS codes, which is not surprising given its cryptographic origin. In addition we provide a new, simplified proof of the converse theorem of , avoiding difficulties with restricting the encoding to partial isometries.

It is necessary to introduce some notation for dealing with classical-quantum resources . Classical-quantum resources can be static or dynamic. A static bipartite classical-quantum resource, denoted by $`\{cq\}`$, is described by an *ensemble* $`E=\{\rho _x,p(x)\}`$. If the indices $`x𝒳`$ and distribution $`p`$ are associated with some random variable $`X`$, and the density operators $`\rho _x^𝒬=\rho _x`$ with some quantum system $`𝒬`$, the ensemble $`E`$ may be equated with the *classical-quantum system* $`X𝒬`$. One may similarly have multipartite systems such as $`UX𝒬`$ (of the $`\{ccq\}`$ type) and $`X𝒬`$ (of the $`\{cqq\}`$ type) with more than one classical or quantum component.

A dynamic bipartite classical-quantum resource, denoted by $`\{cq\}`$ is given by a classical-quantum channel $`W:x\rho _x`$, or, alternatively, by the *quantum alphabet* $`\{\rho _x\}`$. Analogous to the static case, the channel $`W`$ may be equated with the *conditional* quantum system $`𝒬|X`$. Indeed, $`\rho _x^𝒬`$ is the state of the quantum system $`𝒬`$ conditioned on the classical index being $`x`$. Dynamic resources are similarly extended to more than two parties.

A useful representation of static classical-quantum systems, which we refer to as the “enlarged Hilbert space” (EHS) representation, is obtained by embedding the classical random variables into quantum systems. For instance, our ensemble $`E`$ corresponds to the density operator

$$\rho ^{𝒜𝒬}=\underset{x}{}p(x)|xx|^𝒜\rho _x^𝒬,$$
(1)
where $`𝒜`$ is a dummy quantum system and $`\{|x:x𝒳\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space $`_𝒜`$ of $`𝒜`$. A static classical-quantum system may, therefore, be viewed as a special case of a quantum one. The EHS representation is convenient for defining various information theoretical quantities for classical-quantum systems. The von Neumann entropy of a quantum system $`𝒜`$ with density operator $`\rho ^𝒜`$ is defined as $`H(𝒜)=\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^𝒜\mathrm{log}\rho ^𝒜`$. For a bipartite quantum system $`𝒜`$ define the conditional von Neumann entropy

$$H(|𝒜)=H(𝒜)H(𝒜),$$

and quantum mutual information

$$I(𝒜;)=H(𝒜)+H()H(𝒜)=H()H(|𝒜),$$

in formal analogy with the classical definitions. For a tripartite quantum system $`𝒜𝒞`$ define the quantum conditional mutual information

$$I(𝒜;|𝒞)=H(𝒜|𝒞)+H(|𝒞)H(𝒜|𝒞)=H(𝒜𝒞)+H(𝒞)H(𝒜𝒞)H(𝒞).$$

A commonly used identity is the *chain rule*

$$I(𝒜;𝒞)=I(𝒜;)+I(𝒜;𝒞|).$$

Notice that for classical-quantum correlations (1) the von Neumann entropy $`H(𝒜)`$ is just the Shannon entropy $`H(X)=_xp(x)\mathrm{log}p(x)`$ of $`X`$. The conditional entropy $`H(𝒬|X)`$ is defined as $`H(𝒬|𝒜)`$ and equals $`_xp(x)H(\rho _x)`$. Similarly, the mutual information between $`X`$ and $`𝒬`$ is defined as $`I(X;𝒬)=I(𝒜;𝒬)`$. Notice that this is precisely the familiar Holevo information  of the ensemble $`E`$:

$$\chi (E)=H\left(\underset{x}{}p(x)\rho _x\right)\underset{x}{}p(x)H(\rho _x).$$

Finally we need to introduce a classical-quantum analogue of a *Markov chain*. A classical Markov chain $`TXY`$ consists of correlated random variables $`T`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ whose probabilities obey $`\mathrm{Pr}\{Y=y|X=x,T=t\}=\mathrm{Pr}\{Y=y|X=x\}`$, which is to say that $`Y`$ depends on $`T`$ only through $`X`$. Analogously we may define a classical-quantum Markov chain $`TX𝒬`$ associated with an ensemble $`\{\rho _{tx},p(t,x)\}`$ for which $`\rho _{tx}=\rho _x`$. Such an object typically comes about by augmenting the system $`X𝒬`$ by the random variable $`T`$ (classically) correlated with $`X`$ via a conditional distribution $`Q(t|x)=\mathrm{Pr}\{T=t|X=x\}`$. In the EHS representation this corresponds to the state

$$\rho ^{𝒵𝒜𝒬}=\underset{x}{}p(x)\underset{u}{}Q(t|x)|tt|^𝒵|xx|^𝒜\rho _x^𝒬.$$
(2)
We shall henceforth make liberal use of the concepts defined above and their natural extensions.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we define and find expressions for the private information and key generation capacities $`C_p(W)`$ and $`K(W)`$, respectively, of a $`\{cqq\}`$ type channel $`W`$. We show that allowing a free forward public channel does not help in either case. In section 3 these findings are applied to a noisy quantum channel $`𝒩`$ setting, yielding analogous capacities $`C_p(𝒩)`$ and $`K(𝒩)`$. In section 4 we turn to the problem of entanglement generation over the quantum channel $`𝒩`$ and find the corresponding capacity $`E(𝒩)`$. This result is readily translated into an expression for the quantum capacity $`Q(𝒩)`$ in section 5. We conclude with open problems.

## 2 Private information transmission and key generation over classical-quantum channels

We begin by defining a general private information transmission protocol for a $`\{cqq\}`$ channel from Alice to Bob and Eve. The channel is defined by the map $`W:x\rho _x^𝒬`$, with $`x𝒳`$ and the $`\rho _x^𝒬`$ defined on a bipartite quantum system $`𝒬`$; Bob has access to $`𝒬`$ and Eve has access to $``$. Alice’s task is to convey, by some large number $`n`$ uses of the channel $`W`$ and unlimited use of a public channel (which both Bob and Eve have access to), one of $`2^{nR}`$ equiprobable messages to Bob so that he can identify the message with high probability while at the same time Eve receives almost no information about the message. The inputs to the composite channel $`W^n`$ are classical sequences of the form $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n𝒳^n`$, for which we use the shorthand notation $`x^n`$ (not to be confused with the power operation). The ouputs of $`W^n`$ are density operators living on some Hilbert space $`𝒬^n^n`$. We formally define an $`(n,ϵ)`$ *private channel code* of *rate* $`R`$ in the following way. Alice generates a random variable $`M`$ which she can use for randomization, if necessary. Given the classical message embodied in the random variable $`K`$ uniformly distributed on the set $`[2^{nR}]:=\{1,2,\mathrm{},2^{nR}\}`$, she sends the random variable $`X^n=X^n(K,M)`$ over the channel $`W^n`$ and sends the random variable $`S=S(K,M)`$ through the public channel. Bob performs a decoding POVM (based on the information contained in $`S`$) on his system $`𝒬^n`$, yielding the random variable $`Y`$, and computes his best estimate of Alice’s message $`L=L(Y,S)`$. We require

$`\mathrm{Pr}\{KL\}`$ $``$ $`ϵ,`$ (3)
$`I(K;S)`$ $``$ $`ϵ,`$ (4)
$`I(K;^n|S)`$ $``$ $`ϵ.`$ (5)
The second condition means that the public information $`S`$ is almost uncorrelated with $`K`$ and the third implies via the Holevo bound  that, given the public information, there is no measurement Eve could perform that would reveal more than $`ϵ`$ bits of information about $`K`$222As we shall see, $`ϵ`$ can be made to decrease exponentially in $`n`$. . We call the rate $`R`$ *achievable* if for every $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ and sufficiently large $`n`$ there exists an $`(n,ϵ)`$ code of rate $`R\delta `$. The *private channel capacity* $`C_p(W)`$ is the supremum of achievable rates $`R`$.

The above scenario should be contrasted with a secret key generation protocol, where Alice does not care about transmitting a particular message but only about establishing secret classical correlations with Bob, about which Eve has arbitrarily little information. The definition of an $`(n,ϵ)`$ *key generation code* is almost the same as that of a private channel code, with the difference that now $`K`$ itself is a function of $`M`$. The *secret key capacity* $`K(W)`$ is similarly given by the supremum of achievable rates $`R`$.

###### Theorem 1

$$C_p(W)=K(W)=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{l}\underset{TX^l}{\mathrm{max}}\{I(T;𝒬^l)I(T;^l)\},$$
(6)
where $`𝒬|X`$ is given by $`W`$ and $`TX^l𝒬^l^l`$ is a Markov chain.

Note that the limit in equation (6) indeed exists, by standard arguments (see e.g. , Appendix A). It should be noted that the above formula does not quite attain the ultimate goal of being effectively computable, due to the $`l\mathrm{}`$ limit. This seems to be a ubiquitous problem in quantum information theory, and we shall encounter it two more times in this paper, namely, in theorem 5 and proposition 7.

Proving that the right hand side of (6) is achievable is called the *direct coding theorem*, whereas showing that it is an upper bound is called the *converse*. It is obvious from our definition that $`K(W)C_p(W)`$, since any private channel can be used for generating a secret key. Hence it suffices to prove the converse for $`K(W)`$ and achievability for $`C_p(W)`$.

Proof of Theorem 1 (converse)  We shall prove that, for any $`\delta ,ϵ>0`$ and sufficiently large $`n`$, if an $`(n,ϵ)`$ secret key generation code has rate $`R`$ then

$$R\delta \frac{1}{n}\underset{TX^n}{\mathrm{max}}\{I(T;𝒬^n)I(T;^n)\}.$$

The proof parallels the classical one from . Fano’s inequality  says

$$H(K|L)1+\mathrm{Pr}\{KL\}nR.$$

Hence

$`nR`$ $`=`$ $`H(K)`$
$`=`$ $`I(K;L)+H(K|L)`$
$``$ $`I(K;L)+1+nϵ\mathrm{log}|𝒳|.`$
The last inequality follows from condition (3). Furthermore,

$`I(K;L)`$ $``$ $`I(K;S𝒬^n)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`I(K;S)+I(K;𝒬^n|S)`$
$``$ $`I(K;𝒬^n|S)I(K;^n|S)+2ϵ`$
$`=`$ $`I(T;𝒬^n|S)I(T;^n|S)+2ϵ,`$
where $`T=KS`$. The first inequality is a consequence of the Holevo bound  and the second inequality follows from conditions (4) and (5). Since, without loss of generality, $`ϵ\frac{\delta }{6\mathrm{log}|𝒳|}`$ and $`n\frac{2}{\delta }`$,

$$\frac{1}{n}\left[I(T;𝒬^n|S)I(T;^n|S)\right]R\delta ,$$
(8)
with $`STX^n𝒬^n^n`$ a Markov chain. Since the left hand side can be written as the average of

$$\frac{1}{n}\left[I(T_s;𝒬_s^n)I(T_s;_s^n)\right]$$
(9)
with respect to the distribution of $`S`$, and the Markov condition $`T_sX_s^n𝒬_s^n_s^n`$ holds for each $`s`$, choosing the particular value of $`s`$ that maximizes (9) proves the claim.

For the direct coding theorem we shall need two lemmas. The first is a quantum version of the Chernoff bound from .

###### Lemma 2 (Ahlswede, Winter)

Let $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _\mu `$ be independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with values in the algebra $`B()`$ of bounded linear operators on some Hilbert space $``$, which are bounded between $`0`$ and the identity operator $`I`$. Assume that the expectation value $`𝐄\xi _m=\theta tI`$. Then for every $`0<\eta <1/2`$

$$\mathrm{Pr}\left\{\frac{1}{\mu }\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}\xi _m[(1\pm \eta )\theta ]\right\}2dim\mathrm{exp}(\mu \frac{\eta ^2t}{2\mathrm{ln}2}),$$

where $`[(1\pm \eta )\theta ]=[(1\eta )\theta ;(1+\eta )\theta ]`$ is an interval in the operator order: $`[A;B]=\{\xi B():A\xi B\}`$.

The second lemma is Winter’s “gentle operator” lemma . It says that a POVM element that succeeds on a state with high probability does not disturb it much.

###### Lemma 3 (Winter)

For a state $`\rho `$ and operator $`0\mathrm{\Lambda }I`$, if $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \mathrm{\Lambda })1\lambda `$, then

$$\rho \sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\rho \sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\sqrt{8\lambda }.$$

The same holds if $`\rho `$ is only a subnormalized density operator.

In the above, $`A_1=\mathrm{Tr}\sqrt{AA^{}}`$ denotes the *trace norm* of some operator $`A`$. It is a norm in the sense that the *trace distance* between two operators $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`AB_1`$, satisfies the triangle inequality

$$AC_1AB_1+BC_1.$$
(10)
Proof of Theorem 1 (direct coding theorem)  We shall construct a private channel code that achieves the expression (6) without making use of the public channel from Alice to Bob. Consequently, the public channel cannot increase $`C_p(W)`$ or $`K(W)`$. Fixing the random variable $`X`$ with distribution $`p`$, our goal is first to show that a private information rate of $`I(X;𝒬)I(X;)`$ is achievable. We shall draw heavily on ideas from Winter’s POVM compression paper . Define $`\sigma _x=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬(\rho _x^𝒬)`$ and $`\omega _x=\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\rho _x^𝒬)`$, the local alphabets for Eve and Bob, respectively, and let $`\omega =_xp_x\omega _x`$.

In what follows we shall assume familiarity with the notions of typical sets $`𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$, typical subspaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{,\delta }^n`$ and conditionally typical subspaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$. These are defined in Appendix A for convenience.

Fixing $`\delta >0`$, we have the following properties (for $`x^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$, where applicable)  :

$`s:=\mathrm{Pr}\{X^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n\}`$ $``$ $`1ϵ`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\sigma _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ $``$ $`1ϵ`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\sigma _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n`$ $``$ $`1ϵ`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\omega _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ $``$ $`1ϵ`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\omega _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n`$ $``$ $`1ϵ`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Pi }_{,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n`$ $``$ $`\alpha ^1`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)\sigma _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ $``$ $`\beta \mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }^1`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n\omega ^n\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n.`$ (19)
Here $`\alpha =2^{n[H()+c\delta ]}`$, $`\beta =2^{n[H(|X)c\delta ]}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=2^{n[H(𝒬)c\delta ]}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=2^{n[H(𝒬|X)+c\delta ]}`$ for some constant $`c`$ and $`ϵ=2^{nc^{}\delta ^2}`$ for some constant $`c^{}`$. Define, for $`x^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$,

$`\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)\sigma _{x^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n),`$
$`\xi _{x^n}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Pi }_{,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n.`$
Since $`\sigma _{x^n}`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{|X,\delta }^n(x^n)`$, $`\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }\sigma _{x^n}`$. From this, (12) and (13)

$`\mathrm{Tr}\xi _{x^n}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Tr}(I\mathrm{\Pi }_{,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n)\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }`$
$``$ $`12ϵ.`$
Let $`p^{}`$ be the *pruned* distribution $`p^n`$ with respect to the set $`𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$, namely

$$p^{}(x^n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{p(x^n)}{s}\hfill & x^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`s`$ is as defined in (11). Then $`\mathrm{Tr}\theta ^{}12ϵ`$, for

$$\theta ^{}=\underset{x^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n}{}p^{}(x^n)\xi _{x^n}^{}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be the projector onto the subspace spanned by the eigenvectors of $`\theta ^{}`$ with eigenvalue $`ϵ\alpha `$. By (16), the support of $`\theta ^{}`$ has dimension $`\alpha ^1`$, so eigenvalues smaller than $`ϵ\alpha `$ contribute at most $`ϵ`$ to $`\mathrm{Tr}\theta ^{}`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{Tr}\theta 13ϵ`$ for $`\theta =\mathrm{\Pi }\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Also let $`\xi _{x^n}=\mathrm{\Pi }\xi _{x^n}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }`$, $`\mu ^{}=2^{n[I(X;)+3(c+c^{}\delta )\delta ]}`$, $`\kappa ^{}=2^{n[I(X;𝒬)I(X;)5(c+c^{}\delta )\delta ]}`$ and define $`\mu ^{}\kappa ^{}`$ i.i.d random variables $`U_{km}`$, $`m[\mu ^{}]`$, $`k[\kappa ^{}]`$, each distributed according to $`p^{}`$. Observe that $`\theta =𝐄\xi _{U_{km}}`$, where $`𝐄`$ denotes taking expectation values with respect to the distribution $`p^{}`$. Define the event

$$\iota _k=\left\{\frac{1}{\mu ^{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu ^{}}{}}\xi _{U_{km}}[(1\pm ϵ)\theta ]\right\}.$$
(20)
According to lemma 2,

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{\mathrm{not}\iota _k\}2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu ^{}\frac{ϵ^3\alpha }{2\beta \mathrm{ln}2}\right),k.$$

The right hand side, being a double exponential in $`n`$, can be made $`ϵ\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ for all $`k`$ and sufficiently large $`n`$. Now we shall argue that $`\{U_{km}`$ is a good code for the $`\{cq\}`$ channel $`𝒬|X`$  with high probability. It is a random code of size $`2^{n[I(X;𝒬)2(c+c^{}\delta )\delta ]}`$, and each codeword is chosen according to the pruned distribution $`p^{}`$. The proof of the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland theorem  involves choosing codewords according to the distribution $`p^n`$ and can be easily modified to work for $`p^{}`$ (see Appendix B). Consequently, the expectation of the average probability of error can be made to decay exponentially with $`n`$:

$$𝐄p_e(\{U_{km}\})10ϵ.$$

Define the event

$$\iota _0=\left\{p_e(\{U_{km}\})\sqrt[4]{ϵ^3}\right\}.$$
(21)
Then Markov’s lemma (from standard probability theory), according to which for any random variable $`X`$ and constant $`\gamma >0`$

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{X\gamma 𝐄X\}\gamma ^1,$$

implies

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{\mathrm{not}\iota _0\}10\sqrt[4]{ϵ}.$$

By construction,

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{\mathrm{not}(\iota _0\&\iota _1\mathrm{}\&\iota _\kappa ^{})\}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\kappa ^{}}{}}\mathrm{Pr}\{\mathrm{not}\iota _k\}ϵ+10\sqrt[4]{ϵ},$$
(22)
so there exists a *particular* value $`\{u_{km}\}`$ of $`\{U_{km}\}`$, for which $`\iota _k`$ holds for all $`k=0,\mathrm{},\kappa ^{}`$ (in fact, we have shown this holds with probability $`1ϵ10\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$ for a *randomly chosen* $`\{u_{km}\}`$). For all $`x^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$ we have, by lemma 3,

$`\sigma _{x^n}\xi _{x^n}^{}_1`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{x^n}\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }_1+\xi _{x^n}^{\prime \prime }\xi _{x^n}^{}_1`$ (23)
$``$ $`ϵ+\sqrt{16ϵ}.`$
Now, $`\iota _k`$ implies

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\frac{1}{\mu ^{}}\underset{m}{}\xi _{u_{km}}\right]14ϵ$$

and hence, by (23) and lemma 3,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu ^{}}{}}}\sigma _{u_{km}}\theta _1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\sigma _{u_{km}}\xi _{u_{km}}^{}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(\xi _{u_{km}}^{}\xi _{u_{km}})_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu ^{}}{}}}\xi _{u_{km}}\theta _1`$ (24)
$``$ $`(ϵ+\sqrt{16ϵ})+\sqrt{32ϵ}+ϵ=2ϵ+4\sqrt{ϵ}+4\sqrt{2ϵ}.`$
So far we only have a bound on the *average* error probability for the channel code. We would like each individual codeword to have low error probability. By (21), at most a fraction $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ of the codewords $`u_{km}`$ have error probability $`\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$. Moreover, at most a fraction $`\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$ of the values of $`k`$ are such that a fraction $`\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$ of the $`u_{km}`$ for that particular $`k`$ have error probability $`\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$. We shall expurgate these values of $`k`$ from the code, without loss of generality retaining the set $`[\kappa ]`$ with $`\kappa =(1\sqrt[4]{ϵ})\kappa ^{}`$. For each $`k[\kappa ]`$, order the $`u_{km}`$ according to increasing error probability, and retain only the first $`\mu =(1\sqrt[4]{ϵ})\mu ^{}`$ of them. This slight reduction in $`\kappa ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ now ensures that each codeword has error probability $`\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$. Since

$$\frac{1}{\mu ^{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu ^{}}{}}\sigma _{u_{km}}\frac{1}{\mu }\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}\sigma _{u_{km}}_12\sqrt[4]{ϵ},$$
(25)
we now have

$$\frac{1}{\mu }\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}\sigma _{u_{km}}\theta _12ϵ+4\sqrt{ϵ}+4\sqrt{2ϵ}+2\sqrt[4]{ϵ}=:ϵ^{}.$$
(26)
Note that this expurgation ensures that all the $`u_{km}`$ are distinct; if they were not, the probability of error for a repeated codeword would be $`\frac{1}{2}`$, a contradiction for sufficiently large $`n`$. Defining

$$\sigma _k=\frac{1}{\mu }\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mu }{}}\sigma _{u_{km}}$$

and

$$\overline{\sigma }=\frac{1}{\kappa }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\kappa }{}}\sigma _k$$
(27)
we have

$$\sigma _k\overline{\sigma }_12ϵ^{},k.$$
(28)
By Fannes’ inequality (see e.g. ) we can estimate

$`I(K;^n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\kappa }{}}}[H(\overline{\sigma })H(\sigma _k)]`$ (29)
$``$ $`\eta (2ϵ^{})+2nϵ^{}\mathrm{log}dim_{},`$
when $`2ϵ^{}\frac{1}{e}`$ and where $`\eta (x)=x\mathrm{log}x`$. We are now in a position to describe our private channel code. The random variable $`M`$ is uniformly distributed on $`[\mu ]`$, the message $`K`$ is uniformly distributed on $`[\kappa ]`$ and the channel input is $`X(K,M)=u_{KM}`$. By construction, Bob can perform a measurement that correctly identifies the pair $`(k,m)`$, and hence $`k`$, with probability $`1\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$. The rate of the code is bounded as $`RI(X;𝒬)I(X;)6(c+c^{}\delta )\delta `$, for sufficiently large $`n`$. Equation (29) and $`ϵ=2^{c^{}n}`$ ensures that $`I(K;^n)`$ can be made arbitrarily small (indeed exponentially small in $`n`$) for sufficiently large $`n`$. Notice that by simulating some channel $`X|T`$ in her lab, Alice can effectively produce the $`𝒬|T`$ channel for $`TX𝒬`$; thus $`I(T;𝒬)I(T;)`$ is also achievable. The multi-letter formula (6) follows from applying the above to the super-channel $`W^l`$.

Remark The classical analogue of theorem 1, namely the capacity $`C_p(W)`$ of a $`\{ccc\}`$ channel $`W=YZ|X`$ was first discovered in  for a weaker notion of secrecy, and later strengthened in . Our result implies a new proof of the classical direct coding theorem, using large deviation techniques instead of hashing/extractors as in the work of Maurer and collaborators .

## 3 Private information transmission and key generation over quantum channels

Now we shall apply these results to the setting where Alice and Bob are connected via a noisy *quantum channel* $`𝒩:B(_𝒫)B(_𝒬)`$. Here $`B(_𝒫)`$ denotes the space of bounded linear operators on $`_𝒫`$, the Hilbert space of the quantum system $`𝒫`$. The channel $`𝒩`$ is (non-uniquely) defined in terms of the operation elements $`\{A_i\}`$, $`_iA_i^{}A_i=I`$, as

$$𝒩(\rho )=\underset{i}{}A_i\rho A_i^{}.$$

This representation is exploited in Shor’s proof of the quantum channel capacity theorem . Here we take a different approach to noisy channels, propagated by Schumacher and collaborators . The channel is physically realized by an isometry $`U_𝒩:B(_𝒫)B(_𝒬)`$, called an *isometric extension* of $`𝒩`$, which explicitly includes the unobserved *environment* $``$. 333The standard formulation of  refers to a channel $`𝒩:B(_𝒬)B(_𝒬)`$ with the same input and output Hilbert space. The channel is physically realized by appending an environment system $``$, wlog initially in a pure state, applying a unitary operation $`U^𝒬`$ on the joint system, and tracing out $``$. Here we adapt the slightly more general approach of  in which the input and output Hilbert space of the channel may differ.

We shall assume that the environment $``$ is completely under the control of the eavesdropper Eve, and the quantum system $`𝒬`$ is under Bob’s control. Suppose Alice’s initial density operator is given by $`\rho ^𝒫`$. Defining $`\omega ^𝒬=𝒩(\rho ^𝒫)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}U_𝒩(\rho ^𝒫)`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬U_𝒩(\rho ^𝒫)`$, the coherent information is defined as

$$I_c(\rho ^𝒫,𝒩)=H(\omega ^𝒬)H(\sigma ^{}).$$

Note that, although there is an infinite family of $`U_𝒩`$ corresponding to a given $`𝒩`$, the coherent information is independent of this choice . Since we are interested in transmitting private *classical* information, the most general protocol requires Alice to prepend a $`\{cq\}`$ channel $`𝒫|X`$ of her choice (given by some alphabet $`\{\rho _x\}𝒫^j`$) to $`j`$ instances of $`𝒩`$, for arbitrarily large $`j`$. This induces a $`\{cqq\}`$ channel $`𝒬^j^j|X`$, and we may now apply the results of the previous section. Combining the $`l\mathrm{}`$ limit from equation (6) with the $`j\mathrm{}`$ one and absorbing $`T`$ into $`X`$ gives

$$C_p(𝒩)=K(𝒩)=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{l}\underset{X𝒫}{\mathrm{max}}\{I(X;𝒬^l)I(X;^l)\}.$$

It is easily verified (see also section 4) that this may be rewritten as

$$C_p(𝒩)=K(𝒩)=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{l}\underset{\rho _𝒫^l}{\mathrm{max}}I_p(\rho ,𝒩^l),$$
(30)
where we introduce the *private information* $`I_p`$:

$$I_p(\rho ,𝒩)=I_c(\rho ,𝒩)\underset{\{p(x),\rho _x\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\underset{x}{}p(x)I_c(\rho _x,𝒩):\underset{x}{}p(x)\rho _x=\rho \right\}.$$
(31)
The above expression for $`K(𝒩)`$ is almost implicit in , albeit without proof. Note that $`I_p(\rho ,𝒩)I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$ since any decomposition of $`\rho `$ into pure states sets the expression minimized in (31) to zero. It is codes corresponding to $`I_p(\rho ,𝒩)=I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$ that will be relevant for entanglement generation. In Appendix C we give an example illustrating the possibility of $`I_p>I_c>0`$.

## 4 Entanglement generation over quantum channels

In this section we apply the above results to the more difficult problem of *entanglement generation* over quantum channels. The objective is for Alice and Bob to share a nearly maximally entangled state on a $`2^{nR}\times 2^{nR}`$ dimensional Hilbert space, by using a large number $`n`$ instances of the noisy quantum channel $`𝒩`$. Before getting into details we should recall some facts about fidelities and purifications (mostly taken from ). The fidelity of two density operators with respect to each other can be defined as444Our definition of fidelity is the square of the quantity defined in .

$$F(\rho ,\sigma )=\sqrt{\rho }\sqrt{\sigma }_1^2.$$

For two pure states $`|\chi `$, $`|\zeta `$ this amounts to

$$F(|\chi ,|\zeta )=|\chi |\zeta |^2.$$

###### Lemma 4

Consider two collections of orthonormal states $`(|\chi _j)_{j[N]}`$ and $`(|\zeta _j)_{j[N]}`$ such that $`\chi _j|\zeta _j1ϵ`$ for all $`j`$. There exist phases $`\gamma _j`$ and $`\delta _j`$ such that

$$\widehat{\chi }|\widehat{\zeta }1ϵ,$$

where

$`|\widehat{\chi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\gamma _j}|\chi _j,`$ (32)
$`|\widehat{\zeta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\delta _j}|\zeta _j.`$ (33)
Proof Define the Fourier transformed states

$$|\widehat{\chi }_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{2\pi ijs/N}|\chi _j,$$

and similarly define $`|\widehat{\zeta }_s`$. It is easy to see that

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{\chi }_s|\widehat{\zeta }_s=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\chi _j|\zeta _j1ϵ,$$

hence at least one value of $`s`$ obeys

$$e^{i\theta _s}\widehat{\chi }_s|\widehat{\zeta }_s1ϵ,$$

for some phase $`\theta _s`$. Setting $`\gamma _j=2\pi js/N`$ and $`\delta _j=\gamma _j+\theta _s`$ satisfies the statement of the lemma.

Moreover, a fraction $`1\sqrt{ϵ}`$ of the values of $`s`$ satisfy

$$e^{i\theta _s}\widehat{\chi }_s|\widehat{\zeta }_s1\sqrt{ϵ},$$

a fact we shall use in Appendix D.

The following relation between fidelity and the trace distance will be needed:

$$1\sqrt{F(\rho ,\sigma )}\frac{1}{2}\rho \sigma _1\sqrt{1F(\rho ,\sigma )},$$
(34)
the second inequality becoming an equality for pure states. A *purification* $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^𝒬`$ of a density operator $`\rho ^𝒬`$ is some pure state living in an augmented quantum system $`𝒬`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}(|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_\rho |^𝒬)=\rho ^𝒬`$. Any two purifications $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^𝒬`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^{}^𝒬`$ of $`\rho ^𝒬`$ are related by some local unitary $`U`$ on the *reference system* $``$

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^{}^𝒬=(U^{}I^𝒬)|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^𝒬.$$

A theorem by Uhlmann states that, for a fixed purification $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma `$ of $`\sigma `$,

$$F(\rho ,\sigma )=\underset{\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho }{\mathrm{max}}F(|\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ,|\mathrm{\Phi }_\sigma ).$$

A corollary of this theorem is the *monotonicity* property of fidelity

$$F(\rho ^𝒬,\sigma ^𝒬)F(\rho ^𝒬,\sigma ^𝒬),$$

where $`\rho ^𝒬=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\rho ^𝒬`$ and $`\sigma ^𝒬=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\sigma ^𝒬`$.

Returning to the problem of entanglement generation, an $`(n,ϵ)`$ code is defined as follows. Alice prepares, without loss of generality, a *pure* bipartite state $`|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{𝒜𝒫^n}`$ in her lab, defined on $`_𝒜_𝒫^n`$, $`dim_𝒜=\kappa `$, and sends the $`𝒫^n`$ portion of it through the channel. Bob performs a general decoding quantum operation on the channel output $`𝒟:B(_𝒬^n)B(_{})`$, $`dim_{}=\kappa `$, yielding the state

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^𝒜=[I^𝒜(𝒟𝒩^n)](|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|^{𝒜𝒫^n}).$$
(35)
The rate of the code is $`R=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\kappa `$. We require

$$F(|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa ^𝒜,\mathrm{\Omega }^𝒜)1ϵ,$$

where

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa ^𝒜=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa }}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\kappa }{}}|k^𝒜|k^{}$$

is the standard maximally entangled state shared by Alice and Bob. We shall call a rate $`R`$ achievable if for every $`ϵ,\delta >0`$ and sufficiently large $`n`$ there exists an $`(n,ϵ)`$ code of rate $`R\delta `$. The entanglement generating capacity $`E(𝒩)`$ is given by the supremum of achievable $`R`$.

###### Theorem 5

Given the channel $`𝒩`$,

$$E(𝒩)=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{l}\underset{\rho _𝒫^l}{\mathrm{max}}I_c(\rho ,𝒩^l).$$
(36)
Remark Note that $`K(𝒩)E(𝒩)`$ is obvious since any pure entanglement can be converted into a secret key by performing a measurement in the $`\{|k\}`$ basis. It is not clear from formulas (30) and (36) whether the inequality can be made strict. We return to this issue in the final section.

The converse theorem makes use of the following simple lemma .

###### Lemma 6

For two states $`\rho ^𝒬`$ and $`\sigma ^𝒬`$ of a quantum system $`𝒬`$ of dimension $`d`$ with fidelity $`f=F(\rho ^𝒬,\sigma ^𝒬)`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }H(\rho ^𝒬)\mathrm{\Delta }H(\sigma ^𝒬)|\frac{2}{e}+4\mathrm{log}d\sqrt{1f},$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H(\rho ^𝒬)=H(\rho ^𝒬)H(\rho ^𝒬).$$

Proof By the monotonicity of fidelity, $`F(\rho ^{},\sigma ^{})f`$. The lemma follows from a double application of Fannes’ inequality  and (34).

Proof of Theorem 5 (converse)  We shall prove that, for any $`\delta ,ϵ>0`$ and sufficiently large $`n`$, if an $`(n,ϵ)`$ code has rate $`R`$ then $`R\delta \frac{1}{n}I_c(\rho ,𝒩^n)`$, where $`\rho `$ the restriction of $`|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ to $`_𝒫^n`$. Evidently, it suffices to prove this for $`ϵ[\frac{\delta }{16\mathrm{log}dim_𝒫}]^2`$ and $`n\frac{4}{e\delta }`$. The converse relies on the quantum data processing inequality, which says that quantum post-processing cannot increase the coherent information .

$`I_c(\rho ,𝒩^n)`$ $``$ $`I_c(\rho ,𝒟𝒩^n)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }H(\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }H(|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa |){\displaystyle \frac{2}{e}}8nR\sqrt{ϵ}`$
$``$ $`nR{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e}}8n\mathrm{log}dim_𝒫\sqrt{ϵ},`$
from which the claim follows. The first inequality is the data processing inequality and the second inequality is an application of lemma 6.

Proof of Theorem 5 (direct coding theorem)  It suffices to demonstrate that a rate of $`I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$ is achievable for any $`\rho _𝒫`$. The regularized formula (36) is obtained by additional blocking. Following , consider the eigen-decomposition of $`\rho `$ into the orthonormal pure state ensemble $`\{p(x),|\varphi _x\}`$,

$$\underset{x}{}p(x)|\varphi _x\varphi _x|=\rho .$$
(37)
The distribution $`p`$ defines a random variable $`X`$. Let $`U_𝒩:B(_𝒫)B(_𝒬)`$ be an isometric extension of $`𝒩`$. Define the $`\{cqq\}`$ channel $`W:xU_𝒩|\varphi _x^𝒫=:|\varphi _x^{}^𝒬`$. Define the local output density matrices seen by Bob and Eve by $`\omega _x^𝒬=\mathrm{Tr}_{}(|\varphi _x^{}\varphi _x^{}|^𝒬)`$ and $`\sigma _x^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬(|\varphi _x^{}\varphi _x^{}|^𝒬)`$, respectively, and the averages over $`x`$ by $`\omega ^𝒬`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$, respectively. In section 2 we showed that for any $`\delta `$ there exists an $`(n,ϵ)`$ code, defined by $`\{u_{km}:k[\kappa ],m[\mu ]\}`$, of rate $`\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\kappa =I_c(\rho ,𝒩)\delta `$. Indeed

$`I(X;𝒬)I(X;)`$ $`=`$ $`H(\omega ^𝒬){\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p(x)H(\omega _x^𝒬)H(\sigma ^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}p(x)H(\sigma _x^{})`$
$`=`$ $`H(\omega ^𝒬)H(\sigma ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`I_c(\rho ,𝒩),`$
since $`H(\omega _x^𝒬)=H(\sigma _x^{})`$ for all $`x`$.

In what follows we shall be dealing with blocks of length $`n`$ and use the abbreviated notation $`𝒬`$ for $`𝒬^n`$, etc. Consider sending the state $`|\varphi _{km}^𝒫:=|\varphi _{u_{km}}^𝒫`$ through the isometric extension channel $`U_𝒩^n`$

$$|\varphi _{km}^{}^𝒬=U_𝒩^n|\varphi _{km}^𝒫.$$

Define $`\sigma _{km}^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬(|\varphi _{km}^{}\varphi _{km}^{}|^𝒬)`$ and

$$\sigma _k^{}=\frac{1}{\mu }\underset{m}{}\sigma _{km}^{}.$$

As shown in section 2, there exists a $`\theta ^{}`$ such that, for all $`k`$,

$$\sigma _k^{}\theta ^{}_1ϵ.$$
(38)
In addition, there is a measurement Bob can perform on $`𝒬`$ that with probability $`1ϵ`$ correctly identifies the index $`km`$. Since any measurement can be written as a unitary operation on a larger Hilbert space (including some ancilla initially in a pure state) followed by a von Neumann measurement on the ancilla, there exists a unitary $`V^𝒬^{}`$ such that

$$(I^{}V^𝒬^{})|\varphi _{km}^{}^𝒬|0^{}|0^{^{}}=|\psi _{km}^𝒬^{}$$

and

$$F(\rho _{km}^{^{}},|k^{}|m^{^{}})1ϵ,$$

for $`\rho _{km}^{^{}}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬(|\psi _{km}\psi _{km}|^𝒬^{})`$. By Uhlmann’s theorem, for the purification $`|\psi _{km}^𝒬^{}`$ of $`\rho _{km}^{^{}}`$ there exists a “purification” $`|\chi _{km}^𝒬|k^{}|m^{^{}}`$ of $`|k^{}|m^{^{}}`$ such that

$$\psi _{km}|^𝒬^{}|\chi _{km}^𝒬|k^{}|m^{^{}}1ϵ.$$
(39)
Let $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{km}^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬(|\chi _{km}\chi _{km}|^𝒬)`$. Since $`|\psi _{km}^𝒬^{}`$ is also a purification of $`\sigma _{km}^{}`$, we have, by (34), the monotonicity of fidelity and (39):

$`\sigma _{km}^{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{km}^{}_1`$ $``$ $`2\sqrt{1F(\sigma _{km}^{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{km}^{})}`$
$``$ $`2\sqrt{1F(|\psi _{km}^𝒬^{},|\chi _{km}^𝒬|k^{}|m^{^{}})}2\sqrt{ϵ}.`$
Define

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k^{}=\frac{1}{\mu }\underset{m}{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{km}^{}.$$
(40)
Then

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k^{}\theta ^{}_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\sigma _{km}^{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{km}^{}_1+\sigma _{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^{}_1`$ (41)
$``$ $`2\sqrt{ϵ}+ϵ.`$ (42)
By (34)

$$F(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k^{},\theta ^{})12\sqrt{ϵ}ϵ.$$
(43)
Consider the set of *quantum codewords* $`\{|\varphi _k\}`$:

$$|\varphi _k^𝒫=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu }}\underset{m}{}e^{i\gamma _{km}}|\varphi _{km}^𝒫,$$
(44)
with the phases $`\gamma _{km}`$ to be specified. After transmission through $`U_𝒩^n`$, adding the ancilla $`|0^{}|0^{^{}}`$ and applying $`V^𝒬^{}`$, $`|\varphi _k^𝒫`$ becomes

$$|\psi _k^𝒬^{}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu }}\underset{m}{}e^{i\gamma _{km}}|\psi _{km}^𝒬^{}.$$
(45)
By (39) and lemma 4 we can choose the phases $`\gamma _{km}`$ and $`\delta _{km}`$ so that

$$\psi _k|^𝒬^{}|k^{}|\phi _k^𝒬^{}1ϵ,$$
(46)
where

$$|\phi _k^𝒬^{}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu }}\underset{m}{}e^{i\delta _{km}}|\chi _{km}^𝒬|m^{^{}}.$$

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬^{}(|\phi _k\phi _k|^𝒬^{})`$, as defined in (40). Hence, fixing a purification $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta ^𝒬^{}`$ of $`\theta ^{}`$, for all $`k[\kappa ]`$ there exists a unitary $`U_k^𝒬^{}`$ such that (cf. )

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta |^𝒬^{}[U_k^𝒬^{}I^{}]|\phi _k^𝒬^{}12\sqrt{ϵ}ϵ,$$

by applying Uhlmann’s theorem to (43). Introducing the “controlled” unitary

$$U^𝒬^{}=\underset{k}{}|kk|^{}U_k^𝒬^{},$$

the above may be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta |^𝒬^{}k|^{}[U^𝒬^{}I^{}]|k^{}|\phi _k^𝒬^{}12\sqrt{ϵ}ϵ.$$

Combining this with (46) gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta |^𝒬^{}k|^{}[U^𝒬^{}I^{}]|\psi _k^𝒬^{}14\sqrt{ϵ}4ϵ.$$
(47)
We can now define our entanglement generating code. Alice prepares the state

$$|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{𝒜𝒫}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa }}\underset{k}{}|k^𝒜|\varphi _k^𝒫,$$
(48)
keeps the system $`𝒜`$ and sends the system $`𝒫`$ through the channel. Bob subsequently applies the decoding operator

$$𝒟:\omega ^𝒬\mathrm{Tr}_𝒬^{}\left[U^𝒬^{}V^𝒬^{}(\omega ^𝒬|00|^{}|00|^{^{}})V_{}^{𝒬^{}}{}_{}{}^{}U_{}^{𝒬^{}}{}_{}{}^{}\right],$$
(49)
resulting in some state $`\mathrm{\Omega }^𝒜`$, which by (47) and the monotonicity of fidelity obeys

$$F(\mathrm{\Omega }^𝒜,|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa ^𝒜)14\sqrt{ϵ}4ϵ.$$
(50)
This concludes the proof of the direct coding theorem.

Remark Transforming a private channel code into an entanglement generating one appears to work only for pure state decompositions of $`\rho `$. Otherwise, the pure states $`|\varphi ^{}`$ become effectively shared by Alice, Bob and Eve. The decoding operation $`𝒟`$ would then involve performing joint operations on spatially separated quantum systems belonging to Bob and Alice, which cannot be accomplished in general without additional quantum resources.

Remark Note the similarity between (44) and CSS codes . Indeed, here we have a coset-like decomposition of a $`\{cq\}`$ “error correction” code of size $`\kappa \mu `$ into $`\kappa `$ $`\{cq\}`$ “privacy amplification” codes of size $`\mu `$ (see  for a nice exposition of these concepts in the context of the Shor-Preskill result ). The differences lie in that CSS codes have an additional algebraic structure and are composed of purely classical rather than classical-quantum codes.

## 5 Quantum information transmission over quantum channels.

Finally we arrive at our destination: recovering the formula for the quantum capacity $`Q(𝒩)`$ of a quantum channel $`𝒩`$. This quantity has been rigorously defined in  and we briefly review it here. An $`(n,ϵ)`$ code is defined by an encoding operation $`:B()B(_𝒫^n)`$ and a decoding operation $`𝒟:B(_𝒬^n)B()`$, such that

$$\underset{|\varphi }{\mathrm{min}}F(|\varphi ,(𝒟𝒩^n)(|\varphi \varphi |))1ϵ.$$
(51)
The rate of the code is given by $`R=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}dim`$. The quantum capacity of the channel $`Q(𝒩)`$ is the supremum of all achievable $`R`$.

There is an alternative definition, in which the condition (51) and the definition of $`R`$ are replaced by

$$R=\underset{\rho }{\mathrm{max}}\{H(\rho ):F_e(\rho ,𝒟𝒩^n)1ϵ\}.$$
(52)
Here $`F_e`$ is the entanglement fidelity

$$F_e(\rho ,𝒪)=F(|\mathrm{\Psi },(I𝒪)(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)),$$

where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is some purification of $`\rho `$ ($`F_e`$ is independent of the particular choice of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$). We denote the corresponding capacity by $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)`$. In , $`Q(𝒩)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)`$ were called the subspace transmission and entanglement transmission capacities of the channel, respectively, and were shown to be equal.

It comes as no surprise that entanglement generation and entanglement transmission are closely related. This intuition is made rigorous by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 7

Given the channel $`𝒩`$,

$$Q(𝒩)=\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)=E(𝒩)=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{l}\underset{\rho _𝒫^l}{\mathrm{max}}I_c(\rho ,𝒩^l).$$
(53)
Proof It is obvious that $`E(𝒩)\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)`$, since the quantum channel may be used to transmit half of a maximally entangled state. Notice that this fact in conjunction with the converse for theorem 5 yields a new and substantially simpler proof of the converse to the quantum channel capacity theorem (cf. ). To prove that $`E(𝒩)\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)`$ requires just a bit more work. In  it was shown that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{}(𝒩)=\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{}(𝒩)`$ is the quantum capacity of a quantum channel $`𝒩`$ enhanced by unlimited forward classical communication (cf. our corresponding result for private information transmission). Defining $`E_{}(𝒩)`$ analogously, it now suffices to show $`E_{}(𝒩)\stackrel{~}{Q}_{}(𝒩)`$. Indeed, any entanglement generated may be used in conjunction with the forward classical channel to perform quantum teleportation of the state $`\rho `$ . More precisely (see section 4), Alice and Bob generate the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfying

$$f=F(|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa ,\mathrm{\Omega })1ϵ.$$

They may perform a bilateral twirling operation  to transform $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into a Werner state

$$𝒯(\mathrm{\Omega })=𝑑U(UU^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(UU^{})^{}=f|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa |+\frac{1f}{\kappa 1}(I|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa |),$$

which is now interpreted as being in the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa `$ with probability $`f`$. Since teleporting a state $`\rho `$ living in a $`\kappa `$-dimensional Hilbert space $``$ via the maximally entangled $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\kappa `$ yields an entanglement fidelity of $`1`$, using $`𝒯(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ instead will give an entanglement fidelity of at least $`f1ϵ`$. Actually, one need not perform the full twirling operation. The twirl is equivalent to applying some bilateral $`UU^{}`$ chosen at random. Thus there exists a particular value of $`U`$ for which the entanglement fidelity is $`f`$. Furthermore, the $`UU^{}`$ is easily absorbed into $`|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and $`𝒟`$ of the entanglement generating protocol. Choosing $`\rho `$ to be maximally entropic proves the claim. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)=E(𝒩)`$.

Remark It is possible to modify the proof of the direct coding part of theorem 5 to lower bound $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(𝒩)`$ directly rather than via $`E(𝒩)`$. This is done in Appendix D, where we also show the existence of random entanglement transmission codes of large blocklength $`n`$ with rate arbitrarily close to $`I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$ and the nice property that the average density operator of the codewords is arbitrarily close to $`\rho ^n`$.

## 6 Discussion

We have defined and found expressions for the private information transmission $`C_p`$ and secret key generation $`K`$ capacities for classical-quantum wire-tap channels $`W`$ and quantum channels $`𝒩`$. A subclass of the corresponding protocols was made “coherent” to yield entanglement generation and quantum information transmission protocols achieving the respective capacities $`E(𝒩)`$ and $`Q(𝒩)`$. Thus we have established a very important *operational* connection between quantum privacy and quantum coherence .

Our results show that $`C_p(W)=K(W)`$, $`C_p(𝒩)=K(𝒩)`$ and $`E(𝒩)=Q(𝒩)`$. On the other hand, it is obvious operationally, as well as from $`I_p(\rho ,𝒩)I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$, that $`K(𝒩)E(𝒩)`$. Although it is easy to find examples of strict inequality between $`I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$ and $`I_p(\rho ,𝒩)`$ for particular $`(\rho ,𝒩)`$ pairs (see Appendix C), it is not clear whether this still holds when optimized over $`\rho `$ and in the asymptotic sense of (30) and (36). In particular, we would like to know whether there exist quantum channels which cannot be used for transmitting quantum information, yet may be used to establish a secret key. The “static” analogue of this question was answered recently in in  by providing an example of a bipartite state with non-zero distillable secret key but zero (two-way!) distillable entanglement. It is natural to expect that a channel related to this state would demonstrate a separation between $`K`$ and $`E`$ .

Another open problem is whether the formula for $`C_p(W)`$ may be single-letterized (as in the purely classical case ) for general channels or at least certain classes of channels. The same question is open for $`C_p(𝒩)`$, whereas counterexamples are known for $`Q(𝒩)`$ . A non-trivial class of channels exists (so-called *degradable* channels) for which $`Q(𝒩)`$ is efficiently computable , and it can be shown that this property extends to $`C_p(W)`$ (we do not know this to be true for $`C_p(𝒩)`$). More generally, we would like to be able to say something about the convergence rate of the limits in equations (30) and (36).

A natural extension of the present work would be to allow two-way public/classical communication for key/entanglement generation. This enhanced auxiliary resource is known to improve the capacities in both cases , but it seems unlikely that reasonable information-theoretical formulas exist in general.

The results of section 2 were independently obtained by Cai and Yeung , see .

Acknowledgments We thank C. H. Bennett and J. A. Smolin for useful discussions and the former for pointing us to . Thanks also go to A. W. Harrow, D. W. Leung, K. El-Zein and J. Yard for comments on the manuscript. Finally, we are indebted to A. S. Holevo and D. Kretschmann for drawing our attention to a couple of technical errors in an earlier version of the paper.

## Appendix A Definitions of typical sequences and subspaces

We shall list definitions and properties of typical sequences and subspaces . Consider some general classical-quantum system $`UX𝒬`$ in the state defined by the ensemble $`\{p(u,x),\rho _{ux}\}`$. $`X`$ is defined on the set $`𝒳`$ and $`U`$ on the set $`𝒰`$. Denote by $`p(x)`$ and $`P(x|u)`$ the distribution of $`X`$ and conditional distribution of $`X|U`$, respectively.

For the probability distribution $`p`$ on the set $`𝒳`$ define the set of *typical sequences* (with $`\delta >0`$)

$$𝒯_{p,\delta }^n=\{x^n:x|N(x|x^n)np(x)|n\delta \},$$

where $`N(x|x^n)`$ counts the number of occurrences of $`x`$ in the word $`x^n=x_1\mathrm{}x_n`$ of length $`n`$. When the distribution $`p`$ is associated with some random variable $`X`$ we may use the notation $`𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$.

For the stochastic map $`P:𝒰𝒳`$ and $`u^n𝒰^n`$ define the set of *conditionally typical sequences* (with $`\delta >0`$) by

$$𝒯_{P,\delta }^n(u^n)=\{x^n:u,x|N((u,x)|(u^n,x^n))P(x|u)N(u|u^n)|n\delta \}.$$

When the stochastic map $`P`$ is associated with some conditional random variable $`X|U`$ we may use the notation $`𝒯_{X|U,\delta }^n(u^n)`$.

For a density operator $`\rho `$ on a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space $``$, with eigen-decomposition $`\rho =_{k=1}^d\lambda _k|kk|`$ define (for $`\delta >0`$) the *typical projector* as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho ,\delta }^n=\underset{k^n𝒯_{R,\delta }^n}{}|k^nk^n|.$$

When the density operator $`\rho `$ is associated with some quantum system $`𝒬`$ we may use the notation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta }^n`$.

For a collection of states $`\rho _u`$, $`u𝒰`$, and $`u^n𝒰^n`$ define the *conditionally typical projector* as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\{\rho _u\},\delta }^n(u^n)=\underset{u}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho _u,\delta }^{I_u},$$

where $`I_u=\{i:u_i=u\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho _u,\delta }^{I_u}`$ denotes the typical projector of the density operator $`\rho _u`$ in the positions given by the set $`I_u`$ in the tensor product of $`n`$ factors. When the $`\{\rho _u\}`$ are associated with some conditional classical-quantum system $`𝒬|U`$ we may use the notation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|U,\delta }^n(u^n)`$.

## Appendix B The modified HSW theorem

Define $`\nu =2^{n[I(X;𝒬)2(c+c^{}\delta )\delta ]}`$ i.i.d. random variables $`\{U_s\}`$, $`s[\nu ]`$, according to the pruned distribution $`p^{}`$. We shall show that this random set can be made into a HSW code for the $`\{cq\}`$ channel $`𝒬|X`$ with low probability of error. More precisely, we shall construct a decoding POVM $`\{Y_s\}`$ such that

$$𝐄p_e(\{U_s\})=𝐄\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _{U_s}(IY_s))10ϵ.$$

We shall need the following lemma due to Hayashi and Nagaoka : For any operators $`0SI`$ and $`T0`$

$$I(S+T)^{\frac{1}{2}}S(S+T)^{\frac{1}{2}}2(IS)+4T.$$
(54)
The $`\{Y_s\}`$ are constructed as follows

$$Y_s=(\underset{t}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U_t})^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U_s}(\underset{t}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U_t})^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{x^n}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬|X,\delta }^n(x^n)\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n.$$

Then, by (54),

$$p_e(\{U_s\})2(1\mathrm{Tr}\omega _{U_s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U_s})+4\underset{ts}{}\mathrm{Tr}\omega _{U_s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U_t}.$$
(55)
It is not hard to verify (cf. lemma 6 of ) that for $`x^n𝒯_{X,\delta }^n`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}\omega _{x^n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{x^n}13ϵ$$

follows from (14) and (15). By (18)

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{x^n}\stackrel{~}{\beta }^1.$$

Also note that

$$𝐄\omega _{U_s}=\underset{x^n}{}p^{}(x^n)\omega _{x^n}(1ϵ)^1\omega ^n,$$

so that, by (19),

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n𝐄\omega _{U_s}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n(1ϵ)^1\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝒬,\delta (|𝒳|+1)}^n.$$

Putting everything together, taking the expectation of (55) and noting that $`U_s`$ and $`U_t`$ are independent for $`st`$, we have

$`𝐄p_e(\{U_s\})`$ $``$ $`6ϵ+4(\nu 1)\mathrm{Tr}(𝐄\omega _{U_s}𝐄\mathrm{\Lambda }_{U_t})`$
$``$ $`6ϵ+4\nu (1ϵ)^1\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }^110ϵ,`$
the last inequality coming from our choice of $`\nu `$.

## Appendix C An example of $`I_p(\rho ,𝒩)>I_c(\rho ,𝒩)`$

Consider a four dimensional Hilbert space $`_4`$, with orthonormal basis $`\{|1,|2,|3,|4\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}`$ be the projector onto the space spanned by $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{34}`$ be the projector onto the space spanned by $`|3`$ and $`|4`$. Our channel555This channel was suggested to us by J. A. Smolin. $`𝒩:B(_4)B(_4)`$ is given by

$$𝒩(\rho )=\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}\rho \mathrm{\Pi }_{12}+𝒟_{34}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{34}\rho \mathrm{\Pi }_{34}),$$

where $`𝒟_{34}`$ is the completely depolarizing channel on the two dimensional subspace spanned by $`|3`$ and $`|4`$. Defining $`\pi _{12}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}`$ and $`\pi _{34}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{34}`$, it is easily verified that

$`I_c(\pi _{12},𝒩)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`I_c(\pi _{34},𝒩)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (56)
Define, for some small positive $`ϵ`$,

$`\pi _{12}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1ϵ)\pi _{12}+ϵ\pi _{34}`$
$`\pi _{34}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1ϵ)\pi _{34}+ϵ\pi _{12}.`$
By continuity, for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$

$`I_c(\pi _{12}^{},𝒩)`$ $`>`$ $`0`$
$`I_c(\pi _{34}^{},𝒩)`$ $`<`$ $`0.`$ (57)
Since

$$\pi _{12}^{}=ϵ\pi _{34}^{}+\frac{1ϵϵ^2}{2}|11|+\frac{1ϵϵ^2}{2}|22|+\frac{ϵ^2}{2}|33|+\frac{ϵ^2}{2}|44|,$$

is a valid decomposition of $`\pi _{12}^{}`$, it is readily seen that

$$I_p(\pi _{12}^{},𝒩)>I_c(\pi _{12}^{},𝒩)>0.$$

## Appendix D The average density operator of random quantum codes

In this section we show how to convert a subclass of the entanglement generation codes described in section 4 into entanglement transmission ones of the same rate $`I_c(\rho ,𝒩)\delta `$. Then we construct *random* entanglement transmission codes of the same rate such that the average density operator of the codewords becomes arbitrarily close to $`\rho ^n`$ for large enough blocklength $`n`$.

Alice is given the system $`𝒜^{}`$, entangled with some reference system $`𝒜`$ she has no access to, in some general state with Schmidt decomposition

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{𝒜𝒜^{}}=\underset{k}{}\alpha _k|k^𝒜|k^𝒜^{}.$$

Her goal is transfer the entanglement with $`𝒜`$ from her system $`𝒜^{}`$ to Bob’s $``$. Notice that the states $`|\varphi _{km}^𝒫`$ (and hence $`|\varphi _k^𝒫`$) are mutually orthogonal. Consequently, there is an isometric encoding $``$ defined by $`|k^𝒜^{}|\varphi _k^𝒫`$ which maps $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{𝒜𝒜^{}}`$ to

$$|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{𝒜𝒫}=\underset{k}{}\alpha _k|k^𝒜|\varphi _k^𝒫,$$
(58)
now bearing a strong resemblance to (48). By following through the remaining steps of the proof of theorem 5, it is easily seen that after applying the decoding operation $`𝒟`$ given by (49) one arrives at (c.f. (50)):

$$F(|\mathrm{\Psi },(I(𝒟𝒩^n))(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|))14\sqrt{ϵ}4ϵ.$$
(59)
Choosing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to be maximally entangled implies, via (52), an achievable entropy rate of $`\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\kappa =I_c(\rho ,𝒩)\delta `$.

The set $`𝒮=\{|\varphi _k\}`$ is sometimes referred to as the *quantum code*. A natural quantity to define is the *quantum code density operator*

$$\rho (𝒮)=\frac{1}{\kappa }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\kappa }{}}|\varphi _k\varphi _k|,$$

i.e. the input to the channel $`𝒩^n`$ as seen by someone ignorant of the encoded state. Little can be said about $`\rho (𝒮)`$ for any particular quantum code $`𝒮`$ given by our construction. However if we consider *random* codes, a probabilistic mixture of deterministic codes given by an *ensemble* $`\{p_\beta ,𝒮_\beta \}`$, we can make the average code density operator

$$\overline{\rho }=\underset{\beta }{}p_\beta 𝒮_\beta $$

be arbitrarily close to $`\rho ^n`$. We shall show this via a double randomization of our original protocol.

1. First recall that for fixed $`k`$ and fixed set $`\{|\varphi _{km}\}_{m[\mu ]}`$, the $`k`$th quantum codeword (44)

$$|\varphi _k=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu }}\underset{m}{}e^{i\gamma _{km}}|\varphi _{km}$$

was chosen from one of $`\mu `$ Fourier states. If they were all “$`ϵ`$-good” quantum codewords, in the sense of (46), then picking $`|\varphi _k`$ at random according to the uniform distribution on the set of Fourier states, for each $`k`$, would result in a random code with average code density operator

$$\overline{\rho }=\frac{1}{\kappa \mu }\underset{k,m}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|.$$

According to the proof of lemma 4, a fraction $`1\sqrt{ϵ}`$ of the Fourier states are $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$-good codewords. The random code in which each $`|\varphi _k`$ is uniformly distributed over these $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$-good codewords has an average code density operator $`\overline{\rho }`$ for which

$$\overline{\rho }\frac{1}{\kappa \mu }\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ]\times [\mu ]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|2\sqrt{ϵ}.$$
(60)
At the same time, equation (59) must be modified to account for the codes being $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$-good instead of $`ϵ`$-good:

$$F(|\mathrm{\Psi },(I(𝒟𝒩^n))(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|))16\sqrt{ϵ}2ϵ.$$
(61)
This concludes the first layer of randomization.

2. Backtracking to section 2, by equation (22), choosing the $`\{u_{km}\}_{k[\kappa ^{}],m[\mu ^{}]}`$ *at random* according to $`p^{}`$, followed by expurgation, results in failure with probability $`ϵ+10\sqrt[4]{ϵ}`$, thus modifying the fidelity estimate (61) to $`110\sqrt[4]{ϵ}6\sqrt{ϵ}3ϵ.`$ This is the second layer of randomization. The average code density matrix before the expurgation is (denoting by $`𝐄`$ the expectation value over the $`\{u_{km}\}`$)

$$𝐄\left[\frac{1}{\kappa ^{}\mu ^{}}\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ^{}]\times [\mu ^{}]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|\right]=\underset{x^n}{}p^{}(x^n)|\varphi _{x^n}\varphi _{x^n}|,$$

for which

$$\underset{x^n}{}p^{}(x^n)|\varphi _{x^n}\varphi _{x^n}|\rho ^n2ϵ.$$

The expurgation itself has a small effect on the average code density operator:

$$\frac{1}{\kappa \mu }\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ]\times [\mu ]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|\frac{1}{\kappa ^{}\mu ^{}}\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ^{}]\times [\mu ^{}]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|4\sqrt[4]{ϵ},$$

implying

$$𝐄\left[\frac{1}{\kappa \mu }\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ]\times [\mu ]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|\right]𝐄\left[\frac{1}{\kappa ^{}\mu ^{}}\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ^{}]\times [\mu ^{}]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|\right]4\sqrt[4]{ϵ},$$

and hence

$$𝐄\left[\frac{1}{\kappa \mu }\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ]\times [\mu ]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|\right]\rho ^n4\sqrt[4]{ϵ}+2ϵ.$$

By (60),

$$\overline{\overline{\rho }}𝐄\left[\frac{1}{\kappa \mu }\underset{(k,m)[\kappa ]\times [\mu ]}{}|\varphi _{km}\varphi _{km}|\right]2\sqrt{ϵ}.$$

where $`\overline{\overline{\rho }}:=𝐄\overline{\rho }`$ is the average code density matrix of our doubly randomized protocol. Hence

$$\overline{\overline{\rho }}\rho ^n4\sqrt[4]{ϵ}+2\sqrt{ϵ}+2ϵ,$$

which concludes the argument.

Biography I. Devetak received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University in 2002. Since then he has been a post-doctoral researcher at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY. He will be joining the Electrical Engineering faculty at the University of Southern California in January 2005.


format: text

text:
# Modelling the propagation of an ultrasonic ray through a heterogeneous medium

## I Introduction

The estimation of mechanical properties of concrete, in particular, that of compressive strength, is one of the most important applications of the ultrasonic method . However, the effective application of this method is subject to the influence of several factors . One of these factors is the water which penetrates in concrete through the pores . Under the influence of this factor, the compressive strength and the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity differently behave as the free water content changes. In fact, the latter increases as the free water content in the specimen increases. On the other hand, the compressive strength practically behaves constant when the free water content is modified.

Under these circumstances, some considerations will be made. The free water in concrete is one of the most important building problems widely considered today. The concrete strength is generally considered its most important property among other characteristics for establishing its quality. This property of the concrete may be influenced by its free water content. Several authors consider that the durability of a building structure is determined by the rate at which water and chemical components that it contains infiltrate and move through the porous building materials.

On the other hand, the ultrasonic transmission method is often used for estimating, among other properties, the concrete strength. The application of the ultrasonic transmission technique to measuring the ultrasound propagation velocity through concrete allows to estimate the value of concrete strength. The relationship between these two quantities is often established when the concrete in service is dried. When free water infiltrates and moves through the pores the measuring of the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity can not be directly used for estimating the value of the concrete strength. It is still an open problem. However, the application of the ultrasonic transmission method for determining the ultrasound pulse velocity can allow to estimate the free water content in the porous structure but it can not allow to decide about the damage of the building. The free water content affects the ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity but this measure says nothing about the current strength of concrete. If the dried state of concrete can be obtained back again, then the measuring of the ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity made in that condition could indicate a possible change in the value of concrete strength. This problem has a high attracting social attention in a tropical country where several types of meteorological events often produce a high level of moisture in building during several days. M. Rodriguezhas studied the influence of moisture in building in tropical condition finding that this phenomenon produces a significatively high damage in building structure.

M. Kuntz and P. Lavallée have studied the infiltration of liquid and the propagation of the moisture front in non-saturated porous media using an one-dimensional diffusion equation for describing the phenomenon. They considered a generalized scaling law of the type $`xt^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1/(n+1)`$ and being $`n\mathrm{}`$. The water transfer in partially saturated materials was assumed to follow a general nonlinear diffusion equation being water content the variable to determine. They found the values $`\alpha =0.58`$ in brick and $`\alpha =0.61`$ in the limestone diverging both from the value $`\alpha =0.5`$. The results mean that the volume of absorbed water in this materials may be underestimated, having a particular importance for evaluating the effect of water content in building structures. This result expresses that there exists a great theoretical interest about the complexity of this problem along with the practical approach.

E. Ohdaira and N. Masuzawa have examined the possibility of the NDE of concrete from a knowledge of the behavior of the ultrasound propagation velocity with water content in concrete. They measured the ultrasound velocity and the frequency component on ultrasonic propagation as a function of water content in concrete. They made testing pieces of concrete being 10 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length. These testing pieces were embedded in water for 50 days. After this, the water in each test piece was gradually extracted and the ultrasound propagation velocity was conveniently measured for having 15 points in the relationship between water content and the ultrasound propagation velocity. They found that the ultrasound propagation velocity decreases approximately linearly in proportion to the decrease in water content. Similarly the same occurs for the frequency of the maximum transmission.

M. Rodriguez and R. Bonal made a comment on the paper referred above. They considered that the relationship between the ultrasound propagation velocity and water content can better be described by using a statistical model. They fitted the experimental data points obtained by Ohdaira and Masuzawa by applying this method and obtaining an empirical fitting equation. They concluded that the ultrasound propagation velocity exponentially depends on the free water quantity in concrete.

In this work an empirical nonlinear model for the relationship between the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity $`v`$ and the quantity of free water in concrete ($`m_w`$) was considered by us to better describe that behavior. The experimental data given in  were considered again. It was also discussed under which conditions the linear approach can be used.

## II Modelling the travelling of an ultrasonic ray through a heterogeneous medium

We consider the experimental disposition scheme for applying the transmission technique in ultrasonic method to determine the ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity. An ultrasonic ray travelling through a concrete testing piece containing free water can be modelled by considering an equivalent scheme consisting of a heterogeneous medium composed by three phases of the matter: gaseous phase (air), liquid phase (free water), and solid phase (fine and coarse aggregate, cement). The total transmission time $`t`$ of the ultrasonic ray in the acoustical system may be decomposed as

$`t=t_a+t_w+t_s+\delta `$ (1)
where we have separately considered the time interval spent by the ultrasonic ray for travelling through each phase in the heterogeneous medium: $`t_a`$ corresponds to the air, $`t_w`$ corresponds to the free water, and $`t_s`$ corresponds to the solid phase of concrete. Finally, $`\delta `$ represents the time interval spent by the ultrasonic ray for travelling outside the testing piece, and it will be considered a constant value during the measuring procedure on a given testing piece. Its numerical value in all these experiments was taken to be $`\delta =0.6\mu s`$. The equation (1) may be written as

$`t\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{h_a}{v_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_w}{v_w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s}{v_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{h}{v}},`$ (2)
where $`h_a`$, $`h_w`$, $`h_s`$ are the ultrasonic ray path lengths in air, in free water, and in solid phase, respectively, $`h`$ is the testing piece length ($`200`$ $`mm`$), $`v_a=330`$ $`m/s`$, $`v_w=1500`$ $`m/s`$, $`v_s`$ is the ultrasonic propagation velocity in the concrete solid phase, and finally, $`v`$ represents the effective ultrasonic propagation velocity in the heterogeneous medium (concrete).

When the testing piece does not exhibit moisture at all it can be considered that the term $`h_w/v_w`$ in the equation (2) is approximately equal to zero and the transition time $`t`$ of the ultrasonic ray through the testing piece takes its maximum value $`t_{max}`$. It corresponds to a minimum value of the effective ultrasonic propagation velocity $`v`$ in the heterogeneous medium. Besides, the variable $`h_a`$ takes its maximum value $`h_p`$ which corresponds to the ultrasonic ray path length in porous space when only the air is present. In this case, the equation (2) can be written as

$`t_{max}\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{h_p}{v_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s}{v_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{h}{v_{min}}},`$ (3)
On the other hand, if the testing piece is quite saturated with the free water, we can consider that the term $`h_a/v_a`$ in the equation (2) is approximately equal to zero, the variable $`h_w`$ takes its maximum value $`h_p`$, the variable $`t`$ takes its minimum value $`t_{min}`$ corresponding to the maximum value of the variable $`v`$. Then, the equation (2) will become to

$`t_{min}\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{h_p}{v_w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s}{v_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{h}{v_{max}}},`$ (4)
We have assumed in the analysis above that the quantities $`h_s`$,$`v_s`$, and $`h`$ are fixed. It is also considered that

$`h_w+h_a=h_p=constant,`$ (5)
$`h_p+h_s=h=constant`$ (6)
From the equations (3) and (4) we can find that

$`h_p=(t_{max}t_{min})/k_1,`$ (7)
where the constant $`k_1=2364\mu s/m`$. By using the equation above, we can estimate the ultrasonic ray path length in porous space, where $`t_{max}`$ corresponds to the transition time of the ultrasonic ray in the testing piece when it is saturated with free water, and $`t_{min}`$ is the value of the same variable when the testing piece is quite dried.

On the other hand, we can derive a relationship for the dependence of the variable $`t`$ (transition time of the ultrasonic ray in the testing piece) with the variable $`h_w`$ (ultrasonic ray path length in the free water in the porous space in concrete). In fact, from the equations (2), (3), and (5) it can be written that

$`t_{max}t=h_wk_1`$ (8)
It can be observed that the correction term $`\delta `$ in equation (2) cancels itself and it does not appear in equation (8). Variables $`t`$ and $`h_w`$ in the equation (8) are well defined in the intervals $`t[t_{max},t_{min}]`$ and $`h_w[0,h_p]`$. The variable $`t`$ can be directly measured, but the variable $`h_w`$ can not. Here we considered that the variable $`h_w`$ depends on the quantity of free water ($`m_w`$) in the testing piece, but such a dependence will not be a simple one. The way in which $`h_w`$ depends on $`m_w`$ is not a known matter for theoretical explaining, but we suppose that such a dependence is influenced by the morphology of pores and by the statistical distribution law of pores in the testing piece volume, among other factors. These aspects will be considered in further investigations. We know that the variable $`h_w`$ and the variable $`m_w`$ are well defined in the intervals $`h_w[0,h_p]`$ and $`m_w[0,m_{w,max}]`$. We assume the following empirical relationship

$`h_w=Qm_w^\gamma ,Q>0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}>\gamma >0,`$ (9)
being $`Q`$ a positive dimensional constant and the exponent $`\gamma `$ should be in the interval $`\gamma (0,1)`$. The particular values which the proportional constant $`Q`$ and the exponent $`\gamma `$ take in a particular experiment will be determined by the factors indicated above. Introducing the equation (9) in the equation (8) the following relationship is obtained

$`t_{max}t=m_w^\gamma Qk_1,`$ (10)
where now both variables $`t`$ and $`m_w`$ can be directly measured. It is convenient to linearizing the equation (10) by applying natural log function to both sides of the equation,

$`\mathrm{log}(t_{max}t)=\gamma \mathrm{log}(m_w)+\mathrm{log}(Qk_1)`$ (11)
Applying a linear regression method to a log-log plotting of the variables ($`t_{max}t`$) and ($`m_w`$) the best straight line is fitted to the experimental data point ($`m_w,t_{max}t`$), and the model parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`Q`$ can be determined. In this plot, the point (0,0) can not be taken into account.

## III Experimental data points and fitting function

In order to evaluate the proposed empirical model, given by the equation (11), we considered the experimental data points obtained by Ohdaira and Masuzawa. They measured the transition time $`t`$ of an ultrasonic ray in a cylindrical testing piece of concrete being $`200`$ $`mm`$ in length by applying the ultrasonic transmission technique. The corresponding value of the quantity of free water $`m_w`$ in the testing concrete piece was measured by using a special device. The cotas of error for the variables $`t`$ and $`m_w`$, and the parameter $`h`$, all of them directly measured, are given. They applied the procedure to three types of testing piece named A-1, B-1, and C-1. From the experimental data points obtained by these authors we only considered those whose were subjects of our analysis. Besides, the experimental data points considered by us were organized as data vectors because it made easier data processing when certain software was used. Ohdaira and Masuzawa measured the transition time $`t`$ five times for each value of the free water $`m_w`$. Statistical validation allows us to average these five values by taking the mean value as one element (in $`\mu s`$) of the data vector called $`time`$. The vector $`water`$ contains the values of the variable $`m_w`$ in kilogram. These vectors are separately given below for each testing piece.

Testing piece A-1:

$`water=[\mathrm{0.2321\hspace{0.33em}0.2109\hspace{0.33em}0.1969\hspace{0.33em}0.1824\hspace{0.33em}0.1694\hspace{0.33em}0.1571\hspace{0.33em}0.1404}\mathrm{}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{0.1227\hspace{0.33em}0.1060\hspace{0.33em}0.0787\hspace{0.33em}0.0615\hspace{0.33em}0.0419\hspace{0.33em}0.0256\hspace{0.33em}0.0089\hspace{0.33em}0.0000}];`$ (13)
$`time=[\mathrm{44.48\hspace{0.33em}45.16\hspace{0.33em}46.08\hspace{0.33em}46.64\hspace{0.33em}46.48\hspace{0.33em}46.44\hspace{0.33em}46.60\hspace{0.33em}46.48}\mathrm{}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{47.24\hspace{0.33em}47.80\hspace{0.33em}48.24\hspace{0.33em}49.16\hspace{0.33em}49.76\hspace{0.33em}51.08\hspace{0.33em}51.32}];`$ (15)
Testing piece B-1:

$`water=[\mathrm{0.2500\hspace{0.33em}0.2165\hspace{0.33em}0.2001\hspace{0.33em}0.1850\hspace{0.33em}0.1724\hspace{0.33em}0.1614\hspace{0.33em}0.1449}\mathrm{}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{0.1278\hspace{0.33em}0.1093\hspace{0.33em}0.0786\hspace{0.33em}0.0613\hspace{0.33em}0.0406\hspace{0.33em}0.0240\hspace{0.33em}0.0084\hspace{0.33em}0.0000}];`$ (17)
$`time=[\mathrm{44.88\hspace{0.33em}46.32\hspace{0.33em}46.12\hspace{0.33em}46.32\hspace{0.33em}46.80\hspace{0.33em}46.44\hspace{0.33em}47.48\hspace{0.33em}47.00}\mathrm{}`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{47.24\hspace{0.33em}47.76\hspace{0.33em}48.28\hspace{0.33em}49.20\hspace{0.33em}50.84\hspace{0.33em}51.60\hspace{0.33em}51.80}];`$ (19)
Testing piece C-1:

$`water=[\mathrm{0.2479\hspace{0.33em}0.2257\hspace{0.33em}0.2021\hspace{0.33em}0.1871\hspace{0.33em}0.1693\hspace{0.33em}0.1555\hspace{0.33em}0.1436}\mathrm{}`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{0.1259\hspace{0.33em}0.1082\hspace{0.33em}0.0896\hspace{0.33em}0.0656\hspace{0.33em}0.0531\hspace{0.33em}0.0379\hspace{0.33em}0.0241\hspace{0.33em}0.0088\hspace{0.33em}0.0000}];`$ (21)
$`time=[\mathrm{46.64\hspace{0.33em}47.12\hspace{0.33em}48.52\hspace{0.33em}48.52\hspace{0.33em}48.76\hspace{0.33em}49.20\hspace{0.33em}49.16\hspace{0.33em}49.40}\mathrm{}`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{49.64\hspace{0.33em}50.08\hspace{0.33em}50.28\hspace{0.33em}50.52\hspace{0.33em}51.64\hspace{0.33em}52.40\hspace{0.33em}52.64\hspace{0.33em}53.08}];`$ (23)
We estimated the random cota of error for the vector $`time`$ and composed it together with the instrumental cota of error whose value is equal to 0.2 $`\mu s`$ for having the vector $`cotatime`$ in $`\mu s`$,

Testing piece A-1:

$`cotatime=[\mathrm{0.31\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.25\hspace{0.33em}0.34\hspace{0.33em}0.36\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.28}\mathrm{}`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.23\hspace{0.33em}0.23\hspace{0.33em}0.28\hspace{0.33em}0.38\hspace{0.33em}0.30\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.24}];`$ (25)
Testing piece B-1:

$`cotatime=[\mathrm{0.21\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.21\hspace{0.33em}0.21\hspace{0.33em}0.23\hspace{0.33em}0.23\hspace{0.33em}0.24}\mathrm{}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{0.26\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.26\hspace{0.33em}0.26\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.28\hspace{0.33em}0.29\hspace{0.33em}0.22}];`$ (27)
Testing piece C-1:

$`cotatime=[\mathrm{0.20\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.24\hspace{0.33em}0.21\hspace{0.33em}0.24\hspace{0.33em}0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.23}\mathrm{}`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{0.22\hspace{0.33em}0.23\hspace{0.33em}0.27\hspace{0.33em}0.23\hspace{0.33em}0.24\hspace{0.33em}0.34\hspace{0.33em}0.32\hspace{0.33em}0.54\hspace{0.33em}0.28}];`$ (29)
The vector $`time`$ was corrected by the constant value $`\delta =0.6`$ $`\mu s`$ (equation (1)) for obtaining the vector $`timec`$ in $`\mu s`$,

Testing piece A-1:

$`timec=[\mathrm{43.88\hspace{0.33em}44.56\hspace{0.33em}45.48\hspace{0.33em}46.04\hspace{0.33em}45.88\hspace{0.33em}45.84\hspace{0.33em}46.00}\mathrm{}`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{45.88\hspace{0.33em}46.64\hspace{0.33em}47.20\hspace{0.33em}47.64\hspace{0.33em}48.56\hspace{0.33em}49.16\hspace{0.33em}50.48\hspace{0.33em}50.72}];`$ (31)
Testing piece B-1:

$`timec=[\mathrm{44.28\hspace{0.33em}45.72\hspace{0.33em}45.52\hspace{0.33em}45.72\hspace{0.33em}46.20\hspace{0.33em}45.84\hspace{0.33em}46.88}\mathrm{}`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{46.40\hspace{0.33em}46.64\hspace{0.33em}47.16\hspace{0.33em}47.68\hspace{0.33em}48.60\hspace{0.33em}50.24\hspace{0.33em}51.00\hspace{0.33em}51.20}];`$ (33)
Testing piece C-1:

$`timec=[\mathrm{46.04\hspace{0.33em}46.52\hspace{0.33em}47.92\hspace{0.33em}47.92\hspace{0.33em}48.16\hspace{0.33em}48.60\hspace{0.33em}48.56}\mathrm{}`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{48.80\hspace{0.33em}49.04\hspace{0.33em}49.48\hspace{0.33em}49.68\hspace{0.33em}49.92\hspace{0.33em}51.04\hspace{0.33em}51.80\hspace{0.33em}52.04\hspace{0.33em}52.48}];`$ (35)
By using the vector $`timec`$ the vector $`velocity`$ was constructed by applying the relationship

$`v=h/(t\delta )`$ (36)
where $`h=200`$ $`mm`$ is the length of each testing piece and $`t\delta `$ are the elements of the vector $`timec`$. The elements of the vector $`velocity`$ are given in $`m/s`$,

Testing piece A-1:

$`velocity=[\mathrm{4557.9\hspace{0.33em}4488.3\hspace{0.33em}4397.5\hspace{0.33em}4344.0\hspace{0.33em}4359.2\hspace{0.33em}4363.0\hspace{0.33em}4347.8}\mathrm{}`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{4359.2\hspace{0.33em}4288.2\hspace{0.33em}4237.3\hspace{0.33em}4198.2\hspace{0.33em}4118.6\hspace{0.33em}4068.3\hspace{0.33em}3962.0\hspace{0.33em}3943.2}];`$ (38)
Testing piece B-1:

$`velocity=[\mathrm{4516.7\hspace{0.33em}4374.5\hspace{0.33em}4393.7\hspace{0.33em}4374.5\hspace{0.33em}4329.0\hspace{0.33em}4363.0\hspace{0.33em}4266.2}\mathrm{}`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{4310.3\hspace{0.33em}4288.2\hspace{0.33em}4240.9\hspace{0.33em}4194.6\hspace{0.33em}4115.2\hspace{0.33em}3980.9\hspace{0.33em}3921.6\hspace{0.33em}3906.3}];`$ (40)
Testing piece C-1:

$`velocity=[\mathrm{4344.0\hspace{0.33em}4299.2\hspace{0.33em}4173.6\hspace{0.33em}4173.6\hspace{0.33em}4152.8\hspace{0.33em}4115.2\hspace{0.33em}4118.6}\mathrm{}`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{4098.4\hspace{0.33em}4078.3\hspace{0.33em}4042.0\hspace{0.33em}4025.8\hspace{0.33em}4006.4\hspace{0.33em}3918.5\hspace{0.33em}3861.0\hspace{0.33em}3843.2\hspace{0.33em}3811.0}];`$ (42)
Finally, the cotas of error for the transition time and for the length of the testing piece ($`\delta h=0.0005`$ $`m`$) were propagated through the formula (24) written in the form of finite increment,

$`\delta v={\displaystyle \frac{h}{(t\delta )^2}}\delta t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(t\delta )}}\delta h`$ (43)
The vector $`\delta velocity`$ in $`m/s`$ represents the cota of error vector of the vector $`velocity`$ propagated by the equation above. For each type of testing piece we obtained,

Testing piece A-1:

$`\delta velocity=[\mathrm{43.31\hspace{0.33em}33.65\hspace{0.33em}35.15\hspace{0.33em}42.66\hspace{0.33em}45.21\hspace{0.33em}32.10\hspace{0.33em}36.93}\mathrm{}`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{31.36\hspace{0.33em}32.01\hspace{0.33em}31.06\hspace{0.33em}35.04\hspace{0.33em}42.21\hspace{0.33em}34.94\hspace{0.33em}27.52\hspace{0.33em}28.65}];`$ (45)
Testing piece B-1:

$`\delta velocity=[\mathrm{32.30\hspace{0.33em}31.55\hspace{0.33em}30.86\hspace{0.33em}30.64\hspace{0.33em}32.19\hspace{0.33em}32.94\hspace{0.33em}32.66}\mathrm{}`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{35.00\hspace{0.33em}31.20\hspace{0.33em}34.33\hspace{0.33em}33.16\hspace{0.33em}28.84\hspace{0.33em}32.03\hspace{0.33em}32.09\hspace{0.33em}26.48}];`$ (47)
Testing piece C-1:

$`\delta velocity=[\mathrm{30.10\hspace{0.33em}30.66\hspace{0.33em}31.48\hspace{0.33em}28.37\hspace{0.33em}31.08\hspace{0.33em}28.84\hspace{0.33em}29.93}\mathrm{}`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{28.65\hspace{0.33em}29.45\hspace{0.33em}31.78\hspace{0.33em}28.96\hspace{0.33em}29.41\hspace{0.33em}35.67\hspace{0.33em}33.69\hspace{0.33em}49.35\hspace{0.33em}29.86}];`$ (49)
By considering the equation (11) the log-log plotting was applied to each of the three types of testing pieces. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the results. The best straight line fitting the experimental data points produced the following values for the model parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`Q`$,

$`\gamma _{A1}=0.8707,\gamma _{B1}=0.9205,\gamma _{C1}=0.7923,`$ (50)
$`Q_{A1}=0.0111,Q_{B1}=0.0124,Q_{C1}=0.0080.`$ (51)
Figure 4 depicts the plotting of the equation (9) using the values of the model parameters indicated above.

On the other hand, by applying the equation (7), the parameter $`h_p`$ in meter was estimated

$`h_{p,A1}=0.0029,h_{p,B1}=0.0029,h_{p,C1}=0.0027`$ (52)
From the equation (2) and (10), the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity $`v`$ as a function of $`m_w`$ is given by

$`v={\displaystyle \frac{h/k_2}{(1(Qk_1/k_2)m_w^\gamma )}},k_2=t_{max}\delta `$ (53)
This equation is the fitting function for the experimental data points ($`m_w`$,$`v`$). Using the numerical values of the parameters $`h`$, $`k_2`$, $`Q`$, $`k_1`$, and $`\gamma `$, the equation (35) for each of the testing pieces are respectively,

$`v_{A1}={\displaystyle \frac{3943.22}{(1(0.52524)m_w^{0.8707})}},`$ (54)
$`v_{B1}={\displaystyle \frac{3906.25}{(1(0.58125)m_w^{0.9205})}},`$ (55)
$`v_{C1}={\displaystyle \frac{3810.98}{(1(0.365854)m_w^{0.7923})}}`$ (56)
Figures 5, 6, and 7 separately depict the experimental data points ($`m_w`$,$`v`$) and the fitting function given in each case by the equations (36), (37), and (38).

## IV Discussion of the results

The influence of moisture in the testing piece of concrete on the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity is highly significant. Experimental results confirm this fact. Though the ultrasonic transmission technique for measuring the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity does not exhibit high accuracy, it does allow to determine the level of such an influence and the behavior of the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity with water content can be well defined. The functional form by which such an influence is determined depends, among other factors, on the morphology of pores and on the statistical distribution law of pores in the testing piece volume. However, we have considered an empirical relationship between the variable $`h_w`$ and the variable $`m_w`$ that indirectly very well matches to experimental data points through the relationship (35) between the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity $`v`$ and the quantity of free water $`m_w`$ in the testing piece. The finding of this fitting function has been the aim of this work. Figure 4 depicts the empirical relationship between $`h_w`$ and $`m_w`$ for each type of testing pieces. It is interesting to observe that the values of the parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`Q`$ increases with the increase in cement content in the testing piece in the considered range. It is just a conjecture. This aspect will be considered in further investigations.

We observe that the relationship between $`v`$ and $`m_w`$ is not a linearly proportional function. Figures 5, 6 and 7 for testing pieces A-1, B-1, and C-1, show a suitable fitting of the experimental data points by the equation (35).

It is important to check whether the proposed model correctly describes the behavior of the experimental data ($`v=f(m_w)`$). The equation (35) can not be linearized, but if $`m_w=0`$, then the velocity coincides with the minimum velocity $`v_0`$ (velocity in dry state) and, consequently, equation (35) can be written in the form

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{a}{1bx^c}},`$ (57)
where $`y=v`$ is the effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity, $`a=v_0`$ represents the minimum velocity (in dry state), $`x=m_w`$ is the free water content, $`b=Q(k1/k2)`$ and $`c=\gamma `$ are parameters related with the parameters indicated in the equation(35). When $`x=0`$, from equation (39) is obtained that $`y=a`$.

The results of the statistical analysis are presented in table no.1, for each one of the samples $`A_1`$, $`B_1`$, and $`C_1`$.

The model very well fits the experimental data, and the values of parameter $`c`$ do not significatively differ from those of $`\gamma `$ obtained in the equation (32). In all the cases they are within the deviation range proposed by the model. One can conclude that the model given in equations (36, 37, 38), appropriately describes the experimental data set.

Next, we analyze under which conditions the behavior of the variable $`v`$ with the variable $`m_w`$ can be considered a linearly proportional relationship. From the equation (35) we can obtain the following relationship by applying the Newtonian binomial formula. The quadratic approximation is

$`v^{(2)}(h/k_2)(1+(Qk_1/k_2)m_w^\gamma +(Qk_1/k_2)^2m_w^{2\gamma }),(Qk_1/k_2)m_w^\gamma <<1`$ (58)
The linear approximation of the equation above is

$`v^{(1)}(h/k_2)(1+(Qk_1/k_2)m_w^\gamma ),(Qk_1/k_2)m_w^\gamma <<1`$ (59)
and the contribution to the effective ultrasonic propagation velocity of the quadratic term is,

$`v^{(2)}v^{(1)}(h/k_2)(Qk_1/k_2)m_w^\gamma `$ (60)
The vector $`errorv`$ in $`m/s`$ contains the contributions of the quadratic term in equation (42). For each testing piece we can write,

Testing piece A-1:

$`errorv=[\mathrm{82.28\hspace{0.33em}69.64\hspace{0.33em}61.79\hspace{0.33em}54.08\hspace{0.33em}47.55\hspace{0.33em}41.70\hspace{0.33em}34.29}\mathrm{}`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{27.12\hspace{0.33em}21.02\hspace{0.33em}12.51\hspace{0.33em}8.15\hspace{0.33em}4.18\hspace{0.33em}1.77\hspace{0.33em}0.28\hspace{0.33em}0.00}];`$ (62)
Testing piece B-1:

$`errorv=[\mathrm{99.72\hspace{0.33em}76.52\hspace{0.33em}66.19\hspace{0.33em}57.29\hspace{0.33em}50.31\hspace{0.33em}44.56\hspace{0.33em}36.53}\mathrm{}`$ (63)
$`\mathrm{28.99\hspace{0.33em}21.74\hspace{0.33em}11.85\hspace{0.33em}7.50\hspace{0.33em}3.51\hspace{0.33em}1.33\hspace{0.33em}0.19\hspace{0.33em}0.00}];`$ (64)
Testing piece C-1:

$`errorv=[\mathrm{53.77\hspace{0.33em}46.34\hspace{0.33em}38.90\hspace{0.33em}34.43\hspace{0.33em}29.38\hspace{0.33em}25.68\hspace{0.33em}22.63}\mathrm{}`$ (65)
$`\mathrm{18.38\hspace{0.33em}14.45\hspace{0.33em}10.72\hspace{0.33em}6.54\hspace{0.33em}4.68\hspace{0.33em}2.74\hspace{0.33em}1.34\hspace{0.33em}0.27\hspace{0.33em}0.00}];`$ (66)
We can compare the vectors $`\delta velocity`$ and $`errorv`$ for deciding when the equation (41) is suitable to apply. When $`m_w(0.16)`$ in kilogram it can be observed that the contribution of the quadratic term (equation 42) is greater than the propagated cota of error for the experimental value of the effective ultrasonic propagation velocity $`v`$ given by the equation (28). The equation (41), considering that the exponent $`\gamma 1`$, approximately well describes the linear behavior considered in , but this approach implies a greater error in velocity when $`m_w`$ is approximately greater than $`0.16`$ kg.

On the other hand, the equation (35) very well quantitatively describes the effect of moisture in concrete on $`v`$. In fact, the formula (35) can be conveniently written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v}{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{k_1h}{(t_{max}h_wk_1)^2}}(100h_p/h)`$ (67)
where $`100h_p/h`$ represents the ratio in percent between the ultrasonic ray path length in porous space and the testing piece length. Applying this equation to experimental data points for each testing piece of concrete it may be found that such a small value of the ratio $`100h_p/h`$ as $`1.45`$ percent can yield a highly significative value of the fraction $`\delta v/v`$, approximately $`1416`$ percent. This result is well confirmed by the experimental data points ($`v,m_w`$).

## V Conclusions

The result of this analysis confirms that the empirical fitting function very well quantitatively describes the behavior of effective ultrasonic pulse propagation velocity with the free water content in concrete testing piece and that this empirical model well explains under which condition the linear approximation can be applied. It also allows to estimate the propagation of error for the indirectly-measured involved variables.

## Acknowledgement

We acknowledge Pedro A. Sánchez Fernández from the Department of Foreign Languages for the revision of the English version, and Yoelsy Leiva for the edition. We also thank the Ministry of Higher Education of Cuba for partially financial support of the research. Finally, we express our thankfulness to E. Ohdaira and N. Masuzawa for publishing their experimental data points.

## VI Tables

Table no.1: Test Piece A-1

| R | R.squared | R.squared adj | Typical error of the estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| .955 | .912 | .905 | .26315 | 1.187 |

|  | Non |  | Standardized | t | Sig. | Confidence |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | standardized |  | Coefficients |  |  | Interval 95 % |  |
|  | Coefficients |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | B | Typ. Error | Beta |  |  | Lower bound | Upper bound |
| Ln b | -8.944 | .197 |  | -45.314 | .000 | -9.374 | -8.514 |
| C | .870 | .078 | .955 | 11.177 | .000 | .700 | 1.040 |

Table no.1: Test Piece B-1

| R | R.squared | R.squared adj | Typical error of the estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| .948 | .898 | .89 | .31323 | 1.667 |

|  | Non |  | Standardized | t | Sig. | Confidence |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | standardized |  | Coefficients |  |  | Interval 95 % |  |
|  | Coefficients |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | B | Typ. Error | Beta |  |  | Lower bound | Upper bound |
| Ln b | -8.828 | .227 |  | -38.867 | .000 | -9.323 | -8.333 |
| C | .921 | .089 | .948 | 10.294 | .000 | .726 | 1.116 |

Table no.1: Test Piece C-1

| R | R.squared | R.squared adj | Typical error of the estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| .977 | .955 | .951 | .16848 | 1.265 |

|  | Non |  | Standardized | t | Sig. | Confidence |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | standardized |  | Coefficients |  |  | Interval 95 % |  |
|  | Coefficients |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | B | Typ. Error | Beta |  |  | Lower bound | Upper bound |
| Ln b | -9.271 | .122 |  | -75.767 | .000 | -9.535 | -9.006 |
| C | .793 | .048 | .977 | 16.557 | .000 | .689 | .896 |

## VII Figures