text:
# VLT/NACO adaptive optics imaging of the TY CrA system

## 1 Introduction

The CrA dark cloud has been extensively studied from X ray (Neuhäuser et al., 2000) to IR (Wilking et al., 1997) and radio wavelengths as one of the closest star forming regions. Nearby clouds such as the reflection nebula around R CrA greatly help understanding the stellar formation processes and can be used to compare general tendancies in various star forming regions (see e.g. Chen et al., 1997). This small cloud is now known to host dozens of young stars, mostly low mass stars and brown dwarfs, plus a few high mass stars. Among the latters, TY CrA (B9) is the one of the brightest at optical and near IR, together with R CrA (A5), HD 176386 (A0) and T CrA (F0). As other peculiar massive multiple systems HR 5999 with a T Tauri companion (Stecklum et al., 1995) or the eclipsing binary EK Cep (Claret, 1995b), TY CrA deserves particular attention as it adresses the question of massive star formation.

The distance of the TY CrA system is presently unknown. However, at $`57^{\prime \prime }`$ away, the binary system HD 176386 shares common proper motion with TY CrA (Teixeira et al., 2000). We can then reasonably assume that these two systems are physically bound and then consider for TY CrA the Hipparcos distance of $`136_{19}^{+25}`$ pc measured for HD 176386 (as assumed by Siebenmorgen et al. (2000)).

TY CrA has been identified and characterized by Corporon et al. (1994) as an eclipsing spectroscopic binary (SB) Pre Main Sequence (PMS) system. Two years later, Casey et al. (1995) and Corporon et al. (1996) showed that TY CrA is a triple SB system, the first one detected among young and massive Herbig stars. Eclipsing binary stars are very precious as they allow a precise determination of the star masses. Coupled to evolutionary tracks, they help deriving ages for the system. Both mass and age are crucial parameters for studies of stellar systems dynamics and stability and provide thus valuable constraints on binary system early evolution processes (see e.g. Prato et al., 2002). In the case of TY CrA, the masses have been found to be M$`{}_{1}{}^{}=3.0`$M, M$`{}_{2}{}^{}=1.6`$M and M$`{}_{3}{}^{}=1.21.4`$ M (Casey et al., 1998; Corporon et al., 1996). The secondary and tertiary components are very close to the primary, with semi major axes of respectively 14 R (0.065 AU) and 1–1.5 AU. Using evolutionary tracks of Swenson et al. (1994); Claret (1995a); D’Antona et al. (1994), Casey et al. (1998) found an age of order 3 Myr for the system, confirming the estimation done by Beust et al. (1997). This figure may be compared with the age of 4 Myr recently derived by Palla & Stahler (2001). The TY CrA system exhibits IR excesses indicative of circumstellar (CS) dust (Cruz-Gonzalez et al., 1984; Wilking et al., 1985; Bibo et al., 1992). At least part of this dust is cold, but the CS material has not been resolved sofar.

The richness of the TY CrA system encouraged us to conduct Adaptive Optics (AO) imaging observations with NACO at the VLT UT4 in the course of the instrument commissioning. A faint visual additional companion candidate, unknown sofar, was discovered close to the unresolved triple system. We present in Sect. 2 the results of the VLT/NACO AO observations. In Sect. 3, we discuss the photometry of the additional companion candidate to TY CrA to test if this object is bound and to determine the corresponding stellar parameters. In Sect. 4, we finally discuss the dynamical status of the possible quadruple system, i.e the possible existence of a Kozai resonance between the possible fourth stellar component and the three others. We also discuss the possible location of dusty particles in this system.

## 2 Observations and results

Near IR images of the TY CrA system (RA=19:01:41, $`\delta `$=-36:52:34 (J2000), V=9.4, Spectral Type Herbig Be) have been recorded on March 31th 2002 with NACO (Lagrange et al, 2002; Lenzen et al, 2002). NACO is composed of NAOS, the first Adaptive Optics System on the VLT (Rousset et al., 2002) and on the other hand of CONICA, a 1–5 $`\mu `$m imaging, coronographic, spectroscopic and polarimetric instrument (Lenzen et al, 1998).

For these observations, we selected NACO’s visible wavefront sensor. With the adequate dichroic, the visible light was directed to NAOS and all the IR light towards CONICA. The CONICA detector is an Aladdin InSb $`1024\times 1024`$ pixel array. The cameras used were either S13 or S27 which provide respectively 0.0134 and 0.0270 arcsec/pixel samplings adapted to the observing wavelengths.

The star SAO 210858 (RA=19:03:12, $`\delta `$=-37:29:11 (J2000), A5, V=10.0) located close to TY CrA was also recorded to get PSF calibrations as close as possible in time to TY CrA observations. The detail of the instrumental set-up is given in Table 1. Although the observations were performed under poor seeing conditions ($`1.3`$$`1.8\mathrm{}`$), a faint additional object is detected at $`0.3\mathrm{}`$ from the unresolved triple system TY CrA. Figure 1 presents the AO images obtained at $`1.257\mu `$m and $`2.166\mu `$m. The observations were then deconvolved using MISTRAL algorithm (Conan et al., 2000; Fusco et al., 1999). The results are reported in Table 2.

## 3 Companion or background object ?

As this new companion candidate cannot be identified with one of the known spectroscopic components of the TY CrA triple system (contradiction with well known orbit parameters), the first question is whether the photometry of this object is consistent with the photometry of a fourth, gravitationally bound stellar component and if so, to derive the corresponding stellar parameters. The photometry of the unresolved TY CrA system obtained by de Winter et al. (2001), $`J=7.36\pm 0.1`$ and $`K=6.57\pm 0.1`$, and the observed contrasts (see Table 2) are used to determine the photometry of the new object. We have made the approximation that the contrasts obtained with the narrow band filters at 1.257 and $`2.166\mu `$m were respectively similar to the ones with broad bands filters $`J`$ and $`K`$.

The photometry of the fourth component candidate was then compared to the evolutionary tracks of (Baraffe et al., 1998) for an age of 3.2 and 4 Myr. Regarding the important Hipparcos parallaxe uncertainties, three hypotheses of distances were considered: 161 pc, 136 pc and 117 pc.

In each case, we used then the color-magnitude diagram for the near-IR color ($`JK`$) to determine the expected stellar parameters for the fourth stellar component candidate to TY CrA if gravitationally bound. The results are reported in Table 3 and are also overplotted to the evolutionary tracks in Fig. 2. For these three distances, the corresponding spectral types found for an age ranging between 3.2 and 4 Myr are M1–M4, M2–M5 and M3–M6. Further spectroscopic observations will help to confirm the companionship of this newly detected object and to characterize precisely its spectra.

## 4 Dynamical status of the quadruple system ?

We cannot state that the newly discovered object is really bound to the triple system even if the measured colour and brightness are consistent in the frame of the distance and age of the system. Repeated astrometric observations are needed to assert this point. One can however address the effects and consequences if it is physically bound. Hereafter, a M$`{}_{4}{}^{}0.4\pm 0.2`$M component orbiting the triple system at $`41`$ AU is considered.

A detailed dynamical modeling of Beust et al. (1997) showed that the stability of the triple system was ensured by tidal effects within the central binary. More specifically, if tidal effects were not present, the secular dynamics of the triple system would be dominated by the *Kozai* resonance (Kozai, 1962; Harrington, 1968). In triple stellar system, this phenomenon is characterized by drastic periodic increases of the eccentricity of the central binary, while in the same time the mutual inclination $`i`$ between the orbit of the central binary and that of the third component would be subject to sharp drops by more than $`40\mathrm{°}`$ on very short timescales ($`<10^3`$ yr). Active as soon as the inclination $`i`$ between the two orbits is $`40\mathrm{°}`$ (Söderhjelm, 1982), only the orbit with the smaller angular momentum (i.e the inner orbit) is strongly affected (Beust et al., 1997). In the case of TY CrA, the ratio of the third body angular momentum over the central binary angular momentum is $`4.8`$. This is enough for initiating a very strong Kozai resonance which would strongly affect the central binary (with a possible physical collision) in the absence of tidal effects.

If now a fourth member is identified, it is worth wondering whether a Kozai resonance exists between this object and the third body around the central binary. This is of valuable interest, because in that case, no tidal effects in the orbit of the third body are to be expected to assure the dynamical stability of the whole system. Actually a specific dynamical study must be initiated and will be the subject of future work. Depending on the mass assumed for the fourth body, and on the semi-major axis and eccentricities values taken (compatible with the measured projected separation), the angular momentum ratio between the orbits of the third and fourth component is expected to range between $`1`$ and $`4`$. If the mutual inclination is high enough, we may expect a significant Kozai resonance as soon as this ratio is $`2`$. We thus cannot definitely conclude at present, but we may suspect that it will be at work and will affect the overall dynamics of the system.

Another important issue is the presence of dust in the system. Cruz-Gonzalez et al. (1984); Wilking et al. (1985) and Bibo et al. (1992) report the detection of a strong far-infrared excess attributed to cold ($`95\pm 10`$ K) dust located at about 900 AU from the central binary. According to Bibo et al. (1992), the fact that this distance is very large leads to question whether this dust is of CS origin: if there is some CS dust, why is it only at large distance ? If the whole system is quadruple, dust particles are very unlikely to be dynamically stable at close distance from the central binary. They might be dynamically stable between the central triple system and the fourth body. This actually depends on the orbit assumed for the fourth component, and on the strength of an eventual Kozai resonance. If present, dust in this area would be warmer ($`200`$K) and generate a mid-infrared excess that has not been detected sofar. In this context, this non-detection is perhaps an indirect indication of dynamical instability in this region and may put some constraints on the dynamical status of the system. Dust is more safely expected to be found orbiting the four-body system, but not closer to 2–3 times the distance of the fourth body, i.e. at least 100 AU, and probably more if radiation pressure from the central binary is taken into account. The structure of this dust component (circum-quadruple disk or spherical shell ?) is an open question and should depend actually on the dynamical behavior of the four-body system. Obviously a dedicated dynamical study is required.

## 5 Conclusion

We have presented results of VLT/NACO adaptive optics imaging of the TY CrA system. A fourth stellar component candidate is detected at $`0.3\mathrm{}`$ from the unresolved triple system. It is not possible at present time to conclude whether this fourth component is physically bound to the system. If this is the case, this object is likely to be a $``$M4 dwarf based on the evolutionary tracks of Baraffe et al. (1998) for an age ranging between 3.2 and 4 Myr and a distance of $`136_{19}^{+25}`$ pc. If so, we can then expect the possible existence of a Kozai resonance between the orbit of the fourth component and the third body around the central binary, which could affect the stability of the whole system. Dust particles might be also dynamically unstable between the third and fourth component. The only detection of a strong infrared excess attributed to cold dust orbiting the four-body system may be an indirect indication of dynamical instability in this region. Further dynamical study must be initiated to investigate the status of this possible quadruple system and of the possible location of dust inside or outside the system.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank the staff of the ESO paranal observatory and the NAOS/CONICA team for their work on the instrument (without them, this work could not have been carried on) and particulary Françoise Crifo for her precious comments.


format: text

text:
# Exact remote state preparation for multiparties

## I Introduction

Quantum information theory has opened up the possibility of novel form of information processing tasks which are not possible classically. Two important quantum information processing tasks in recent years have been teleportation  and remote state preparation (RSP) . In quantum teleportation the sender and the receiver do not know the identity of a state. In remote state preparation the sender wants to prepare a state of her choice at a distant lab, thus she knows the state which is to be remotely prepared. It was found that special class of qubits can be remotely prepared using one unit of entanglement and one classical bit . Furthermore, if the aim is not to prepare an arbitrary qubit, rather to simulate the measurement statistics on a qubit, then it is possible for Alice to do that at Bob’s place with one ebit and one cbit. This is called remote state measurement protocol (RSM) . There has been considerable interest in preparation of quantum states at a remote location using previously shared entanglement, local operation and classical communication .

Unlike in teleportation where the resources are fixed for the task, here it is possible to have trade-offs. It was conjectured by Lo  that if Alice wants to prepare remotely an arbitrary qubit it may still require two classical bits as in the case of quantum teleportation. Bennett et al have generalized RSP for arbitrary qubits, higher dimensional Hilbert spaces and also of entangled systems . Devetak and Berger have proposed a low entanglement RSP protocol  for arbitrary quantum states. The exact and minimal resource consuming RSP protocol is generalized to higher dimension by Zeng and Zhang . There are restrictions on the dimension of the Hilbert space for which RSP can be realized. Leung and Shor have given a stronger proof of Lo’s conjecture for RSP of arbitrary quantum state . Remote preparation of ensemble of mixed states has been studied by Berry and Sanders . The exact RSP and RSM protocols for qubits  have been implemented using NMR devices  over inter-atomic distances. Also, there has been a recent attempt to generalise RSP of a equatorial qubit at two locations in an approximate manner .

In this paper we would like to generalize RSP protocol for multiparties in an exact manner. The task here is the following: How can Alice prepare a quantum state of her choice at various locations (say at Bob, Charlie, Denis,.. and so on) using previously shared entanglement, local operation and classical communication ? Unlike in teleportation, we are allowed to ask this question in RSP. In quantum teleportation one can create a replica of a quantum state at one place only at the expense of destroying the original, so as not to violate the no-cloning principle . In RSP Alice knows the state, hence she can prepare as many copies as she wants. Of course preparing copies in her lab does not need any entanglement or classical communication but as expected in a distant lab she does need quantum and classical resources to accomplish the task. That is the subject of the present paper. In order to be able to perform RSP at multiple locations, the first question is: what kind of quantum resource does one need between multiusers? We find that the so called ‘dark states’ play a crucial role. The general finding here is that Alice can prepare a known state of special class of qudit at multiple locations by performing multiparticle measurement and sending $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ cbits of information to each party. The organization of the paper is as follows. In section II, we discuss quantum resource suitable for exact RSP for multiparties. In section III, we present a protocol for RSP of special class of qubits for multiparties. We also provide a probabilistic RSP protocol for qubits. Section IV is devoted to the generalization of the scheme for special class of qutrits. In section V, we extend our protocol to higher dimensional systems, i.e., qudits. Finally, we close the paper with some conclusions.

## II Quantum resource

It is worth observing that in the case of exact RSP protocol of special ensemble of qubits one uses singlet EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) pairs $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1|1|0)`$ which are invariant under local unitary transformations, i.e., $`UU|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. Another remarkable property follows from the above invariance nature of EPR singlet is that if a subsystem undergoes an evolution, then the other subsystem undergoes a reverse-evolution or vice versa. This is really counter intuitive that has no classical analog ! It is expressed by the following equation:

$`U^{}I|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=IU|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.`$ (1)
However, this evolution cannot be seen at individual level, because the state of either qubit is described by a completely random density matrix. The evolution leading to state preparation is possible only after local measurement and sending the classical information. This property is very crucial, because, in some sense such a state has all possible information (complement information) about a qubit. Therefore, it is legitimate to look for such states for multiparties that enjoy the above invariance property. Suppose we have a composite system with each subsystem being in a Hilbert space of dimension $`d`$. An $`N`$-particle entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with the property $`UU\mathrm{}U|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ would be a useful quantum resource for multiparty RSP. Such states are called dark states. Essentially, they live in a ‘robust part’ of the Hilbert space where if all the particles are subjected to same unitaries then nothing happens, but if one particle is subjected to a unitary operator then that is equivalent to applying inverse unitary transformation to rest of the particles. This can be seen from the following equation

$`U^{}II\mathrm{}I|\mathrm{\Psi }=IUU\mathrm{}U|\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (2)
Here, we briefly recapitulate the essential properties of dark states from Ref. which are useful for our purpose. These states are the eigenstates of the interaction Hamiltonian with eigenvalue zero and hence do not evolve in time. There are no bipartite dark states for the systems with Hilbert space of dimension $`d>2`$. The smallest system of qudits in a dark state is a $`d`$-partite quantum system. In general, dark states exist for a d-level N-particle system only if $`N=md`$, with $`m`$ being the set of natural numbers. Also, coherent and incoherent superposition of dark states is also a dark state, i.e, if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are two dark states, then $`a|\mathrm{\Psi }+b|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`p|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+q|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ are also dark states. However, we wish to emphasize that for a given system there are dark states which are not useful for remote state preparation, as we shall also see below.

## III Remote State Preparation of a Qubit

An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented as,

$$|\psi =cos(\theta /2)|0+sin(\theta /2)e^{i\phi }|1$$
(3)
Here $`\{|0,|1\}`$ are called computational basis vectors. There are two real parameters $`0\theta \pi `$ and $`0\phi 2\pi `$. The angles $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ define a point on the unit two-dimensional sphere, known as Bloch sphere. It also corresponds to the state of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle (up to an overall phase) with the direction of the spin specified by $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$. The Hilbert space of a qubit is two dimensional, so one can also choose the basis vectors as $`\{|\psi ,|\overline{\psi }\}`$, such that the state $`|\overline{\psi }\}`$ is orthogonal to the state $`|\psi `$, and $`|\overline{\psi }\}`$ is given by

$$|\overline{\psi }=sin(\theta /2)|0+cos(\theta /2)e^{i\phi }|1.$$
(4)
### A Exact remote state preparation for one party

The remote state preparation protocol for a special class of qubit states was introduced in Ref . Here we review this protocol. Alice and Bob share one qubit each which are in an entangled state. As discussed above, this entangled state has to be a dark state for the success of the protocol. In the case of two parties (Alice and Bob) and two-dimensional Hilbert spaces of qubits, such a state is the singlet state:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1|1|0).$$
(5)
Alice now wishes to help Bob to prepare a state that is known completely only to her. Bob may also know the value of one of the parameters; so he knows the ensemble to which the state corresponds to. According to the protocol, Alice first applies an unitary transformation on her qubit. This unitary transformation changes $`\{|0,|1\}`$ to $`\{|\psi ,|\overline{\psi }\}`$, where $`|\psi `$ is the state that Alice wishes Bob to prepare. To illustrate the protocol, let us first consider the following ensemble of states,

$$|\psi =cos(\theta /2)|0+sin(\theta /2)|1.$$
(6)
For this ensemble of states, $`\phi =0`$. These states belong to polar great circle on the Bloch sphere. Alice performs a unitary transformation, determined by the angle $`\theta `$, on her qubit. As discussed earlier, this can correspond to the following change in the shared entangled state:

$$IU(\theta )|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|\overline{\psi }|1|\psi ).$$
(7)
Here $`|\overline{\psi }`$ is as given in equation $`(4)`$ with $`\phi =0`$. After making the transformation Alice makes a measurement on her qubit using the basis vectors $`\{|0,|1\}`$. Then the state of Bob’s qubit can be either $`|\psi `$ or $`|\overline{\psi }`$. If the state is $`|\overline{\psi }`$, Bob can convert it to the desired state $`|\psi `$ by a rotation by $`\pi `$ around $`y`$axis. The rotation operator is $`i\sigma _y`$. After making the measurement, Alice sends Bob one cbit of information, leading Bob to do either nothing or apply $`i\sigma _y`$.

There are other ensembles of states, that can be remotely prepared using the above protocol. Let us discuss these ensembles. The one such ensemble corresponds to the equatorial qubit states. For such states, $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and we have:

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e^{i\phi }|1).$$
(8)
Here Bob can obtain $`|\psi `$ from $`|\overline{\psi }`$ up to a phase by a rotation by $`\pi `$ around $`z`$axis, i.e. by applying $`\sigma _z`$ to $`|\overline{\psi }`$. Another example of the ensemble of the states is given by $`\phi =\pi /2`$. This is another class of polar qubit states:

$$|\psi =cos(\theta /2)|0+isin(\theta /2))|1$$
(9)
Here Bob can obtain $`|\psi `$ from $`|\overline{\psi }`$ up to a phase by a rotation by $`\pi `$ around $`x`$axis, i.e., by applying $`\sigma _x`$ to the $`|\overline{\psi }`$.

In the above, we have considered ensembles of states with two different values of the parameter $`\phi `$. In fact the protocol works for any choice of $`\phi `$. Suppose the state Alice wishes to remotely prepare belongs to the ensemble of states with $`\phi =\phi _0`$ :

$$|\psi =cos(\theta /2)|0+sin(\theta /2))e^{i\phi _0}|1$$
(10)
Bob can obtain $`|\psi `$ from $`|\overline{\psi }`$ up to a phase by applying the following unitary operator:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\phi _0}\\ e^{i\phi _0}& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Instead of fixing the parameter $`\phi `$ in $`(3)`$, we may fix the parameter $`\theta =\theta _0`$ and leave $`\phi `$ arbitrary. A state from such an ensemble can be remotely prepared if we can find unitary transformations connecting $`|\psi `$ and $`|\overline{\psi }`$ which are independent of $`\phi `$. It turns out that connecting transformations are Hermitian not unitary .

### B Exact remote state preparation of qubits for multiparties

In this section, we wish to explore the possibility of Alice helping many parties to remotely prepare identical states by making a single measurement on her qubits. Suppose there are $`N`$ parties. Then the minimum number of qubits they can share with Alice is $`N+1`$. But these qubits cannot necessarily be in a dark state. As discussed in section II, for N-partite entangled qubit dark states condition $`N=2m`$ holds. Therefore, for only even number of qubits, there can be a dark state. It turns out that if Alice makes a one-particle measurement then exact remote state preparation by many parties is not possible. In such a case, the state of the qubits belonging to different parties remain entangled. However, if Alice makes a multiparticle measurement, then the protocol as discussed for the one party works also for multiparties. Here, we explicitly give a protocol for RSP of special ensemble of qubits at two locations simultaneously. Let us suppose that Alice chooses to prepare a qubit from the class given in equation $`(6)`$.

To simultaneously prepare a state at two locations, we need four qubits to use a dark state as a resource. Alice has two qubits. Other two parties, Bob and Charlie, have one qubit each. The quantum resource here would be the four-qubit dark state,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1234}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[|0011+|1100|0110|1001].`$ (11)
Let Alice possess particles $`(1,2)`$; Bob has particle $`3`$ and Charlie has particle $`4`$. Alice applies local unitary transformations $`U^{}U^{}`$ to her qubits that brings the above state to

$`U^{}U^{}II|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`IIUU|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[|00|\overline{\psi }|\overline{\psi }+|11|\psi |\psi |01|\overline{\psi }|\psi |10|\psi |\overline{\psi }]`$ (13)
Here $`|\psi `$ and $`|\overline{\psi }`$ are as given in equations $`(3)`$ and $`(4)`$ with $`\phi =0`$. Alice carries out a von Neumann projection onto two qubit basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$ and sends one classical bit each to Bob and Charlie. The state of Bob’s qubit can be either $`|\psi `$ or $`|\overline{\psi }`$; the same is true for Charlie. Alice has to convey to them by sending one cbit each whether to apply the operator $`i\sigma _y`$ on their qubit or not. As we discussed in the last section, apart from the polar qubit of equation $`(6)`$, equatorial qubit of equation (8) and polar qubits of equations $`(9)`$ and $`(10)`$ can also be remotely prepared by one party. Following the above protocol, Alice can help prepare these ensembles of qubits at two locations. The only difference will be that Bob and Charlie would apply the unitary operator $`\sigma _z`$, or $`\sigma _x`$, or the given after equation $`(10)`$, depending on the ensemble. This will constitute RSP of these special ensemble of qubits simultaneously for two parties. The amount of quantum and classical resources used here is two ebits and two cbits.

Apart from the dark state of equation $`(11)`$, we can also use the following dark state for the remote state preparation at two locations,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1_{1234}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[|0011+|1100|0101|1010].`$ (14)
Other dark states, some of which can be obtained from the linear combination of the above two dark states, would not help in remote state preparation. In these cases, the state of Bob and Charlie’s qubits will remain entangled even after Alice has made measurement on her two qubits. The key property of the dark states of equations $`(11)`$ and $`(13)`$ is that they can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{13}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{24}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{14}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{23}`$ respectively. (Here $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{ij}`$ is a EPR singlet state as given in equation (5).) When Alice makes a measurement on her qubits $`(1,2)`$, then the qubits of Bob and Charlie are no longer entangled.

Note that we are not repeating the exact RSP protocol  in sequence. Even though virtually we use same number of EPR pairs (two ebits), we can perform RSP of a qubit from these special ensemble at two locations in a single shot. Here Alice is making a multiparticle measurement; not one-particle measurements in sequence.

In order to prepare a qubit at $`m`$ locations, we can follow the same protocol as above. We start with an entangled state consisting of $`N=2m`$ qubits, of which $`m`$ qubits will be at Alice’s location and the rest $`m`$ qubits are located with $`m`$ parties at different locations. There are many dark states which can be used as a quantum resource. (We conjecture that there are $`m!`$ such resource states.) One such shared resource state can be explicitly given as,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12\mathrm{}2m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^m}}(|0_1|1_{m+1}|1_1|0_{m+1})(|0_2|1_{m+2}|1_2|0_{m+2})`$ (15)
$``$ $`\mathrm{}(|0_m|1_{2m}|1_m|0_{2m}).`$ (16)
Alice can help prepare remotely any of the states from the ensembles discussed in the last section. Let $`|\psi `$ be one such state. Alice makes unitary transformations on her $`m`$ qubits so that $`\{|0,|1\}\{|\psi ,|\overline{\psi }\}`$ at remote locations. Next, Alice projects onto her $`m`$ qubits. After the measurement, Alice can send one cbit each to $`m`$ parties so that they can apply appropriate unitary transformation on their qubit to prepare the state $`|\psi `$. Thus she can prepare a qubit from these special ensembles at $`m`$ locations using only $`m`$-ebits and $`m`$-cbits.

### C Probabilistic remote state preparation of a qubit

Exact remote preparation is not possible with all dark states. However, there is a finite probability for remote state preparation with any dark state. Let us illustrate it with the following example. For four qubit case, two of the dark states are given by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{34}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{13}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{24}`$. The former is not useful for RSP due to the presence of local entanglement between particles $`1`$ and $`2`$, and similarly between $`3`$ and $`4`$. The latter one is the state $`(11)`$ used in the exact RSP protocol. Since any linear superposition of two dark states is also a dark state, let us consider a general superposition of these two states

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1234}=N[a|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{13}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{24}+b|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{12}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{34}],$$
(17)
which can be written as

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1234}`$ $`=`$ $`N[a|0011_{1234}+a|1100_{1234}(a+b)|0110_{1234}`$ (18)
$``$ $`(a+b)|1001_{1234}+b|0101_{1234}+b|1010_{1234}],`$ (19)
where $`N=1/2\sqrt{a^2+b^2+ab}`$ is the normalization constant.

Let the resource shared between Alice, Bob and Charlie be given by the above entangled state. Alice has particles $`(1,2)`$, Bob has particle $`3`$ and Charlie has particle $`4`$. Alice applies a unitary operator to her particles that brings the above state to

$`U^{}U^{}II|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`N[a|00_{12}|\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }_{34}+a|11_{12}|\psi \psi _{34}(a+b)|01_{12}|\overline{\psi }\psi _{34}`$ (20)
$``$ $`(a+b)|10_{12}|\psi \overline{\psi }_{34}+b|01_{12}|\psi \overline{\psi }_{34}+b|10_{12}|\overline{\psi }\psi _{34}].`$ (21)
Here $`|\psi `$ is the state belonging to one of the ensembles discussed above. Now, Alice carries out projection measurement onto two qubit basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$ and sends one classical bit each to Bob and Charlie. If her outcome is $`|00`$, then Bob and Charlie’s qubits would be in the state $`|\overline{\psi }`$. Therefore, after receiving classical communication each of them has to apply appropriate unitary transformation to correct the state. The probability of this occurrence is $`P_{00}=a^2/4(a^2+b^2+ab)`$. If she gets $`|11`$, then Bob and Charlie need not do anything. The probability of occurrence is $`P_{11}=a^2/4(a^2+b^2+ab)`$. However, if she gets $`|01`$, then the particles at Bob and Charlie’s locations are in an entangled state given by

$`(a+b)|\overline{\psi }_3|\psi _4+b|\psi _3|\overline{\psi }_4.`$ (22)
This occurs with probability $`P_{01}=((a+b)^2+b^2)/4(a^2+b^2+ab)`$. Since the qubit state is unknown to Bob and Charlie both, they cannot disentangle it and apply some local unitary operation to get the original state. Hence, this event can be regarded as the failure one. Similarly, when Alice gets $`|10`$, then Bob and Charlie’s qubits are in an entangled state

$`(a+b)|\psi _3|\overline{\psi }_4+b|\overline{\psi }_3|\psi _4.`$ (23)
This also occurs with probability $`P_{10}=((a+b)^2+b^2)/4(a^2+b^2+ab)`$ and as before, they cannot disentangle it exactly. So this protocol is probabilistic with a success probability given by

$`P_S={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2(a^2+b^2+ab)}}.`$ (24)
We note that one classical bit of information would be enough if Bob and Charlie need to have communication with Alice only in the event of success of the protocol. In case, Alice has to communicate the failure also, then she needs to send $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ to each party. If Bob and Charlie wish to cooperate and do some joint action to recover the state of a qubit, then Alice needs to communicate two classical bits (i.e. all four possible outcomes) to each party.

Thus with an arbitrary superposition of dark states one can have probabilistic remote state preparation of a qubit at multiple location. The amount of entanglement between particles $`(1,2)`$ versus $`(3,4)`$ is $`E(\mathrm{\Phi })=3N^2a^2\mathrm{log}_2N^2a^2N^2(a+2b)^2\mathrm{log}_2N^2(a+2b)^2`$ which is less than two ebits.

Because there is a component from the so-called useless resource (the local entanglement between qubits $`1`$ and $`2`$, and similarly between $`3`$ and $`4`$) we have a probability of failure. This brings out another feature of quantum communication: the presence of local entanglement which is thought of as not ‘good’, in fact plays a bad role, in the sense that its superposition with the ‘shared resource’ part can sometimes lead to failure of the protocol.

## IV Remote State Preparation of a Qutrit

We now turn our attention to the case of a qutrit, where the dimension of the Hilbert space is three. A qutrit $`|\psi ^3`$ can be parametrized by four real parameters $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\delta `$ and $`\varphi `$ such that $`0\gamma _1,\gamma _2\pi /2`$ and $`0\delta ,\varphi 2\pi `$. The most general qutrit state can be expressed as

$`|\psi =cos\gamma _1|0+sin\gamma _1cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1+sin\gamma _1sin\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2`$ (25)
Ideally, Alice’s aim is to prepare this most general state remotely. But as in qubit case, such a state cannot be remotely prepared using exact RSP protocol. With this protocol, it can be prepared remotely only probabilistically. However, as we shall see below, just as in the case of qubits, there exist ensembles of states where exact RSP can be performed with multiparticle measurements.

For a qutrit, there exist many sets of basis vectors which include the state $`(21)`$. One such set can be obtained by applying a specific unitary transformation on the computational basis vectors,

$`U(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\delta ,\varphi )|0`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _0=cos\gamma _1|0+sin\gamma _1cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1+sin\gamma _1sin\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2`$ (26)
$`U(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\delta ,\varphi )|1`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _1=sin\gamma _1|0cos\gamma _1cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1cos\gamma _1sin\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2`$ (27)
$`U(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\delta ,\varphi )|2`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _2=sin\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1cos\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2`$ (28)
The states $`|\psi _0,|\psi _1`$ and $`|\psi _2`$ are orthogonal to each other.

### A  Exact remote state preparation for one party

Suppose Alice wishes to prepare a qutrit state at Bob’s location. For this purpose, she would need to share a dark state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with Bob. If Alice and Bob have one qutrit each, then these qutrits cannot be in a dark state. As discussed in section II, a minimum of three qutrits are needed to construct a dark state. If Alice has one qutrit, then Bob would need to have two qutrits. In this case, Alice’s measurement would leave Bob’s two qutrits in an entangled state. Then remote state preparation would not be possible. So, Alice may have two qutrits, while Bob would have one.

Dark state coincides with the antisymmetric state when the number of particles $`N`$ equals the dimension of the Hilbert space $`d`$ of each particle. (For example, when $`N=d=2`$ we get the singlet state.) Let $`\{|0,|1,|2\}`$ be the orthonormal basis of the qutrit. Then the shared resource between Alice and Bob is

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{123}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}[|012+|120+|201|021|102|210]`$ (29)
Since the resource state $`(23)`$ is a dark state, the action of the unitary operator $`UUU`$ on it leaves it invariant. We suppose that Alice possesses particles $`(1,2)`$ while particle 3 is with Bob. Now Alice applies $`U^{}U^{}`$ to her particles and as a result we have

$`U^{}U^{}I|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}[|01|\psi _2+|12|\psi _0+|20|\psi _1`$ (30)
$``$ $`|02|\psi _1|10\psi _2|21|\psi _0].`$ (31)
Here $`|\psi _0,|\psi _1`$ and $`|\psi _2`$ form a set of basis vectors for the qutrit. If Alice carries out a two-qutrit orthogonal measurement, Bob’s state would always be in one of the three basis states. As in the qubit case, in general, one cannot find parameter independent unitary transformations to change one basis vector to another. It is possible for only some ensembles of states. Below we discuss one such ensemble of states.

Let us now consider the following qutrit state which Alice wishes to prepare remotely,

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+e^{i\delta }|1+e^{i\varphi }|2)`$ (32)
where $`\delta ,\varphi `$ are arbitrary. Such a state resembles in form the “equatorial” qubit state. This belongs to a specific ensemble with $`\gamma _2=\pi /4`$ and $`\gamma _1`$ such that $`cos\gamma _1=1/\sqrt{3}`$ in the qutrit state $`(21)`$; phases are arbitrary (known to Alice but unknown to Bob).

If one applies a unitary transformation on the computational basis vectors then one obtains

$`U|0=|\psi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+e^{i\delta }|1+e^{i\varphi }|2)`$ (33)
$`U|1=|\psi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{i\delta }|1+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2e^{i\varphi }|2)`$ (34)
$`U|2=|\psi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|0+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2e^{i\delta }|1+\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{i\varphi }|2)`$ (35)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=e^{2\pi i/3}`$. The set $`\{|\psi _0,|\psi _1,|\psi _3\}`$ form an orthonormal basis  and is related to the computational basis by the discrete Fourier Transform. Here $`|\psi _0`$ is the state that Alice wishes to prepare remotely. $`|\psi _1`$ can be transformed into $`|\psi _0`$ by the unitary transformation $`U_{01}=diag(1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Similarly, $`|\psi _2`$ can be transformed into $`|\psi _0`$ by the unitary transformation $`U_{02}=diag(1,\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$.

Let us now carry out the protocol. Alice first applies appropriate unitary transformation to transform the dark state as in equation $`(23)`$. Next, she makes a two-particle measurement in the basis $`\{|00,|01,|02,|10,|11,|12,|20,|21,|22\}`$. After Alice makes a measurement, the state of Bob’s qutrit can be $`|\psi _0`$, or $`|\psi _1`$, or $`|\psi _2`$. Since Alice knows the state of Bob’s qutrit, she has to convey to Bob by classical communication whether to apply $`U_{01}`$, or $`U_{02}`$, or do nothing. This she can do using $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ classical bits. Thus, the protocol is successful all the times and Alice is able to remotely prepare this ensemble of qutrit states with probability one. The number of cbits used is $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ and the number of ebits used is $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ if we consider entanglement between particles $`(1,2)`$ versus 3.

### B  Exact remote state preparation for multiparties

Next, we consider the case of more than one party. First we consider the simpler case when Alice wishes to remotely prepare a state at two locations simultaneously. Let Bob and Charlie be at these locations. Afterwords, we can generalize to the case of arbitrary number of parties, say $`m`$.

In the two locations case, Alice, Bob and Charlie can have one qutrit each, which are together in a dark state. Suppose Alice possesses particle $`1`$, Bob has particle $`2`$ and Charlie has particle $`3`$. Then after applying $`U^{}`$ to her particle she does a single particle measurement. If her outcome is $`|0`$, then the state at Bob and Charlie collapses to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi _1\psi _2|\psi _2\psi _1)`$ which is an entangled state! It is not possible to transform it to the desired state $`|\psi _0`$ using LOCC. So RSP cannot be carried out in this way. Similar situation occurs when Alice obtains $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ upon measurement.

So one needs a dark state with more than three particles. ¿From the condition of section II, we have $`N=3m`$, where $`m`$ is a natural number, denoting the number of locations in our context. So we need a minimum of six qutrits to carry out RSP for two parties. If Bob and Charlie have more than one of these qutrits, then as earlier, the RSP protocol cannot be carried out. This is because their qutrits would be in entangled state after Alice makes a measurement on her qutrits. So Bob and Charlie would have one qutrit each, while Alice would have four qutrits. For the six qutrits, we can choose a dark state by simply taking the tensor product of the resource state $`(23)`$, i.e., $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{123}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{456}`$ where Alice possesses particles $`(1,2,4,5)`$ while Bob and Charlie have particles $`3`$ and $`6`$ respectively. Alice now can remotely prepare a state from the ensemble $`(25)`$. To start the protocol, Alice makes unitary transformations on her qutrits as discussed in the last section. Then she makes a four-particle measurement on her qutrits. This she does in a basis obtained from the tensor products of computational basis of a qutrit. After her measurement, the state of Bob’s and Charlie’s qutrit would be $`|\psi _0`$, or $`|\psi _1`$, or $`|\psi _2`$. Since Alice knows the state of Bob’s and Charlie’s qutrits, she has to convey to them by classical communication whether to apply $`U_{01}`$, or $`U_{02}`$, or do nothing. This she can do by sending $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ classical bits each to Bob and Charlie. So total information cost is $`2\mathrm{log}_23`$ cbits and $`2\mathrm{log}_23`$ ebits.

This can be immediately generalized to the case of $`m`$ parties. In such a case, Alice and $`m`$ parties need to share a dark state involving $`3m`$ qutrits. Of these $`2m`$ qutrits would be with Alice and one qutrit each with $`m`$ parties. One example of such a dark state can be obtained in parallel to two parties case by taking the appropriate tensor product of the state $`(23)`$. Alice needs to make a measurement on her $`2m`$ qutrits and send $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ cbits to each party to convey what transformation to apply. One would use $`m\mathrm{log}_23`$ cbits and $`m\mathrm{log}_23`$ ebits in the process.

### C  Probabilistic remote state preparation of a qutrit

We have seen above how the RSP protocol works for the states belonging to specific ensembles. We also remarked that the protocol does not work for a general qutrit state. Here we wish to consider the general qutrit state $`(21)`$ again and see what is possible.

We examine the simplest situation where Alice wishes to remotely prepare the state $`(21)`$ at Bob’s location. Alice has two qutrits and Bob has one. These qutrits are in the dark state $`(23)`$. Now suppose Alice applies unitary transformation as given in $`(24)`$ where $`|\psi _0,|\psi _1`$and $`|\psi _2`$ are as given in $`(22)`$. We see that if Alice’s result is $`|12`$ or $`|21`$ then Bob’s state is $`|\psi _0`$ which is the desired state that Alice wants to prepare. For the remaining measurement results, Bob would have either $`|\psi _1`$ or $`|\psi _2`$. He would then have to apply some unitary operators to transform these states to $`|\psi _0`$. It is extremely difficult to find such general operators independent of the parameters $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\delta ,\varphi `$ . So the success probability of the protocol is $`1/3`$. However, this probability can be enhanced if we fix the value of one of the parameters. Therefore, let us set $`\gamma _1=\pi /4`$. The states reduce to

$`|\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1+sin\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2)`$ (36)
$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1sin\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2`$ (37)
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`sin\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1cos\gamma _2e^{i\varphi }|2`$ (38)
It is easy to see that the unitary operator taking $`|\psi _1`$ to $`|\psi _0`$ is $`U_2=diag(1,1,1)`$. Notice that $`|\psi _2`$ is a two dimensional state and in order to convert it to $`|\psi _0`$ ( which is three dimensional), the unitary operator would surely involve the parameters. We would regards this case as a failure. Thus by fixing one parameter and leaving the other three free, we are able to prepare a qutrit state remotely with success probability $`2/3`$. The key feature in our protocol is the two-particle measurement performed by Alice.

### D  Joint remote state preparation for a qutrit

We close this section by imagining a somewhat different scenario. This we illustrate by considering the case involving Alice, Bob and Charlie each possessing one qutrit. We have seen earlier that this situation gives an entangled state between Bob and Charlie after Alice performs a single particle measurement and hence not useful for RSP. Let us suppose that she is allowed to collaborate with a second party, say Bob. This means that Bob also has complete knowledge about the qutrit. Then, Alice and Bob situated at two different locations can jointly prepare a qutrit state from the ensemble $`(25)`$ at a remote location say, Charlie. Let us see how this is achieved.

Alice , Bob and Charlie share the entangled three particle resource state considered earlier. Alice applies appropriate unitary operator, measures her qutrit and conveys her result, say $`|0`$ to both Bob and Charlie. Bob applies another unitary operator, makes a measurement on his qutrit and sends his result to Charlie. So if Bob gets $`|1`$ , then Charlie gets $`|\psi _2`$, and if he gets $`|2`$ then $`|\psi _1`$ is prepared at Charlie’s location which is the desired state. Whatever Charlie gets, he can always make use of the unitary operators $`U_{01}`$ and $`U_{02}`$ given earlier to transform his state to the desired state with probability one. For each classical communication, $`\mathrm{log}_23`$ cbits are used. Thus the protocol is also successful in this kind of a situation where two parties collaborate to remotely prepare a special class of qutrit states for a third party. It can also be extended to higher dimensions and for more number of particles. This bears similarity with the process of secret sharing  which may be worth exploring in future.

## V  Remote state preparation of a qudit

Here, we wish to generalize RSP protocol to systems with larger than three-dimensional Hilbert space. So, Alice wants to prepare a $`d`$-dimensional quantum state at one or multiple locations. A general state of a $`d`$-dimensional system can be written as:

$`|\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\beta _j|j`$ (39)
where

$`\beta _0=cos\gamma _1,`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ (41)
$`\beta _{d3}=e^{i\alpha _{d3}}cos\gamma _{d2}sin\gamma _{d3}sin\gamma _{d2}\mathrm{}sin\gamma _1,`$ (42)
$`\beta _{d2}=e^{i\alpha _{d2}}cos\gamma _{d1}sin\gamma _{d2}sin\gamma _{d3}\mathrm{}sin\gamma _1,`$ (43)
$`\beta _{d1}=e^{i\alpha _{d1}}sin\gamma _{d1}sin\gamma _{d2}\mathrm{}sin\gamma _1`$ (44)
such that the $`2(d1)`$ real parameters have the range $`0\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{d1}\pi /2`$ and $`0\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{d1}2\pi `$.

As earlier, this state cannot be prepared using RSP protocol. However, by making choices of some parameters, one can have ensembles of states which can be remotely prepared. We will give one example of such an ensemble. This ensemble will be a generalization of $`(25)`$ for the case of qudits.

### A  Exact RSP of a qudit for one and multiparties

The RSP protocol requires a dark state as a quantum resource and an appropriate ensemble of states. Let us first consider the case of one-party. Alice wishes to prepare a state at Bob’s location. First of all she needs a resource which is shared with Bob. As discussed above, for $`d=N`$, there exists a totally antisymmetric $`N`$ particle quantum state of the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}(1)^{sgn(\pi )}|\pi _1\mathrm{}|\pi _N`$ (45)
where $`\{|\pi _1,\mathrm{},|\pi _N=|0,\mathrm{},|N1\}`$ denotes the orthonormal basis of the Hilbert space. The sum appearing in the above expression runs over all possible permutations $`\pi `$ of the $`N`$ elementary quantum systems considered. Out of $`N`$ particles, Alice possesses $`(N1)`$ of them while Bob has only a single particle. Having the above resource at her disposal, Alice makes a measurement on her $`(N1)`$ qudits and conveys the result to Bob. Bob’s ability to transform the state at his end to the state desired by Alice would depend upon choice of the state.

Next, we need an appropriate ensemble of states. A generalization of the “equatorial” qutrit states can be represented by

$`|\psi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}e^{i\alpha _j}|j`$ (46)
where $`\alpha _0=0`$. We can obtain this state from $`(30)`$ by appropriate choice of angles.

We can construct the whole set of basis vectors, including $`|\psi _0`$, by converting the computational basis into the discrete Fourier transform basis as follows:

$`|\psi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{jk}e^{i\alpha _j}|j`$ (47)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=e^{2\pi i/d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{jk}=(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{jk}`$ The above set $`\{|\psi _k,k=0,1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ forms an orthonormal basis. Note that $`k=0`$, corresponds to the special qudit state $`(33)`$ Alice has chosen to prepare remotely.

Alice first makes unitary transformations on her qudits, so that in the dark state $`(32)`$, Bob’s qudit can be thought of to be in one of the $`|\psi _k`$ states. When Alice performs a measurement on her $`N1`$ particles, then Bob’s qudit will collapse to one of the $`|\psi _k`$ states. Alice then conveys to Bob through $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ cbits what unitary transformation to apply on his qudit to transform it into $`|\psi _0=|\psi `$ state. This is because when Bob gets any one of the basis states $`|\psi _k`$, he can apply the corresponding unitary operator

$`U_{0k}={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{kj}|jj|`$ (48)
and convert his state to the desired state $`|\psi _0`$. Thus the protocol is successful all the times in exactly preparing a special class of qudit states remotely.

As in the case of qutrits, we can generalize the protocol for the case of $`m`$ parties. In order to prepare a qudit at $`m`$ locations, we consider an entangled state consisting of $`N=md`$ qudits, of which Alice would possess $`m(d1)`$ qudits and the remaining $`m`$ qudits are distributed among $`m`$ different parties. One can choose, as a quantum resource, a tensor product of the state $`(32)`$. Following the usual procedure, Alice projects onto her qudits and is able to prepare this special class of qudit quantum states remotely at $`m`$ locations by sending to each party $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ cbits. This will allow each party to know which one of the operators given in $`(35)`$ to apply. If we consider the entanglement between Alice’s $`m(d1)`$ particles verses the remaining $`m`$ particles, then the number of ebits used would be $`m\mathrm{log}_2d`$. Total cbits would be $`m\mathrm{log}_2d`$.

### B  Probabilistic RSP of a qudit

As we know, if Alice attempts to prepare the most general qudit, state $`(30)`$ like in the qutrit case, she would succeed only with probability $`1/d`$. This situation can be improved by assigning specific values to some parameters. In one set of basis vectors, we could have two $`d`$-dimensional states and the others of lesser dimensions. Hence we conjecture that using this basis, Alice can remotely prepare a fairly general qudit state with probability $`2/d`$. For other sets of basis vectors, which include the state $`(30)`$, the probability of remote preparation would be less than $`2/d`$. This is because of difficulty in finding parameter-independent unitary transformations connecting various basis vectors.

To gain some insight into the conjecture, let us consider the $`d=4`$ case explicitly. The most general quantum state for such a particle can be written as

$`|\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`cos\gamma _1|0+sin\gamma _1cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1+sin\gamma _1sin\gamma _2cos\gamma _3e^{i\varphi }|2+sin\gamma _1sin\gamma _2sin\gamma _3e^{i\sigma }|3`$ (49)
Our protocol requires that this should be one of the basis states. One possible choice for a basis is given by the following normalized states which are orthogonal to the above state.

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`sin\gamma _1|0cos\gamma _1cos\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1cos\gamma _1sin\gamma _2cos\gamma _3e^{i\varphi }|2cos\gamma _1sin\gamma _2sin\gamma _3e^{i\sigma }|3`$ (50)
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`sin\gamma _2e^{i\delta }|1cos\gamma _2cos\gamma _3e^{i\varphi }|2cos\gamma _2sin\gamma _3e^{i\sigma }|3`$ (51)
$`|\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`sin\gamma _3e^{i\varphi }|2cos\gamma _3e^{i\sigma }|3`$ (52)
Analogous to the qutrit case, we fix $`\gamma _1=\pi /4`$ while the other five parameters are free. Following the usual procedure, if Bob gets $`|\psi _0`$ then he has to do nothing. If he gets $`|\psi _1`$ then he applies the unitary operator $`U=diag(1,1,1,1)`$ to transform it to the desired state. When Bob gets the other two states, we shall consider that situation a failure as those are 2 and 3 dimensional states and the unitary operators would always involve the parameters. Therefore, we are able to achieve RSP of the above special class of states with probability $`1/2`$ which is better than a random guess.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have taken a simple approach at generalizing remote state preparation protocol for special class of states for multiparties. We have generalized the protocol for qubits, qutrits and qudits as well. The crucial feature of the extension of the protocol is the use of multiparticle measurement and the use of dark states as a quantum resource. We find that Alice needs to send only $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ cbits of classical information to each party and consume $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ ebits of entanglement per party for remote preparation of a qudit. An interesting point to note here is one can prepare special class of states in any Hilbert space dimension $`d`$ which does not contradict a result of . The key observation is that we use different class of quantum resource and multiparticle measurements in our protocol. However, all dark states are not useful for remote state preparation. In some such cases only probabilistic remote state preparation for multiparties is possible. We hope that this will provide insight for generalization of remote state preparation for arbitrary states of qudits at multiparties with low or high entanglement (asymptotic) limit. In the case of qutrits and qudits, we have discussed only one ensemble of states, for which remote state preparation is possible. (Of course, the ensembles of states orthogonal to the discussed ensemble can also be remotely prepared in similar manner.) There should be many other such ensembles of states. One needs a systematic procedure to identify such ensembles. In future, one may also explore how Alice can prepare different Hilbert space quantum systems at different parties. A tentative line of thought would be to explore some generalized form of dark states as a quantum resource which would be invariant under $`U(d_A)V(d_B)W(d_C)`$, with $`d_A,d_B,d_C`$ being the dimension of three different Hilbert spaces.

Acknowledgments: PP acknowledges financial assistance from DST under the SERC Fast Track Proposal scheme. AKP thanks A. Thapliyal and D. Leung for useful discussions on multiparty RSP during his visit to MSRI, Berkeley, California during August 26-Sept 26th, 2002. Financial support and hospitality for this visit from MSRI is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# References

q-Plastic deformation

Trinh Van Khoa

Department of physics of polymers and crystal, MGU

E-mail : khoa@polly.phys.msu.ru

1. Let’s consider a continuum with the structure of knots (for example, it is the polymers ). It is known that under an action of a force, the media transferees to plastic state. All of the experiments about plasticity had showed that in the plastic state the fields of stress and strains was in strongly fluctuation. Furthermore, the diagram $`\gamma =f(e)`$ of the stress-strain is similar to the diagram $`P=f(V)`$ of the pressure-volume in the fluid . In the other side one observes the phase transition in the neighborhood of the end of the crack . So we may consider the process of plastic deformation as critical one in which the formation of the structure was appeared . The density of probability for the transition to the plasticity in the solution of the equation Fokker-Planck. However with the help of potential character of the deformation process we may use Schrodingers equation in the role of Fokker-Planck one. It mean that we may consider the plastic process as one with supersymmetry. Where we take the deformation tensor in the role of order parameter. In paper  A.A. Iliushin proposed the conception of ”trajectory of deformation ”in the space $`E_5`$ (it is the image of the trajectory of plastic wave or of the trajectory of deformation in usual sense). As a matter of fact the space $`E_5`$ is the one fiber in the deformation bundle . In other word the deformation field is gauge one, in which generalized trajectory Iliushin was their section. Space of deformation $`P=\{E_n(x,t)\}`$, with most general points of view, is noncommutative. In the paper  we constructed the noncommutative model of deformation. In frameworks of this model we give a proof of the Iliusin hypothesis and Koiter hypothesis of existence of singularities on the limiting surface of deformation. Iliusin hypothesis - it is the invariant of the simplectic structure under the diffeomorfizm . The existence of Koiter singularities has a topological reason and number of singularities it is topological number Pontriagin. It is known, that the space of deformation $`P=\{En\}`$ is associative algebra, in frameworks of which can be determined derivative and the differential form. So, we choose universal algebra Connes $`\mathrm{\Omega }(P)`$ as algebra of the differential forms above space of deformation $`P`$. Thus, differential calculation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(P)`$ has a type similar to such in work , according to which least differential algebra of algebra of cosicle $`C(Der(P),P)`$, containing the space $`P`$, is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(P)`$, being algebra $`C(Der(P),P)`$, where $`Der(P)`$ \- algebra of derivative on $`P`$. In this paper we will construct the model of deformation, in which universal algebra Connes is algebra Hoof. The differential calculus on this algebra has a type of Woronowicz. When we identify the trajectory of deformation (or the line of propagation of plastic wave) with the knot we have archived the density of probability of the to plasticity :

$$Z=exp\left[kS_{cs}\right]𝑑e,$$
$`()`$
where $`k`$ it is elastic coefficient, $`S_{cs}`$\- the action Chern-Sinomce $`S_{cs}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cs}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cs}`$\- the form Chern-Simonce for deformation variety.

2. In the study of the exact solved system a new algebraic structure was appeared. It was called by the quantum group. Though quantum group in exact mathematical sense b ut there are many of its characters that one may to consider as a group. That’s why there is a problem to study and to construct the physical and mechanical models in which quantum group is a symmetry one. As a matter of fact, noncommutative geometry and quantum group are most effective instruments to study the deformation process. Corresponding to every process of deformation $`E(x,t)`$ there is a deformation space $`P=\{E(x,t)\}`$. In this process there is a reforming of symmetry and a generation of order structure. The coherence state in the block Bobrokov - Revuzenko - Shemiakin was their experimental affirm . In most general view it is the noncommutative space. Furthermore, may be, it is a q-space of deformation. So in the deformation process there are noncommutative bundle and the fluctuation. Now our problem - it is determining functional $`Z`$ in (\*). In the classical case  ”secondary calculus” was defined by formalism BRST, in which the space of state $`P`$ was extended to the space $`\stackrel{~}{P}=(x,y,\overline{y})`$, where $`x`$\- spacetime coordinate, $`y,\overline{y}`$\- noncommutative coordinate. In this space one defined 1-form $`\stackrel{~}{A^a}`$ with the value in the algebra Lie $`𝒢`$ of gauge group $`G`$: $`\stackrel{~}{P}=(x,y,\overline{y})=A_{mu}^adx^{mu}+A_y^ady+A_{\overline{y}d\overline{y}}^a`$. So $`A_\mu ^a(x,o,o)`$ was identified with usual gauge field, the ghost and antighost are fields $`C^a(x)=A_y^a(x,o,o)dy`$, $`\overline{C^a(x)}=A_{\overline{y}}^a(x,o,o)d\overline{y}`$. Thus one may have been generalized tensor gauge field by the 2-form $`\stackrel{~}{B^a}(x,y,\overline{y})=\frac{1}{2}B_{\mu \nu }dx^{mu}dx^{nu}+B_{\mu y}dx^\mu dy+\frac{1}{2}B_{yy}dydy+B_{y\overline{y}}dyd\overline{y}+\frac{1}{2}B_{\overline{y}\overline{y}}d\overline{y}\overline{y}`$. However in the noncommutative space of deformation it is necessary for me to realize only the first stage of this procedure because the gauge 1-form on $`P`$ was the differential form with value in matrix algebra of deformation. Thus one can formulate q-BRST cohomology of plastic deformation in the formalism Watamura . It is the comodule algebra upon $`Fund_q(G)`$ that was generalized from component comodule $`A=C(C^I,A^I,DA^I)/`$, where $`C^I`$\- is a ghost, $`A^I`$ a gauge field, $``$ the commutative covariant correlations. Of course, because of the expansion $`P\stackrel{~}{A}`$ we have to carry out expanding $`d\stackrel{~}{d}=d+\delta `$, where $`d`$ differential operator on the spacetime and $`\delta `$\- the BRST operator on the field:

$$\delta ^2=0,d^2=0,d\delta +\delta d=0$$

$$d\left(XY\right)=\left(dX\right)Y+\left(1\right)^{n_x}X\left(dY\right)$$

$$\delta \left(XY\right)=\left(\delta \right)Y+\left(1\right)^{n_x}X\left(\delta Y\right)$$

where $`n_x`$\- the index of the degree of the form and the numbers of ghost, $`X,Y`$\- are fields. Basic difference between q-BRST deformation and classical BRST  is the effect that the differential calculus on the expanded space of deformation $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is bicovariant. In this case we have been used differential calculus in  for the group $`SU_q(N)`$ and $`SO_q(N)`$. It is the differential calculus of the Woronowicz  in the limits of the noncommutative geometry Connes .Thus first of all, the bicovariant bimodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the expanded space of deformation $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ was built. It is left and right covariant $`A`$ modul. Letter fundamental bimodul was given. It is the bicovariant bimodul that is linear subspace with right-covariant basic $`\eta ^i`$ and coaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\eta ^i)=M_j^i\eta ^i`$, where $`M_j^i`$ are matrix of deformation in space $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. At last one defined the bicovariant bimodul $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ad}`$, right-invariant basic of which was adjoint representation $`\theta _j^i=\eta _+^i\overline{\eta _{+j}},\overline{\eta }(\eta _{}^i)^+`$, where $`\eta _{}^i`$ are right-invariant basic with the coefficient $`f_{\pm j}^i`$. As in the  we establish q-BRST equation for the ghost with requiring that BRST-map of the ghost has to satisfy ”horizontal condition”, e.i. it is the equation Cartan-Mayere with covariant differential calculus. Considering the ghost as right-invariant basic and after separating simple and adjoint representation for the group $`SU(2)`$ we obtain

$$\delta C^a=\frac{iq}{q^2+q^2}f_{ab}^aC^bC^c,\delta C^0=0,$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
Operator $`\delta `$ acts on the fields of deformation by the rule

$$\delta A^I=da^Iig[C^I,A^I]$$

or

$$\delta A^a=dC^aig\left(\omega C^0A^0+f_{bc}^aC^bA^c\right),\delta A^0$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
As in classical case the strength of deformation field has form

$$F^a=dA^0\frac{iq}{q^2+q^2}f_{bc}^aA^bA^c,F^0=dA^0$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
and the equality Bianchi is in the form

$$dF^a=\frac{iq}{q^2+q^2}f_{bc}^a\left[A^bF^cF^bA^c\right],dF^0=0$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
The act of operator $`\delta `$ was defined as

$$\delta F^I=\frac{ig}{\omega }[C^0,F^I]$$

Using this correlation we can build q-class Chern that is similar to

$$Q=F^IF^Jg_{IJ}$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
where the form Killing $`g_{IJ}`$ was defined from the condition

$$\delta Q=0,dQ=0$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
Using the permutation operator $`\sigma `$ and structure constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in  and correlation (2),(3) for $`F`$, we obtain the other condition (6)for the form Killing

$$\delta _I^0g_{JK}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TK}^{SO}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IJ}^{RT}g_{RS},$$

$$g_{00}=g^2\lambda ^2\left[2\right],q^1g_+=qg_+=g_{33}=q^2\left(\lambda +2\right)$$

Thus q-class Chern is defined in the form

$$Q\left(A\right)=kP,$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
where $`k`$ is q-homotopy operator

$$k=_0^1l_t$$

and operator $`l_t`$ is defined by rue:

$$l_tA_t^J=0l_tF_t^J=\widehat{\delta _q}A_t^J=d_qtA^J,\widehat{\delta _q}d_qt\frac{}{_qt}$$

$$l_t\left\{f\left(t\right)g\left(t\right)\right\}=\left\{l_tf\left(t\right)g\left(t\right)\right\}+\left(1\right)^{n_x}f\left(q^{1t}\right)\left\{l_tg\left(t\right)\right\}$$

Parameter $`t`$ is defined as

$$A_t^J=tA^J,F_t^J=tF^J+\frac{ig\left(t^21\right)}{\lambda }\left(A^0A^J+A^JA^0\right),$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
After placing (8) into (7) and after carrying out integral refer $`t`$ we obtain

$$Q\left(A\right)=\frac{t\lambda }{\left[2\right]}<A,dA>+\frac{ig\left(\lambda ^2+2\right)}{\left[3\right]\lambda }<A,A^0A^J+A^JA^0>$$

3. The main idea in my approach is to identify the trajectory of deformation with a knot. Further, similar to the classical mechanics of continuous medium, using hypothesis in  we have to require in order that strength of deformation field along the trajectory of deformation to be maximum. As was showed by Witten in  this requirement may be realized when action of deformation field was the action Chern - Simonce. This action was defined by $`Q(A)`$.

Thus we obtain the statistical sum describing the probability of the transition elastic-plastic:

$$Z=N\left[\beta Q_{cs}\left(A\right)\right]𝑑A$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
where $`\beta `$\- it is elastic coefficient, $`N_1`$\- coefficient depending on the potential at beginning and the end point of trajectory of deformation. If in the medium there is the dislocation line, then generalized matrix Burgers will be presented in the form

$$b_\mathrm{\Gamma }=Nexp\left[_CA_{\left(\mu \right)}d\left(x^\mu 1\right)\right]$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
where $`N`$\- it is order exponent part. In this situation we obtain statistical sum reflecting the density of probability of the transition elastic-plastic with the interaction of dislocation

$$Z=\mathrm{\Phi }_c\left(A\right)exp\left[\beta Q_{cs}\right]𝑑A$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_c=Tr\left(b_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)$$

However, it is known that when the medium has been passed on the plastic state the field of strain and stress will be in the fluctuation .As a result the action $`Q`$ will be separated on three parts:

$$QQ_K+Q_{GF}+Q_{FP}$$

where $`Q_K`$\- classical action Chern-Simonce, $`Q_{GF}`$\- The action of the fixed gauge and $`Q_{FP}`$\- the action of ghost Fadeev-Popov. In the formalism of BRST of Watamura  this action has to be the form in order that when $`q1`$ ones passes to the classical form in . Then we obtain :

$$Q_{GF}=\frac{\beta }{4\pi }<dA,dA>,Q_{FP}=dC\left(DC\right)$$

where , similar to , $`D=d+i[A,A]`$. Putting this action into (9) and (11) we obtain the probability of the transition elastic-plastic.

4. In this paper we used the formalism BRST to carry out the procedure of ”secondary calculus”. But, the must interesting for me is the mechanism ”quantization” of quantum group . It is known that the appearance of the order state in continuous medium is the result of the spontaneous breaking of the symmetry. The collective fashion  was used in the role of carrier maintaining the order state, may be considered as plastic fashion. In other world, the order state exists because of the concentration of strength in the medium. In this case the symmetry regulates the character of this concentration. At general in the process of plastic deformation may exist as such situation :

Formation of order state = Spontaneous breaking symmetry = Reconstruction of symmetry.

However, in this situation the reconstruction of symmetry turns to no reduction of symmetry nut to the q-symmetry. Where we, in secret sense, identity the process of reconstruction of symmetry with the process of ”quantization” of group Lie in the deformation bundle . The parameters $`q`$ plays the role of the parameter of regulation. Because of the ghost was considered as the right-invariant basic in the bimodule, then he was one of types of the plastic deformation keeping finite gauge-invariant character of the functional $`Q`$.


text:
# MULTI-TeV GAMMA-RAY FLARES FROM MARKARIAN 421 IN 2000 AND 2001 OBSERVED WITH THE TIBET AIR SHOWER ARRAY

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A variable $`\gamma `$-ray source Markarian 421 (Mrk 421) at redshift $`z=0.031`$ is known to be a blazar class of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with a common feature of BL Lac objects. Since a relativistic jet from this AGN is aligned along our line of sight, its photon emission is dominated by the jet power output, which is mainly non-thermal, extending over more than fifteen energy decades. In 1991, the EGRET detected $`\gamma `$-ray emissions from Mrk 421, which was the first detection of a BL Lac-type $`\gamma `$-ray source. Its integrated photon flux above 100 MeV was $`1.4\pm 0.3\times 10^7`$ cm-2 s-1, and its differential photon energy spectrum can be represented by a power law with an exponent of $``$1.96$`\pm `$0.14 Lin et al. (1992). Subsequently, the first detection of TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from this source was made by the Whipple collaboration (Whipple) in 1992. The average integral flux was estimated to be $`1.5\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 s-1 above 0.5 TeV, being 0.3 times as large as that from the Crab Nebula which often serves as the standard candle in TeV $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy Punch et al. (1992).

Occasionally, the $`\gamma `$-ray flux from Mrk 421 shows a rapid variability at TeV energies. The Whipple observed significant variabilities on a few-hour time scale on May 14 and 15 in 1994, during which the average source flux above 250 GeV increased by a factor of $``$10 Kerrick et al. (1995). Such rapid variabilities of TeV $`\gamma `$-ray flux were detected again by the Whipple during the period from April 20 through May 5 in 1995 Buckley et al. (1996) and in May, 1996 Gaidos et al. (1996) at sub-TeV energies. At the second outburst in 1996, which lasted for about 30 minutes, the flux increased by a factor of 20-25.

Various theoretical models of photon emission mechanisms are based basically on the Synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) model Gould (1965), combining the synchrotron photons and inverse Compton (IC) photons produced by accelerated high-energy electrons which interact with the magnetic field and the synchrotron photons, respectively, in a jet. This model naturally leads to a photon energy spectrum having two broad continuous peaks, one at energies between the infrared and X-ray regions and the other at energies between the GeV and TeV regions. This lower-energy peak is attributed to synchrotron radiation from accelerated high-energy electrons in the AGN, and the higher-energy peak is due to inverse Compton scattering of the same electrons off the soft photons (Maraschi, Ghisellini, & Celotti, 1992; Marscher & Travis, 1996). In 1995 and 1998, a simultaneous multi-wavelength observation of Mrk 421 was made, covering the radio, optical, and X-ray bands as well as the MeV-TeV $`\gamma `$-ray regions. It was shown from this observation that the multi-wavelength spectrum observed is consistent with that expected from the SSC model, suggesting a possible coincidence of X-ray and TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emissions (Macomb et al., 1995; Takahashi et al., 1996, 2000).

It has been suggested that TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from nearby AGNs are absorbed rapidly due to their interaction with the infrared photon field in the intergalactic space. Therefore, the shape of the multi-TeV $`\gamma `$-ray energy spectrum provides us important information on the column density and energy spectrum of intergalactic infrared photons. From this point of view, TeV $`\gamma `$-ray data have been used to impose an upper limit of these photons that are difficult to measure directly (De Jager, Stecker, & Salamon, 1994; Biller et al., 1995).

In the years 2000 and 2001, fortunately, Mrk 421 entered a very active phase, showing strong and frequent flaring of X-rays and TeV $`\gamma `$-rays. During this period, TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421 were detected via various imaging air Cerenkov telescopes (IACTs) used in the Whipple Krennrich et al. (2001), the HEGRA Krawczynski et al. (2001), the CAT Piron et al. (2001), and the CANGAROO Okumura et al. (2002) experiments. The Tibet air shower experiment also successfully detected multi-TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from this source.

In this paper, we report the result on the flux of $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421 observed by this array during its outbursting period in the years 2000 and 2001 in comparison with those from the ASM/RXTE satellite and IACTs.

## 2 EXPERIMENT

The Tibet air shower experiment has been successfully operated at Yangbajing ($`90.^{}522`$E, $`30.^{}102`$N; 4,300 m above sea level) in Tibet, China since 1990. The Tibet I array constructed in 1990 Amenomori et al. (1992) was gradually updated by increasing the number of counters in 1995 and 1996, as briefly described elsewhere Amenomori et al. (2000, 2002). Using this array, we successfully observed multi-TeV $`\gamma `$-ray signals from the Crab Nebula in 1999 Amenomori et al. (1999) and multi-TeV $`\gamma `$-ray flares from Mrk 501 in 1997 Amenomori et al. (2000).

In the late fall of 1999, the array was further updated by adding 235 scintillation counters so as to enlarge a high density array, Tibet III, with a 7.5 m lattice interval as shown in Figure 1. The Tibet III array consists of 533 scintillation counters covering 22,050 m2. Each counter has a plastic scintillator plate (BICRON BC-408A) of 0.5 m2 in area and 3 cm in thickness and is equipped with a fast timing (FT) photomultiplier tube (PMT, Hamamatsu H1161). A 0.5 cm-thick lead plate is put on the top of each counter in order to increase the array sensitivity by converting $`\gamma `$-rays into electron-positron pairs in the shower (Bloomer, Linsley, & Watson, 1988; Amenomori et al., 1990). The relative position of each counter is measured by the use of a portable GPS (Global Positioning System) with an inaccuracy of less than 2 cm. Timing and charge information from each hit PMT is digitized by the use of a time-to-digital converter (TDC, LeCroy 1887) and a charge-sensitive analog-to-digital converter (ADC, LeCroy 1881M), respectively. All the TDCs and ADCs are regularly monitored using a FASTBUS calibration module (CAT, LeCroy 1810) every 20 minutes. The length of each signal cable is also monitored, with an inaccuracy of 0.1 ns, by measuring a mismatched-reflection pulse from each counter every 20 minutes.

An event trigger signal is issued when an any-four coincidence appears in the FT counters each recording more than 0.6 particles within a coincidence gate width of 300 ns, resulting in the trigger rate of about 680 Hz. All triggered data are collected using a computer via FASTBUS-to-VMEbus interface and stored on the data tapes ($``$20GB/day). We collected 2.7$`\times `$1010 events during the period from November 17, 1999 through October 10, 2001, and the live time was calculated to be 456.8 days. The event selection was made by imposing the following conditions on the recorded data: (1) each shower event should fire four or more FT-counters recording 1.25 or more particles, (2) among the 9 hottest FT-counters in each event, 8 should be contained in a fiducial area enclosed by the dashed line in Figure 1. If the number of hit counters is less than 8, the numbers of all should be contained in its area, and (3) the zenith angle of the arrival direction should be less than 40. After this data selection and quality cuts, 5.52$`\times `$109 events remain for further analysis. The mode energy of air shower events, thus obtained, is estimated to be about 3 TeV Amenomori et al. (1999), covering the upper part of the energies measured by the atmospheric Cerenkov technique.

## 3 PERFORMANCE OF THE TIBET III ARRAY

In order to successfully detect transient $`\gamma `$-ray signals from a point source, it is important to check the stable operation of equipment over a long period of time regarding such factors as variation of event rate, pointing accuracy, and the angular resolution of the array.

The long-term stability of the daily event rate is shown in Figure 2, where its variation is shown to be less than $`\pm `$5% and it is mostly due to atmospheric pressure and temperature effects. The stability in the pointing accuracy and angular resolution of the Tibet III array can be directly checked by monitoring the Moon’s shadow in the cosmic ray flux Amenomori et al. (2000). The statistical significance of the Moon’s shadow observed via the Tibet III array is 26 $`\sigma `$ for 1.3-year observation, that is, a 7 $`\sigma `$ level per month. The displacement of the center of the Moon’s shadow in the north-south direction enables us to estimate the systematic error in pointing accuracy and its long-term stability, since the east-west component of the geomagnetic field is almost zero at Yangbajing. The displacements of the shadow’s center from the apparent center in the north-south direction are plotted as a function of observation time in terms of a sidereal month (27.3 days) in the upper panel of Figure 3. From this figure, it is estimated that the systematic pointing error per month is smaller than $`0.^{}1`$, while the overall pointing error for the observation period is smaller than $`0.^{}02`$. The amount of cosmic-ray deficits by the Moon provides a good measure of the angular resolution. The lower panel in Figure 3 demonstrates the long-term stability of the ratio of the observed deficit counts to the expected ones within a window of the angular radius $`0.^{}9`$. The data show a variation smaller than 8%, confirming the stability of angular resolution.

The performance of the Tibet III array is also examined by means of a full Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. We used the Corsika Ver. 6.004 code Heck et al. (1998) for the generation of air shower events and the Epics uv7.24 code Kasahara (2003) for the detection of shower particles with scintillation counters, respectively. Primary particles were sampled from the energy spectrum made by using direct observational data (Asakimori et al., 1998; Sanuki et al., 2000; Kamioka et al., 2001) in the energy range from 0.3 TeV to 1000 TeV. The absolute flux of the primary particles is estimated with the error of about $`\pm `$20% at the lower energy region, while its uncertainty may become larger than $`\pm `$50% at energies higher than 100 TeV. Figure 4 shows the size spectrum of observed events, where the size is expressed by $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ being the sum of the number of particles per m2 for each FT counter. The observed spectrum shows close agreement with the simulation both in terms of the event rate and the shape, as shown in Figure 4. After the event reduction described in $`\mathrm{\S }`$2, the event rates are 140 Hz for the experiment and 130$`\pm `$1 Hz for the simulation, respectively. For more details regarding the performance of the Tibet III array, see Amenomori et al. (2001a, ; 2001b, ).

## 4 ANALYSIS

In order to extract an excess of TeV $`\gamma `$-ray events coming from the direction of Mrk 421, the background event density must be carefully estimated. The background is estimated by the number of events averaged over 8 off-source cells with the same angular radius as on-source, at the same zenith angle, recorded at the same time intervals as the on-source cell events. The search window radius is expressed as $`6.9/\sqrt{\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}}`$ degrees as a function of $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$, which maximizes the $`S/\sqrt{N}`$ ratio according to a MC study as shown in Figure 5. This angular radius can be used for the analysis of various $`\gamma `$-ray sources, while depending weakly on the orbital motion of a source. The center positions of these off-source cells, located at every $`3.^{}2`$ step from the source position measured in terms of angle distance in the azimuthal direction at the same zenith angle as the on-source direction, move picking up events recorded in the common time interval to the on-source cell. Here, it is worthwhile to note that two off-source cells adjacent to the on-source cell are excluded in order to avoid a possible signal tail leaking in the off-source events. This method, the so-called “equi-zenith angle background estimation”, can reliably estimate the background events under the same condition as on-source events. The Tibet III array, however, has a small anisotropy of $`\pm `$1.5% in maximum amplitude in the azimuthal direction, as the array is constructed on the ground with a slight slope of $`+1.^{}`$3 to the normal plane in the northwest direction. Hence, we analyzed 71 different dummy sources which follow the same diurnal rotation (at the same declination) as that of Mrk 421 using the equi-zenith angle method, and corrected the anisotropy of off-source events using the azimuthal distribution averaged over 71 dummy sources events. In the case of Mrk 421, the number of off-source events decreases by (0.16$`\pm `$0.02)%. It is noted that the equi-zenith angle method fails when the source object stays very close to the zenith since an off-source cell overlaps with other cells. This method can be used when a point source exists at zenith angles larger than 6. In the case of Mrk 421, its zenith angle at the southing is about 8 at Yangbajing, so that each on/off-source cell is independent throughout the observation period.

## 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

We calculated the statistical significance of TeV $`\gamma `$-ray signals from Mrk 421 using the following formula (Li & Ma, 1983): $`(N_{\mathrm{ON}}\alpha N_{\mathrm{OFF}})/\sqrt{\alpha (N_{\mathrm{ON}}+N_{\mathrm{OFF}})}`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{ON}}`$, $`N_{\mathrm{OFF}}`$, and $`\alpha `$ are the number of events in the on-source cell, the number of background events summed over 8 off-source cells, and the ratio of on-source solid angle area to off-source solid angle areas ($`\alpha `$ = 1/8 in this work), respectively.

The number of events after the event reduction is plotted in Figure 6 as a function of angular distance from Mrk 421. A clear peak of $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421 is seen at 5.1 $`\sigma `$ statistical significance above the flat cosmic-ray background for the observation of 456.8 live days.

### 5.1 TeV $`\gamma `$-RAY/keV X-RAY CORRELATION

We plot our daily excess event rate from Mrk 421 averaged over every month in Figure 7, together with quick-look results from the all-sky monitor on the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (ASM/RXTE) (Levine et al., 1996; ASM/RXTE team, 2003) and those from three IACTs: the Whipple Holder et al. (2001), HEGRA Kohnle et al. (2001), and CAT Piron et al. (2001). Since the Tibet III array was operated very stably during this period as discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$3, the observed variation cannot be attributed to any artificial noises or unstable data-acquisition system. Furthermore, one can see an excellent correlation among the 5 experiments as shown in Figure 7. The Tibet III array can observe TeV $`\gamma `$-rays continuously regardless of day/night, while the ASM/RXTE satellite orbits the Earth at a cycle of about 90 minutes, monitoring the X-rays continuously. Figure 8 shows the observation time overlap between the Tibet III array ($`T_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$) and the ASM/RXTE satellite ($`T_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$). It tells us that ($`T_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$ $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$) / $`T_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$ is 32.7%, while ($`T_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$ $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$) / $`T_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$ is 2.5%. These constant overlapping fractions are sufficient to study the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray/keV X-ray correlation with both data sets.

Figure 9 shows a correlation plot of excess counts between the ASM/RXTE data (2nd panel in Fig. 7) and the Tibet III data (3rd panel in Fig. 7) during the overlap period. A positive correlation is observed between the number of excess events in Tibet III ($`N_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$) and those in ASM/RXTE ($`N_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$), which is given by $`N_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$ = (10.66$`\pm `$1.83) $`N_{\mathrm{ASM}}`$ with $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=17.6/19`$ or $`N_{\mathrm{Tibet}}`$ = (4.16$`\pm `$0.81) $`N_{\mathrm{ASM}}^2`$ with $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=24.6/19`$, where d.o.f. is degree of freedom. This positive flux correlation between the keV and the TeV regions will be consistent with the SSC model prediction. Furthermore, the correlation between Tibet III data and ASM/RXTE satellite data appears linear rather than quadratic, although the statistical significance is not sufficient, which may suggest some contribution of soft photons other than synchrotron photons to the TeV $`\gamma `$-rays as discussed below.

A comparison between the multi-wavelength spectra of Mrk 421 and Mrk 501 was made based on a 5-year observation from 1993 to 1998 via the ASCA and the RXTE satellites Kataoka et al. (2001). According to this paper, there is a conspicuous difference between Mrk 421 and Mrk 501 regarding the synchrotron component of the photon spectrum. In the case of Mrk 501, the position of the peak energy in the synchrotron component shifts manifestly from low energies to high energies as the source becomes brighter, but that of Mrk 421 remains almost constant. They consider that the time variation of the flux intensity may be caused by the increase of the number of high-energy electrons in the case of Mrk 421, while it is caused by the increase of the maximum acceleration energy of electrons in the case of Mrk 501. If only synchrotron photons contribute to the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray component via the SSC mechanism and the injected electron density changes as in the case in Mrk 421, the synchrotron flux will be proportional to the electron density ($`F_{\mathrm{Sync}}N_\mathrm{e}`$), and the IC TeV $`\gamma `$-ray flux will be proportional to both the electron density and synchrotron photon flux as $`F_{\mathrm{SSC}}N_\mathrm{e}F_{\mathrm{Sync}}`$. In this case, the correlation of $`F_{\mathrm{SSC}}F_{\mathrm{Sync}}^2`$ is expected. On the other hand, if the seed photons of the IC scattering process are fed by external photons from the accretion disk Dermer, Schlickeiser, & Mastichiadis (1992) or from the central region of the AGN Sikora, Begelman, & Rees (1994), then the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray/keV X-ray correlation may come down to a linear correlation.

On the other hand, if we examine the correlation closely, some intense TeV $`\gamma `$-ray flares seem to have occurred without large X-ray flares as seen in the flare phases except for Term 3 (meshed circles in Fig. 9). These results may suggest that the physical parameters such as magnetic field strength, injected electron density and its spectral index, seed photon density, etc. Petry et al. (2000), in the shock region of the AGN jet differ flare by flare.

While no definite conclusion can be obtained regarding the correlation discussed above based on the present experiment, it is very important to continue the long-term simultaneous multi-wavelength observation of Mrk 421 flares and to accumulate sufficient experimental data in order to understand the mechanism of TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emissions from Mrk 421 and Mrk 501. It should be stressed that a true long-term simultaneous TeV $`\gamma `$-ray/keV X-ray observation is available by means of only the combination of an X-ray satellite experiment and a wide field-of-view air shower experiment.

### 5.2 ENERGY SPECTRUM OF FLARING TeV $`\gamma `$-RAYS

In order to determine the energy spectrum of flaring $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421, we divided the Tibet III dataset into 3 terms according to the period that the ASM/RXTE satellite recorded more than 1.0 ASM units (counts/sec) averaged over 30 days, which is shown by three gray areas in Figure 7. We also calculated the detector response of the Tibet III array based on the full MC simulation. For this, $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421 are simulated, assuming a differential power-law spectrum of $`E^\beta `$, where $`\beta `$ varies from 2.6 to 6.0 and taking into account the diurnal motion of Mrk 421 in the sky. Air shower events are uniformly thrown within a circle with a radius of 300 m whose center is positioned on the center of the array. This radius is sufficient to collect all $`\gamma `$-ray events which are actually triggered in our array. Using the calculated effective area, the excess event rate, live time, and the relation between $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ and the primary $`\gamma `$-ray energy, we can calculate the differential energy spectrum of $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421. In the present work, the energy points indicate the log-scale mean of energies in each $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ bin defined as follows: 10 $`\times `$ $`10^{n/4}`$ $`<`$ $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ $``$ 10 $`\times `$ $`10^{(n+1)/4}`$ ($`n=0,1,2,3`$), and 100 $`\times `$ $`10^{n/3}`$ $`<`$ $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ $``$ 100 $`\times `$ $`10^{(n+1)/3}`$ ($`n=0,1,2`$), where the lowest energy bin is dropped off in the analysis because the trigger efficiency is estimated to be very low ($`<`$1%). Thus, the total number of energy bins available in the analysis is six.

We obtained the differential energy spectra for the 3 terms and their power indices($`\beta `$) are summarized in Table 1. Figure 10 shows the differential energy spectrum observed in the most active phase in 2001 (Term 3), with a spectral index of $``$3.24$`\pm `$0.69 at energy range between 1 TeV and 5 TeV, together with those obtained by the IACT experiments during 2001. Figure 10 (inset) shows the $`\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ spectrum of observed $`\gamma `$-ray events from Mrk 421, together with those from the MC simulation assuming spectral indices of $``$3.24 (solid line) and of $``$2.8 (dashed line), respectively. Note that the absolute flux cannot be discussed in terms of Figure 10 because our observation period did not overlap perfectly those of IACTs, and that the absolute flux is estimated in all experiments at an error of approximately $`\pm `$20% which originates from the uncertainty of the absolute energy scale.

It is considered that the energy spectrum may become steep or break at high energies due to several reasons such as the interaction of $`\gamma `$-rays with the infrared photon field in the intergalactic space De Jager, Stecker, & Salamon (1994), the photon-photon pair attenuation near the source Dermer & Schlickeiser (1994), and the Klein-Nishina scattering cross section limit Hillas (1999). A cutoff energy ($`E_c`$) of the spectrum may be estimated by fitting a spectrum form of $`E^\beta \mathrm{exp}(E/E_c)`$ to the observed data. For example, the HEGRA group Aharonian et al. (2002) estimated a cutoff energy to be 3.6$`{}_{0.3\mathrm{stat}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.4}`$$`{}_{0.8\mathrm{syst}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.9}`$ TeV and 6.2$`\pm 0.4_{\mathrm{stat}}`$$`{}_{1.5\mathrm{syst}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.9}`$ TeV for Mrk 421 and Mrk 501, respectively, and considered that this difference may be attributed to some intrinsic difference between $`\gamma `$-ray emission mechanisms. On the other hand, the Whipple group Krennrich et al. (2001) reported a cutoff energy to be 4.3$`\pm 0.3_{\mathrm{stat}}`$$`{}_{1.4\mathrm{syst}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.7}`$ TeV and 4.6$`\pm 0.8`$stat TeV for Mrk 421 and Mrk 501, respectively. They argue that the same cutoff energy obtained for both sources having almost the same redshift may be due to the absorption by the infrared photon field in the universe. Our observed spectrum for Mrk 421 is not inconsistent with those from the HEGRA, Whipple, and CANGAROO groups within statistical and systematic errors.

## 6 SUMMARY

Mrk 421 was in an active phase during the period between the year 2000 and 2001, showing strong and frequent flaring. During this flaring period, the Tibet III array successfully monitored the sky region with $``$2-steradian solid angle. This constant observation is beyond reach of IACTs which can observe the sky only on clear moonless nights. The stability of the array operation can be well checked by continuously observing the Moon’s shadow and the event rate of air shower events. Using this array, we detected multi-TeV flaring $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421 at a significance level of 5.1 $`\sigma `$ and found a positive flux correlation between the keV and TeV energy regions. The Tibet III and the ASM/RXTE data seem to favor a linear correlation rather than a quadratic one, although these data have not yet expressed sufficient statistical significance for this finding to be certain. Here, it should be stressed that the Tibet III array succeeded in the first observation of long-term correlation between satellite keV X-ray and TeV $`\gamma `$-ray data based on simultaneous observation. The observed energy spectrum with a power index of $``$3.24$`\pm `$0.69 is not inconsistent with those measured by IACTs within statistical and systematic errors.

The area of the Tibet III array was further enlarged up to 36,900 m2 by adding 200 counters in the late fall of 2002 and this new array has been successfully operating since then, triggering air shower events at a rate of 1,450 Hz with a dead time of about 10%. With the advent of the full-scale Tibet III array, long-term observation of TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from Mrk 421 or Mrk 501 together with other wavelength data may lead in the near future to a deeper understanding of the $`\gamma `$-ray emission mechanism. Moreover, the successful observation of $`\gamma `$-rays from the Crab Nebula, Mrk 421, and Mrk 501 by the Tibet air shower experiment demonstrates that we are now ready for detecting unknown stable/transient TeV $`\gamma `$-ray point sources through an all-sky survey.

This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area, for Scientific Research and also for International Science Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture in Japan, and for International Science Research from the Committee of the Natural Science Foundation and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in China.