A process algebraic approach towards quantum systems

SALMAN HAIDER∗ Syed Asad Raza Kazmi†

Abstract

In this work, we introduced a process algebra for communicating quantum systems. The goal is to
improve the previously introduced operational semantics of communicating quantum process algebra. An
improved model which can be used to express cooperation between quantum and classical systems formally
are provided in this approach. The rules defined in previous approach needs to be revised with our new
approach and our quantum systems will be modeled using our new rules. The new communication rules
will be able to define the quantum communicating process in a different manner following the substantial
features of quantum mechanics. The communication rules in which different input and output formulas
are being explained and compared with the old version of algebra. A theoretical description is supported by
some process algebraic approach using the existing operational semantics and techniques.

puters that consist of Transistors. Such types of

standard computers are able to interpret data
only in binary format that consist of either state
1. Introduction
0 or 1. On the other hand the novel Quantum
Quantum information theory is an advanced computation uses quantum bits or qubits which
approach and is basically an amalgam of computer can be in superposition of the two states. Due to
science, physics and mathematics. It uses the prin- this, quantum computers are considered superior
ciples of quantum mechanics. In quantum me- in computing power. Quantum computers possess
chanics, the state of the system is expressed by incredibly large processing power and can process
a wave function. The most important properties much more amount of information at a given time.
of quantum states for differentiating the quantum For instance, if we have two bits of information
information from classical one’s include Superpo- to process then in ordinary computers we have
sition Non-determinism, Interference, Uncertainty, 00, 01, 10 and 11. Here only a single pair can be
No-Cloning theorem and Entanglement. Now, we processed at a time. But in case of quantum com-
are introducing some of major concepts below puting if we are given two qubits then there would
such as quantum computing, quantum commu- be 22 = 4 different states that can be processed.
nication, quantum cryptography, quantum infor- Moreover, if we are given three qubits then there
mation processing. Further, we’ll be putting light would be 8 different states that machine can pro-
of the formal approach that we are going to adapt cess. So, the amount of information flow quantum
for formulation and modelling of our quantum pro- mechanical computer can measure would be: 2N
cess algebra. Lastly, we will discuss the outlines where N = Number of Qubits. For larger qubits, if
of our paper. we are given 300 qubits then 2300 would be huge
enough that it might be equal to the total number
of particles present in the universe.
1.1. Quantum Computing
A Classical computer can take millions of years to
Quantum Computing is a new computational find the prime factor of 2048 bits number whereas
theory in computer science. The machine which using quantum computer it will only take few min-
carries out this computation is referred to as Quan- utes. The processing power of quantum computer
tum Computer. We know in ordinary computing, when we are given with 30 qubits would be equal
computations are performed by Standard Com- to the classical computer that computes at 10 Ter-
∗
Dept. of Computer Science, GC University, Lahore. ([email protected])
†
Dept. of Computer Science, GC University, Lahore. ([email protected])
aflops. That is why the quantum computer is built made in the area of quantum communication.
on qubits. These computers took advantages of Moreover the laws of quantum mechanics have
quantum superposition to reduce T(n): Number made it possible to accomplish the communication
of steps requires to get the computational re- tasks that are not possible using classical princi-
sults and can only perform faster operations only ples. Some of these tasks include dense coding [5];
if we are using some particular algorithms as we unconditionally secure quantum key distribution
can perform number of computational operations [8] and quantum teleportation (QT). The basic
in an exponentially smaller time. protocols of quantum communication tasks were
propounded from 1984 to 1993. For example
This reveals that qubits ensure extra ordinary • In 1984, Bennett and Brassard [8] put for-
large processing power. Big quantum computers ward the very first protocol of QKD known
would be capable to solve our problems so swiftly as BB84 protocol. In this protocol there is
than traditional computers even if existing com- a sender who relays a random sequence of
puters use the best currently known algorithms, bits and then distributes to remote receiver
like integer factorization using Shor’s algorithm using quantum means.
or the simulation of quantum many-body systems. • Moving to the concept of dense coding, aka
There exist quantum algorithms, such as Simon’s super dense coding was proposed first time
algorithm, that run faster than any possible prob- by Bennett et al. [5] in 1992. In this, a
abilistic classical algorithm. A classical computer sender can communicate two classical bits
could in principle (with exponential resources) of information to the receiver by sending
simulate a quantum algorithm, as quantum com- only one qubit of information with the con-
putation does not violate the ChurchâĂŞTuring dition that sender and receiver must share
paper. On the other hand, quantum computers a prior entanglement.
may be able to efficiently solve problems which
are not practically feasible on classical computers. • In 1993, Bennett et al. introduced the Quan-
tum Teleportation(QT) scheme [19][4][6]
1.2. Quantum Communication
in which a sender transmits an unknown
Who can deny the importance of communica- quantum state to a distant receiver by using
tion in modern days? In our daily life, we use two bits of classical communication and an
a large number of communication mediums and entangled state already shared by the sender
devices along with protocols. Commonly used and the receiver.
communication mediums include cellular phones, After the publication of these fundamental re-
internet, MasterCard etc. All these communication search works regarding quantum protocols, sev-
devices and protocols are based on the principles eral new quantum communication protocols have
of classical physics where information is commu- been coined. Some of which do not need
nicated in the form of bits (0 or 1). Now, in addi- security as these are already secured such as
tion to quantum computation [8] [22], we need teleportation and superdense coding etc. and
to understand the important aspects of quantum some of these require security proof such as pro-
information processing (QIP) [8] [22], quantum tocols of QKD, quantum secret sharing (QSS)
teleportation, no-cloning theorem [19] and entan- [24],deterministic secure quantum communica-
glement [19]. We can say Quantum processes as tion (DSQC) [7], quantum secure direct communi-
systems in which quantum bits (qubits) are manip- cation (QSDC) [7], quantum dialogue (QD) [24]
ulated. Quantum computing [22] actually offers etc.
the option of an entirely new paradigm for infor-
mation processing, with the alluring possibility of
having the capacity to break existing cryptosys-
1.3. Quantum Cryptography
tems.
In recent years a substantial progress has been Cryptography as we know is the process of
converting ordinary plain text into a text that is computing might pose to standard cryptog-
not cognizable to achieve secure communication. raphy.
In the same way Quantum Cryptography guaran-
tees secure communication even with the likely to • Fourth, as the integrated circuit components
come quantum computers. Achieving the guaran- are getting smarter, quantum effects are also
teed level of security needs a careful examination becoming more difficult to prevent. Quan-
of implementations to find out any flaws and er- tum computing is imperative to carry on the
rors. Present methods are insufficient for this task historical trends of miniaturization.
because quantum information processing is prone
• Lastly, Feynman is of view that quantum
to the principles of quantum mechanics. ThatâĂŹs
computers can be used to simulate intricate
why it is imperative to develop new strategies that
and highly complex physical systems whose
are based on these principles and make us able us
behavior is otherwise quite difficult to be
to reason about quantum processes in turn quan-
analyzed traditionally. So practically what
tum processes may include transmission of qubits,
is the significance of quantum information
quantum states preparation, quantum operations
processing? Scientists have succeeded in im-
and quantum state measurement.
plementing some of its aspects. Now a day
1.4. Quantum information process- some companies have started selling QKD
ing systems commercially. The real demand for
quantum cryptography is yet to be seen, but
The main purpose of quantum information pro-
it gives the impression that the likelihood
cessing (QIP) is to express information with the
of complete security is attracting companies
help of physical systems whose behavior is gov-
that are scary to take chances.
erned by the laws of quantum physics. Normally
this signifies too small systems, such as an atom or Quantum computing appears to be achievable in
a photon. Then operations of quantum physics pro- near future, despite there are even so challeng-
cess this information. Quantum mechanics give ing scientific and engineering obstacles present on
rise to many important properties of quantum in- the way. But substantial work is being done by
formation, which lead to the possibility of behavior researchers, scientists and engineers.
that cannot happen in standard systems.
1.4.1. Practical Significance of QIP
Why to venture into Quantum Information Pro- 1.5. Formal Modelling of Quantum
cessing and what is practical significance of QIP? Processes
In fact there are a plenty of reasons to take interest
in quantum information processing which are as Now, after having sufficient idea of quantum
follows: computation and information, we turn our atten-
tion to the motivation of our research. In our
• First, the domain is all about cognizing the
research we will discuss the quantum computing
information processing power that is gov-
and quantum information in the light of the the-
erned by the laws of physics.
ory and applications of formal methods. We will
• Second reason is that quantum algorithms justify and prove the correctness of our ideas with
assist in solving different classes of problem the hard and fast rules of formal methods. We
in a more efficient way. If NP-complete prob- intend to craft the formal modeling of quantum
lems are not solvable by a quantum com- processes.
puter and reason of not solving is also a Formal methods comprise a range of mathemat-
question of fundamental interest. ical tools and techniques that are utilized in the
field of theoretical computer science for model-
• Third, quantum cryptography is able to tell ing and verifying the accuracy of systems. Each
about any intruder or threat that quantum technique comes with a specification language for
modeling systems and semantics that helps to de- quantum computation and quantum information
scribe the systems behavior. Mostly, these systems theory (QCQI). Quantum computing can provide
are designed with concurrent and communicating great speedup as compared to its classical ana-
components. logue after benefiting from the possibility of super-
position of different basis states and the linearity
1.6. Quantum Process Algebra of quantum operations [10] [11] [23]. In order
to offer techniques of considering computational
Using formal methods to provide systematic problems in a conceptual way, some researchers
techniques for verification [6] of quantum systems. started studying the semantics and design of quan-
Quantum process calculus is introduced to model tum programming languages. Knill was the first
the behavior of systems that are constituted with person who took the step by composing a set of fun-
both classical and quantum information. Several damental principles for writing quantum pseudo-
formal languages are available for different aspects codes [13], whereas Omer gave the first real quan-
that are relevant to specification and verification, tum programming language, QCL [10] [11]. A
and many design tools can formalize the design quantum programming language qGCL which re-
into one of these languages. Recently there has sembles DijkstraâĂŹs guarded-command language
been an increased interest in using Process Algebra was formulated by Sanders and Zuliani in [20]
[16] for specification and modeling of concurrent [26] [27]. They further offered a probabilistic
systems. predicate transformer semantics and a refinement
calculus for their language. A quantum extension
1.7. Outline of C++, implemented in the form of a C++ library,
was proposed by Bettelli et al [18]. But the first
A short outline of the work presented in this
break through was when Selinger [21] proposed
paper which consists of 6 sections is as follows:
the functional quantum programming language,
• Section 2 discusses the related work.
QPL. It was built following the idea of classical con-
• Section 3 covers some background study trol and quantum data. Up till now the languages
and preliminary concepts of quantum me- in hand, mostly serve sequential quantum comput-
chanics required in this paper. ing, without communication between physically
separated parties. The Investigation and formula-
• In Section 4, we will introduce the im-
tion of such languages have now started which can
proved operational semantics of quantum
describe quantum concurrent systems and their
process algebra introduced by Marie Lalire
communication behaviors. In fact, building real
and presents the comparative study of both.
quantum computers in which quantum program-
• In Section 5, we will propose a new mech- ming can be applied is quite hard. Now we come
anism of instant messaging using quantum to quantum cryptography [8][3] [2]. Quantum
teleportation protocol. cryptography is able to provide an utmost level of
security even when it has been attacked by a po-
• The paper will be concluded in Section 6, tential quantum spy or attacker. A rapid progress
where we will also discuss the goals of our was made in quantum cryptographic systems that
the present work and scope of the future now these have become commercially available[1].
work will be finally discussed in Section 7. Now we need a language describing concurrent
system more urgently than that of sequential com-
putations in the realm of quantum computation.
Additionally, a framework for designing and rea-
2. Related Work soning about quantum concurrent systems can
provide techniques to prove the properties, such
Feynman [9] propounded that a quantum me-
as correctness and security, of quantum crypto-
chanical system can be used to carry out computa-
graphic protocols. Jorrand and Lalire [12], and
tion, after that Much attention has been paid over
Gay and Nagarajan [25] independently made the
first step of designing that general framework of 3.1.1. Qubit
modeling quantum concurrent systems. Jorrand
and Lalire [12] proposed a process algebra for The fundamental unit of representing informa-
quantum processes which can describe both classi- tion in quantum computation is called quantum
cal and quantum information passing. Later, Lalire bit or qubit. Alike bit, a qubit can be in one of the
presented for their language a probabilistic branch- two states. We will write these states by |0〉 and
ing bisimulation which can identify quantum pro- |1〉. Anything enclosed using this notation | 〉 is
cesses connected to process graphs which have the known as state, vector or a ket. A classical bit can
same branching structure [14] [15]. While Gay only be in one state, it can be 0 or 1. A qubit can
and Nagarajan described a language called Com- exist in |0〉 or |1〉 and it can also occurs in both
municating Quantum Processes, CQP, which com- states and this state is called superposition. If we
bined the communication primitives of pi-calculus have a state |ψ〉 then the superposition state will
from the work of Milner, Parrow and Walker [17] be:
with primitives for unitary transformations and
measurements. One unique feature of CQP is a |ψ〉 = α|0〉 + β|1〉
type system which can assure the physical relia-
α and β are the complex coefficients. While mea-
bility of quantum processes. However, no equiva-
suring |ψ〉, we can have the probability of finding
lence notions between processes were presented
|ψ〉 in one of the two states which is calculated by
there.
modulus squared α, β such that:

|α|2 : Gives the probability of finding |ψ〉 in

3. Background
|0〉
|β|2 : Gives the probability of finding |ψ〉 in |1〉
In this chapter, we are looking into the pre-
liminaries of quantum mechanics and Structural
operational semantics(SOS) for developing the 3.1.2. Vector Spaces
basic understanding of this paper. At first, we
take a look into the concept of linear algebra and In quantum mechanics,the term vector is used
vector spaces then we move further in explain- to represent the state of a physical system in a
ing the basic laws of quantum mechanics along complex vector space. In a vector space, vectors
with the main aspects of quantum computation. and numbers are used. If the numbers to be used
Measurement results in quantum mechanics are are real then this is a real vector space and if the
based on a few principles, known as postulates of numbers are complex then we have a complex vec-
quantum mechanics. Writing down fundamentals tor space. A point needs to be emphasized that
of quantum information theory will make the the numbers sometimes are real or complex but
context of this paper well interpreted. vectors themselves are not real or complex. If we
multiply a vector with a real number then this
vector is not said to be real vector nor the vectors
3.1. Linear Algebra: Vector Spaces resides in a complex vector space is said to be com-
and Operators plex vector. A vector space V is a non-empty set
of vectors with u, v ε V and a subspace of a vector
Linear algebra studies vector spaces and linear space V is a subset of V and it is also a vector space.
transformations. An important vector space in Vectors can have two important operations defined
mathematics and physics is Hilbert Space, where below:
quantum mechanics is formulated. In the follow- • Vector Addition: This operation will as-
ing, first we give basic definitions and notations, signs the sum w = u+v where w ε V, which is
then Hilbert Space will be formally defined. also an element of V. In general, w is another
 vector belongs to the same vector space. V such as:
is closed under addition.  
α
|ψ〉 =
• Scalar Multiplication: This operation de- β
fines the multiplication of a vector V with a
scalar α such that αv ε V. V is closed under Let αi be a set of complex coefficients and |vi 〉 be
multiplication by numbers. a set of vectors. A linear combination of these
vectors will be:
Above mentioned operations must holds the fol- n
X
lowing axioms: α1 |v1 〉 + α2 |v2 〉 + ... + αn |vn 〉 = αi |vi 〉
i=0
1. Commutative addition: u + v = v + u ε V
∀u,vε V. Given a vector space, we can have a spanning set of
vectors. If we have a set of vectors |v1 〉, |v2 〉, ..., |vn 〉
2. Associativity: u + (v + w) = (u + v) + w and belonging to the vector space V then we can say
ab(v) = a(bv) for any u, v ε V and a, b are that the set |vi 〉 is spanning the vector space. An
the numbers. important term which involves linear combination
of set of vectors is Linearly Independence, if
3. Additive Identity: There is a vector 0 ε V
called the zero vector such that for any V ε α1 |v1 〉 + α2 |v2 〉 + ... + αn |vn 〉 = 0
V we have 0 + v = v + 0 = v.
only has the solution α1 = α2 = ... = αn = 0 and
4. Additive Inverse: ∀V ε V there is an additive if at least one of the αi = 0 then the set |vi 〉 is
inverse of V such that v + (−v) = (−v) + v = linearly dependent.
0.

5. Multiplicative Identity: We have a number

1 such that 1v = v ∀V ε V
3.1.3. Basis and Dimension
6. Distributive Property: a(u + v) = au + av
and (a + b)v = av + bv ∀u, vε V and a, b If we have a set of vectors spanning the vector
are the numbers. space V and linearly independent then we can call
this set as a basis and the number of elements in a
An important vector space in quantum compu- basis set is known as the dimension of vector space
tation is Cn consisting of "n-tuples" of complex V. The basis set for C2 with qubits states |0〉 and
numbers. We can label the elements of Cn using |1〉:
|a〉 |b〉 |c〉. One can write each element of this vec-    
tor space as n-dimensional column vector such as: 1 0
|0〉 = , |1〉 =
0 1
a1
 
 a2  We can write a quantum state |ψ〉 as a linear com-
.
  bination of a basis set |vi 〉 with the complex coeffi-
|a〉 =  
. cient of expansion ci as:
.
 
n
X
an |ψ〉 = ci |vi 〉 = c1 |v1 〉 + c2 |v2 〉 + ... + cn |vn 〉
i=0
We use such notations to represent qubits. A qubit
in a complex vector space such as Hilbert space The probability of finding the system in state |vi 〉
C2 (which we will discuss later) can be written in is equal to the squared modulus of coefficient ci
column vector format by placing the coefficient of which is |ci |2 .
|0〉 in first row and coefficient of |1〉 in second row
3.1.4. Inner Product 3.1.6. Outer Product
If we take the product of |ψ〉 with a bra 〈φ|
To find out the length of a vector we have to
then we get |ψ〉〈φ| which is known as the outer
first find its inner product. This is a generalized
product of two vectors. Outer product itself is an
form of dot products used with simple vectors in
observable. Just to give an insight, we will apply
Euclidean space. In dot product we have two vec-
it to an arbitrary |χ〉 ket:
tors mapped into a real number whereas inner
product will take two vectors from C2 and map (|ψ〉〈φ|)|χ〉 = |ψ〉〈ψ|χ〉 = (〈φ|φ|χ〉)|ψ〉
them into complex number so inner product is a
complex number. We have vectors |u〉, |v〉 and the Here, the inner product 〈φ|χ〉 is a complex num-
inner product is denoted by 〈u|v〉. To calculate ber. Hence, the measurement results of applying
inner product between two vectors, we must com- this operation is to transform the vector |χ〉 into
pute the hermitian conjugate of one of the two one proportional to |ψ〉 and inner product 〈φ|χ〉
vectors. is the constant of proportionality.

(|u〉)† = 〈u|
3.1.7. The Trace of an operator
If we have
If we have an operator in matrix form then we
〈u|v〉 = 0 can compute the trace of this operator by summing
up its diagonal elements. Such as,
then we can say that |u〉, |v〉 are orthogonal to each  
other and if the norm of a vectors is unity such a b
A= , Tr(A) = a + d
that c d

〈u|v〉 = 1 In case, the operator is in outer product form then

we can calculate the trace by summing over inner
then we can say that |u〉, |v〉 are normalized. If we products with the basis states. If we have our
have a vector which is not normalized then we vector in basis |vi 〉, then trace of operator will be
can get a noormalized vector by computing the
norm (which is a real number) this way, n
X
Æ Tr(A) = vi A
||u|| = 〈u|u〉 i=0

and dividing the vector by it. If every element of

a set of vectors is normalized and is orthogonal
to each other then we can say that the set is or- 3.1.8. Hilbert Space
thonormal.
An Hilbert space is a 2-dimensional complex
vector space and a generalization of Euclidean
3.1.5. Bra-ket Notation space where a qubit resides. It is represented by
H.
In quantum mechanics, most commonly used
notation to represent the quantum states in an or- 3.1.9. Tensor Product
thonormal basis is Bra-ket. If we have vectors |u〉,
|v〉 then we will call it a ket or column vector and Let H1 and H2 are two Hilbert spaces where
we can find its bra or dual vector by calculating the |φ1 ε H1 〉 and |φ2 ε H2 〉 are the two vectors belongs
hermitian conjugate. So, the bras corresponding to H1 and H2 then the tensor product of these two
to kets will be 〈u|, 〈v|. vectors can construct a larger Hilbert space H rep-
resented by state vector |ψ〉 such as
CNOT gate operates on two qubits where one
|ψ〉 = |φ1 ⊗ φ2 〉 is the control qubit and other is the target qubit.
The NOT or Pauli-X operation will be applied to
target qubit on the basis of the value of control
qubit. If control qubit is equal to |1〉 then it flips
3.2. Quantum Mechanics the state of target qubit to |0〉 otherwise leaves
it unchanged. The matrix representation of a
In this section, we provide a review on the 2-qubit CNOT operator is given by
important concepts of quantum mechanics that
are needed for the understanding of the paper. 1

0 0 0

0 1 0 0
C N OT = 
3.2.1. Quantum Gates 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 0
In quantum computing, information is pro-
cessed through gates and these gates are the Phase-Shift Gates
unitary operators. A quantum gate or a logic gate
is the basic element of quantum computation con- This a group of single-qubit gates that changes the
sisting of small quantum registers and connected basic state |1〉 to eιφ |1〉 and leaves the basic state
with wires to make a quantum circuit. A quan- |0〉 unchanged. The phase-shift is represented by
tum algorithm is actually the number of quantum φ
gates connected with each other and performing
different operations on quantum states to get the  
desired measurement. Quantum gates can be rep- 1 0
Rφ =
resented by unitary matrices. Quantum gates can 0 eιφ
perform reversible computation whereas in most
of the classical gates only perform irreversible The examples of phase-shift gates are Pauli-Z gate
computation. For examples, a classical AND gate where φ = π, the phase gate where φ = π2 and π8
performs operation on two different bits and the gate where φ = π4
measurement results will not be reverted back
to get the original bits. However, in reversible
computing such as NOT gate, one can measure 3.2.2. Pauli Operators
the input bit from the resulting bit.

Hadamard Gate: Pauli operators are of fundamental importance

in quantum computation. There are in total four
Hadamard gate can perform actions on a sin- pauli operators but sometimes Identity operator
|0〉+|1〉
gle qubit. It maps the basic state |0〉 to p2 and is omitted. There are different notations used
|0〉−|1〉
|1〉 to p2 that means the measurement to be for Pauli operators, sometimes represented by
performed will have equal probabilities of 0 or 1. σ0 , σ1 , σ2 , σ3 and sometimes, σ0 , σ x , σ y , σz
It is represented as the 2 X 2 matrices form: or I, X, Y and Z where, σ0 = I , σ1 = σ x = X , σ2 =
  σ y = Y and σ3 = σz = Z The basic and simplest
1 1 1 operator is the identity operator I. As the name
H=p
2 1 −1 implies, this operator leaves a state unchanged:

As, H H ∗ = I, where I is the identity matrix and I|ψ〉 = |ψ〉 such that I|0〉 = |0〉, I|1〉 = |1〉
hence H is a unitary operator.
The next operator is known as bit-flip and is de-
CNOT Gate: noted by X. It operates the same as NOT operator
as follows: used to represent the mixed(uncertain) state of
a quantum system in a compact way. There are
X |0〉 = |1〉, X |1〉 = |0〉 basically two formulations of density operators,
first one formulation uses probabilities and other
Third operator is abbreviated by Y and it operates uses trace-preserving matrices. A density operator
as follows: is a linear operator in Hilbert space H and is rep-
resented by %. Density operator satisfies following
Y |0〉 = −ι|1〉, Y |1〉 = ι|0〉
conditions:
Lastly, we have Z operator sometimes called phase-
flip and is denoted by Z. It acts as follows: 1. A density operator is Hermitian, that is, %
= %† .
Z|0〉 = |0〉, Z|1〉 = −|1〉
2. % must be positive, only if, ψ% ≥ 0.

3. Trace of density operator % is equal to one,

3.2.3. Hermitian Operator that is, Tr(%) = 1.

In quantum theory, one special type of opera- D(H ) represents the set of all positive density
tor is Hermitian. Operators which represents the operators exists in H .
physical observables are hermitian. An operator A
is said to be hermitian if and only if

A = A† 3.2.7. Superoperator

The Pauli operators are hermitian. The evolution of an open quantum system
is represented by superoperator. It is a linear
operator acting on a Hilbert space H of linear
3.2.4. Unitary Operator
operators and is represented by S . Formally, a
A linear operator U is said to be unitary, if its superoperator is a mapping between density oper-
0 0
adjoint is equal to its inverse if U U † = U † U = I ators. % and % , that is, S : % 7→ % iff it satisfies
where I is the identity operator and U † is the following conditions:
conjugate transpose of U.
1. Trace of superoperator S is less than or
3.2.5. Projection Operator equal to the trace of %, that is, t r[S (%)[≤
Tr(%) for each % ε D(H ).
An operator that can be formed by writing the
outer product using a single ket. That is, given a 2. If t r[S (%)] = Tr(%) then S is termed to
state |ψ〉, the operator be trace-preserving.

P = |ψ〉〈ψ| 3. For any extra Hilbert space HR , (IR ⊗S (A))

is positive if A is a positive operator on
is known as projection operator. Projection oper-
HR ⊗ H where IR is identity operator in
ator is also an hermitian operator. Suppose we
this extra hilbert space.
have an n-dimensions vector space with the basis
|1〉, |2〉, ..., |n〉 and that m > n.

3.2.6. Density Operators 3.2.8. Unitary Transformation

For describing quantum state to vector we can To transform matrix representation of an oper-
use use Density operators. Density operators are ator from one basis to another basis is known as
unitary transformation. For example, transforma- quantum computation. In our improved process
tion of basis from |ui 〉 to a basis |vi 〉 is algebra, we are improving the previous version
  of communication rules between classical and
〈v1 |u1 〉 〈v1 |u2 〉 quantum systems just to model this cooperation.
U=
〈v2 |u1 〉 〈v2 |u2 〉

We can transform a state vector |ψ〉 given in |vi 〉

4.1. Improved Operational Seman-
basis to a new basis |ui 〉 as tics of Quantum Process Algebra
0 This paper is subjected to re-write some of the
|ψ 〉=U|ψ〉
previous operational semantics and rules of com-
0
The vector |ψ 〉 is the same vector but represented munication in quantum process algebra proposed
in a different basis |ui 〉. If we have an operator in by Marie Lalire in an improved version. For Com-
|vi 〉 basis and to transform it into a new basis |ui 〉, munication, we have rewritten Quantum & Clas-
following formulation is used. sical Input, output rules here again with reasons
on why previously written rules in Marie Lalire’s
0
A = UAU † paper need improvement.

4.1.1. Classical Communication

Rules
3.2.9. Quantum Measurement
For communicating classical information be-
Quantum measurement contains of a group of tween two systems we have defined some input
measurement operators which is Mm , where m is and output rules here and also presented our com-
the outcome of measurement and satisfying the munication rule that uses parallel composition
following: X operator from classical process algebra.
Mm† Mm = IH C-Input:
m

g?v
g?x.P\C −→ P\C 0
4. Problem Formulation where
• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉
Before purposing our strategy to improve the
previous process algebra developed by Marie 0
• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f ∪ {x → v} 〉
Lalire, we first explain our problem to which we
will be addressing in next paragraph. Before • x ε Var(s) , x ε N at(I nt eger t y pe) and
modelling the communication between quantum vεN (where N is set of natural numbers)
processes. We have to first accept that quantum
algorithms are made up of classical and quan- C-Output:
tum parts. They require the cooperation between
quantum and classical computation. As, we know g!v
that quantum computation and communication
is in general probabilistic by nature and the re-
g!v.P\C −→ P\C
sults of these computations are being checked and where
verified by classical part. If the classical result of
• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉
quantum computation is not correct then we have
to repeat this computation until we get the correct • vεN (where N is set of natural numbers)
results. Quantum teleportation is the best example
to define the cooperation between classical and Classical Communication:
 g?v g!v
• x ε Var(s) , x ε q and v ∈
/q
0 0
P1 \C −→ P1 \C P2 \C −→ P2 \C
τ 0 0
Q-input2:
P1 ||P2 \C −
→ P1 ||P2 \C

g?v
g?x.P\C −→ P\C
g!v 0 g?v 0
P1 \C −→ P1 \C P2 \C −→ P2 \C where
τ 0 0
P1 ||P2 \C −
→ P1 ||P2 \C
• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉

where context of both systems will remain un- • x ε Var(s) , x ε q and vεq − {g?x.P}
changed. In previous work of Marie Lalire, the quantum
To define classical value passing we have intro- input rule (Q-Input1) defined was presented in
duced these three rules. These rules are similar to a similar way but that rule only works when the
the rules defined in communicating data between quantum system being input(here quantum vari-
two classical systems in Classical process algebra. able v is representing input system) must neither
Contexts will not be changed in these rules as these have entangled nor correlated(classically) with
are just classical data input and output between the quantum system represented by x. And one
two systems and it will not change the quantum of the substantial characteristics that differentiate
state of the accompanied systems. Further, the quantum information theory from classical infor-
communication of classical data is defined in third mation theory is that different quantum systems
rule where we use the support classical parallel can lie in an entangled state which can not be
composition operator. easily calculated or measured by reducing the
states of individual systems.
This purposed argument will leads to the below
mentioned inference rule:
4.1.2. Quantum Communication
Rules
0
g?v:ρ
Communication between two systems in be-
g?x.P\C −−−→ P\C 0
ing in-cooperated by classical information and
quantum information. We have introduced and where
improved some input and output rules here. Us-
ing these input and output rules, we will write a • C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉
0
rule that can define the communication between • C = 〈 s, q = σ, f 〉
two quantum systems using parallel composition
operator from process algebra. • σ ε D(H 2 )
• x ε Var(s) , x ε q and v ∈
/q
Q-Input1: 0 0
• C = 〈 s, Trq (σ) = ρ , Tr v (σ) = ρ, f 〉

g?v:σ Any quantum information can be modelled using

0
g?x.P\C −−−→ P\C this rule since no conditions are applied on the
new quantum state σ aside from Trσ = ρ which
where implies that the state of initial systems remains
• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉 unchanged. This rule also at some point is prob-
lematic. As, it isn’t image-finite as in from the
0
• C = 〈 s, x.q = ρ ⊗ σ, f 〉 source configurations g?x.P\C where context of
this system is C = 〈x, q = ρ, f 〉 and the action
0
• σ ε D(H 2 ) it applies g?v : ρ , there are infinitely numerous
determined configurations which fulfill this rule. value in x. This rule will also implies that the
In light of the above discussion, we have intro- context of the quantum system being output will
duced these two quantum input rules which ex- also be changed.
plains the situations where qubit is being input For justification of our improved rule, we assume
from outside the context of the system and within that the system being sent out is correlated or en-
the context, separately. The point to be noted here tangled with the systems remained in the context
again is that the context of the system will remain and once the state is being removed from context
unchanged after applying Quantum input rule-2. then this will be totally lost. Now, after some
The instinct behind is that at the point when the time, if we input the same system again which
system to be input has just been explained in the has just been removed from the context then this
context, the Input action is only a declaration that will be problematic as we don’t have this system
the process can reference this system, which obvi- in our context and hence we cannot measure the
ously will not change the state of the entire system. entangled state anymore. So, the Q-Output rule
presented here can help us preventing this prob-
Q-Output1: lem to happen since we will not remove the state
being sent out from the context and will keep that
information. In this way the context of the current
g!x
g!x.P\C −→ P\C system will not remained untouched.

where Quantum Communication:

g?v 0 g!v 0
• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉 P1 \C −→ P1 \C P2 \C −→ P2 \C
τ 0 0
P1 ||P2 \C −
→ P1 ||P2 \C
• x ε Var(s) and x ε q

The quantum output rule presented in former g!v 0 g?v 0

P1 \C −→ P1 \C P2 \C −→ P2 \C
paper was of the following form (rewritten here): τ 0 0
P1 ||P2 \C −
→ P1 ||P2 \C

In this rule, communication using parallel com-

position operator will not support any of the form
g?v : ρ or we can say that input of quantum data
g!x
g!x.P\C −→ P\C 0 from outside of current accompanied context and
leads towards quantum communication.

where

• C = 〈 s, q = ρ, f 〉 5. Discussion and Conclusion

0
• C = 〈 s\{x}, q\{x} = Trq/{x} (ρ), f 〉 We’ve introduced an improved version of quan-
• x ε Var(s) and x ε q tum process algebra written by Marie Lalire and ar-
gued that formal methods is requisite just to make
The instinct behind this old version of output sure the correctness of practical quantum systems.
rule was that once the state of the system is sent We’ve also explained a direct approach in order
out(output) to other system then this state (rep- to communicate between two quantum systems.
resented by variable name x) will be removed We’ve identified a way different approach to model
from the quantum sequence list as defined in this the communication between distant quantum sys-
part( q\{x} and will also be removed from stack tems. In this research work, we assumed that we
of variables (\{x}) of running process. Further, have two quantum systems as process 1 & process
Trq/{x} (ρ) will be used to obtain the quantum 2 then we’ve modeled two different classical and
state by applying partial trace on ρ over the qubit quantum input & output rules for checking the
level of correctness of our communicating data. and software verification: model-checking
techniques and tools. Springer Science & Busi-
6. Future work ness Media, 2013.

[7] Felbinger T Bostrom K. Deterministic secure

On the theoretical side, we will writing down
direct communication using entanglement.
the approach of development of a quantum pro-
Phys. Rev. Lett, 89, 2002.
gramming language that can ensure the behavioral
equivalence between two quantum processes us- [8] A. K Ekert. Quantum cryptography based on
ing our proposed process algebra. On the practical bell’s theorem. Physical Review Letters, 67.
side, we are planning to work on more practical
and substantial examples such as modeling cryp- [9] R. Feynman. Simulating physics with com-
tographic systems. Possibly, we will be modeling puters. International Journal of Theoretical
a quantum cryptographic protocol using the cryp- Physics, 21.
tographic protocol simulators. [10] L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical al-
gorithm for database search. In In Proc. ACM
STOC, page 212âĂŞ219. ACM, 1996.
References
[11] L. K. Grover. Quantum mechanics helps in
[1] T. Lorunser O. Maurhardt R. Ursin H. R. searching for a needle in a haystack. Physical
Bohm M. Peev M. Suda C. Kurtsiefer H. Wein- Review Letters, 78(2):325, 1997.
furter T. Jennewein A. Poppe, A. Fedrizzi and [12] P. Jorrand and M. Lalire. Toward a quantum
A. Zeilinger. Practical quantum key distri- process algebra. In In P. Selinger, editor, Pro-
bution with polarization entangled photons. ceedings of the 2nd International Workshop
arXiv:quant-ph/0404115., 2004. on Quantum Programming Languages, page
[2] C. H. Bennett. Quantum cryptography us- 111, 2004.
ing any two nonorthogonal states. Physical [13] E. H. Knill. Conventions for quantum pseu-
Review Letters, 68. docode. LANL report LAUR-96-2724, 1996.
[3] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. Quantum [14] Marie Lalire. A probabilistic branch-
cryptography: Public-key distribution and ing bisimulation for quantum processes.
coin tossing. In In Proceedings of the IEEE In- arXiv:quantph/0508116, v1:16, 2005.
ternational Conference on Computer, Systems
and Signal Processing, pages 175–179. IEEE, [15] Marie Lalire. Relations among quantum pro-
1984. cesses: Bisimilarity and congruence. Math-
ematical Structures in Computer Science,
[4] Crepeau C. Jozsa R. Peres A. Wootters W.K 16(3):407âĂŞ428, 2006.
Bennett C.H., Brassard G. Teleporting an
unknown quantum state via dual classical [16] R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Sys-
and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels. Phys. tems. Springer-Verlag New York, 1982.
Rev. Lett., 70, 1993. [17] J. Parrow R. Milner and D. Walker. A calculus
of mobile processes, parts i and ii. Informa-
[5] Wiesner S.J Bennett C.H. Communica-
tion and Computation, 100:1âĂŞ77, 1992.
tion via one- and two-particle operators on
einstein-podolsky-rosen states. Phys. Rev. [18] T. Calarco S. Bettelli and L. Serafini. Toward
Lett, 69, 1992. an architecture for quantum programming.
European Physical Journal D, 25(2).
[6] Béatrice Bérard, Michel Bidoit, Alain Finkel,
François Laroussinie, Antoine Petit, Laure [19] J. Sakurai. Modern Quantum Mechanics.
Petrucci, and Philippe Schnoebelen. Systems Addison-Wasley, 1994.
[20] J. W. Sanders and P Zuliani. Quantum pro- [24] Banerjee A. Pathak A Shukla C., Kothari V.
gramming. Mathematics of Program Con- On the group-theoretic structure of a class
struction, 1837:80âĂŞ99, 2000. of quantum dialogue protocols. Phys. Lett. A,
377:518–527, 2013.
[21] P. Selinger. Towards a quantum program-
ming language. Mathematical Structures in [25] Hynek Mlnarik. Rajagopal Nagaranjan.
Computer Science, 14(4. Nick Papanikolaouy. Tim Davison., Simon
J. Gay. Model checking for communicating
[22] P. Selinger. Towards a quantum program- quantum processes. 2010.
ming language. Mathematical. Structures in
Comp. Sci, 14:527–585, 2004. [26] P. Zuliani. Quantum programming. 2001.

[23] Peter W. Shor. Algorithms for quantum com- [27] P Zuliani. Quantum programming with
putation: discrete log and factoring. In mixed states. In In Proceedings of the 3rd In-
In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE FOCS, page ternational Workshop on Quantum Program-
124âĂŞ134. IEEE, 1994. ming Languages, Chicago, 2005.