[1] S. Aaronson and G. N. Rothblum. Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy. In STOC’19—Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 322–333. ACM, New York, 2019.
[2] N. Alon and L. Lov´asz. Unextendible product bases. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 95(1):169–179, 2001.
[3] H. Arai, Y. Yoshida, and M. Hayashi. Perfect discrimination of non-orthogonal separable pure states on bipartite system in general probabilistic theory. J. Phys. A, 52(46):465304, 14, 2019.
[4] G. Aubrun and S. J. Szarek. Tensor products of convex sets and the volume of separable states on n qudits. Phys. Rev. A, 73(2):022109, 10, 2006.
[5] P. Bag, S. Dey, M. Nagisa, and H. Osaka. The order-n minors of certain (n + k) × n matrices. Linear Algebra Appl., 603:368–389, 2020.
[6] H. Barnum and J. Hilgert. Strongly symmetric spectral convex bodies are jor- dan algebra state spaces. preprint, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1904. 03753, 2019.
[7] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal. Unextendible product bases and bound entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82(26, part 1):5385–5388, 1999.
[8] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
[9] A. Chefles, R. Jozsa, and A. Winter. On the existence of physical transfor- mations between sets of quantum states. Int. J. Quantum Inf., 2(01):11–21, 2004.
[10] J. Chen and N. Johnston. The minimum size of unextendible product bases in the bipartite case (and some multipartite cases). Comm. Math. Phys., 333(1):351–365, 2015.
[11] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 23:880–884, 1969.
[12] T. Cubitt, A. Montanaro, and A. Winter. On the dimension of subspaces with bounded Schmidt rank. J. Math. Phys., 49(2):022107, 6, 2008.
[13] D. P. DiVincenzo, T. Mor, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal. Unex- tendible product bases, uncompletable product bases and bound entanglement. Comm. Math. Phys., 238(3):379–410, 2003.
[14] A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri. Complete family of separa- bility criteria. Phys. Rev. A, 69(2):022308, 20, 2004.
[15] Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, D. Tao, and N. Liu. Quantum noise protects quantum classifiers against adversaries. Phys. Rev. Research, 3(2):023153, 18, 2021.
[16] Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, S. You, and D. Tao. Quantum differentially pri- vate sparse regression learning. preprint, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2007.11921, 2020.
[17] J. C. Duchi, M. I. Jordan, and M. J. Wainwright. Local privacy and statis- tical minimax rates. In 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science—FOCS 2013, pages 429–438. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos, CA, 2013.
[18] C. Dwork. Differential privacy. In Automata, languages and programming, Part II, volume 4052 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 1–12. Springer, Berlin, 2006.
[19] C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, and A. Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of cryptography, volume 3876 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 265–284. Springer, Berlin, 2006.
[20] I. Ekeland and R. T´emam. Convex analysis and variational problems, volume 28 of Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, english edition, 1999. Translated from the French.
[21] K. Feng. Unextendible product bases and 1-factorization of complete graphs. Discrete Appl. Math., 154(6):942–949, 2006.
[22] Q. Geng, P. Kairouz, S. Oh, and P. Viswanath. The staircase mechanism in differential privacy. IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., 9(7):1176–1184, 2015.
[23] Q. Geng and P. Viswanath. The optimal noise-adding mechanism in differential privacy. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 62(2):925–951, 2016.
[24] Q. Geng and P. Viswanath. Optimal noise adding mechanisms for approximate differential privacy. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 62(2):952–969, 2016.
[25] L. Gurvits and H. Barnum. Largest separable balls around the maximally mixed bipartite quantum state. Phys. Rev. A, 66(6):062311, 7, 2002.
[26] M. Hayashi. Quantum Information Theory: Mathematical Foundation, Second Edition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017.
[27] M. Hayashi, S. Ishizaka, A. Kawachi, G. Kimura, and T. Ogawa. Introduction to Quantum Information Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015.
[28] R. Hildebrand. Entangled states close to the maximally mixed state. Phys. Rev. A, 75(6):062330, 10, 2007.
[29] N. Holohan, D. J. Leith, and O. Mason. Extreme points of the local differential privacy polytope. Linear Algebra Appl., 534:78–96, 2017.
[30] N. Holohan, D. J. Leith, and O. Mason. Optimal differentially private mecha- nisms for randomised response. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., 12(11):2726– 2735, 2017.
[31] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions. Phys. Lett. A, 223(1-2):1–8, 1996.
[32] P. Horodecki. Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition. Phys. Lett. A, 232(5):333–339, 1997.
[33] Z. Huang, C.-K. Li, E. Poon, and N.-S. Sze. Physical transformations between quantum states. J. Math. Phys., 53(10):102209, 12, 2012.
[34] N. Jacobson. Basic algebra. I. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, second edition, 1985.
[35] P. Janotta. Generalizations of boxworld. In Proc. 8th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic, volume 95, pages 183–192, 2012.
[36] P. Janotta and H. Hinrichsen. Generalized probability theories: what determines the structure of quantum theory? J. Phys. A, 47(32):323001, 32, 2014.
[37] P. Jordan, J. von Neumann, and E. Wigner. On an algebraic generalization of the quantum mechanical formalism. Ann. of Math. (2), 35(1):29–64, 1934.
[38] P. Kairouz, S. Oh, and P. Viswanath. Extremal mechanisms for local differential privacy. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 17:Paper No. 17, 51, 2016.
[39] M. Koecher. Positivit¨atsbereiche im Rn. Amer. J. Math., 79:575–596, 1957.
[40] L. Lami, C. Palazuelos, and A. Winter. Ultimate data hiding in quantum me- chanics and beyond. Comm. Math. Phys., 361(2):661–708, 2018.
[41] L. Masanes and M. P. Mu¨ller. A derivation of quantum theory from physical requirements. New J. Phys., 13(6):063001, 29, 2011.
[42] K. Matsumoto and G. Kimura. On additivity of strong converse bound of noiseless channels in locally quantum systems —in relation to the radius of the separable ball—. In Proc. of The 37th Quantum Information Technology Symposium (QIT37), pages 13–16, 2017. https://www.ieice.org/ken/paper/ 20171116Z1AP/eng/.
[43] M. P. Mu¨ller, O. C. O. Dahlsten, and V. Vedral. Unifying typical entanglement and coin tossing: on randomization in probabilistic theories. Comm. Math. Phys., 316(2):441–487, 2012.
[44] M. P Mu¨ller and C. Ududec. Structure of reversible computation determines the self-duality of quantum theory. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:130401, 5, 2012.
[45] K. R. Parthasarathy. On the maximal dimension of a completely entangled subspace for finite level quantum systems. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci., 114(4):365–374, 2004.
[46] M. Pl´avala and M. Ziman. Popescu-Rohrlich box implementation in general probabilistic theory of processes. Phys. Lett. A, 384(16):126323, 6, 2020.
[47] S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. Found. Phys., 24(3):379–385, 1994.
[48] A. J. Short and S. Wehner. Entropy in general physical theories. New J. Phys., 12(March):033023, 34, 2010.
[49] A. Uhlmann. The transition probability for states of ∗-algebras. Ann. Physik (7), 42(4-6):524–532, 1985.
[50] E`. B. Vinberg. Homogeneous cones. Soviet Math. Dokl., 1:787–790, 1960.
[51] N. R. Wallach. An unentangled Gleason’s theorem. In Quantum computation and information (Washington, DC, 2000), volume 305 of Contemp. Math., pages 291–298. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002.
[52] S. L. Warner. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 60(309):63–69, 1965.
[53] Y. Yoshida, H. Arai, and M. Hayashi. Perfect discrimination in approx- imate quantum theory of general probabilistic theories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(15):150402, 5, 2020.
[54] Y. Yoshida and M. Hayashi. Asymptotic properties for Markovian dynamics in quantum theory and general probabilistic theories. J. Phys. A, 53(21):215303, 43, 2020.
[55] Y. Yoshida, M.-H. Yung, and M. Hayashi. Optimal mechanism for random- ized responses under universally composable security measure. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 547–551. IEEE, Paris, France, 2019.
[56] L. Zhou and M. Ying. Differential privacy in quantum computation. In 2017 IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), pages 249–262. IEEE Computer Soc., Santa Barbara, CA, 2017.
論文の公開元へ
