Secret key ecryption

Consider a scenario where Alice wants to send a qubit $\ket{\psi}$ to Bob over a quantum channel that is possibly being monitored by and eavesdropper, Eve.

Suppose Alice and Bob share a classical secret key $k\in\{0,1\}$, and Alice tries to encrypt the state $\ket{\psi}$ by sending Bob the state $X^k\ket{\psi}$. This approach is highly insecure because there are certain states whose encryptions can be perfectly distinguished by Eve. For instance, consider the states
\[
\ket{\psi_0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}+\ket{1}),
\ket{\psi_1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0}-\ket{1}).
\]
which both happen to be eigenstates of $X$ with eigenvalues $+1$ and $-1$, respectively.

Then the two possible ways this state can be be encrypted are given by
\[\begin{align*}
X^0\ket{\psi_0}=\ket{\psi_0},
X^1\ket{\psi_0}=\ket{\psi_0},
X^0\ket{\psi_1}=\ket{\psi_1},
X^1\ket{\psi_1}=-\ket{\psi_0}.
\end{align*}\]
Regardless of how either of these states are encrypted, for $k\in\{0,1\}$,
\[
\bra{\psi_0}X^k\ket{\psi_1}=(-1)^k\bra{\psi_0}\ket{\psi_1}=0,
\]
which shows that the two states always remain orthogonal and can be distinguished with perfect accuracy.

Suppose that Alice and Bob have two independently generated key bits $k_1, k_2$ and Alice encrypts $\ket{\psi}$ as $Z^{k_1}X^{k_2}\ket{\psi}$. Note that Bob can decrypt this state since it is being assumed that he knows the key bits $k_1, k_2$. Consider any two arbitrary qubit states
\[
 \ket{\psi_0}=\alpha_0\ket{0}+\beta_0\ket{1} \ \ \text{and} \ \  \ket{\psi_1}=\alpha_1\ket{0}+\beta_1\ket{1}.
\]
 Then the density operators of these two states will be of the form
\[
\rho_j=\ket{\psi_j}\bra{\psi_j}=\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_j\overline{\alpha_j}&\alpha_j\overline{\beta_j} \\
\beta_j\overline{\alpha_j}&\beta_j\overline{\beta_j}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]

The encrypted state $Z^{k_1}X^{k_2}\ket{\psi_j}$ can be described as a general quantum operation $\Phi$ with four Krauss operators, one for each possible combination key bits $(k_1,k_2)$, given by
\[
\Phi(\rho_j)=\SUM{k_1,k_2=0}{1}A_{k_1,k_2}\rho_jA_{k_1,k_2}^\dagger,
\]
where
\[
A_{k_1,k_2}=\frac{1}{2}Z^{k_1}X^{k_2}.
\]
Since $X^\dagger=X, Z^\dagger=Z$, and $X^2=Z^2=I$, it can be seen that $\Phi$ is indeed a valid quantum operation because the Krauss operators satisfy the completeness condition:
\[
\SUM{k_1,k_2=0}{1}A_{k_1,k_2}^\dagger A_{k_1,k_2}=\frac{1}{4}I+\frac{1}{4}X^\dagger X+\frac{1}{4}Z^\dagger Z+\frac{1}{4}X^\dagger Z^\dagger ZX = I
\]
The factor of $1/2$ is present in each $A_{k_1,k_2}$ so that each term in the sum contained in $\Phi$ occurs with equal probability since the key bits $k_1,k_2$ that specify how the state $\ket{\psi}$ is encoded are chosen with uniform probability.

The action of $\Phi$ on a general quantum state is given by
\[\begin{align*}
\Phi(\rho_j)&=\SUM{k_1,k_2=0}{1}A_{k_1,k_2}\rho_jA_{k_1,k_2}^\dagger \\
&= \frac{1}{4}\rho_j+\frac{1}{4}X\rho_jX^\dagger +\frac{1}{4}Z\rho_jZ^\dagger +\frac{1}{4}ZX\rho_jX^\dagger Z^\dagger \\
&=\frac{1}{4}\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_j\overline{\alpha_j}&\alpha_j\overline{\beta_j} \\
\beta_j\overline{\alpha_j}&\beta_j\overline{\beta_j}
\end{pmatrix}
+
\frac{1}{4}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 \beta _j \bar{\beta }_j & \beta _j \bar{\alpha }_j \\
 \alpha _j \bar{\beta }_j & \alpha _j \bar{\alpha }_j \\
\end{array}
\right)
+
\frac{1}{4}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 \alpha _j \bar{\alpha }_j & -\alpha _j \bar{\beta }_j \\
 -\beta _j \bar{\alpha }_j & \beta _j \bar{\beta }_j \\
\end{array}
\right)
+
\frac{1}{4}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 \beta _j \bar{\beta }_j & -\beta _j \bar{\alpha }_j \\
 -\alpha _j \bar{\beta }_j & \alpha _j \bar{\alpha }_j \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
&=
 \frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 \alpha _j \bar{\alpha }_j+ \beta _j \bar{\beta }_j & 0
   \\
 0 &  \alpha _j \bar{\alpha }_j+ \beta _j \bar{\beta }_j
   \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
&=
 \frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0
   \\
 0 &  1
   \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align*}\]
since $\alpha _j \bar{\alpha }_j+ \beta _j \bar{\beta }_j=1$ because the states $\ket{\psi_j}$ are taken to be normalized. Therefore, $\Phi(\rho_j)$ is the maximally mixed state. Moreover, it can be seen that $\Phi(\rho_j)$ does not depend on $j$ and thus not on any particular state $\ket{\psi}$ that is encoded by $Z^{k_1}X^{k_2}$$\ket{\psi}$. This implies that it is impossible to distinguish between any of the encrypted states $\ket{\psi_0}$ and $\ket{\psi_1}$, since any measurement of $\Phi(\rho_j)$ will only yield one of the computational basis states with equal probability.

A nonlocal game

Consider the game where Alice and Bob are physically separated and their goal is to produce outputs that satisfy the winning conditions specified below. Alice and Bob receive $s,t \in \{0,1,2\}$ as input ($s$ to Alice and $t$ to Bob), at which point they are forbidden to communicate with each other. They each output a bit, $a$ for alice and $b$ for Bob. The winning conditions are

  1. $a=b$ in the cases where $s=t$.
  2. $a\neq b$ in the cases where $s\neq t$.
Consider the classical procedure in which Alice and Bob agree to output bits $a$ and $b$ upon receiving inputs $s$ and $t$, respectively, as described in the table displayed on the left below. Then observe the results of all possible game plays when Alice and Bob receive bits $(s,t)$ and output $(a,b)$ according to the table shown on the right:



 It can therefore be seen that in all cases where Alice and Bob receive inputs $(s,t)$ such that $s=t$ they always produce outputs $(a,b)$ such that $a=b$, and therefore win with probability $1$ in this case. However, in the case when Alice and Bob receive inputs $(s,t)$ such that $s\neq t$, then they also produce outputs $(a,b)$ such that $a\neq b$ in only $4$ out of the $6$ cases, and produce outputs such that $a=b$ in the remaining $2$ cases. Hence, they only when $4$ out of $6$ times and so succeed in the case when $s\neq t$ with probability $2/3$.

Suppose now that Alice and Bob are playing the game with the same winning conditions, but this time they each possess one qubit of the Bell pair
\[
 \ket{\beta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}-\ket{11}),
\]
 where say Alice has the first qubit of the register and Bob the second. Moreover, Alice and Bob are allowed to perform local operations and measurements on their parts of the Bell pair.  They can then base their output bits in the game, $a$ and $b$, depending on the measurement outcomes of their qubits.

 Consider the single qubit (unitary) rotation operations by some integer multiple $n$ of $\pi/3$ given by
\[
R_n=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 \cos \left(\frac{\pi  n}{3}\right) & -\sin \left(\frac{\pi  n}{3}\right) \\
 \sin \left(\frac{\pi  n}{3}\right) & \cos \left(\frac{\pi  n}{3}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right).
\]
 Given input bits $s$ and $t$ to Alice and Bob, respectively,  Alice will perform the rotation $R_s$ on her qubit of the Bell state and Bob will perform the rotation $R_{-t}$ in the `negative' direction on his qubit of the Bell state. Then for $r,s\in\{0,1,2\}$, the tensor product of their operations will be given in general by
\[
 R_s\otimes R_{-t}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
 \cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & -\sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right)\cos \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right) & -\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) \\
 -\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & -\sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right)\cos \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right) \\
 \sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) \\
 -\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & -\cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) & \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right) \\
\end{array}
\right), \]
and the resulting state will be $ (R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}$. At this point, Alice and Bob will then output bits $a$ and $b$ corresponding to their measurement outcomes upon measuring the state $ (R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}$.

 Now consider the resulting state in the various cases given inputs $s$ and $t$. In general, the state will be of the form
\[
 (R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 \frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 \frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 \frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 -\frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\]

If $s=t$, it can be seen that the resulting state is

\[
 (R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 \frac{\sin ^2\left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\cos
   ^2\left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 0 \\
 0 \\
 -\frac{\sin ^2\left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos
   ^2\left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right)=\ket{\beta}.
\]
Therefore, upon measuring the state of their system, since $\ket{\beta}$ is an entangled state, the measurement outcome will either be $\ket{00}$ or $\ket{11}$ with equal probability. Regardless, they will both output either $a=b=0$ or $a=b=1$ and so their outputs always agree in the case when $s=t$.

In the case when $s\neq t$, the resulting state after Alice and Bob perform their rotations is of the form
\[
(R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
 \frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 \frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 \frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
 -\frac{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \sin \left(\frac{\pi
   t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}}-\frac{\cos \left(\frac{\pi  s}{3}\right) \cos
   \left(\frac{\pi  t}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right).
\]
Expressing the six cases when $s\neq t$ more explicitly:
\[\begin{align*}
(R_0\otimes R_{-1})\ket{\beta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}-\sqrt{3}\ket{01}-\sqrt{3}\ket{10}-\ket{00})\\
(R_0\otimes R_{-2})\ket{\beta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(-\ket{00}-\sqrt{3}\ket{01}-\sqrt{3}\ket{10}+\ket{00})\\
(R_1\otimes R_{-0})\ket{\beta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}+\sqrt{3}\ket{01}+\sqrt{3}\ket{10}-\ket{00})\\
(R_1\otimes R_{-2})\ket{\beta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}-\sqrt{3}\ket{01}-\sqrt{3}\ket{10}-\ket{00})\\
(R_2\otimes R_{-0})\ket{\beta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(-\ket{00}+\sqrt{3}\ket{01}+\sqrt{3}\ket{10}+\ket{00})\\
(R_2\otimes R_{-1})\ket{\beta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}+\sqrt{3}\ket{01}+\sqrt{3}\ket{10}-\ket{00}).\\
\end{align*}\]
For either of these cases, the probability that Alice and Bob will both measure either $\ket{00}$ or $\ket{11}$ is given by
\[
Pr(\ket{00} \ or \ \ket{11})=|\bra{00}(R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}|^2+|\bra{11}(R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}|^2=\frac{1}{8}+\frac{1}{8}=\frac{1}{4},
\]
and the probability that they will measure either $\ket{01}$ or $\ket{10}$ is given by
For either of these cases, the probability that Alice and Bob will both measure either $\ket{00}$ or $\ket{11}$ is given by
\[
Pr(\ket{01} \ or \ \ket{10})=|\bra{01}(R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}|^2+|\bra{10}(R_s\otimes R_{-t})\ket{\beta}|^2=\frac{3}{8}+\frac{3}{8}=\frac{3}{4}.
\]

Thus, in any of the cases when $s\neq t$, Alice and Bob will output different bits (either $a=0$ and $b=1$ or $a=1$ and $b=0$) with probability $3/4$, in which case they win the game. However, they lose the game in the case when $s\neq t$, when they both output the same bits (either $a=b=0$ or $a=b=1$) with probability $1/4$.

Constructing an AND gate as a quantum operation

Here we consider operations that map the two-bit state $\ket{a,b}$ to the one-qubit state $\ket{a\wedge b}$, for all $a,b\in\{0,1\}$, where $a\wedge b$ represents the binary logical AND operation of $a$ and $b$. We will construct  $k$ matrices $A_1,\dots, A_k$ (where $k\leq 4$, and each $A_j$ is a $2 \times 4$ matrix) such that $\sum_
 {j=1}^{k}A^\dagger_jA_j=I$, and whose quantum operation $\Phi$ computes the above mapping. In other words, for all $a,b\in \{0,1\}$, when $\rho=\ket{a,b}\bra{a,b}$,
\[
 \Phi(\rho):=\SUM{j=1}{k}A_j\rho A^\dagger_j=\ket{a\wedge b}\bra{a\wedge b}.
\]

 Define the following matrices:
\[
 A_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}, \
 A_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0&1&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}, \
 A_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&1&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}, \
 A_4=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&1 \end{pmatrix},
\]
 and observe that
\[ \begin{align*}
 A^\dagger_1A_1=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix} , \ &  A^\dagger_2A_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix} \\
 A^\dagger_3A_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix} , \ &  A^\dagger_4A_4=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1 \end{pmatrix}.
 \end{align*}\]
 Therefore $\sum_{j=1}^{4}A^\dagger_j A_j=I$ is the $4\times 4$ identity matrix, which is necessary to define a valid channel in the Krauss representation

 Now consider the four computational basis states $\ket{a,b}$, for $a,b\in\{0,1\}$, with corresponding density operators given by $\rho_i:=\ket{a,b}\bra{a,b}$ where the index can be represented in terms of $a$ and $b$ as $i=2a+b+1$. More explicitly,

 \[ \begin{align*}
\rho_1:=\ket{0,0}\bra{0,0}=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix} , \ &  \rho_2:=\ket{0,1}\bra{0,1}=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix} \\
\rho_3:=\ket{1,0}\bra{1,0}=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix} , \ &  \rho_4:=\ket{1,1}\bra{1,1}=\begin{pmatrix} 0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1 \end{pmatrix}.
 \end{align*}\]

 It then follows that,
\[
 A^\dagger_j \rho_i A_j=\left\{
 \begin{array}{rl} \begin{pmatrix}0 &0 \\
 0 &0 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &\text{if} \ \ i\neq j,  \\
 \\
\begin{pmatrix}1 &0 \\
 0 &0 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &\text{if} \ \ i= j<4, \\
 \\
\begin{pmatrix}0 &0 \\
 0 &1 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &
 \text{if} \ \ i= j=4.
 \end{array}
 \right.
\]

 Therefore,
\[
 \Phi(\rho_i)=\SUM{j=1}{k}A_j\rho_i A^\dagger_j\left\{
 \begin{array}{rl}
\begin{pmatrix}1 &0 \\
 0 &0 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &\text{if} \ \ i<4, \\
 \\
 \begin{pmatrix}0 &0 \\
 0 &1 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &
 \text{if} \ \ i=4.
  \end{array}
 \right.
\]

Now, for $a,b\in\{0,1\}$ the logical AND operation is such that $a\wedge b=1$ if and only if $a=b=1$, and $a\wedge b=0$ otherwise. Moreover, 
\[
\ket{a\wedge b}\bra{a\wedge b}=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\ket{0}\bra{0}=\begin{pmatrix}1 &0 \\
 0 &0 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &\text{if} \ \ a\wedge b=0, \\
 \\
  \ket{1}\bra{1}=\begin{pmatrix}0 &0 \\
 0 &1 \end{pmatrix}  \ \ &\text{if} \ \ a\wedge b=1.
 \end{array}
 \right.
\]

Hence, the quantum operation defined in this manner does indeed compute the logical AND operation
\[
  \Phi(\rho_i)=\SUM{j=1}{k}A_j\rho_i A^\dagger_j=\ket{a\wedge b}\bra{a\wedge b},
\]
 where, as originally defined $\rho_i:=\ket{a,b}\bra{a,b}$ with $i=2a+b+1$ for $a,b\in\{0,1\}$.
 
This operation maps all basis states to pure states, but does it map all pure input states to pure output states?

 Consider the pure state $\ket{\psi}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0,0}+\ket{1,1})$, with density matrix given by
\[ \begin{align*}
 \rho:=\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}&=\frac{1}{2}(\ket{0,0}+\ket{1,1})(\bra{0,0}+\bra{1,1})\\
 &=\frac{1}{2}(\ket{0,0}\bra{0,0}+\ket{0,0}\bra{1,1}+\ket{1,1}\bra{0,0}+\ket{1,1}\bra{1,1}) \\
 &=\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
 1&0&0&1 \\
 0&0&0&0 \\
 0&0&0&0 \\
 1&0&0&1
 \end{pmatrix}.
 \end{align*} \]

Recall that $\Phi(\ket{0,0}\bra{0,0})=\ket{0}\bra{0}$ and $\Phi(\ket{1,1}\bra{1,1})=\ket{1}\bra{1}$. Moreover it can be seen that $\Phi(\ket{0,0}\bra{1,1})=\Phi(\ket{1,1}\bra{0,0})=\mathbf{0}_2$ (where $\mathbf{0}_2$ is the $2\times 2$ zero matrix) since $\Phi$ only acts nontrivially on  a matrix which has some nontrivial coefficient along its main diagonal.That is, for $a,b,c,d\in\{0,1\}$, $\Phi(\ket{a,b}\bra{c,d})\neq \mathbf{0}_2$ only if $a=c$ and $b=d$. Then by the linearity of the quantum operation $\Phi$,
\[ \begin{align*}
 \Phi(\rho)&=\frac{1}{2}(\Phi(\ket{0,0}\bra{0,0})+\Phi(\ket{0,0}\bra{1,1})+\Phi(\ket{1,1}\bra{0,0})+\Phi(\ket{1,1}\bra{1,1}))\\
 &=\frac{1}{2}(\ket{0}\bra{0}+\ket{1}\bra{1}) \\
 &=\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}1 &0 \\
 0 &0 \end{pmatrix} + \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}0 &0 \\
 0 &1 \end{pmatrix} \\
 &=\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}1 &0 \\
 0 &1 \end{pmatrix}
 \end{align*}\]
 
  Thus, since $\Phi(\rho)$ in this case is a mixed state, but $\rho$ was a pure state, the quantum operation $\Phi$ does not always take pure input states to pure output states.

An analysis of the amplitude damping channel

  Let $p$ be an arbitrary real-valued parameter such that $0<p<1$. We will explore some nice properties of the one-qubit operation, commonly referred to as the amplitude damping channel, defined by the two Krauss operators
\[
  A_0=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&\sqrt{1-p} \end{pmatrix} \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ A_1=\begin{pmatrix} 0 &\sqrt{p} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} .
\]
  It is easy to verify that $A^\dagger_0A_0+A^\dagger_1A_1 = I$, so the operation $D_\rho$ that maps each $2 \times 2$ density matrix $\rho$ to
\[
  D_p(\rho)=A_0\rho A^\dagger_0 +A_1\rho A^\dagger_1
\]
  is indeed a valid quantum operation.
 
Lets find a state that is a fixed point of $D_p$, which is a one-qubit density matrix $\rho_0$ satisfying $D_p(\rho_0)=\rho_0$.
 
  Let $\rho_0=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$ such that $Tr(\rho_0)=a+b=1$ so that $\rho_0$ be such a density matrix. Then
 \[ \begin{align*}
  D_p(\rho_0)&= A_0\rho_0A^\dagger_0+A_1\rho_0A^\dagger_1 \\
  &=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&\sqrt{1-p} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&\sqrt{1-p}\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix} 0 &\sqrt{p} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 &0 \\ \sqrt{p} & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\
  &=\begin{pmatrix} a & b\sqrt{1-p} \\ c\sqrt{1-p} & d(1-p) \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} dp &0 \\0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\
  &= \begin{pmatrix}a+dp & b\sqrt{1-p} \\ c\sqrt{1-p}& d(1-p) \end{pmatrix} \\
  &= \begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}.
  \end{align*}\]
 
  Equating the coefficients of the matrices in the last two lines gives
\[
  \left\{\begin{array}{rl}
  a=&a+dp, \\
 b=& b\sqrt{1-p}, \\
 c=& c\sqrt{1-p}, \\
  d=&d(1-p) \\
  \end{array}
  \right.
\]
  Since $0<p<1$, $1-p\neq 0,1$, and thus $b=c=d=0$. Furthermore, since $\rho_0$ is a density matrix, $Tr(\rho_0)=a+d=a=1$. Thus,
\[
   \rho_0=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}=\ket{0}\bra{0}
\]
   is the fixed point satisfying $D_p(\rho_0)=\rho_0$.
 
Now, lets show that the operation $D^{(2)}_p$, corresponding to applying $D_p$ twice in succession, that is $D^{(2)}_p(\rho)=D_p(D_p(\rho))$, is equivalent to applying $D_q$ once for some suitably chosen value $q$.
 
  Before proceeding consider the following identities involving the Krauss operators $A_0$ and $A_1$:
 \[ \begin{align*}
  A_0=A_0^\dagger, \ \ \ \ \
  & A_0^2=A_0^{\dagger2}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&1-p \end{pmatrix}, \ \ \ \ \  A_1^2=A_1^{\dagger2}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&0
   \end{pmatrix} \\
 &   A_0A_1=A_1,  \ \ \ \ \ A_1A_0=\begin{pmatrix}0&\sqrt{p^2-p}\\0&0\end{pmatrix}
  \end{align*}\]
 
  Then,
 \[ \begin{align*}
  D_p(D_p(\rho))&=A_0(A_0\rho A^\dagger_0 +A_1\rho A^\dagger_1) A^\dagger_0 +A_1(A_0\rho A^\dagger_0 +A_1\rho A^\dagger_1) A^\dagger_1 \\
  &=A_0A_0\rho A^\dagger_0A^\dagger_0 +A_0A_1\rho A^\dagger_1A^\dagger_0  +A_1A_0\rho A^\dagger_0A^\dagger_1 +A_1A_1\rho A^\dagger_1A^\dagger_1 \\
  &=A_0^2\rho A_0^{\dagger2}+(A_0A_1)\rho (A_0A_1)^\dagger +(A_1A_0)\rho (A_1A_0)^\dagger \\
  &=A_0^2\rho A_0^{\dagger2}+A_1\rho A_1^\dagger +(A_1A_0)\rho (A_1A_0)^\dagger
  \end{align*}\]
 
  Now,  observing that
  \[\begin{align*}
  A_0^2\rho A_0^{\dagger2}&=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&1-p \end{pmatrix}\rho\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&1-p \end{pmatrix} \\
   A_1\rho A_1A_1^\dagger +(A_1A_0)\rho (A_1A_0)^\dagger&=\begin{pmatrix} 0 &\sqrt{2p-p^2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\rho\begin{pmatrix} 0 &\sqrt{2p-p^2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},
  \end{align*}\]
  and by letting $q:=2p-p^2$ allows $D_p(D_p(\rho))$ to be expressed as
\[
  D_p(D_p(\rho))=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&\sqrt{1-q} \end{pmatrix}\rho\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&\sqrt{1-q} \end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix} 0 &\sqrt{q} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\rho\begin{pmatrix} 0 &0 \\ \sqrt{q} & 0 \end{pmatrix}=D_q(\rho).
\]
 
  Hence $  D_p(D_p(\rho))=D_q(\rho)$, with $q=\sqrt{2p-p^2}$.
 
Generalizing the case just analyzed, we can also define the operation $D^{(k)}_p$, corresponding to applying $D_p$ $k$ times in succession. What are the Krauss operators of $D^{(k)}_p$ with their matrix entries written as closed-form expressions in terms of $p$ and $k$? 
 
  Calculating the effect of applying $D_p(\rho)$ $k-$times in succession results in the expression
\[
  D_p^{(k)}(\rho)=A_0^kA_0^{k\dagger}+\SUM{n=1}{k}(A_1A_0^{n-1})\rho\SUM{n=1}{k}(A_1A_0^{n-1})^\dagger.
\]
 
  Let
\[
  B_0^{(k)}:=A_0^kA_0^{k\dagger}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&(1-p)^{k/2} \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{and} \ \ B_1^{(k)}=\SUM{n=1}{k}(A_1A_0^{n-1})=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}
\]
  be the two Krauss operators of $D_p^{(k)}$ (here, $B_1^{(k)}$ has been expressed as some matrix with unknown coefficients which are to be determined) so that
\[
  D_p^{(k)}(\rho)= B_0^{(k)}\rho B_0^{(k)\dagger}+ B_1^{(k)} \rho B_1^{(k)\dagger}.
\]
  Since $D_p$ itself is a valid quantum operation, compositions of $D_{p}$ will also always be another valid quantum operation. Thus, the two Krauss operators for $D_p^{(k)}$ must satisfy the relation $I=B_0^{(k)\dagger} B_0^{(k)}+ B_1^{(k)^\dagger}  B_1^{(k)}$. Thus. $B_1^{(k)}$ can be determined more precisely by the identity $ B_1^{(k)\dagger}B_1^{(k)}=I-B_0^{(k)^\dagger}B_0^{(k)}$. Since
\[
  B_0^{(k)^\dagger}B_0^{(k)}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&(1-p)^k\end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{and} \ \ B_1^{(k)\dagger}B_1^{(k)}= \begin{pmatrix}a^2+c^2&ab+cd\\ab+cd&b^2+d^2\end{pmatrix}
\]
 
then using the previous relation implies
\[
\begin{pmatrix}a^2+c^2&ab+cd\\ab+cd&b^2+d^2\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1-(1-p)^{k} \end{pmatrix}.
\]
 
  From this, it is seen that
\[  \begin{align*}
  a^2+c^2=0 &\implies a=c=0 \\
  b^2+d^2&=1-(1-p)^{k},
  \end{align*}\]
  but in the case when $k=1$, $B_1^{(1)}=A_1$ so that $b=\sqrt{p}$ and $b^2+d^2=1-(1-p)=p$ implying that $d=0$. Hence, in general
\[
  B_1^{(k)}=\begin{pmatrix}0&\sqrt{1-(1-p)^k}\\0&0\end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{and} \ \ B_0^{(k)}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&(1-p)^{k/2} \end{pmatrix}
\]
  are the Krauss operators of $D_p^{(k)}$.
 

Now, lets answer the following question: Is $lim_{k\to \infty}D^(k)_p(\rho)=\rho_0$ for any initial state $\rho$, where $\rho_0$ is the fixed point of $D_p$ that was calculated in part above?
 
  For $0<p<1$, it is always the case that $lim_{k\to\infty}(1-p)^k=0$. Therefore, in the limit,
\[
 lim_{k\to\infty}B_0^{(k)}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&0 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{and} \ \ lim_{k\to\infty}B_1^{(k)}=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\0&0 \end{pmatrix}.
\]
 Let $\rho$ be an arbitrary density matrix expressed in the general form
\[
\rho=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d \end{pmatrix},
\]
where the constraint $a+d=1$ is imposed so that $Tr(\rho)=1$ as required for density operators by definition.
Then it follows that
\[\begin{align*}
lim_{k\to \infty}D^(k)_p(\rho)&=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&0 \end{pmatrix}\rho\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&0 \end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\0&0 \end{pmatrix}\rho\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\1&0 \end{pmatrix} =\begin{pmatrix}a+d&0\\0&0 \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&0 \end{pmatrix}=\rho_0,
\end{align*}\]
which is precisely equal to the fixed point calculated in above.
 

Converting from Stinespring form to Krauss form

Suppose that you are given a description of a quantum operation that takes an $n$-qubit state $\rho$ as input and produced an $n'$-qubit state $\sigma$ as output, where the description is of the following form (where $n+m=n'+m'$):
 
  1. Append $m$ quits in the state $\ket{0^m}$ to the end of the input state.
  2. Apply an $(n+m)$-qubit unitary operation $U$.
  3. Trace out the first $m'$ qubits (resulting in an $n'$-qubit output).

Lets show how to implement this in Krauss form as
\[
 \rho\mapsto \SUM{j\in S}{}A_j\rho A^\dagger_j, \ \ \ \text{where} \ \ \ \SUM{j\in S}{}A^\dagger_jA_j=I.
\]

For notational purposes, let $L(\mathcal{H})$ denote the space of linear operators on a some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Moreover, denote $\mathcal{H}^{2^n}$ as the Hilbert space of dimension $2^n$.

Consider positive integers $n,m,n',m', d$ such that $n+m=n'+m'=d$.

 Now, let $\rho\in L(\mathcal{H}_A^{2^n})$, $\ket{0}\bra{0}\in L(\mathcal{H}_B^{2^m})$ so that $\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}\in L(\mathcal{H}_A^{2^n}\otimes\mathcal{H}_B^{2^m})$.

  Also, let $\sigma\in L(\mathcal{H}_{B'}^{2^{n'}})$,
 and consider another Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{A'}^{2^{m'}}$ so that
\[
 \mathcal{H}_A^{2^n}\otimes\mathcal{H}_B^{2^m}\approx\mathcal{H}_{A'}^{2^{m'}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B'}^{2^{n'}}\approx\mathcal{H}^{2^d}.
\]
Then in regards to the larger ambient space $\mathcal{H}^{2^d}$, the previously mentioned operators can be expressed as $\rho\otimes I_{2^m}\in\mathcal{H}^{2^d}$ and $I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}\in L(\mathcal{H}^{2^d})$, where $I_{2^m}\in L(\mathcal{H}^{2^m})$ and $I_{2^n}\in L(\mathcal{H}^{2^n})$ are the identity operators acting on their respective spaces.

In this way, observe that
\[\begin{align*}
\rho\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0}=(\rho\otimes I_{2^m})(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0}\bra{0})=(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\rho(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})
\end{align*}\]
This shows that the quantum operation of adding the ancilla $\ket{0}\bra{0}$ to the end of $\rho$ has its own Krauss operator as $(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})$.

Let $\Phi(\rho)=\sigma$ be the quantum operation described in the problem statement, and let $U\in\mathcal{H}^{2^d}$ be the aforementioned unitary operation. Then the Stinespring representation of the operation is given by
\[
\Phi(\rho)=Tr_{A'}(U(\rho\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0})U^\dagger)=\sigma.
\]
The partial trace operation $Tr_{A'}$ over the register consisting of the space $\mathcal{H}_{A'}^{2^{m'}}$ is itself a quantum operation with $m'$ Krauss operators $B_j$ given by
\[
B_j=\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}},
\]
where $0\leq j\leq m'-1$ and the states $\ket{j}$ form the orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}_{A'}^{2^{m'}}$. Therefore, the action of the operation $\Phi$ can be more explicitly represented as
\[\begin{align*}
\Phi(\rho)&=Tr_{A'}(U(\rho\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0})U^\dagger) \\
&=\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}B_j(U(\rho\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0})U^\dagger)B_j^\dagger \\
&=\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}(\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(\rho\otimes \ket{0}\bra{0})U^\dagger(\ket{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}}) \\
&=\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}(\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\rho(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger(\ket{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})\\
&=\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}A_j\rho A_j^\dagger,\\
\end{align*}\]
where for $0\leq j\leq m'$,
\[
A_j:=(\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})
\]
 are matrices with dimensions $2^{n'}$-by-$2^{n}$. Now consider the following sum
\[ \begin{align*}
 \SUM{j=0}{m'-1}A_j^\dagger A_j&= \SUM{j=0}{m'-1}\left((\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\right)^\dagger(\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0}) \\
 &= \SUM{j=0}{m'-1}(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger(\ket{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})(\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\\
 &=\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger(\ket{j}\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0}) \\
  &=(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger\left(\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}(\ket{j}\bra{j}\otimes I_{2^{n'}})\right)U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\\
    &=(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger\left(I_{2^m}\otimes I_{2^{n'}}\right)U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\\
&=(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger I_{2^d}U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\\
&=(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})U^\dagger U(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\\
&=(I_{2^n}\otimes\bra{0})(I_{2^n}\otimes\ket{0})\\
&=I_{2^n}\otimes\ip{0}{0}\\
&=I_{2^n}.
 \end{align*}\]

These $m'$ matrices $A_j$ are therefore the Krauss operators that define an operation equivalent to $\Phi$ which was originally given in Stinespring form. That is,
\[
\Phi(\rho)=\SUM{j=0}{m'-1}A_j\rho A_j^\dagger=\sigma.
\]