\section{Introduction}

Optimal allocation of wealth among portfolios
in presence of transaction costs
is a well known problem in
literature~\cite{TakKlaAss,Constantinides,DumLuc,AkiMenSul,Serva}.
The investment we consider in this paper
is on a risk-less bank account paying a fixed interest rate
and on a risky asset with the logarithmic price increments
modeled by a Wiener process.

The general approach to face this problem
is to follow the asset price during all the time and
sometimes ``control'' the portfolio buying or selling stocks.
This approach leads to problems of {\it singular} control Brownian motion
(see e.g.~\cite{Harrison,Karatzas} for a review)
which seem the most adequate in this context.
In an instantaneous control technique
one has access (in principle) to the entire information;
i.e. the process is continuously observed, even
between two changes of trader's portfolio.
However, for all practical purposes,
the necessary information is limited only
to the moments
the investor acts:
therefore, we shall focus our attention only on these moments
when something happens relevant from his point of view.

A trading rule is given if, each time the investor changes his portfolio,
one specifies:
\begin{itemize}
   \item which fraction of his capital has to be invested in the risky asset,

   \item when the investor should modify again his position;
\end{itemize}
then among all possible strategies
the investor is interested in the optimal one.

Following Kelly~\cite{Kelly}
we consider an investor who desires to maximize
the growth rate of his capital.
It seems to be the most natural approach if
the trader is interested only in the long run behavior of his capital:
in the following this kind of investor will be
called speculator.

In financial markets assets have a bid and ask price.
In this case the asset value is no longer defined in a unique way:
it can take on any value in the bid-ask spread.
At every time one can buy assets at the ask price
or sell them obtaining the bid price,
which is always lower then the previous one.
In this paper we shall consider this spread in asset price as the only source
of trading costs.

The most common way to treat the portfolio optimization
in presence of such costs~\cite{TakKlaAss,DumLuc}
is to define an {\it absolute} asset value depending on the bid and ask price.
However in a financial strategy it is natural to introduce
a value {\it relative} to speculator's behavior,
i.e. an asset value which depends on the kind of operation
(ask or bid) the market trader performs.
The value is a matter of conventions:
there are no financial reasons to prefer one choice or another.
Of course the optimal growth rate cannot depend on the convention used.
We shall show that this new point of view
allows a mapping of the portfolio optimization problem
to a similar one without costs.
Therefore it connects a {\it singular} control problem
to information theory,
with the main advantage that information
{\it \`a la} Shannon~\cite{Shannon} of an asset price
can be measured on financial data and also
computed in an elementary way for processes
as the Wiener one considered here.

The paper is organized as follows:
in section {\bf 2} we state the portfolio selection problem.
We summarize the case of absence of costs
in a version appropriate for our purposes in section {\bf 3}.
In section {\bf 4} the {\it relative} value
approach is treated:
both the exact solution and an approximation of it are considered in detail
and we discuss
the relations and differences between the {\it relative}
and {\it absolute} approach.
Finally section {\bf 5} is devoted to
summarize the results.
In appendix {\bf A} we deduce the  probabilities
and average time to exit from a barrier in a Wiener process
and in appendix {\bf B} we discuss the {\it absolute}
value approach in an approximate case.

\section{The model}

We consider a speculator who diversifies his portfolio in a risk-less
bank account with a deterministic rate of growth $R$ and a risky
asset, for example a stock in a capital market.

 The ask and bid prices of the stock's shares at
calendar (continuous) time $t$
are related by the following equation
\begin{equation}
   S^a_t = e^{\gamma} S^b_t\,\, ,
   \label{eq:price}
\end{equation}
where we consider the transaction cost $\gamma$ time independent.

The return at calendar time $t$ is defined
\begin{equation}
   r_t \equiv \ln\frac{S^b_{t+1}}{S^b_t}\,\, .
\label{eq:return}
\end{equation}

The speculator is interested to choose a strategy which maximizes
the exponential growth rate of his capital $W_t$
\begin{equation}
   \lambda \equiv \lim_{\Omega \to \infty}
\frac{1}{\Omega} \ln\frac{W_{\Omega}}{W_0}\,\,.
   \label{eq:lyapunov}
\end{equation}

 In particular we shall consider the case
where the trader modifies his position in the market only when
a relevant change of the asset price appears.
This point of view is natural
in realistic situations where the trader
waits until the return's variations are significant for him
and then rebalances his portfolio.
We call, as in~\cite{BavPasSerVerVul},
$\Delta$-trading time
the rank of such an investment.

At $\Delta$-trading time $k$ the speculator keeps
a fraction $l_k$ of his capital in assets,
while the remaining part is left in the bank account.
We shall consider only self-financing strategies
and we desire to repeat the game at every $\Delta$-trading time:
therefore we shall limit our analysis to the fraction $l_k$
such that the capital is always strictly greater than zero.
The speculator waits until
\begin{equation}
   r_{t,t_k} = \ln\frac{S^b_{t}}{S^b_{t_k}}\,\,
   \label{eq:return barrier}
\end{equation}
raises up to $\Delta^+_k$ or decreases to $-\Delta^-_k$
(with $\Delta^+_k, \Delta^-_k \geq 0$),
where both barriers are fixed  by the speculator at
$\Delta$-trading time $k$.
When the return~(\ref{eq:return barrier}) ``hits'' one of the two barriers
the speculator
can buy or sell assets.
We call exit time
\[
{\cal T}_k \equiv t_{k+1}-t_k
\]
the lag between two portfolio changes.

To obtain a lighter notation
we define the (final) {\it state} of the speculator $\eta$,
depending on the kind of operation (ask/bid) he will perform at
$\Delta$-trading time $k+1$:
\[
\eta = \left\{
	\begin {array} {cc}
	 a & (ask)\\
	 b & (bid)
\end{array} \right. {\mathrm when \;\; the \;\; trader \;\;}
\begin {array} {l}
	 {\mathrm buys} \\
	 {\mathrm sells} \,\, .
\end{array}
\]

The fraction of the capital in assets is
$
\exp(z_k \Delta^{z_k}_k) l_k W_k
$
just before the $k+1$-th trade and
$
l_{k+1} W_{k+1}
$
immediately after,
where the random variable $z_k$ can assume the values
\[
	   z_k \equiv \left \{ {\begin {array} {ccl}
				  -1 & {\mathrm if} & r_{t_{k+1},t_k} < 0 \\
				  +1 & {\mathrm if} & r_{t_{k+1},t_k} > 0 \,\,.
			   \end{array} } \right .
\]

In particular we shall consider the most natural investment
\begin{equation}
 \begin {array} {ccl}
	\eta = a & {\mathrm when} &   z_{k} = -1 \\
	\eta = b & {\mathrm when} &   z_{k} = +1 \,\,,
 \end{array}   \,\,\,\,
\label{eq:stato barriera}
\end{equation}
i.e. buy at the lower price and sell at the higher,
or equivalently the following condition must be satisfied
\begin{equation}
 \begin {array} {ccc}
	\exp(-\Delta^{-}_k) l_k W_k & \leq & l_{k+1} W_{k+1} \\
	\exp(\Delta^{+}_k) l_k W_k & \geq & l_{k+1} W_{k+1}
 \end{array} \;\; {\mathrm if} \;\;
 \begin {array} {l}
	\eta = a \\
	\eta = b \,\, .
 \end{array}
\label{eq:l limits}
\end{equation}

In the proposed trading rule there are two classes of parameters,
connected to the two main characteristics of a financial strategy,
we have mentioned in the introduction:
\begin{itemize}
   \item $\{ l \}$ which specifies the fraction of the capital
	invested on assets,

   \item $\{ \Delta \}$ which is connected to the time the speculator
	has to keep his position.
\end{itemize}
We have split the optimal trading rule
in the two main questions for a speculator;
we shall show that it
will allow us to map the problem
with transaction costs into one where no costs are present.

If we limit our attention to the trading times we can rewrite
the growth rate of the capital
\begin{equation}
   \lambda = \frac{h}{\cal T} \,\, ,
   \label{eq:lyapunov discrete}
\end{equation}
where we call
\begin{equation}
   h \equiv \lim_{{\cal K} \to \infty} \frac{1}{\cal K} \sum^{\cal K}_{k=0}
	\ln\frac{W_{k+1}}{W_{k}}\,\,
\label{eq:lyapunov definition}
\end{equation}
the mean lyapunov exponent of the capital,
${\cal K}$ is the number of investments (or equivalently exits of the process)
up to the time $t$
and
\begin{equation}
   {\cal T} \equiv
  \lim_{{\cal K} \to \infty} \frac{1}{\cal K} \sum^{\cal K}_{k=1}
	{\cal T}_{k}\,\,
   \label{eq:T definition}
\end{equation}
is the mean exit time.

In the case ergodic processes are considered,
one can substitute the $\Delta$-trading time average in
equations~(\ref{eq:lyapunov definition}) and (\ref{eq:T definition})
with the expectation value of the associate process.

We notice that
this analysis, where the returns are considered only
when they hit the barriers,
resembles Poincar\'e maps
in dynamical systems.
Going from continuous to discrete time setting,
the quantities of dynamical interest
are simply rescaled by
the mean exit time ${\cal T}$~\cite{BadPol}.

The discrete time framework is clearly relevant
in finance
because it allows to show the connection
of the capital growth rate,
obtained via an optimal control policy,
with quantities strictly related to
Shannon entropy~\cite{Shannon}.
The main advantage is that
these quantities can be directly measured on a historical dataset of
financial assets~\cite{BavVerVul,BavVer}
or computed via
elementary probability theory in simple cases.
Furthermore, analyzing transaction costs
from an unusual point of view this new framework
will allow us to map the problem
into one without costs.

This approach is directly connected
to the way a
financial decision is taken
in practice.
The speculator is interested
in a growth rate which is optimal
with respect to what
has happened up to $m$ $\Delta$-time steps before:
it is an intuitive fact that events far in the past
are irrelevant in the present portfolio selection.
In other words, portfolio depends only on the last $m$ investments, i.e on
a {\it finite} set of parameters $\{ l \}$ and  $\{ \Delta \}$,
where the Markovian order $m$ is chosen according to the
``memory'' of the asset process~\cite{BavVerVul}.

In this paper we shall consider the no-memory case
modeling the returns with
\begin{equation}
 dr_t = \mu dt + \sigma dw_t \,\, ,
\label{eq:wiener}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the drift and $w_t$ a Wiener process with unitary variance.

We can safely assume a null risk-free interest rate $R$.
The case $R > 0$
can always be recovered by simply replacing $\mu$ with $\mu - R$
and adding $R$ to the growth rate of the capital~(\ref{eq:lyapunov}).

\section{Absence of costs}

Using the notation introduced above
we summarize in this section
the well known case of portfolio selection in absence of transaction costs.

The capital at $\Delta$-trading time $k+1$ is given by
\begin{equation}
W_{k+1} = \left[ 1 - l_k + l_k \exp(z_k \Delta^{z_k}_k) \right]  W_k  \,\, .
\label{eq:process no costs}
\end{equation}

We are considering a ``scale invariant'' trader:
maximizing the growth rate
his behavior does not depend on the capital he has when he starts
an investment~\footnote{
The same property is true for all the utilities in the HARA class
(see e.g.~\cite{Merton} for a list
of the general characteristics of these functions).}.

In the case under consideration the return process has no memory
and no transaction costs are involved.
The speculator repeats then
exactly the same game at every $\Delta$-trading time.
This implies that the optimal
choice of both the fractions $\{ l \}$ and of barriers $\{ \Delta \}$
do not depend on the considered time $k$.

The mean lyapunov exponent of the capital is
\begin{equation}
 \begin {array} {l}
  h(l;\Delta^+,\Delta^-) = \\
  \;\;      p \ln \left[1+l(\exp(-\Delta^-)-1)\right] +
	(1-p) \ln \left[1+l(\exp(\Delta^+)-1)\right]  \,\, .
 \end{array}
\label{eq:lyapunov no costs}
\end{equation}
where $p=\pi(\Delta^+,\Delta^-)$
is the probability to exit from the lower barrier.
The capital growth rate
as a function
of the chosen strategy,
is obtained
dividing the mean lyapunov exponent~(\ref{eq:lyapunov no costs})
by the average exit time
${\cal T}=\tau(\Delta^+,\Delta^-)$.
We have derived in the appendix
the values of $\pi$
(equation~(\ref{eq:pi})) and $\tau$ (equation~(\ref{eq:tau}))
for the Wiener process~(\ref{eq:wiener}).

We shall look for the maximum capital growth rate
finding first the optimal fraction $l$ at fixed barriers $\{ \Delta \}$
and then searching the optimal $\Delta$s.

The optimal $l$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
   \l(\Delta^+,\Delta^-) =
	\frac{1-p}{1-\exp(-\Delta^-)} -
	\frac{p}{\exp(\Delta^+)-1} \,\, .
   \label{eq:l Kelly}
\end{equation}

Substituting the optimal value of $l$~(\ref{eq:l Kelly})
in equation~(\ref{eq:lyapunov no costs}) we can write
the mean lyapunov exponent
\begin{equation}
   h = p \ln \frac{p}{q} +  (1-p) \ln \frac{1-p}{1-q}  \,\,
   \label{eq:lyapunov Kelly}
\end{equation}
as the Kullback entropy~\cite{Kullback} between the probabilities
$p$ and $q$,
where $q=q(\Delta^+,\Delta^-)$ is the
martingale probability~(\ref{eq:martingale}).
As pointed out by Kelly~\cite{Kelly}
in a particular case,
relation~(\ref{eq:lyapunov Kelly}) plays a central role
in log-optimal portfolio selection:
the growth rate obtained modifying the portfolio
according to an optimal control strategy~\cite{Harrison,Karatzas}
is linked to
the entropy of the underlying process in information theory~\cite{Shannon}.
Speculator's capital growth rate in absence
and, as we shall show, in presence of transaction costs
depends on the information present in the asset price.
Such an information
can be measured in financial series~\cite{BavVerVul,BavVer}
using a technique
inspired by the Kolmogorov $\epsilon$-entropy~\cite{Kolmogorov}.

\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{free.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Capital growth rate in absence of costs
for the optimal choice of $l$
as a function of $\Delta^+$ and $\Delta^-$.
The parameters chosen are $\mu=0.1$ and $\sigma=1$.}
  \label{fig:lyapunov no costs}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

In Figure~\ref{fig:lyapunov no costs} we have plotted the
capital growth rate $\lambda(\Delta^+,\Delta^-)$ for
the optimal choice of $l$.
We notice that
it is a non increasing function of its arguments.
The maximum is reached for $(\Delta^+,\Delta^-=0)$,
obtaining the well known result that the optimal policy is continuous.
It is an intuitive result due to the fact that a
change in the portfolio does not cost anything
and then the best solution is to use this {\it free} opportunity
to rebalance continuously the investment.

We also observe that the maximum $(\Delta^+,\Delta^-=0)$,
is the only point
where the gradient of the growth rate is zero.
Therefore, if the speculator prefers to change his position
at finite $\Delta$s,
the error in the growth rate is small, i.e. of the second order in $\Delta$
for small $\Delta$.

Performing the limit $\Delta^{+,-} \to 0$
in the equations~(\ref{eq:l Kelly},\ref{eq:lyapunov Kelly})
one obtains
the optimal capital fraction
\begin{equation}
   l^* = \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2} + \frac{1}{2} \,\,
   \label{eq:l Kelly optimal}
\end{equation}
and the optimal growth rate
\begin{equation}
   \lambda^* = \frac{\sigma^2}{2} \,\,\,\, {{l}^{*}}^2 \,\, .
   \label{eq:lyapunov Kelly optimal}
\end{equation}

We shall not allow the trader to borrow money from a bank
or short selling of stock.
An optimal portfolio suggests
to keep the same fraction for ever ($l^*$ does not depend on $k$)
and,
because we are thinking to model a portfolio including shares as risky assets,
a never-ending borrowing or short selling position
does not appear realistic.
The considered cases correspond to
\begin{equation}
-1 \leq \frac{2 \mu}{\sigma^2} \leq 1 \,\, .
   \label{eq:condition mu}
\end{equation}
If this ratio is $1$
the best solution is to transfer all the money to the stock,
instead the opposite limit corresponds to have no money
in the risky asset.
In the following we shall only consider
transaction costs in the case with drift $\mu$ and variance $\sigma$
which satisfy condition~(\ref{eq:condition mu}).

\section{The relative value approach}

In the portfolio selection in absence of costs there
is a unique asset price.
It is natural to associate the asset value to this price.
The value is a way to quantify the amount of money
the trader has in his risky assets:
he diversifies his portfolio according to it,
investing a fraction of his capital $l_k$ which
depends on the asset value at $\Delta$-trading time $k$.
If transaction costs are present
the asset value is instead a convention.
One obtains the bid price selling the asset and buys it at the ask price.
The value can be any price
between these two.

To define the asset value,
two points of view seem natural:

\begin{itemize}
   \item An absolute {\it value} $S_t$
	which is considered the ``true price'',
	different from the ask and bid prices the trader finds in the market
	\[
 	\begin {array} {rcl}
		S^a_t & = & e^{\gamma_a} S_t \\
		S^b_t & = & e^{-\gamma_b} S_t
 	\end{array}  \,\,\,\,
	\]
	where $\gamma = \gamma_a + \gamma_b$ is the transaction cost
	defined in~(\ref{eq:price}).

   \item A value {\it relative} to the speculator's last trade:
   	it is the bid price when he sells and the ask price when he buys.
\end{itemize}

The point of view considered in the literature
( see e.g.~\cite{TakKlaAss,DumLuc} and~\cite{AkiMenSul} and the references
there in)
is the {\it absolute} value approach\footnote{
Generally $\gamma_a =\gamma_b$ or
one of the two parameters is kept equal to zero.
}.
In this approach an
asset is bought (or sold) at a price different from the value
of an asset of the same kind already included in trader's portfolio.
The absolute difference
between the value and the price gives the cost.
In the appendix {\bf B} we summarize this approach in
a approximate situation.

We stress here that the {\it absolute} value is a pure convention.
A financial asset is well defined only when
a trader buys (sells) it;
its price is the ask (bid) price.
It seems natural to associate the same ``wealth'' not only
to the assets just traded but also
to all the others present in his portfolio even before this transaction.
In this way at every trading it exists only one value for the speculator.
This sounds reasonable because there is no difference between the
assets owned and the ones just bought (sold).
We are considering a value {\it relative} to the {\it state}
of the speculator, as it as been defined in section {\bf 2}.

A consequence of a {\it relative} value is that
one has four possibilities
depending on
an the kind of investment (ask/bid) the speculator is performing
at $\Delta$-trading time $k$ (initial {\it state} $\xi$) and
he will perform at $k+1$
(final {\it state} $\eta$)  depending on which barrier
the return~(\ref{eq:return barrier}) will hit.
To underline this fact we shall denote the barriers
not only with the $\Delta$-trading time of the operation
but also with the initial and final {\it state}.

We remind that
the bid and ask price are linked by relation~(\ref{eq:price})
and that the trader buys at the lower price and sells at the higher
(see relations~(\ref{eq:stato barriera})).
The evolution of the capital invested in assets between time $k$ and $k+1$
is then:
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin {array} {cclccc}
{\displaystyle \frac{S^a_{k+1}}{S^a_k} }
	l_k W_k & = & \exp(-\Delta_{aa;k}) l_k W_k
	& {\mathrm if} &  \xi = a & , \;\; \eta = a \\
{\displaystyle \frac{S^b_{k+1}}{S^a_k} }
	l_k W_k & = & \exp(\Delta_{ab;k}-\gamma) l_k W_k
	& {\mathrm if} &  \xi = a & , \;\; \eta = b \\
{\displaystyle \frac{S^a_{k+1}}{S^b_k} }
	l_k W_k & = & \exp(-\Delta_{ba;k}+\gamma) l_k W_k
	& {\mathrm if} &  \xi = b & , \;\; \eta = a \\
{\displaystyle \frac{S^b_{k+1}}{S^b_k} }
	l_k W_k & = & \exp(\Delta_{bb;k}) l_k W_k
	& {\mathrm if} &  \xi = b & , \;\; \eta = b \\
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:cases}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{ab;k}, \Delta_{ba;k} \geq \gamma$, i.e. one should at least
wait a time long enough to pay the costs!

We are considering the simple case of a no-memory process.
The only piece of information
the speculator has to remember of his past
is whether at the previous $\Delta$-time step he has bought or sold assets,
i.e. his initial {\it state} $\xi$.
So, the barriers $\Delta_{\xi \eta;k}$
can only depend on the initial and final {\it states}
and the fraction $l_k$ only on the initial {\it state},
i.e when the $k^{th}$ investment is decided.

To obtain a lighter notation we introduce
\[
\left\{ \begin {array} {ccc}
\Delta^-_a &\equiv& \Delta_{aa} \\
\Delta^+_a &\equiv& \Delta_{ab}-\gamma \\
\Delta^-_b &\equiv& \Delta_{ba}-\gamma \\
\Delta^+_b &\equiv& \Delta_{bb} \,\, .
\end{array} \right.
\]

The capital at $\Delta$-trading time $k+1$ is
\begin{equation}
W_{k+1} =
  \left[ 1 + l_{\xi} (\exp(z_{k}\Delta^{z_{k}}_{\xi}) - 1) \right] W_k
	 \equiv  \omega_{\xi \eta} W_k \,\,,
\label{eq:relative process}
\end{equation}
where $z_k$ has been defined in section {\bf 2} as the sign of the return
between $k$ and $k+1$.

The problem is then completely defined by a Markovian transition matrix
between the initial and final {\it state}
\begin{equation}
V = \left( \begin {array} {cc}
	1-\alpha &  \alpha \\
	 \beta   &  1 - \beta
 \end{array}  \right) \,\,,
\end{equation}
where
\[
\left\{ \begin {array} {ccc}
	\alpha & = & 1 - \pi(\Delta^-_{a},\Delta^+_{a}+\gamma) \\
	\beta  & = & \pi(\Delta^-_{b}+\gamma,\Delta^+_{b}) \,\, .
 \end{array}  \right.
\]

The probabilities of the {\it states} $a$ and $b$ satisfy the following relation
\[
	\frac{p_a}{p_b}=\frac{V_{ba}}{V_{ab}}=\frac{\beta}{\alpha} \,\, .
\]

We have mapped the original portfolio selection
into one where no costs are present but a Markovian
memory must be considered.
The capital growth rate for a speculator who follows this strategy is:
\begin{equation}
 \lambda =
  \frac{\sum_{\xi,\eta} p_\xi V_{\xi \eta} \ln \omega_{\xi \eta}}
       {\sum_{\xi}p_\xi {\cal T}_\xi} \,\, ,
\label{eq:lyapunov relative}
\end{equation}
where we have defined an average exit time
which depends on the initial {\it state} $\xi$ of the trader:
\[
\begin {array} {ccl}
{\cal T}_a &=& \tau(\Delta^+_{a}+\gamma,\Delta^-_{a}) \\
{\cal T}_b &=& \tau(\Delta^+_{b},\Delta^-_{b}+\gamma) \,\, .
\end{array}
\]

Let us comment
equation~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative}), which is the core of the paper.
The selection of the optimal trading rule
from the prospective of the {\it relative} value
has led us to reduce our task to an optimization problem with
a stochastic return driven by a finite-state Markovian chain.
The problem can be then faced with elementary probability theory
in discrete spaces!

In the following we shall find the
solution for $\{l\}$ and $\{ \Delta \} $ which optimize the
growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative}).
We consider then an ansatz, with $l$ and $\{ \Delta^+, \Delta^- \}$
independent from the initial {\it state},
which appears quite natural
in the case of absence of memory for the underlying process,
we are dealing with in this paper.
We discuss in detail this approximation underlining why it can be
relevant for practical purposes
and compare the results with the {\it absolute} value approach.

\subsection{Exact solution}

We have shown how the
portfolio selection in presence of
transaction costs
has been mapped into a Markovian
problem in absence of costs.
We find here the optimal solution
following the same route of previous section
maximizing first $\{ l \} $ and then finding the optimal barriers.

The two optimal values of $l$ are
\begin{equation}
\begin {array} {ccl}
 l_a(\Delta_a^+,\Delta_a^-) &=&
 {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{1-\exp(-\Delta_a^-)} -
  \frac{1-\alpha}{\exp(\Delta_a^+)-1}} \\
 l_b(\Delta_b^+,\Delta_b^-) &=&
 {\displaystyle \frac{1-\beta}{1-\exp(-\Delta_b^-)} -
 \frac{\beta}{\exp(\Delta_b^+)-1}} \,\,.
 \end{array}
\label{eq:l relative}
\end{equation}
Substituting $l_a$ and $l_b$ in~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative}) one obtains
\begin{equation}
 \lambda =
  \frac{\sum_{\xi,\eta} p_\xi V_{\xi \eta}
	\ln {\displaystyle \frac{V_{\xi \eta}}{Q_{\xi \eta}} } }
       {\sum_{\xi}p_\xi {\cal T}_\xi} \,\, ,
\label{eq:lyapunov relative solution}
\end{equation}
where
\[
Q = \left( \begin {array} {cc}
	1-q_a &  q_a \\
	 q_b   &  1 - q_b
 \end{array}  \right) \,\,,
\]
with
\[
\left\{ \begin {array} {ccl}
	q_a & = & 1 - q(\Delta^+_{a},\Delta^-_{a}) \\
	q_b  & = & q(\Delta^+_{b},\Delta^-_{b})  \,\, .
 \end{array}  \right.
\]

We notice that
the numerator of equation~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative solution})
is for a Markov chain the quantity equivalent to the
Kullback entropy of equation~(\ref{eq:lyapunov Kelly}),
obtained in the no memory case:
this is the {\it available} information
introduced in a simpler case by~\cite{BavPasSerVerVul}.

Let us stress that, for fixed barriers $\{ \Delta \} $,
the optimal growth rate of speculator's capital
is linked to the Shannon entropy of the
underlying process
and then in general to a measurable quantity
even if transaction costs are present.

The speculator tries then to select the barriers $\Delta$
that maximize the information
per unit of time~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative solution})
associated to the process.
We observe in equations~(\ref{eq:cases})
that the trader pays costs only when he changes his {\it state}:
every modification of his portfolio still remaining in the same {\it state}
costs nothing.
Of course he will use this {\it free} opportunity to rebalance
his portfolio as often as he can, i.e
\begin{equation}
 \Delta^-_a,\Delta^+_b \to 0 \,\, .
\label{eq:Delta limite zero}
\end{equation}

In this case the growth rate of the capital becomes:
\begin{equation}
 \lambda(\Delta^+_a,\Delta^-_b) = \mu \,\,
  {\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\beta} \left(
	\tilde{\alpha} \ln
  {\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\alpha}}{\tilde{q_a}}} +
	\tilde{q_a}-\tilde{\alpha} \right) +
	\tilde{\alpha} \left(
	\tilde{\beta} \ln
  {\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\beta}}{\tilde{q_b}}} +
	\tilde{q_b}-\tilde{\beta} \right)}
       {\tilde{\beta} \left(-1+(\Delta^+_a+\gamma)\tilde{\alpha}) \right) +
	\tilde{\alpha} \left(1-(\Delta^-_b+\gamma)\tilde{\beta}) \right)}}
	\,\, ,
\label{eq:lyapunov relative zero}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\left\{
 \begin {array} {ccl}
  \tilde{\alpha} & = & {\displaystyle
   \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial \Delta^{-}_a}|_{\Delta^{-}_a=0}}\\
  \tilde{q_a} & = & {\displaystyle
   \frac{\partial q_a}{\partial \Delta^{-}_a}|_{\Delta^{-}_a=0}}
\end{array} \right. {\mathrm and} \,\,
\left\{	\begin {array} {ccl}
	 \tilde{\beta} & = & {\displaystyle
   \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial \Delta^{+}_b}|_{\Delta^{+}_b=0}}\\
	 \tilde{q_b} & = & {\displaystyle
   \frac{\partial q_b}{\partial \Delta^{+}_b}|_{\Delta^{+}_b=0}} \,\, .
\end{array} \right.
\]
We notice that even in this case
the growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative zero}) is a non increasing
function of its arguments.

The optimal fractions~(\ref{eq:l relative}) become
\begin{equation}
 \begin {array} {ccl}
l_a (\Delta^{+}_a) & = & \tilde{\alpha} - \tilde{q_a}\\
l_b (\Delta^{-}_b) & = & \tilde{q_b} - \tilde{\beta} \,\,.
\end{array}
\label{eq:l relative zero}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bou_scri.eps}}
  \protect\caption{The values of $\Delta$s allowed by
conditions~(\ref{eq:l limits III})
for $\mu / \sigma^2 =0.1$ and $\gamma=0.01$.
The full line represents $\nu^{-1}_a \left[ l_b(\Delta^-_b) \right]$
and the dashed
$\nu^{-1}_b \left[ l_a(\Delta^+_a) \right]$.}
  \label{fig:l limits}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

We remind that we are looking for a solution where the trader sells
at the higher price and buys at the lower, and then we have to check that
conditions~(\ref{eq:l limits}) are satisfied, which imply:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin {array} {ccccl}
 \nu_a(\Delta^+_a) & \equiv &
   {\displaystyle \frac{ e^{\Delta^+_a}\,l_a(\Delta^+_a)}
	{1+ (e^{\Delta^+_a}-1)\,l_a(\Delta^+_a) }}
	 & \geq &l_b(\Delta^-_b)\\
 \nu_b(\Delta^-_b) & \equiv &
  {\displaystyle \frac{ e^{-\Delta^-_b}\, l_b(\Delta^-_b)}
	{1+ (e^{-\Delta^-_b}-1)\, l_b(\Delta^-_b)}}
	 & \leq &l_a(\Delta^+_a) \,\,.
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:l limits II}
\end{equation}

It is easy to verify that $\nu_\xi$ are monotone and in particular
$\nu_a$ is a strictly increasing function of its argument and
 $\nu_b$ strictly decreasing.
Inverting~(\ref{eq:l limits II}) one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
	\begin {array} {ccl}
	 \Delta^+_a & \geq &\nu^{-1}_a \left[ l_b(\Delta^-_b) \right]\\
	 \Delta^-_b & \geq &\nu^{-1}_b \left[ l_a(\Delta^+_a) \right] \,\,.
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:l limits III}
\end{equation}

In Figure~\ref{fig:l limits} we have shown the region
of $\Delta$s allowed by condition~(\ref{eq:l limits III}).
We observe in particular that
$\nu^{-1}_a \left[ l_b(\Delta^-_b) \right]$
and
$\nu^{-1}_b \left[ l_a(\Delta^+_a) \right]$
cross at the point $\Delta^+_a = \Delta^-_b = \Delta$
where $\Delta$ is given by equation
\begin{equation}
 \frac{2 \mu}{\sigma^2} \sinh\left(\frac{\Delta}{2} \right) =
 \sinh \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2} \left( \Delta +\gamma \right) \,\,.
\label{eq:soluzione barriera}
\end{equation}
We notice that it is possible to show after
some algebra that
the tangents of the two curves are parallel to the axes
in the crossing point
$(\Delta^+_a , \Delta^-_b = \Delta)$.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{DeltaSol.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Optimal values of $\Delta$ {\it vs} $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$ for $\gamma=0.01$.}
  \label{fig:Delta relative exact}
 \end{center}
\vspace{1.2cm}
 \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lSoluz.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Optimal values of $l_a$ and $l_b$ {\it vs}
  $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$.
  The fraction of the capital $l_a$ is greater than
  the value $l^*$ obtained in absence of costs (dot dashed line)
  while $l_b$ is lower.
  The dashed line corresponds to the value of $\gamma=0.1$
  and the full line to $\gamma=0.01$.}
  \label{fig:l relative exact}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

Equation~(\ref{eq:soluzione barriera}) gives the optimal choice
for the barriers
of the portfolio selection problem in presence of transaction costs,
because the growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative zero})
is a non increasing function of the two barriers.

In Figure~\ref{fig:Delta relative exact}
we plot the optimal values of $\Delta$ as a function of $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$
obtained from equation~(\ref{eq:soluzione barriera})
for a particular choice of $\gamma$
observing that $\Delta$ goes to infinity when  $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$
approaches $1$.
We have considered only the positive values because
$\Delta$ is an even function of $\mu$.

One can also show that
$(\Delta^-_a , \Delta^+_b =0;\Delta^+_a , \Delta^-_b = \Delta)$
is the only point where the gradient of
the growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative solution})
is the null vector.
This fact is particularly relevant for a speculator,
because the optimal solution, as a consequence
of~(\ref{eq:Delta limite zero}), requires on average
to rebalance the portfolio after a time equal to zero.
A null gradient of the capital growth rate
on the optimal solution implies,
as in the absence of costs case,
that a suboptimal choice of the barriers causes a small
error in the capital growth rate.

In Figure~\ref{fig:l relative exact} we have shown the values
of $l_\xi$~(\ref{eq:l relative zero})  on the optimal solution
for $\Delta$s~(\ref{eq:soluzione barriera}) for two different values
of $\gamma$ and the fraction $l^*$ of the capital
in the no cost case~(\ref{eq:l Kelly}).
After some algebra one can obtain that
\begin{equation}
\begin {array} {c}
l_a(\tilde{\Delta}) =  2 l^* - l_b(\tilde{\Delta}) \,\,,
\end{array}
\label{eq:l relatione}
\end{equation}
i.e. $l^*$ is the mean value of
$l_a(\tilde{\Delta})$ and $l_b(\tilde{\Delta})$ for all $\tilde{\Delta}$
and in particular on the optimal solution~(\ref{eq:soluzione barriera}).

The optimal growth rate of the portfolio in presence of transaction costs is
\begin{equation}
 \lambda_{O} =
  \frac{\sigma^2}{2} l_a(\Delta) l_b(\Delta) \leq \lambda^* \,\, ,
\label{eq:lyapunov solution relative}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda^*$ is the one obtained in the no-costs
case~(\ref{eq:lyapunov Kelly optimal}).
We notice that the optimal growth rate of the capital is
proportional to
the square of the geometric average of $l_a$ and $l_b$
and $\lambda^*$ to the square of their arithmetic average.
The geometric average is always lower or equal to the arithmetic average
$l^*$ and equal only when $l_a=l_b$, i.e. for $2\mu/\sigma^2=-1,1$.
This fact has a simple interpretation:
these are the cases where the trader maintains his position for ever;
in these situations no costs are payed, except at least once
when the investment begins.

\subsection{An approximate solution}

In this subsection we consider
the simplest ansatz for speculator's strategy:
it will allow us to compare the two approaches of the {\it relative}
and {\it absolute} value and to suggest a feasible approximation
of the optimal trading rule.
We choose both the barriers and the fraction independent
on the initial {\it state} $\xi$.
This should be a reasonable approximation,
as explained in the no-costs case,
because we are dealing with a no memory process
and a growth rate maximizer.
We notice that conditions~(\ref{eq:l limits}) are automatically
satisfied once we have chosen a time independent value of $l$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lyapAbs.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Capital growth rate for the optimal choice of $l$
as a function of $\Delta^+$ and $\Delta^-$.
The parameters are $\mu=0.1$, $\sigma=1$, $\gamma=0.01$.}
  \label{fig:lyapunov absolute costs}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

The capital growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov relative}) becomes
\begin{equation}
 \lambda =
  \frac{ p \ln \left[1+l(\exp(-\Delta^-)-1)\right] +
     (1-p) \ln \left[1+l(\exp(\Delta^+)-1)\right]}
       {p {\cal T}_a + (1-p) {\cal T}_b} \,\, ,
\label{eq:lyapunov approx relative}
\end{equation}
where $p=\beta/(\alpha + \beta)$.
\begin{figure}
 \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{relDelta.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Optimal values of $\Delta^-$ (full line) and $\Delta^+$ (dashed line) {\it vs} $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$ for $\gamma=0.01$.}
  \label{fig:delta relative costs}
\end{center}
\vspace{1.2cm}
\begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lApproximate.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Optimal values of $l$ {\it vs}
  $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$. The dashed line corresponds to the value of $\gamma=0.1$
  and the full line to $\gamma=0.01$.
  We have plotted also the value of $l$ in absence of costs (dot dashed line).}
  \label{fig:l absolute costs}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

We have mapped the problem into one in absence of costs
considered in section {\bf 3}
with probability $p$ to exit from the lower barrier
and average exit time ${\cal T}= p {\cal T}_a + (1-p) {\cal T}_b$.
The optimal value of $l$ is given by equation~(\ref{eq:l Kelly}).
Substituting this value in equation~(\ref{eq:lyapunov approx relative}) one
obtains again that the growth rate can be written as
the ratio between the Kullback entropy~(\ref{eq:lyapunov Kelly})
and the average exit time ${\cal T}$.

In Figure~\ref{fig:lyapunov absolute costs} we have plotted
the capital growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov discrete})
as a function of the barriers
$\Delta^+$ and $\Delta^-$
calculated for the optimal $l$~(\ref{eq:l Kelly}).
We observe that the maximum is reached
for finite values of the barriers.
Thus
the speculator (on average) changes his portfolio
after a finite time,
i.e. he follows a discrete time
trading rule.

In Figure~\ref{fig:delta relative costs} we plot
the values of the barriers for which the optimal growth rate
is reached.
The fraction $l$ of the capital computed
on the optimal barriers has been plotted
in Figure~\ref{fig:l absolute costs}.
We notice that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta^-(-\mu) & = & \Delta^+(\mu) \\
\Delta^+(-\mu) & = & \Delta^-(\mu) \\
l(-\mu)         & = & 1-l(\mu)
\end{eqnarray*}
as a consequence of the symmetry
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{-\mu}(l;\Delta^+,\Delta^-)=\lambda_{\mu}(1-l;\Delta^-,\Delta^+)-\mu
\label{eq:simmetry}
\end{equation}
of the capital growth rate~(\ref{eq:lyapunov approx relative}).

\begin{figure}[htb]
 \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{lyapSol.eps}}
  \protect\caption{Comparison between the capital growth rate of the
  approximate solutions $\lambda$ rescaled with the exact one $\lambda_O$
  as a function of $2 \mu/ \sigma^2$ for $\gamma =0.1$.
  The dashed line indicates the {\it absolute} value case
  (see appendix {\bf B}) and
  the full line the {\it relative} value case.}
  \label{fig:lyap comparisons}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

In Figure~\ref{fig:lyap comparisons} we
compare the optimal capital growth rate
with the approximate ones
obtained by the
two approaches ({\it absolute} and {\it relative}).
We notice that the differences between the two
are negligible
even for a so large (and unrealistic) transaction cost.
Furthermore the error committed
considering these approximate solutions
instead of the exact one is small
even for large $\gamma$.
As we would expect,
it is then reasonable, except for very small values of $\mu$,
to limit a trading rule to a time independent $l$,
if no memory is present in the return process.

\section{Conclusions}

We have considered in this paper a new point of view
to treat the transaction costs problem.
This approach focuses only on the times the trader modifies
his position.
In the diversification of his portfolio the asset value (of all assets!)
depends on the trade (bid or ask) he is performing and
then it is {\it relative} to the market operator.
This approach presents several advantages
compared with the ``traditional'' convention of the
{\it absolute} value.

The portfolio selection has been transformed to
a Markovian problem in absence of costs.
We have connected the quantities of interest
(growth rate and optimal portfolio strategy)
to the average exit times and probabilities
to reach a barrier.
If the returns can be modeled by a Wiener process,
as assumed in this paper,
both quantities
can be computed using elementary
probability theory,
allowing to have analytic formulas
for both the
strategy ($l$ and $\Delta$s)
and capital growth rate of the optimal solution.
More generally, however,
the same technique can be easily extended to all the
utilities in the HARA class and
this approach allows a straightforward generalization
to the case with memory;
it is then particularly relevant in the case of a real market,
where exit times and probabilities to
reach a barrier can be measured directly
from a historical dataset~\cite{BavVer}.

We have shown that the exact solution of the problem
in presence of transaction costs
breaks the time invariance of the investment.
However such a strategy is not feasible in practice
because the speculator should modify
his portfolio after a time which is on average zero.
In subsection {\bf 4.2}
we have considered a suboptimal strategy
feasible for a speculator who wants to use it.
This strategy,
where the broken symmetry is restored,
shows small differences in the capital growth rate
with respect to the optimal one and
involves only
a finite number of transactions in finite time.

We want to stress here that in real markets the
variation of the returns are discrete and
of the same order of magnitude
as the transaction cost $\gamma$.
To extend
this approach to this more realistic
case is enough to consider
the probability and the average time to exit from
the barriers
in the discrete case shown in appendix {\bf A}.

Even in the case the costs to transact
are included,
the selection of a log-optimal portfolio
depends on
the information {\it \`a la} Shannon of the asset price:
in the general case this quantity can be measured on real data
and it can be computed analytically if an elementary
model for the returns is assumed.
The Wiener process
can be considered a toy model for asset returns,
nevertheless for a speculator who waits until
relevant changes in the returns appear,
this model catches the essential features
of the portfolio selection,
leading to a deeper understanding
of the role of approximate but feasible
strategies.

\section*{Acknowledgment}

We thank Markus Abel for a careful reading of the manuscript,
Massimo Cencini for an enlightening conversation about Markovian processes,
Filippo Cesi for a nice discussion on exit times in Wiener processes,
Michele Pasquini, Maurizio Serva and Davide Vergni
for several comments and suggestions on the subject,
Angelo Vulpiani for a huge number of discussions about Kelly's
strategies and my father for a never-ending encouragement during
all this work.

\section*{Appendix A}


\section{Introduction}

The transfer of quantum information between distant nodes, as part of
cryptographic or computing schemes, is hampered by the
losses and particularly the decoherence
incurred by the communication channel, as well as by the lack of
sources that produce {\em perfectly} entangled states
\cite{Bennett}.
Various
schemes based
on unitary operations and measurements of redundant variables
\cite{Purif} or filtering \cite{Horod}
have been suggested to overcome these problems.
A notable scheme aimed at improving the entanglement of qubits shared by
distant nodes is quantum privacy amplification (QPA) \cite{QPA}. We have
recently suggested a modification to the QPA, based on conditional
measurement (CM) which is designed to select an optimal subensemble of
partly correlated qubits
according to criteria that ensure significant improvement in the resulting
entanglement (or fidelity), along with high success probability of CM
\cite{OK99}.

The present paper is motivated by a similar need for improving the
recently
studied
scheme of teleportation of continuous variables
\cite{BK98,Furusawa} (see also \cite{Ralph,Loock,Milburn}), in the spirit of
the original Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen idea \cite{EPR}.
The chances of realizing
such teleportation are limited by the available squeezing of the entangled
two-mode state.
We show that the scheme
can be improved by CM modifying the entangled state.
Transmitting each mode of the two-mode squeezed vacuum
through a low-reflectivity beam splitter and detecting photons
in the reflected beams, the transmitted modes are prepared in
an entangled state which differ from the original one in the photons
subtracted by the measurement. Teleportation is performed
if the two detectors simultaneously register photons.
In this case CM increases the degree of entanglement of the shared
state, and an increased fidelity of the teleported state is observed.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=3in,angle=-90]{schema1.eps}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Teleportation scheme: An input state $\hat \varrho_{\rm in}$ is destroyed by
measurement and it appears, with certain fidelity, at a distant
node
as $\hat \varrho_{\rm out}$. The essential means is the entangled state
created as a two-mode squeezed vacuum in the box ENT. The degree of
entanglement is improved by CM of the numbers of photons
$n_1$ and $n_2$ reflected at the
beam-splitters BS$_1$ and BS$_2$. After mixing the input mode prepared
in the state $\hat \varrho_{\rm in}$ with mode $1$ of the entangled state,
the quadrature components $\hat{x}_0$ and $\hat{p}_1$ are measured and
their values $X_0$ and $P_1$ are communicated by Alice to Bob via
classical channels (dotted lines). Using these values as displacement
parameters for shifting the quantum state of mode $2$ on the beam
splitter BS$_{\rm out}$, Bob creates the output state
$\hat \varrho_{\rm out}$ which imitates $\hat \varrho_{\rm in}$.
}
\label{fschem}
\end{figure}

Let us note that the approach to purification studied in
\cite{Parker} for continuous variables -- an approach analogous
to that for spin variables in \cite{Bennett,Purif,QPA} -- does
not apply to Gaussian entangled states (i.e. states whose
Wigner functions are Gaussians).
To see this, we recall that the approach uses
beam-splitter transformations
in combination with quadrature-component measurements.
The
beam splitter transformations can be
represented by rotations in
the multi-mode phase space,
and each
quadrature measurement corresponds to a partial integration over a
two-dimensional subspace.
Hence when the original state is Gaussian, then
rotations and projections of the state ellipsoid onto lower
dimensional ellipsoids must be performed, and
it is clear that by this
procedure we can never get a narrower ellipsoid
(which would correspond to a more strongly entangled state)
than the original one.
Basing on different arguments, the same conclusion is
drawn in \cite{Parker} and therefore the attention has been
restricted to non-Gaussian entangled states.
Alternatively, other than quadrature-component measurement
can be tried to be utilized -- an approach to the problem
which will be used in what follows.

\section{Teleportation scheme}

For teleporting
an unknown quantum state $\hat \varrho_{\rm in}$
of a single-mode optical field from one
node
to another one,
the sender (Alice) and the recipient (Bob) must
share a common two-mode entangled  state. Let us first
recall the original teleportation scheme for continuous variables
as proposed in \cite{BK98}
(see Fig.~\ref{fschem} without the beam-splitters BS$_1$ and BS$_2$).
The entangled state is a
two-mode squeezed vacuum, which, in the Fock basis, can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
 |\psi_{E}\rangle = \sqrt{1-q^2} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n
 |n\rangle_{1}|n\rangle_{2} \,,
 \label{e1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the indices $1$ and $2$ refer to the two modes, and $q$,
\mbox{$0$ $\!<$ $\!q$ $\!<1$},
is a parameter quantifying the strength of squeezing. The first
mode is mixed, on a $50$\%/$50$\% beam splitter BS$_0$, with the
input mode prepared in a state $\hat\varrho_{\rm in}$ Alice
wishes to teleport.
Homodyne detections are performed on the two output modes of
the beam splitter BS$_0$ (using the local oscillators LO$_{0}$
and LO$_{1}$) in order to measure the conjugate quadrature components
$\hat x_{0}$ and $\hat p_{1}$.
By sending classical information, Alice communicates the measured values
$X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$ to Bob, who
uses the value $\sqrt{2}(X_{0}$ $\!+$ $\! iP_{1})$
as a displacement parameter for shifting the quantum state of the
second mode of the entangled state. The resulting quantum state
$\hat \varrho_{\rm out}$ then imitates $\hat \varrho_{\rm in}$.
The two states become identical, $\hat \varrho_{\rm out}$
$\!\to$ $\!\hat \varrho_{\rm in}$, in the limit of infinite squeezing,
\mbox{$q$ $\!\to$ $\!1$}.

\subsection{Transformation of the states in quadrature representation}

We restrict ourselves, for simplicity, to pure states and  describe the
transformations in the $\hat x_{j}$ quadrature-component representation
[$\hat x_{j}$ $\!=$
$\!2^{-1/2}(\hat a_{j}$ $\! +$ $\! \hat a_{j}^{\dag})$,
$\hat p_{j}$ $\!=$
$\!-2^{-1/2}i(\hat a_{j}$ $\! -$ $\! \hat a_{j}^{\dag})$,
\mbox{$j$ $\! =$ $\! 0,1,2$}]. Let the input-state wave function
be $\psi_{0}(x_{0})$ $\!\equiv$ $\!\psi_{\rm in}(x_{0})$
and  the entangled state have the wave function
$\psi_{E}(x_{1},x_{2})$, so that the initial
overall
wave function is
\begin{eqnarray}
 \psi_{I}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2}) = \psi_{0}(x_{0})\psi_{E}(x_{1},x_{2}) .
\end{eqnarray}
We consider the scheme in Fig.~\ref{fschem} without
the beam splitters BS$_1$ and BS$_2$.
Assuming the beam-splitter BS$_0$ mixes the quadratures
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat  x_{0} & \to & 2^{-1/2}(\hat x_{1} + \hat x_{0}) , \nonumber \\
\hat  x_{1} & \to & 2^{-1/2}(\hat x_{1} - \hat x_{0}) ,
\end{eqnarray}
the transformed wave function is
\begin{eqnarray}
 \psi_{II}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2}) = \psi_{0}\!\left(\frac{x_{1} + x_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}
 \right)
 \psi_{E}\!\left(\frac{x_{1}- x_{0}}{\sqrt{2}},x_{2}\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Measuring the quadratures $\hat x_{0}$ and $\hat p_{1}$ to
obtain the values $X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$, the
(unnormalized) wave function of the mode $2$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
 \psi_{X_{0},P_{1}}(x_{2})
= (2\pi)^{-1/2}
 \int dx_{1} \ e^{-i P_{1}x_{1}} }\nonumber \\ &&
 \hspace*{4ex}\times\,
 \psi_{0}\!\left(\frac{x_{1} + X_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)
 \psi_{E}\!\left(\frac{x_{1}- X_{0}}{\sqrt{2}},x_{2}\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
The probability density of measuring the values $X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal P}(X_{0},P_{1})
= \int dx_{2} | \psi_{X_{0},P_{1}}(x_{2})|^{2} .
 \label{prob}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the measured values  $X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$ to
realize a displacement transformation on the mode $2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
 \hat  x_{2} & \to & \hat x_{2} - \sqrt{2} X_{0} , \nonumber \\
 \hat  p_{2} & \to & \hat p_{2} + \sqrt{2} P_{1} ,
\end{eqnarray}
the resulting (unnormalized)
wave function of the mode is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
 \psi_{\rm out}(x_{2})
= (2\pi)^{-1/2}
 \int dx_{1} \ e^{i P_{1}(\sqrt{2}x_{2} - x_{1})} }\nonumber \\ &&
 \hspace*{2ex}\times\,
 \psi_{0}\!\left(\frac{x_{1} + X_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)
 \psi_{E}\!\left(\frac{x_{1}- X_{0}}{\sqrt{2}},x_{2}-\sqrt{2} X_{0}\right) .
 \label{e-transf}
\end{eqnarray}

An infinitely squeezed two-mode vacuum, $q$ $\!\to$ $\!1$
in Eq.~(\ref{e1}),
can be described, apart from normalization, by the Dirac delta function,
\begin{eqnarray}
 \psi_{E}(x_{1},x_{2}) \to \delta(x_{1}-x_{2}) .
\end{eqnarray}
It can easily be checked that Eq.~(\ref{e-transf}) then reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
 \psi_{\rm out}(x_{2}) \to \psi_{0}(x_{2}) ,
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., the input quantum state is perfectly teleported.
It remains the question of how to improve the fidelity of
teleportation when, as in practice, $\psi_{E}(x_{1},x_{2})$
is not infitely squeezed.

\subsection{Transformation to the Fock basis}

For the following it will be convenient to change over to the
Fock basis. Let us express the input-state wave function in the form of
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{0}(x_{0}) = \sum_{n} a_{n}^{(0)} \varphi_{n}(x_{0}) ,
\label{a-expand}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\varphi_{n}(x_{0})$ being the harmonic oscillator energy eigenfunctions
\begin{eqnarray}
  \varphi_{n}(x_{0}) = \left(2^n n! \sqrt{\pi}\right)^{-1/2}
  e^{-x_{0}^2/2} H_{n}(x_{0}) ,
\end{eqnarray}
$H_{n}(x_{0})$ being the Hermite polynomial,
and let the entangled state  $\psi_{E}(x_{1},x_{2})$ be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
  \psi_{E}(x_{1},x_{2}) = \sum_{k,l} a_{k,l}^{(E)}
  \varphi_{k}(x_{1}) \varphi_{l}(x_{2}) .
  \label{entexp}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to find the coefficients $b_{m}(X_0,P_1)$ of the Fock state
expansion of the (unnormalized) wave function of the teleported
quantum state
\begin{eqnarray}
 \psi_{\rm out}(x_{2}) = \sum_{m} b_{m}(X_0,P_1) \varphi_{m}(x_{2}) ,
 \label{b-expand}
\end{eqnarray}
we insert $\psi_{\rm out}(x_{2})$ from Eq.~(\ref{e-transf}) into
Eq.~(\ref{b-expand})
and obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
b_{m}(X_{0},P_{1})
= \sum_{n} C_{m,n}(X_{0},P_{1}) a_{n},
 \label{outFock}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{m,n}(X_{0},P_{1})$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
 C_{m,n}(X_{0},P_{1}) = (2\pi)^{-1/2} \sum_{k,l}
 B_{m,k}(X_{0},P_{1}) }\nonumber \\ &&
 \hspace*{18ex}\times\, a_{k,l}^{(E)}  D_{l,n}(X_{0},P_{1}),
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
 B_{m,k}(X_{0},P_{1}) = \int dx_{2}\ e^{i\sqrt{2}P_{1}x_{2}}
 \varphi_{m}(x_{2}) }\nonumber \\ &&
 \hspace*{18ex}\times \, \varphi_{k}\!\left( x_{2} \!-\!\sqrt{2} X_{0}\right)
 \label{bint}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
 D_{l,n}(X_{0},P_{1}) = \int dx_{1}\ e^{-iP_{1}x_{1}}
 \varphi_{l}\!\left( \frac{x_{1}\!-\!X_{0}}{\sqrt{2}} \right)
 } \nonumber \\ &&
 \hspace*{18ex}\times\,
 \varphi_{n}\!\left( \frac{x_{1}\! +\! X_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}\right) .
 \label{dint}
\end{eqnarray}
The integrals in Eqs.~(\ref{bint}) and (\ref{dint}) can be expressed in
a closed form yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
 B_{m,k}(X_{0},P_{1}) = \sqrt{2^{k-m}}\sqrt{\frac{m!}{k!}}
 \left( -\frac{X_{0}\!-\!iP_{1}}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^{k\!-\!m}
 \nonumber \\
 \times \exp \left( -\frac{X_{0}^{2}\!+\!P_{1}^{2}}{2} \right)
 L_{m}^{k-m} \left( X_{0}^{2}\!+\!P_{1}^{2} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
for $k$ $\!\ge$ $\! m$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
 B_{k,m}(X_{0},P_{1}) = (-1)^{k-m} B_{m,k}^{*}(X_{0},P_{1}),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
 D_{l,n}(X_{0},P_{1}) = \sqrt{2} B_{l,n}^{*}(X_{0},P_{1}) ,
\end{eqnarray}
$L_{m}^{\alpha}(y)$ being the (associated) Laguerre polynomial.

\subsection{Probability, fidelity, and averaged state}

Using the expansion (\ref{b-expand}), the probability density
of measuring $X_0$ and $P_1$, Eq.~(\ref{prob}), reads as
\begin{eqnarray}
 {\cal P}(X_{0},P_{1}) = \sum_{m} \left| b_{m} (X_{0},P_{1})\right|^{2}.
\label{probX0P1}
\end{eqnarray}
The fidelity of teleportation is defined by the overlap of the
input quantum state with the
(normalized) output quantum state. From Eqs.~(\ref{a-expand}),
(\ref{b-expand}), and (\ref{probX0P1}) it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
 F(X_{0},P_{1}) =
 {\cal P}^{-1}(X_{0},P_{1})
 \sum_{n} \left| a_{n}^{*} b_{n} (X_{0},P_{1})\right|^{2}.
\label{fidelity}
\end{eqnarray}

So far we have considered the output state under the condition of a particular
measurement outcome $(X_{0},P_{1})$.
When we ignore the outcome
and many teleportations take place, then the resulting output
state behaves like a mixture with the
(unnormalized)
density matrix elements
\begin{eqnarray}
 \varrho_{m,m'} = \int dX_{0} \int dP_{1} \, b_{m}^{*}(X_{0},P_{1})
 b_{m'}(X_{0},P_{1}).
\end{eqnarray}
The averaged fidelity in the Fock basis is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
 F & = & \int dX_{0} \ \int dP_{1} F(X_{0},P_{1})
 {\cal P}^{-1}(X_{0},P_{1}) \nonumber \\
 & = & \sum_{m,m'} a^{*}_{m}  \varrho_{m,m'} a_{m'} .
 \label{fidelita}
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Improving entanglement by conditional photon-number measurement}

As already mentioned, perfect teleportation
requires an infinitely squeezed vacuum, which
is, of course, not available.
The fidelity of the teleported state decreases
with decreasing squeezing. Our objective here is to increase
the fidelity by improving
the entanglement properties of the shared state using conditional
photon-number measurements. It has been shown
that when a single-mode squeezed vacuum
is transmitted through a beam splitter
and a photon-number measurement is performed on the reflected beam,
then a Schr\"{o}dinger-cat-like state is generated \cite{Dakna}.
Even though photons have been subtracted, the mean number of
photons remaining in the transmitted state has increased.

\subsection{Conditionally entangled state}

Let us apply this concept of CM to a two-mode squeezed vacuum and assume
that each mode is transmitted through a low-reflectivity beam splitter
(BS$_j$ in Fig.~\ref{fschem}, $j$ $\!=$ $\!1,2$)
and the numbers of reflected photons $n_{j}$ are detected.
Each beam splitter BS$_j$ is described by a transformation matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
 T_{j} = \left(
 \begin{array}{rr}
 t_{j} & r_{j} \\
 -r_{j} & t_{j}
 \end{array}
   \right)
\end{eqnarray}
with real transmittance $t_{j}$ and real reflectance $r_{j}$,
for simplicity. These matrices act on the
operators of the input modes.
After detecting $n_{j}$ photons in the reflected modes, the Fock states
$|k_{j}\rangle$ transform as ($n_{j} \le k_{j}$)
\begin{eqnarray}
 |k_{j}\rangle \to (-1)^{n_{j}}\sqrt{\left(
 \begin{array}{c}
 k_{j} \\ n_{j}
 \end{array}
  \right)} |r_{j}|^{n_{j}} |t_{j}|^{k_{j}-n_{j}} |k_{j}-n_{j} \rangle
\end{eqnarray}
(for details and more general beam-splitter
transformations, see \cite{Dakna,Dakna1}).

The expansion coefficients $a_{k,l}^{(E)}$ of the entangled
two-mode wave function (\ref{entexp}) are then transformed into
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
 a_{k,l}^{(E,\, {\rm new})}
 = (-1)^{n_{1}\!+\!n_{2}} \sqrt{\frac{(k\!+\!n_{1})!(l\!+\!n_{2})!}
 {k!\ l!\ n_{1}!\ n_{2}!}}
 }\nonumber \\ &&
 \hspace*{15ex}\times \, |r_{1}|^{n_{1}} |r_{2}|^{n_{2}}
 |t_{1}|^{k} |t_{2}|^{l}
  a_{k+n_{1},l+n_{2}}^{(E,\, {\rm old})} .
\label{coefficient}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in this form the wave function is not normalized. The sum of
the squares of moduli of the coefficients $a_{k,l}^{(E,\, {\rm new})}$
gives the probability of the measurement results $n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$.
When the original entangled state a the two-mode squeezed vacuum,
Eq.~(\ref{e1}), i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
 a_{k,l}^{(E,\, {\rm old})} = \sqrt{1-q^2} \ q^k \delta _{k,l},
 \label{aeold}
\end{eqnarray}
then the expansion coefficients (\ref{coefficient}) of the new state read
\begin{eqnarray}
 a_{k,l}^{(E,\, {\rm new})} = (-1)^{n_{1}\!+\!n_{2}}
 \frac{\sqrt{1-q^2}\ (k\!+\!n_{1})!}
 {\sqrt{k!\ (k\!+\!n_{1}\!-\!n_{2})!\ n_{1}!\ n_{2}!}}
 \nonumber \\
 \times \, |r_{1}|^{n_{1}} |r_{2}|^{n_{2}}
 |t_{1}|^{k} |t_{2}|^{k+n_{1}-n_{2}} q^{k+n_{1}}
 \delta_{k+n_{1},l+n_{2}} \,.
 \label{aenew}
\end{eqnarray}
The most important property of this expression is that the polynomial increase
with $k$ can, for small values of $k$, overcome the exponential decrease
$(q|t_{1}t_{2}|)^{k}$ and thus increase the mean number of photons. This is
especially the case when $|t_{j}|$ is close to unity, i.e. large transmittance
of the beam splitters. The price for that is, however, a decrease in the
probability of detecting the photons.

\subsection{Entropy as entanglement measure}

The increase of the degree of entanglement of the shared state
produced by CM can be quantified by comparing it with the
original degree of entanglement. Even though there is no unique
definition of a measure of entanglement for {\em mixed\/} states,
there is a consensus on defining the degree of entanglement $E$ of
a two-component system prepared in a {\em pure\/} state
as the von Neumann entropy of a component. The calculation of the
partial entropies of the state in Eq.~(\ref{entexp})
together with either Eq.~(\ref{aeold}) or (\ref{aenew}) is
simple as the traced states are diagonal in the Fock basis.
We derive
\begin{eqnarray}
E = - \frac{\sum_{k} |a_{k,k\!+\!n_{1}\!-\!n_{2}}^{(E\,{\rm new})}|^2
 \log |a_{k,k\!+\!n_{1}\!-\!n_{2}}^{(E\,{\rm new})}|^2 }
 {\sum_{k} |a_{k,k\!+\!n_{1}\!-\!n_{2}}^{(E\,{\rm new})}|^2}
\end{eqnarray}
($k$ $\!+$ $\!n_{1}$ $\!-$ $\!n_{2}$ $\!\ge$ $\!0$; note that
the entropies of the two components are equal to each other).
If the logarithm base is chosen to be equal to 2, then the entanglement
is measured in bits (or e-bits).

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=2.8in,angle=-90]{fentrnc.eps}
\end{tabular}
}\caption{
Degree of entanglement
(in bits) of the
two-mode state in Eq.~(\protect\ref{entexp}) together with
Eq.~(\protect\ref{aenew})
as a function of the reflectance
$r$ $\!=$ $\!r_{1}$ $\!=$ $\!r_{2}$
of the beam splitters BS$_1$ and BS$_2$ in Fig.~\protect\ref{fschem} for
different numbers of detected photons, $n_{1}$ $\!=$ $\!n_{2}$ $\!=$
$\!0,1,2,3,4$. The dashed line indicates the
degree of entanglement
of the original squeezed vacuum, $q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$.
Inset: probability of
detecting $n_{1}$ $\!=$ $\!n_{2}$ $\!=$ $\!1,2,3$ photons
as a function of the beam-splitter reflectance $r$.
}
\label{fentr1}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{fentr1} we have shown the dependence of the
degree of entanglement
and the detection probability on the
beam-splitter reflectance for different numbers of detected photons,
$n_{1}$ $\!=$ $\!n_{2}$. The original squeezed vacuum is chosen such
that $q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$, which corresponds to the parameter
arctanh$\,q$ $\!=$ $\!1.15$ in Ref.~\cite{BK98}.
We see that after detecting one reflected photon in each
channel the entanglement can be increased by more than one
bit, and
the effect increases with the number of detected photons.
However, the probability of detecting more than one
photon may be extremely small.
Hence, one has to find a compromise between increasing
degree of entanglement and decreasing success probability.
One should also keep in mind that the partial von Neumann entropy as
entanglement measure relates to the
maximum information that can be gained about one component
of a two-component system from a measurement on the other component.
Therefore the partial entropy in Fig.~\ref{fentr1}
represents an upper limit for the quantum communication possibilities
rather than a direct measure of the quality of
the teleportation scheme under consideration.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=2.8in,angle=-90]{fwignera.eps}
\end{tabular}
}\caption{
(a) Wigner function of the quantum state to be teleported,
$|\Psi\rangle_{\rm in}$ $\!\sim(|\alpha \rangle$
$\!-$ $\!|-\alpha \rangle)$, $\alpha$ $\!=$ $\!1.5\,i$;
(b) Wigner function of the teleported quantum state
averaged over all measured quadrature-component values
$X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$, the entangled state being the squeezed
vacuum with $q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$;
(c) same as in (b) but for the case
when the entangled state is the photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum
obtained by CM (\mbox{$n_{1}$ $\! =$ $\! n_{2} $ $\!= 1$};
$r$ $\!=$ $\!0.15$).
}
\label{fwig1}
\end{figure}

\section{Results}

We have performed computer simulations in order to test the
method for different input states, especially for
Schr\"{o}dinger cats, which are popular laboratory animals in theoretical
quantum optics (see, e.g., \cite{BK98}). Figure \ref{fwig1}
demonstrates teleportation of the state
\mbox{$|\Psi\rangle_{\rm in}$ $\!\sim(|\alpha \rangle$
$\!-$ $\!|-\alpha \rangle)$}
with $\alpha$ $\!=$ $\!1.5\,i$, which is chosen to be the same
as in \cite{BK98}, for comparison.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=2.8in,angle=-90]{fwigcona.eps}
\end{tabular}
}
\protect\caption{
(a) Wigner function of the teleported quantum state
for $X_{0}$ $\!=$ $\!0.1$ and \mbox{$P_{1}$ $\!=$ $\!0.2$}
and the input state shown in Fig.~\protect\ref{fwig1}(a) in the case
when the entangled state is a squeezed vacuum with $q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$;
(b) same as in (a) but for the case
when the entangled state is the photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum
obtained by CM ($n_{1}$ $\! =$ $\! n_{2} $ $\!= 1$;
$r$ $\!=$ $\!0.15$).
}
\label{fwig4}
\end{figure}

The teleported quantum state that is obtained
for a particular measurement of quadrature-component values
$X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fwig4}.
The results in Figs.~\ref{fwig4}(a) and \ref{fwig4}(b), respectively,
correspond to the cases when the entangled state is a squeezed
vacuum ($q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$) and a photon-subtracted squeezed
vacuum with \mbox{$n_{1}$ $\!=$ $\! n_{2}$ $\! =$ $\! 1$},
the probability of producing the state by CM being $0.39$\%
($r$ $\!=$ $\!0.15$, cf. Fig.~\ref{fentr1}).
The fidelity of the teleported quantum state, Eq.~(\ref{fidelity}),
is plotted in Fig.~\ref{ffidels} as a function of the measured
quadrature-component values $X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$, and Fig.~\ref{fprobabs}
shows the corresponding probability distribution, Eq.~(\ref{probX0P1}).
We can see that not only the fidelity attains larger values for
the improved entangled state, Fig.~\ref{ffidels}(b),
but also the probability distribution is broader for that state,
Fig.~\ref{fprobabs}(b). The latter is very important.
If the probability distribution is sharply peaked, then
Alice actually gains more information about the state, so that there is
less quantum information to be communicated to Bob.
(Note the extreme case when the ``entangled'' state is simply the vacuum.
Then Alice measures just the $Q$ function of the state to be ``teleported''.
The probability distribution of the measured quantities thus carries
the full information about the state.)

Averaging the fidelity $F(X_0,P_0)$ over the probability distribution
of the measured quadrature-component values $X_0$ and $P_1$,
we get the averaged fidelity $F$, Eq.~(\ref{fidelita}),
which, for the case in our example,
attains the value \mbox{$F$ $\!=$ $\!0.6463$}
for the squeezed vacuum and
$F$ $\!=$
$\! 0.7444$
for the photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum, which is a
significant increase. The  Wigner function of the averaged
teleported quantum state is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fwig1}. Again, we
see that the state in Fig.~\ref{fwig1}(c), which is
teleported by means of the improved entangled state,
is closer to the original state in Fig.~\ref{fwig1}(a).

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=2.8in,angle=-90]{ffidelsa.eps}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Fidelity of the teleported quantum state in dependence
on the measured quadrature-component values $X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$
for the input state shown in Fig.~\protect\ref{fwig1}(a);
(a) the entangled state is a squeezed vacuum ($q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$);
(b) the entangled state is the photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum obtained
by CM ($n_{1}$ $\! =$ $\! n_{2} $ $\!= 1$;
$r$ $\!=$ $\!0.15$).
}
\label{ffidels}
\end{figure}

The quality of transmission of the intereference fringes
of the Schr\"{o}dinger cat state can be seen from
Fig.~\ref{ffrin}, in which the $x$ quadrature distribution of
the teleported quantum state is plotted.
Whereas the input state shows perfect interference fringes in
the $x$ quadrature, the teleported states have
the fringes smeared and their visibilities decreased.
In the example under study, the fringe visibility of the
teleported state is $26.6$\% for the squeezed vacuum and
$48.2$\% for the photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum
obtained by CM.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=2.8in,angle=-90]{fprobabsa.eps}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Probability density of measuring the quadrature-component
values $X_{0}$ and $P_{1}$, Eq.~(\protect\ref{probX0P1}),
for the input state shown in Fig.~\protect\ref{fwig1}(a);
(a) the entangled state is a squeezed vacuum \mbox{($q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$)};
(b) the entangled state is the photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum
obtained by CM (\mbox{$n_{1}$ $\! =$ $\! n_{2} $ $\!= 1$};
$r$ $\!=$ $\!0.15$).
}
\label{fprobabs}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[totalheight=2.8in,angle=-90]{fringes.eps}
\end{tabular}
}\caption{
Probability distribution of measuring the
$x$ quadrature in the teleported quantum state
for the input state shown in Fig.~\protect\ref{fwig1}(a);
dotted line - input state;
dashed line - teleported state if the entangled state is a
squeezed vacuum \mbox{($q$ $\!=$ $\!0.8178$)};
solid line - teleported state if the entangled state is the
photon-subtracted squeezed vacuum
obtained by CM (\mbox{$n_{1}$ $\! =$ $\! n_{2} $ $\!= 1$};
$r$ $\!=$ $\!0.15$).
}
\label{ffrin}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}

The results show that conditional photon-number measurement
can improve the fidelity of teleportation of continuous variables.
With regard to experimental implementation,
highly efficient single-photon counting is required.
Even though such counting is at present not as efficient as
intensity-proportional photodetection, progress has been very fast
(as it is illustrated by the $88$\% efficiency achieved recently
\cite{Takeuchi}).
Therefore a realization of the scheme in the near future
may be technically feasible.

The scheme can also be extended to other types of conditional
measurement. For example, combining  (at the beam splitters BS$_1$
and BS$_2$ in Fig.~\ref{fschem}) the modes of the entangled
two-mode squeezed vacuum with modes prepared in photon-number states,
zero-photon measurement on the reflected beams then prepares a
photon-added conditional state. Whereas the
nonclassical features of a single-mode squeezed vacuum can be
strongly influenced in this way \cite{Dakna1,added},
we have not found a substantial
improvement of the degree of entanglement of the two
mode-squeezed vacuum.

We have considered the case when Alice does not know the quantum state
she wishes to teleport. Of course, the quantum communication scheme
can also be applied
to other situations,
e.g., in quantum cryptography or state preparation in a distant place,
where Alice can know the state. In particular,
Alice can take advantage of her knowledge of the
dependence of the teleportation fidelity on the measured
quadrature-component values
in Fig.~\ref{ffidels}
and communicate only the results of measurement which
guarantee high fidelity. In that case,
the teleportation can be regarded as being conditioned not
only by the measured photon numbers in the entangled-state
prepration but also by the measured quadrature-component values.
This together with
the possibility of optimization
of probabilities versus fidelities suggests that there is a rich
area of possible exploration of the
scheme.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

This work was supported by EU (TMR), ISF, Minerva grants, and
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


\section{QT}

 The comparison between calculated and experimental absolute transition
quadrupole moments $Q_t$ is less straightforward. This is because
the uncertainties in absolute measured $Q_t$ values arising
from the uncertainties in stopping powers can be as large as 15\%
\cite{Hg9294-q}. Thus the comparison of $Q_t$'s values obtained in
different experiments should be performed with some caution
since systematic errors due to different stopping powers may be
responsible for the observed differences. In addition, as illustrated
in Fig.\ \ref{qt}, the experimental $Q_t$ values depend somewhat
on the type of analysis (centroid shift or line shape) used when
these quantities are extracted from the data.

 The results of CRHB calculations are compared with most recent
experimental data in Fig.\ \ref{qt}. One can conclude that the
results of calculations for absolute values of $Q_t$ will be
within the `full' error bars if the 15\% uncertainty due to
stopping powers would be taken into account (experimental data shown
in Fig.\ \ref{qt} does not include these uncertainties). For the sake
of simplicity we will not take into account these uncertainties
in the subsequent discussion  and will concentrate mainly on the
experimental data obtained with the same stopping powers.
In Fig. \ref{qt} such data are indicated by the same capital
letters. While the calculated $Q_t$ values are close to the
experimental values obtained with centroid shift and line shape
analysis for Pb isotopes, most of experimental $Q_t$ values
(with exception of exp. B) are overestimated in calculations in
the case of Hg isotopes. One should note that the most recent
experimental data on $^{192}$Hg is contradictory since two
experiments (exp. A \cite{Hg9294-q} and exp. B \cite{Hg92-q})
give very different values of $Q_t$, see Fig.\ \ref{qt}.
Definitely, the measurements of relative transition quadrupole
moments between SD bands in Pb and Hg isotopes using the same stopping
powers, which are not available nowadays, are needed to find out,
whether this discrepancy between calculations and experiment is due to
an inadequate theoretical description or the experimental problems
quoted above. In the calculations, relative average quadrupole moments
$\Delta Q_t$ between yrast SD bands of Pb and Hg isotopes decrease
with increasing neutron number $N$ ($\Delta Q_t \approx 1.6$ $e$b,
$\approx 1.4$ $e$b and $\approx 1.06$ $e$b for $N=110,112$ and 114,
see Fig.\ \ref{qt}).

\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=\columnwidth
\centerline{\epsffile{fig4.eps}}
\caption{Measured and calculated transition quadrupole
moments $Q_t$ of the yrast SD bands. Solid and dashed lines
show the results of calculations for Hg and Pb isotopes,
respectively. Experimental values are given by error
bars where the type of symbols corresponding to experimental
middle value of $Q_t$ indicates the isotope and type of
analysis used to extract the experimental value.
The following correspondence exists: circles - Pb isotopes,
triangles - Hg isotopes, open symbols - line shape analysis,
filled symbols - centroid shift. The experimental data are
taken from Refs.\ \protect\cite{Hg9294-q} (exp. A),
\protect\cite{Hg92-q} (exp. B), \protect\cite{Pb9496-q}
(exp. C), and \protect\cite{Hg90-q} (exp. D). Experimental
data on $^{192}$Pb are not available.}
\label{qt}
\end{figure}

 Results of calculations indicate the general trend of decrease
of average $Q_t$ values with the increase of neutron number $N$ both
for Pb and Hg isotopes. The results of the centroid shift analysis
for $^{194,196}$Pb (exp. C) indicate a slight decrease in the
$Q_t$ values with increasing $N$ consistent with theoretical
results. Although the data on $^{192,194}$Hg (exp. A) indicate
similar values of $Q_t$ being in slight contradiction with
theoretical results, definite conclusions are not possible at
present due to the large error bars. In addition, with increasing
rotational frequency $\Omega_x$ the calculated $Q_t$ values show
initially a slight increase which is followed by a subsequent decrease.
In the case of $^{190}$Hg this feature is hidden by the
band crossing. The maximum $Q_t$ values within specific
configurations are calculated at different frequencies $\Omega_x$
as a function of the neutron number $N$. With increasing $N$
the maximum $Q_t$ is reached at lower frequencies. Similar variations of
$Q_t$ have been also observed in the cranked Hartree-Fock
calculations with Skyrme forces \cite{Skyrme1}. Dedicated experiments
aiming on the measurements of the variations of transition
quadrupole moments $Q_t$ as a function of rotational frequency
$\Omega_x$ are needed in order to confirm or reject these
results.

  In conclusion, the Cranked Relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov
theory has been developed and applied to the description of yrast
SD bands observed in the $A\sim 190$ mass region. With an approximate
particle number projection performed by the Lipkin-Nogami method, the
rotational features of experimental bands such as kinematic and
dynamic moments of inertia are very well described in the
calculations. Calculated values of transition quadrupole moments
$Q_t$ are close to the measured ones, however, more accurate
and consistent experimental data on $Q_t$ is needed in
order to make detailed comparisons between experiment and
theory.

    A.V.A. acknowledges support from the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation. This work is also supported in part
by the Bundesministerium f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung
under the project 06 TM 875.


\section{Introduction}

Neither the sulfuric anhydride (SO$_3$) molecule, nor its importance
in atmospheric and industrial chemistry, require any introduction
to the chemist.

SO$_3$ displays somewhat unusual bonding. While it is often cited
as a `hypervalent molecule' in undergraduate inorganic chemistry
textbooks, quantitative
theories of chemical bonding such as atoms-in-molecules\cite{bader}
unequivocally
show (see Ref.\cite{Cio93} for a lucid review and discussion) that
there are no grounds for invoking violation of the octet rule in
SO$_3$ (or, for that matter, most second-row molecules), and that
bonding in SO$_3$ is best seen as a combination of moderately
polar $\sigma$ bonds with highly polar $p_{\pi,S},p_{\pi,O}$ bonds.

Previous experience on BF$_3$\cite{bf3} and SiF$_4$\cite{sif4} suggests
that in molecules with several strong and very polar bonds, basis set
convergence will be particularly slow. In addition, in a recent
calibration study on the anharmonic force field of SO$_3$ it was
found that the molecule represented a fairly extreme example
of a phenomenon noted previously for second-row molecules\cite{sio,so2,Bau95}
--- namely the great sensitivity of the SCF part of computed
properties to the presence of so-called `inner polarization functions',
i.e. high-exponent $d$ and $f$ functions.

Very recently, Martin and de Oliveira\cite{w1} published a standard protocol
known as W2 (Weizmann-2) theory that was able to predict total atomization
energies of a fairly wide
variety of molecules (including SO$_2$, which is relevant
for this work) to better than 0.23 kcal/mol on average (0.18 kcal/mol for
molecules dominated by a single reference configuration). Application of
this method to SO$_3$ requires a CCSD (coupled cluster with all
single and double excitations\cite{Pur82}) calculation with 529 basis
functions in the $C_{2v}$ nondegenerate subgroup, which was well beyond our
available computational resources, particularly in terms of disk space.

Very recently, however, Sch\"utz et al.\cite{dirccsd} developed a
general implementation of integral-direct correlated methods
that made possible, inter alia, CCSD calculations on basis sets this
size on workstation computers.
Consequently, we carried out a benchmark calculation on the
heat of atomization of SO$_3$, which is reported in the present work.

Having obtained the benchmark ab initio value, we will assess the
performance of some less computationally demanding schemes. This
includes W1 theory\cite{w1}, which is much more cost-effective than
W2 theory but performs much less well for second-row than for first-row
compounds. From an analysis of the SO$_3$ results, we will derive
a minor modification (denoted W1$'$ theory) which in effect largely
removes this disadvantage.

\section{Methods}

Most electronic structure calculations were carried out using
MOLPRO98.1\cite{molpro}
(with integral-direct code\cite{dirccsd} installed)
running on a DEC Alpha 500/500 workstation
at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Some additional
calculations were carried out using GAUSSIAN 98\cite{g98} running on
the same platform.

As in our previous work on SO$_2$\cite{so2}, the CCSD(T)
electron correlation method\cite{Rag89,Wat93}, as implemented
by Hampel {\em et al.}\/\cite{Ham92}, has been used
throughout. The acronym stands for coupled cluster with all single
and double substitutions\cite{Pur82} augmented by a quasiperturbative
account for triple excitations\cite{Rag89}. From extensive
studies (see \cite{Lee95} for a review) this method is known to yield
correlation energies very close to the exact $n$-particle solution
within the given basis set as long as the Hartree-Fock determinant is
a reasonably good zero-order reference wave function.
None of the usual indicators (${\cal T}_1$ diagnostic\cite{Lee89},
largest excitation amplitudes, or natural orbital occupancies of
first few HOMOs and LUMOs) suggest a significant departure from the
single-reference regime. (For the record, ${\cal T}_1$=0.018 for SO$_3$.)

Valence correlation basis sets are built upon the augmented
correlation-consistent polarized $n$-tuple zeta (aug-cc-pV$n$Z,
or AV$n$Z for short)
basis sets of Dunning and coworkers\cite{Dun89,ccecc}.
In this work, we have considered AVDZ, AVTZ, AVQZ, and AV5Z
basis sets, with maximum angular momenta $l$=2 ($d$), 3 ($f$), 4 ($g$),
and 5 ($h$), respectively. The effect of inner polarization was
accounted for by adding `tight' (high-exponent) $d$ and $f$
functions with exponents that follow even-tempered series $\alpha\beta^n$,
with $\alpha$ the tightest exponent of that angular momentum in the
underlying basis set and $\beta$=2.5. Such basis sets are denoted
AV$n$Z+d, AV$n$Z+2d, and AV$n$Z+2d1f. The largest basis set considered
in the present work, AV5Z+2d1f, corresponds to
$[8s7p7d5f3g2h]$ on sulfur and $[7s6p5d4f3g2h]$ on oxygen
(148 and 127 contracted basis functions, respectively), adding up to
529 basis functions for the entire molecule. The CCSD calculation in
this basis set was carried out using the newly implemented\cite{dirccsd}
direct algorithm; all other CCSD and CCSD(T) calculations were done
conventionally.

The effect of inner-shell correlation was considered at the
CCSD(T) level using two specialized core correlation basis sets,
namely the Martin-Taylor (MT) basis set\cite{hf} used in previous
work on SO$_2$\cite{so2}, and the
somewhat more compact MTsmall basis set that is used in the W2 protocol\cite{w1}
for this purpose. Correlation from the sulfur ($1s$) orbital was not
considered, since this lies too deep to meaningfully interact with the
valence orbitals. Scalar relativistic effects were computed as expectation
values of the first-order Darwin and mass-velocity corrections\cite{Cow76,Mar83}
for the ACPF (averaged coupled pair functional\cite{Gda88}) wave function
with the abovementioned core correlation basis sets. (All electrons
were correlated in these calculations since relativistic effects are
most important for the electrons closest to the nucleus.)

The CCSD(T)/VQZ+1
reference geometry used throughout this work,
$r_{SO}$=1.42279 \AA, was taken from the earlier
spectroscopic work on SO$_3$\cite{so3}, as was the anharmonic zero-point
energy of 7.794 kcal/mol.

\section{Results and discussion}

The most striking feature of the basis set convergence at the SCF level
(Table 1) is certainly the great importance
of inner polarization functions: augmenting the AVDZ basis set with two
tight functions on S has an effect of no less than 40.5 kcal/mol!
The same operation affects the AVTZ SCF binding energy by 15.7
kcal/mol, and even from AVQZ to AVQZ+2d the effect is still 8.6 kcal/mol,
probably the largest such effect hitherto observed. In addition
augmenting the basis set by a tight $f$ function has an effect of 1.1
kcal/mol from AVTZ+2d to AVTZ+2d1f, but only 0.16 kcal/mol from
AVQZ+2d to AVQZ+2d1f. Presumably the effect from AV5Z+2d to AV5Z+2d1f
will be next to negligible.

Not surprisingly, this translates into a substantial effect on the
extrapolated SCF limit. A geometric extrapolation\cite{Fel92}
from the AV\{D,T,Q\}Z
results would yield 153.64 kcal/mol as the SCF limit, 6.3 kcal/mol
less than the AV\{T,Q,5\}Z+2d1f limit employed in W2 theory. The
AV\{D,T,Q\}Z+2d limit, on the other hand, if fairly close to the
latter at 159.7 kcal/mol. (Our best SCF limit is 159.90 kcal/mol, of
which the extrapolation accounts for 0.15 kcal/mol.)

This type of variability is almost completely absent for the
correlation energy, where AV$n$Z, AV$n$Z+2d and AV$n$Z+2d1f largely
yield the same answers. Following the W2 protocol, the
CCSD correlation energy is extrapolated using the $A+B/l^3$ extrapolation
formula of Halkier et al.\cite{Hal98} to CCSD/AV\{Q,5\}Z+2d1f energies
(for which $l$=\{4,5\}). (For a fairly comprehensive review of theoretical
and empirical arguments
in favor of this type of extrapolation, see Ref.\cite{w1} and references
therein.) We thus obtain 165.94 kcal/mol as our best
estimate for the CCSD correlation contribution to TAE. It should be
noted that the extrapolation accounts for 3.2 kcal/mol of this amount:
basis set convergence is indeed quite slow. We note that the largest
direct CCSD calculation took a solid two weeks of CPU time
on the DEC Alpha --- a conventional calculation would have required
about 60 GB of temporary disk space, as well as a much higher I/O
bandwidth if a reasonable wall time to CPU time ratio were to be attained.

As a general rule, the (T) contribution converges much more rapidly with
basis set (besides being smaller to begin with) and therefore, we
were able to dispense entirely with the CCSD(T)/AV5Z+2d1f calculation.
From CCSD(T)/AV\{T,Q\}+2d1f results and the $A+B/l^3$ formula, we
obtain a basis set limit for the (T) contribution of 20.17 kcal/mol, in
which the extrapolation accounts for 0.57 kcal/mol. Together with the
CCSD results, this adds up to a valence correlation contribution
to TAE[SO$_3$] of 186.11 kcal/mol, of which 3.75 kcal/mol is covered by
extrapolations.

The inner-shell correlation contribution (Table 2) at the CCSD(T) level using
the Martin-Taylor\cite{hf} core-correlation basis set, was found to be
0.89 kcal/mol with the Martin-Taylor\cite{hf} core correlation basis
set, and 0.96 kcal/mol with the somewhat more compact MTsmall basis
set used in W2 theory\cite{w1}. Bauschlicher and Ricca\cite{Bau98} found
that basis set superposition error significantly affects the inner-shell
correlation contribution in SO$_2$. It was evaluated here using the
site-site counterpoise method\cite{Wel83} ; we thus found
counterpoise-corrected core correlation contributions of 0.73
kcal/mol with the Martin-Taylor and 0.68 kcal/mol with the MTsmall
basis sets.

Scalar relativistic effects were obtained as expectation values of the
mass-velocity and Darwin operators\cite{Mar83} for the ACPF (averaged
coupled pair functional\cite{Gda88}) wavefunction. Their effect on
the computed TAE (with either core correlation basis set) is
-1.71 kcal/mol, comparable to the -1.88 kcal/mol previously found\cite{sif4}
for SiF$_4$. Atomic spin-orbit splitting adds another -1.23 kcal/mol to the
result. (These latter two terms together imply a relativistic contribution
of -2.94 kcal/mol, or nearly 1\% of the atomization energy.)

Finally, we obtain a W2 total atomization energy
at the bottom of the well, TAE$_e$, of 344.03 kcal/mol; using the
BSSE-corrected inner shell correlation contribution, this value drops to
343.76 kcal/mol. In combination
with the very accurate ZPVE=7.795 kcal/mol\cite{so3}, we finally
obtain, at absolute zero,
TAE$_0$=336.17 kcal/mol without, and 335.96 kcal/mol with, BSSE correction
on the core correlation contribution. This latter value is in perfect
agreement with the experimental TAE$_0$=335.92$\pm$0.19 listed
in the Gurvich compilation\cite{Gur89}. We thus see once more the importance
of including BSSE corrections for the inner-shell correlation part of
TAE: it should be noted that while the inner-shell contribution to TAE
is small, the S($2s,2p$);O($1s$) absolute
correlation energy is comparable with the
valence correlation energy in SO$_3$. BSSE on the valence contribution
is much less of an issue since the basis sets used for valence correlation
are much more saturated to begin with, and furthermore the valence
correlation energy is being extrapolated to the infinite-basis
limit where it should vanish by definition.

The performance of more approximate computational thermochemistry schemes
is of some interest here (Table 3). G1 theory\cite{g1} is in error
by no less than -11.4 kcal/mol, which goes down to -6.9 kcal/mol for G2
theory\cite{g2} and -5.45 kcal/mol for G3 theory\cite{g3}. (Only the latter includes
spin-orbit splitting as part of the protocol: none of these methods
consider scalar relativistic effects.) G2(MP2) performs relatively well
as a result of error compensation (-2.4 kcal/mol). The CBS-Q\cite{cbs94} scheme
underestimates the true binding energy by only 1 kcal/mol, while
CBS-QB3\cite{cbs-qb3} is only 0.2 kcal/mol above experiment. It should be
noted that neither CBS-Q nor CBS-QB3 include relativistic effects of any
kind as part of the standard protocol; therefore the excellent performance
put in by these methods is to a large extent thanks to error compensation.
Finally, the W1 theory of Martin and de Oliveira --- which yields a
mean absolute error of about 0.3 kcal/mol for a wide variety of
compounds --- has an error in TAE$_0$[SO$_3$] of -1.13 kcal/mol. (W1 theory
includes both scalar relativistic and spin-orbit contributions.)

The
largest calculations involved in the W1 protocol are CCSD/AVQZ+2d1f
and CCSD(T)/AVTZ+2d1f, which is still rather more demanding than the
steps in any of the G$n$ or CBS methods. Hence this performance is rather
disappointing --- a failure of W1 theory was also noted for SO$_2$
in the original paper\cite{w1}. Balance considerations\cite{so2}
may lead us to wonder whether an AVTZ+2d1f basis set is not rather
top-heavy on inner polarization functions. Using the AV$n$Z+2d
series favored by Bauschlicher and coworkers (e.g.\cite{Bau98}) indeed
reduces the discrepancy with experiment by
0.55 kcal/mol (of which 0.20 kcal/mol in the SCF part). The alternative
sequence \{AVDZ+2d,AVTZ+2d,AVQZ+2d1f\} yields even better agreement
with experiment (and the more rigorous calculations): in fact, the final
value thus obtained falls within the experimental error bar. Particularly
encouraging is the fact that the predicted SCF limit is now within 0.04
kcal/mol of our best estimate. Preliminary calculations on other second-row
systems suggest that this procedure, which we will label W1$'$ theory,
may be preferable over standard W1 theory for second-row systems with
strong inner shell polarization.
(The two variants are equivalent for first-row compounds.)

As a test, we have taken three molecules for which W1 yields fairly
large errors (CS, SO, and SO$_2$) and repeated the calculation using
W1$'$ theory. Deviations from experiment drop from
-0.92, -0.62, and -1.01 kcal/mol, respectively, to
-0.56, -0.32, and -0.02 kcal/mol, respectively, which is not
qualitatively different from the vastly more expensive W2 calculations
which yielded\cite{w1} deviations of -0.51, +0.02, and +0.23 kcal/mol
for these molecules. We conclude that W1$'$ theory indeed represents
an improvement, and recommend it for future work on second-row systems
instead of W1 theory.

\section{Conclusions}

Benchmark ab initio calculations using direct coupled cluster methods
predict the total atomization energy at 0 K of SO$_3$ to be 335.96
(observed 335.92$\pm$0.19) kcal/mol. The computed results includes
extrapolation to the basis set limit (3.75 kcal/mol), relativistic effects
(-2.94 kcal/mol), inner-shell correlation (0.68 kcal/mol after BSSE
correction), and anharmonic zero-point energy (7.755 kcal/mol).
Inner polarization functions make very large (40 kcal/mol with
$spd$, 10 kcal/mol with $spdfg$ basis sets) contributions to the SCF
part of the binding energy. The molecule presents an unusual hurdle
for less computationally intensive theoretical thermochemistry methods
and is proposed as a benchmark for them.
A slight modification of W1 theory\cite{w1} is proposed which appears to
result in improved performance for second-row systems with strong inner-shell
polarization effects.

\acknowledgments

JM is a Yigal Allon Fellow,
an Honorary Research Associate (``Onderzoeksleider
in eremandaat'') of the
National Science Foundation of Belgium (NFWO/FNRS),
and the incumbent of the Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Career
Development Chair.
He thanks Prof. Peter J. Knowles (Birmingham
University, UK) for assistance with the installation of
the direct coupled cluster code, and Dr. Charles W. Bauschlicher Jr.
(NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA) for critical reading
of the manuscript prior to submission.
This research was supported by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany.