pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09196 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🪐 quant-ph

Pontryagin's Principle for Leakage-Immune Adiabatic Quantum State Transfer

Xiao-Yu Dong , Xi-Lai Wang , Wen-Long Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords STIRAPquantum optimal controlPontryagin's principleleakage suppressionadiabatic passagetransmonGaussian pulses
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pontryagin's principle optimizes Gaussian pulses to suppress leakage in adiabatic quantum state transfer.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper adapts the STIRAP protocol for real multilevel systems where finite pulse bandwidth causes unwanted coupling to extra energy levels and leaks population out of the target subspace. The authors model the full chain explicitly, add a leakage penalty to the objective, and apply Pontryagin's maximum principle to optimize the amplitudes, widths, and delays of Gaussian control pulses while preserving the counterintuitive STIRAP ordering. They derive closed-form gradients with respect to the pulse parameters, enabling fast low-dimensional numerical search. Simulations on a superconducting transmon show the resulting pulses raise target-state fidelity and improve tolerance to amplitude and detuning errors.

Core claim

The authors formulate a leakage-penalized quantum optimal control problem for multilevel STIRAP, constrain the controls to experimentally feasible Gaussian families, and use Pontryagin's maximum principle to derive explicit gradients that allow efficient optimization of pulse parameters; numerical results on a transmon platform confirm that the optimized pulses raise transfer fidelity while enhancing robustness to amplitude miscalibration and detuning drifts.

What carries the argument

Pontryagin's maximum principle applied to a leakage-penalized objective with Gaussian-pulse constraints, which supplies the gradients needed to tune a small set of pulse parameters for leakage suppression.

If this is right

  • The optimized Gaussian pulses achieve higher target-state transfer fidelity than unoptimized STIRAP in the presence of leakage.
  • The pulses exhibit increased robustness to amplitude miscalibration.
  • The pulses exhibit increased robustness to detuning drifts.
  • The counterintuitive STIRAP pulse ordering is preserved while leakage is reduced.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same PMP-plus-Gaussian approach could be applied to other adiabatic protocols such as rapid adiabatic passage.
  • Hardware tests on actual transmon devices would be needed to confirm whether the simulated robustness improvements survive realistic noise beyond the chain model.
  • Relaxing the Gaussian constraint or adding decoherence terms to the penalty could reveal whether further gains are possible.

Load-bearing premise

The multilevel chain model fully captures the leakage subspace and the Gaussian pulse family contains near-optimal leakage-suppressing solutions.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation in which the optimized pulses produce no fidelity gain over standard STIRAP under controlled leakage conditions would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09196 by Wen-Long Ma, Xiao-Yu Dong, Xi-Lai Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Multilevel chain model for STIRAP-type population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Five-level truncation of a transmon ladder for leakage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Initial and PMP-optimized Gaussian protocols for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Improvement landscapes for the PMP-optimized protocol relative to the initial Gaussian protocol, quantified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. One-dimensional robustness cuts for the initial and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The standard stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) protocol enables high-fidelity quantum state transfer in an ideal three-level system via adiabatic following of a dark state evolution. However, in practical systems with more energy levels, control pulses with finite spectral selectivity often couple the three-level subspace to the remaining subspace, introducing leakage that fundamentally limits the transfer performance. Here, we adopt a multilevel chain model for STIRAP that explicitly incorporates this leakage subspace. Using Pontryagin's maximum principle, we formulate a leakage-penalized quantum optimal control problem with the control pulses constrained to experimentally feasible Gaussian pulse families. We derive explicit gradients of the objective functional with respect to the pulse parameters, enabling efficient low-dimensional optimization that suppresses leakage while preserving the counterintuitive STIRAP pulse ordering. Numerical simulations for a superconducting transmon platform demonstrate that the optimized control pulses can significantly enhance the target-state transfer fidelity and provide enhanced robustness to amplitude miscalibration and detuning drifts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a leakage-penalized quantum optimal control problem for stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) in a multilevel chain model using Pontryagin's maximum principle (PMP). Controls are restricted to a Gaussian pulse family; explicit gradients of the objective with respect to pulse parameters are derived to enable low-dimensional optimization that preserves counterintuitive pulse ordering while suppressing leakage. Numerical simulations on a superconducting transmon platform are claimed to show significantly higher target-state transfer fidelity and improved robustness to amplitude miscalibration and detuning drifts compared with standard STIRAP.

Significance. If the numerical gains are reproducible and the multilevel chain model is representative, the work would offer a concrete, experimentally feasible route to combine adiabatic robustness with leakage suppression in realistic quantum hardware. The explicit gradient derivation and restriction to Gaussian parametrization are practical strengths that could lower the barrier to implementation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Numerical simulations] Abstract and numerical-results section: the central claim that the optimized pulses 'significantly enhance the target-state transfer fidelity' is stated without any quantitative fidelity values, error bars, or direct comparison tables against standard STIRAP. No objective-functional definition, explicit PMP-derived gradients, or final optimized parameter sets appear in the summary text, preventing verification of the reported improvement.
  2. [Multilevel chain model] Model-definition section: the multilevel chain is asserted to 'explicitly incorporate this leakage subspace' for the transmon, yet no explicit Hamiltonian matrix elements, truncation criterion, or comparison to the full transmon spectrum (including selection-rule violations or higher-order couplings) are supplied. If the chain omits relevant leakage pathways, the fidelity gains may be an artifact of the truncation rather than a general property of the PMP protocol.
  3. [Pontryagin formulation / Pulse parametrization] Optimization formulation: the restriction of controls to the Gaussian family is imposed before PMP optimization. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this low-dimensional parametrization is sufficient to capture leakage-suppressing waveforms or compare against an unconstrained (e.g., piecewise-constant or spline) control space; superior solutions outside the Gaussian ansatz cannot be ruled out.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Optimization problem statement] Notation for the leakage penalty term and the precise definition of the objective functional should be introduced with an equation number at first use rather than described only in prose.
  2. [Numerical results figures] Figure captions for the pulse shapes and fidelity plots should include the exact parameter values (amplitudes, widths, delays) of both the standard STIRAP and the optimized pulses for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Numerical simulations] Abstract and numerical-results section: the central claim that the optimized pulses 'significantly enhance the target-state transfer fidelity' is stated without any quantitative fidelity values, error bars, or direct comparison tables against standard STIRAP. No objective-functional definition, explicit PMP-derived gradients, or final optimized parameter sets appear in the summary text, preventing verification of the reported improvement.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including quantitative results for immediate verification. The numerical simulations section already contains the detailed fidelity values, error bars from ensemble averaging, direct comparisons to standard STIRAP, the definition of the leakage-penalized objective, and the explicit PMP gradients with respect to Gaussian parameters; optimized parameter sets are tabulated in the supplementary material. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to report the key fidelity numbers and robustness metrics from the simulations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Multilevel chain model] Model-definition section: the multilevel chain is asserted to 'explicitly incorporate this leakage subspace' for the transmon, yet no explicit Hamiltonian matrix elements, truncation criterion, or comparison to the full transmon spectrum (including selection-rule violations or higher-order couplings) are supplied. If the chain omits relevant leakage pathways, the fidelity gains may be an artifact of the truncation rather than a general property of the PMP protocol.

    Authors: The multilevel chain Hamiltonian is defined in Section II with the leakage subspace included via additional levels coupled by the control fields. We will add an appendix in the revision that supplies the explicit matrix elements, states the truncation criterion (levels retained according to energy spacing and coupling strength), and discusses the neglect of higher-order terms consistent with transmon selection rules. This will make the model assumptions fully transparent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Pontryagin formulation / Pulse parametrization] Optimization formulation: the restriction of controls to the Gaussian family is imposed before PMP optimization. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this low-dimensional parametrization is sufficient to capture leakage-suppressing waveforms or compare against an unconstrained (e.g., piecewise-constant or spline) control space; superior solutions outside the Gaussian ansatz cannot be ruled out.

    Authors: The Gaussian parametrization is imposed at the formulation stage because it matches the experimentally accessible pulse shapes generated by current control electronics for superconducting qubits, enabling immediate implementation. PMP is then used to optimize the finite set of parameters within this family, with the derived gradients allowing efficient search while preserving the counterintuitive ordering. We do not assert global optimality over arbitrary waveforms; the contribution is a practical, leakage-suppressed protocol within a realizable ansatz. We will add a paragraph clarifying this design choice and noting that unconstrained spaces could be explored in future work but would require different hardware considerations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard PMP application to explicit leakage-penalized model

full rationale

The derivation applies Pontryagin's maximum principle to a leakage-penalized objective functional on an explicitly stated multilevel chain model, with controls restricted to a Gaussian parametrization. Gradients are derived directly from the PMP necessary conditions for this defined problem, and the reported fidelity gains are obtained from numerical optimization and simulation. No equation or result reduces to its own inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step relies on self-citation or imported uniqueness theorems. The multilevel truncation and Gaussian family are modeling assumptions whose validity is external to the derivation itself; the optimization procedure does not smuggle in the target outcome. This is a conventional optimal-control workflow whose outputs are simulation results rather than tautological re-statements of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Relies on standard optimal control theory (Pontryagin's principle) and a phenomenological multilevel chain model for leakage; no new physical entities or fitted constants beyond pulse parameters are introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian pulse parameters (amplitudes, widths, delays)
    Chosen within the constrained family and optimized numerically; specific values not reported in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Pontryagin's maximum principle yields the correct necessary conditions for the leakage-penalized objective
    Invoked to derive gradients for low-dimensional optimization.
  • domain assumption The multilevel chain model captures all relevant leakage channels
    Used to define the leakage subspace in the control problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1252 out tokens · 29987 ms · 2026-05-10T18:12:48.459169+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco,et al., Training schrödinger’s cat: Quantum optimal control: Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in europe, Eur. Phys. J. D69, 279 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    T. S. Mahesh, P. Batra, and M. H. Ram, Quantum op- timal control: Practical aspects and diverse methods, J. Indian Inst. Sci.103, 591 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Ansel, E

    Q. Ansel, E. Dionis, F. Arrouas,et al., Introduction to 16 theoretical and experimental aspects of quantum opti- mal control, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.57, 133001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    de Fouquières, S

    P. de Fouquières, S. G. Schirmer, S. J. Glaser,et al., Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering, J. Magn. Reson.212, 412 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    N.Khaneja, T.Reiss, C.Kehlet,et al.,Optimalcontrolof coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson.172, 296 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    D. M. Reich, M. Ndong, and C. P. Koch, Monotonically convergent optimization in quantum control using kro- tov’s method, J. Chem. Phys.136, 104103 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    A. P. Peirce, M. A. Dahleh, and H. Rabitz, Optimal con- trol of quantum-mechanical systems: Existence, numer- ical approximation, and applications, Phys. Rev. A37, 4950 (1988)

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    J. P. Palao and R. Kosloff, Quantum computing by an optimal control algorithm for unitary transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 188301 (2002)

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    C. Brif, R. Chakrabarti, and H. Rabitz, Control of quan- tum phenomena: Past, present, and future, New J. Phys. 12, 075008 (2010)

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd ed

    D. D’Alessandro,Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Sugny and C

    D. Sugny and C. Kontz, Optimal control of a three-level quantum system by laser fields plus von neumann mea- surements, Phys. Rev. A77, 063420 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    S. E. Sklarz, D. J. Tannor, and N. Khaneja, Optimal control of quantum dissipative dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 69, 053408 (2004)

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    Werninghaus, D

    M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, F. Roy,et al., Leakage reduction in fast superconducting qubit gates via optimal control, npj Quantum Information7, 14 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Hyyppä, A

    E. Hyyppä, A. Vepsäläinen, M. Papić,et al., Reducing leakage of single-qubit gates for superconducting quan- tum processors using analytical control pulse envelopes, PRX Quantum5, 030353 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    L. E. Fischer, A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino,et al., Universal qudit gate synthesis for transmons, PRX Quantum4, 030327 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Asthana, C

    A. Asthana, C. Liu, O. R. Meitei,et al., Leakage reduces device coherence demands for pulse-level molecular sim- ulations, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064071 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Lacroix, L

    N. Lacroix, L. Hofele, A. Remm,et al., Fast flux- activatedleakagereductionforsuperconductingquantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 120601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Liberzon,Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control Theory: A Concise Introduction(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012)

    D. Liberzon,Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control Theory: A Concise Introduction(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012)

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, Introduction to the pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control, PRX Quantum2, 030203 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Garon, S

    A. Garon, S. J. Glaser, and D. Sugny, Time-optimal control of su(2) quantum operations, Phys. Rev. A88, 043422 (2013)

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Evangelakos, E

    V. Evangelakos, E. Paspalakis, and D. Stefanatos, Minimum-time generation of a uniform superposition in a qubit with only transverse field control, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062425 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    S. Bao, S. Kleer, R. Wang, and A. Rahmani, Optimal control of superconducting gmon qubits using pontrya- gin’s minimum principle: Preparing a maximally entan- gled state with singular bang-bang protocols, Phys. Rev. A97, 062343 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    C. Lin, Y. Wang, G. Kolesov, and U. Kalabić, Applica- tion of pontryagin’s minimum principle to grover’s quan- tum search problem, Phys. Rev. A100, 022327 (2019)

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    C. Lin, Y. Ma, and D. Sels, Optimal control for quantum metrology via pontryagin’s principle, Phys. Rev. A103, 052607 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Sugny, C

    D. Sugny, C. Kontz, and H. R. Jauslin, Time-optimal control of a two-level dissipative quantum system, Phys. Rev. A76, 023419 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    C. Lin, D. Sels, and Y. Wang, Time-optimal control of a dissipative qubit, Phys. Rev. A101, 022320 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Jirari, Time-optimal bang-bang control for the driven spin-boson system, Phys

    H. Jirari, Time-optimal bang-bang control for the driven spin-boson system, Phys. Rev. A102, 012613 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    L. V. Lokutsievskiy, A. N. Pechen, and M. I. Zelikin, Time-optimal state transfer for an open qubit, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 275302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    C. Lin, D. Sels, Y. Ma, and Y. Wang, Stochastic optimal control formalism for an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. A102, 052605 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Lewalle and K

    P. Lewalle and K. B. Whaley, Pontryagin-optimal con- trol of a non-hermitian qubit, Phys. Rev. A107, 022216 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    K. Z. Li, J. Z. Tian, and L. T. Xiao, Optimal stimulated raman adiabatic passage using the dynamical quantum geometric tensor, Phys. Rev. A109, 022443 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Bergmann, H

    K. Bergmann, H. Theuer, and B. W. Shore, Coherent population transfer among quantum states of atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 1003 (1998)

    work page 1998

  33. [33]

    N. V. Vitanov, T. Halfmann, B. W. Shore,et al., Laser- induced population transfer by adiabatic passage tech- niques, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.52, 763 (2001)

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    Bergmann, N

    K. Bergmann, N. V. Vitanov, and B. W. Shore, Perspec- tive: stimulated Raman adiabatic passage: The status after 25 years, J. Chem. Phys.142, 170901 (2015)

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore,et al., Stim- ulated Raman adiabatic passage in physics, chemistry, and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015006 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    J. R. Kuklinski, U. Gaubatz, F. T. Hioe,et al., Adia- batic population transfer in a three-level system driven by delayed laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A40, 6741 (1989)

    work page 1989

  37. [37]

    Gaubatz, P

    U. Gaubatz, P. Rudecki, S. Schiemann,et al., Population transfer between molecular vibrational levels by stimu- lated raman scattering with partially overlapping laser fields. a new concept and experimental results, J. Chem. Phys.92, 5363 (1990)

    work page 1990

  38. [38]

    P. Král, I. Thanopulos, and M. Shapiro, Colloquium: Co- herently controlled adiabatic passage, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 53 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechan- ics, J

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechan- ics, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.5, 435 (1950)

    work page 1950

  40. [40]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais,et al., Strong cou- pling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit us- ing circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature431, 162 (2004)

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    Koch, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box, Phys

    J. Koch, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin,et al., Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    M. H. Goerz, F. Motzoi, K. B. Whaley, and C. P. Koch, Charting the circuit qed design landscape using optimal control theory, npj Quantum Information3, 37 (2017). 17

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    P. J. Pemberton-Ross, A. Kay, and S. G. Schirmer, Quan- tum control theory for state transformations: Dark states andtheirenlightenment,Phys.Rev.A82,042322(2010)

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Kumar and D

    S. Kumar and D. Kumar, Quantum processing by adia- batic transfer through a manifold of dark states, Phys. Rev. A85, 052317 (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Assémat and D

    E. Assémat and D. Sugny, Connection between optimal control theory and adiabatic-passage techniques in quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. A86, 023406 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Sugny, L

    D. Sugny, L. Bomble, T. Ribeyre,et al., Rovibrational controlled-not gates using optimized stimulated raman adiabatic passage techniques and optimal control theory, Phys. Rev. A80, 042325 (2009)

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    H. Yuan, C. P. Koch, P. Salamon, and D. J. Tannor, Con- trollability on relaxation-free subspaces: On the relation- ship between adiabatic population transfer and optimal control, Phys. Rev. A85, 033417 (2012)

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    L. P. Yatsenko, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Detri- mental consequences of small rapid laser fluctuations on stimulated Raman adiabatic passage, Phys. Rev. A89, 013831 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Q. Z. Hou, W. L. Yang, M. Feng,et al., Quantum state transfer using stimulated Raman adiabatic passage un- der a dissipative environment, Phys. Rev. A88, 013807 (2013)

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Stefanatos, and E. Paspalakis, Performance of superadiabatic stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in the presence of dissipation and ornstein-uhlenbeck de- phasing, Phys. Rev. A102, 023715 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Vezvaee, E

    A. Vezvaee, E. Takou, P. Hilaire, and othes, Avoiding leakage and errors caused by unwanted transitions in lambda systems, PRX Quantum4, 030312 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 110501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, S. T. Merkel,et al., Analytic control methods for high-fidelity unitary operations in a weakly nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. A83, 012308 (2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, On the consistency, ex- tremal, and global properties of counterdiabatic fields, J. Chem. Phys.129, 154111 (2008)

    work page 2008

  56. [56]

    M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 365303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  57. [57]

    Guéry-Odelin, A

    D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui,et al., Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    Li and X

    Y.-C. Li and X. Chen, Shortcut to adiabatic population transfer in quantum three-level systems: effective two- levelproblemsandfeasiblecounterdiabaticdriving,Phys. Rev. A94, 063411 (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Du, Z.-T

    Y.-X. Du, Z.-T. Liang, Y.-C. Li,et al., Experimental re- alization of stimulated Raman shortcut-to-adiabatic pas- sage with cold atoms, Nat. Commun.7, 12479 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Evangelakos, E

    V. Evangelakos, E. Paspalakis, and D. Stefanatos, Opti- mal STIRAP shortcuts using the spin-to-spring mapping, Phys. Rev. A107, 052606 (2023)

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Baksic, H

    A. Baksic, H. Ribeiro, and A. A. Clerk, Speeding up adi- abatic quantum state transfer by using dressed states, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 230503 (2016)

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Čepait˙ e, A

    I. Čepait˙ e, A. Polkovnikov, A. J. Daley,et al., Coun- terdiabatic optimized local driving, PRX Quantum4, 010312 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Zhao, L.-M

    X. Zhao, L.-M. Kuang, and J.-Q. Liao, General dark- state theory for arbitrary multilevel quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A113, 013723 (2026)

    work page 2026

  64. [64]

    Kumar, A

    K. Kumar, A. Vepsäläinen, S. Danilin,et al., Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in a three-level superconduct- ing circuit, Nat. Commun.7, 10628 (2016)

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    H. Xu, C. Song, W. Liu,et al., Coherent population transfer between uncoupled or weakly coupled states in ladder-type superconducting qutrits, Nat. Commun.7, 11018 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Vepsäläinen, S

    A. Vepsäläinen, S. Danilin, and G. S. Paraoanu, Supera- diabatic population transfer in a three-level supercon- ducting circuit, Sci. Adv.5, eaau5999 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    Zheng, Y

    W. Zheng, Y. Zhang, Y. Dong,et al., Optimal control of stimulated raman adiabatic passage in a superconducting qudit, npj Quantum Information8, 9 (2022)

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Niu, B.-J

    J. Niu, B.-J. Liu, Y. Zhou,et al., Customizable quantum control via stimulated raman user-defined passage, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 034056 (2022)

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Singhal, H

    U. Singhal, H. V. Upadhyay, I. Ahmad,et al., Robust gates inspired by stimulated raman adiabatic passage for a superconducting dual-rail qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 014044 (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Chang, Y

    H.-S. Chang, Y. P. Zhong, A. Bienfait,et al., Remote en- tanglement via adiabatic passage using a tunably dissi- pative quantum communication system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 240502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    Petiziol, B

    F. Petiziol, B. Dive, S. Carretta,et al., Accelerating adia- batic protocols for entangling two qubits in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A99, 042315 (2019)

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    M. M. Mahana, S. Davuluri, and T. N. Dey, Coherent population transfer with polariton states in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. A110, 023716 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    L. S. Pontryagin, V. G. Boltyanskii, R. V. Gamkrelidze, et al.,The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1962)

    work page 1962

  74. [74]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1760 (2012)

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel,et al., Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python, Phys. Rep.1153, 1 (2026)

    work page 2026

  76. [76]

    V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, H. Liu,et al., Model-free quantum control with reinforcement learning, Phys. Rev. X12, 011059 (2022)

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Sarma and M

    B. Sarma and M. J. Hartmann, Designing fast quantum gates using optimal control with a reinforcement-learning ansatz, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 014015 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Omanakuttan, A

    S. Omanakuttan, A. Mitra, E. J. Meier,et al., Qudit en- tanglers using quantum optimal control, PRX Quantum 4, 040333 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    L. M. Seifert, Z. Li, T. Roy,et al., Exploring ququart computation on a transmon using optimal control, Phys. Rev. A108, 062609 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    M. J. D. Powell, A hybrid method for nonlinear equa- tions, inNumerical Methods for Nonlinear Algebraic Equations, edited by P. Rabinowitz (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970)

    work page 1970

Showing first 80 references.