Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Using optimal control to guide neural-network interpolation of continuously-parameterized gates

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Pretraining a neural network on coordinated optimal-control pulses makes continuously-parameterized quantum gate synthesis faster and enables direct VQE gates with a 2.78--3.28$\times$ circuit-speed advantage.

desk verdict A genuinely useful hybrid control-ML pipeline with honest reporting, but the headline 3x VQE speedup is currently one unverified number. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06623 v1 pith:J6XA6WGD submitted 2024-12-09 quant-ph

Bikrant Bhattacharyya , Fredy An , Dominik Kozbiel , Andy J. Goldschmidt , Frederic T. Chong This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumoptimalcontrolcontinuously-parameterizedgatefamiliesphysics-informedneuralnetworkspulse-levelvariationalalgorithmstransferlearningdirectcollocationQEB-ADAPT-VQE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a neural network can learn high-fidelity, continuously-parameterized families of quantum gates much more efficiently if it is first pretrained on pulses that quantum optimal control has already coordinated across a grid of reference parameters. The pretraining acts as active learning: instead of starting from random weights and discovering control solutions from scratch, the network starts near solutions that optimal control has found, and a fidelity-based training phase then interpolates across the full parameter surface. This matters because variational quantum algorithms repeatedly need parameterized gates, and compiling them into fixed basis gates such as CNOT costs time and adds noise. The paper demonstrates in simulation that directly synthesizing the two-qubit VQE gate $eA_{12}(\theta)$ can reach comparable fidelity in about 10 ns, versus 27.8--32.8 ns for a standard three-CNOT decomposition, a 2.78--3.28$\times$ improvement. The same network representation can also be recalibrated from a few reference pulses after simulated device drift.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coordinated optimal-control pretraining step, implemented as a 'unitary direct sum' problem: a set of reference gates $G(\theta_j)$ is optimized simultaneously, with each subproblem required to reach fidelity at least 0.9999 and with pairwise regularization on control accelerations keeping neighboring parameter solutions close to one another. This structure biases the reference solutions toward pulses that can be interpolated. The second object is the physics-informed network itself, which maps parameters to accelerations rather than to controls; the acceleration representation keeps piecewise-constant pulse shapes naturally expressible while enforcing smooth, zero-endpoint controls. Pretraining by mean-squared error to the coordinated reference pulses places the network near an optimal control surface, and training on fidelity then extends that surface across the full parameter domain.

What would settle it

Measure infidelity versus $\theta$ for the 10 ns $eA_{12}$ pulse under the stated 1 GHz amplitude and 1 GHz$^3$ acceleration bounds; if any point shows infidelity above $10^{-4}$, the claimed 2.78--3.28$\times$ improvement fails at that angle. Alternatively, re-run the $R_Z(\theta)$ epoch-to-threshold comparison over many network initializations and check whether the pretrained network's 14-versus-100 epoch advantage persists or vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that pretraining a neural network on coordinated optimal-control pulses turns interpolation of a continuous gate family from an unguided search into a guided refinement. The paper introduces a unitary direct-sum optimal-control problem in which reference gate parameters are optimized simultaneously, with fidelity enforced as a constraint and with pairwise regularization on control accelerations keeping nearby reference solutions similar. Pulses from that coordinated optimization become the pretraining set for a feedforward network that maps gate parameters $\theta$ to piecewise-constant control accelerations $\ddot{a}(\theta)$; Euler integration then reconstructs the actual pulse under zero boundary conditions $a(0)=a(T)=0$. A fidelity-based loss with an $\ell^1$ penalty on accelerations refines the network over the whole parameter surface. The result is a compact network representation of a gate family that reaches the same final fidelities as randomly initialized networks while needing far fewer epochs in the simple cases, and that can be retargeted to a drifted device by fine-tuning its last layer from a handful of calibrated pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The speedup claim assumes that the network-synthesized 10 ns $eA_{12}$ pulse keeps fidelity at least as high as the optimized CNOT baseline (0.9999 gate fidelity under the same amplitude and acceleration bounds) across every value of $\theta$, a fact the paper reports as a single duration number rather than as a fidelity-versus-angle curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the one-qubit rotation family $R_Z(\theta)$, pretraining reaches average fidelity 0.9999 in 14 epochs versus 100 without pretraining, a 7$\times$ reduction in training effort.
  • For the two-parameter family $R_Z(\theta)R_Y(\phi)$, pretraining roughly halves the epochs needed, while for $U_2(\theta,\phi)$ it can hurt global training because minimum-time controls split into two incompatible regions separated by $\theta+\phi=\pi,3\pi$.
  • Directly compiling the two-qubit QEB-ADAPT-VQE gate $eA_{12}(\theta)$ with the trained network gives comparable fidelity in 10 ns, versus 27.8--32.8 ns for the three-CNOT decomposition, a 2.78--3.28$\times$ speedup in pulse duration.
  • After a simulated linear control drift, recalibrating only the final layer of the network from fewer than 10 calibrated reference pulses restores average fidelity above 0.9999 for the one-parameter family; the two-parameter family converges in fewer than 25 iteration steps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 10 ns $eA_{12}$ pulse maintains the claimed fidelity across all angles on hardware, the practical benefit may exceed the duration ratio: removing three CNOT layers also removes their two-qubit error contributions from each ansatz step, which could improve VQE noise resilience beyond a simple 3$\times$ circuit-depth argument.
  • The $U_2$ barrier suggests a testable design rule: partition the parameter domain along observed discontinuity lines and train a separate interpolator per region; the paper notes this possibility but does not implement it.
  • A natural next experiment is to repeat the drift-recalibration study with a nonlinear distortion model, such as amplifier saturation, rather than a linear transfer matrix; the paper's last-layer-only transfer learning is guaranteed to absorb linear distortions, but nonlinear ones would likely need added activations and more calibration pulses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a workflow for synthesizing continuously parameterized quantum gate families: a feedforward neural network maps gate parameters θ to piecewise-constant control accelerations, pretrained on pulses from a coordinated quantum optimal control problem (the unitary direct-sum template, Eq. (2)), and then trained with a fidelity-plus-L1 loss (Eq. (3)). The method is demonstrated in simulation for one-qubit gates RZ(θ), RZ(θ)RY(ϕ), U2(θ,ϕ), and the two-qubit QEB-ADAPT-VQE operator eA12(θ). The authors report that pretraining accelerates convergence for RZ and RZRY but not for U2 or eA12, and they propose a transfer-learning calibration scheme using a few reference pulses under a linear control-distortion model. The headline quantitative claim is a 2.78–3.28x speedup from directly compiling eA12 in 10 ns versus a 27.8–32.8 ns basis-gate decomposition.

Significance. Continuous gate families are an active direction for near-term quantum algorithms, and the integration of direct-collocation optimal control with physics-informed neural-network pretraining is well motivated. The paper's strengths include an open-source implementation (Piccolo.jl and a GitHub repository with Google Colab notebooks), a linear-scaling direct-sum template, and honest reporting of cases where pretraining does not help (U2 and eA12). If the 10 ns eA12 claim were supported by a full fidelity-versus-θ characterization under the same constraints as the CNOT baseline, the speedup would be a meaningful advance over basis-gate compilation. The transfer-learning idea is interesting, though the current linear-matrix test is close to a consistency check. Overall, the RZ and RZRY demonstrations appear internally consistent, but the most prominently advertised quantitative result is currently under-supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C] The advertised 2.78–3.28x speedup for eA12 is not established by the evidence shown. The CNOT baseline is fixed at a 0.9999 fidelity tolerance with amplitude and acceleration bounds of 1 GHz and 1 GHz^3, but the manuscript gives no fidelity threshold, constraint check, or per-angle curve for the 10 ns eA12 pulse; the phrase 'comparable fidelity' is the only supporting evidence. Table I reports a mean eA12 infidelity of 9.05e-5 over a test set, but with a standard deviation of 1.20e-4, so the average does not ensure that every family member (or the specific algorithm angles used) satisfies the 1e-4 tolerance used for the baseline. It is also not stated whether the 10 ns duration is for the full family or for a single representative parameter value. Please provide an infidelity-versus-θ sweep, the worst-case infidelity, an explicit statement of the amplitude and acceleration bounds used in the eA12 optimization, and the θ range over which the speedup holds; without these, the 2.78–3.28x result should be removed from the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section II-D and Section III-B] The paper advertises 'expressiveness beyond linear interpolation' as critical, but it never reports a quantitative comparison with a linear-interpolation baseline on the same problems. Figure 2 and Appendix A argue that linear interpolation can be restrictive, and U2 indeed exhibits hard control features, but there is no direct measurement of how the interpolation method of [17] performs on RZ, RZRY, U2, or eA12 under the same reference pulses and constraints. Since this expressiveness claim is a principal motivation for using a neural network, please add a comparison experiment (e.g., infidelity versus θ for linear interpolation starting from the same pretraining pulses) or explicitly temper the claim in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [Section II-E] The transfer-learning demonstration is not a strong test of calibration. The drift model is the linear map T in Eq. (9), and the authors themselves observe that a linear transfer matrix can be compensated exactly by applying T^{-1} to the network's last layer. Since all but the last layer are frozen, the learned correction lies precisely in this invertible linear class, so the small number of reference pulses needed for RZ is expected from the construction rather than a general property of the method. Please present the current example as a linear-model consistency check, or add a nonlinear distortion example (for instance, an activation in the final layer, as mentioned in the text) to support the broader claim that entire gate families can be recalibrated from a few reference pulses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C] The sentence 'If we use virtual Z rotations, we can approximate the total pulse schedule time to be these three CNOTs plus two π/2-Pauli rotations' is confusing, because the counted schedule is for π/2-Pauli rotations rather than for virtual Z rotations; please clarify which rotations are physically delivered as pulses and which are virtual.
  2. [Equation (1)] The fidelity term in Eq. (1) uses Z_j while the regularization sum runs over j, making the optimization variable and summation index ambiguous; please define the index set and whether the problems are solved jointly or independently.
  3. [Section II-D and Table I] The neural-network architecture (number and width of hidden layers, activation functions) and the value of λ in Eq. (3) are not reported in the text; please provide these details in the main text or point to the specific configuration in the repository.
  4. [Table I] The footnote marker on the U2 pretrained row is not explained in the table caption; the explanation appears only in Section III-B, but the table should be self-contained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Main NN synthesis is externally benchmarked and not circular; the linear-drift recalibration claim reduces to the T^{-1} identity by construction (score 4).

  1. self definitional [Section III-D (Calibration for control drift), paragraphs defining T and the calibrated controls]
    "Next, we sequentially choose reference parameters θj. For each parameter, we obtain a calibrated control matrix, T−1a(θj). ... Observing that our transfer matrix is a linear transformation of the controls, we note that we should always be able to retain the original infidelity by applying the inverse of this transformation to the network’s last layer of parameters."

    The drift model is defined by a'_t = T a_t with T a random linear matrix. The 'calibrated control matrix' supplied as training data is T^{-1} a(θ_j), i.e., the training target already contains the exact inverse of the drift. Under the same linear model, the fidelity achieved by any control a on the distorted device is the fidelity of T a, so T(T^{-1} a) = a recovers the original control exactly. The paper itself states that applying T^{-1} to the last layer always restores the original infidelity. Therefore the observed recalibration is the linear identity T^{-1}T = I plus the ability of the last layer to approximate that inverse from a few samples; it is not an independent prediction of the method.

full rationale

The main synthesis chain is not circular: the network is trained against target unitaries G(θ) via Eq. (3), pretraining reference pulses are obtained by solving independent optimal-control problems (Eqs. (1) and (2)) with explicit 0.9999 fidelity constraints, and the reported fidelities are averages over dense test sets of parameter values. The 2.78–3.28x eA12 comparison is benchmarked against a CNOT duration obtained from the same model constraints, so it is an external comparison rather than a renamed input; the absence of an infidelity-versus-theta curve for eA12 is an evidence gap, not a circularity. Citations to [17], including a co-author, are used as a starting point and are not load-bearing in a way that reduces the derivation to self-citation. The one by-construction element is the linear transfer-learning demonstration in Section III-D: drift is defined as a'_t = T a_t, the 'calibrated' training pulses are T^{-1} a(θ_j), and the authors explicitly note that applying T^{-1} to the last layer exactly restores the original infidelity. Thus the recalibration claim is partly the identity T T^{-1} = I plus interpolation, not an independent empirical finding. This does not undermine the main synthesis results, but it does mean the calibration claim is self-definitional in the linear case, giving a partial circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on a physical model, a solver, and hyperparameter choices, but introduce no new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions. The unitary direct sum problem template is a new optimization problem formulation, not an invented physical entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Pretraining regularization weights (R, R_ij, R^(0)_j) = not reported
    These weights in Eqs. (1) and (2) determine how strongly neighboring reference pulses are coordinated. The paper gives no values or sensitivity analysis, yet the pretraining data depend on them.
  • L1 regularization coefficient lambda in Eq. (3) = not reported
    Balances gate infidelity against sparsity of control accelerations. This coefficient influences the final pulse shapes and interpolation, but no value or ablation is reported.
  • Neural network architecture and training hyperparameters = not specified
    Layer count, width, activation function, optimizer, learning rate, and batch schedule are not listed. The epoch counts in Table I depend on these undocumented choices.
  • Pretraining reference grid density = 11 points for 1-parameter gates, 121 for 2-parameter gates
    A uniform grid is chosen following [17]. The reported training-efficiency gains depend on this sampling density.
  • Transfer-learning gradient stopping threshold = not stated
    The stopping condition used when training the last layer on calibrated pulses is described only as a threshold on gradient norm; the value is not given, which affects the reported number of calibration samples.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The qubit dynamics obey the Schrodinger equation with bilinear control, i|dpsi/dt> = (H0 + sum_j a_j H_j)|psi>.
    Invoked throughout as the equation of motion for the simulated transmon model; this is the physical model rather than a mathematical theorem.
  • domain assumption The control Hamiltonian in Eq. (4), with X, Y, and iSWAP drives and no Z drive, captures the relevant hardware behavior.
    Chosen to match experimental gate-family work [7], [8]; the absence of Z control makes the control problem harder. The paper does not validate this against a full transmon model.
  • standard math Piecewise-constant control accelerations, integrated twice with boundary conditions a(0)=a(T)=0, produce valid smooth pulses.
    Used in the NN output layer and the Piccolo problem templates to guarantee differentiability and boundedness.
  • domain assumption Piccolo direct collocation converges to a feasible solution satisfying the 0.9999 fidelity constraint for each reference gate.
    The pretraining and minimum-time results rely on the solver returning correct local optima; no convergence certificates are given.
  • domain assumption Device drift can be modeled as a linear transfer matrix T applied to the pulse amplitudes, with entries drawn from N(0,0.10).
    This model, Eq. (9), underlies the transfer-learning demonstration and is justified by references [47], [48], but it is a simulation assumption.
  • domain assumption A second-order Magnus expansion is valid for the control amplitudes used in Appendix A.
    The argument that RZ interpolation is nonlinear uses this approximation to derive necessary conditions on the controls; it is an analysis tool, not a proof for general amplitudes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using optimal control to guide neural-network interpolation of continuously-parameterized gates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J6XA6WGD

@misc{pith2026241206623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using optimal control to guide neural-network interpolation of continuously-parameterized gates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J6XA6WGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06623}
}
read the original abstract

Control synthesis for continuously-parameterized families of quantum gates can enable critical advantages for mid-sized quantum computing applications in advance of fault-tolerance. We combine quantum optimal control with physics-informed machine learning to efficiently synthesize control surfaces that interpolate among continuously-parameterized gate families. Using optimal control as an active learning strategy to guide pretraining, we bootstrap a physics-informed neural network to achieve rapid convergence to nonlinear control surfaces sufficient for our desired gates. We find our approach is critical for enabling an expressiveness beyond linear interpolation, which is important in cases of hard quantum control. We show in simulation that by adapting our pretraining to use a few reference pulse calibrations, we can apply transfer learning to quickly calibrate our learned control surfaces when devices fluctuate over time. We demonstrate synthesis for one and two qubit gates with one or two parameters, focusing on gate families for variational quantum algorithm (VQA) ansatz. By avoiding the inefficient decomposition of VQA ansatz into basis gate sets, continuous gate families are a potential method to improve the noise robustness of VQAs in the near term. Our framework shows how accessible optimal control tools can be combined with simple machine learning to enable practitioners to achieve 3x speedups for their algorithms by going beyond the standard gate sets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A physics-informed neural network (NN), f(· ;W), is used to map from gate parameters, θ, to control accelerations, a¨. (a) The NN actively learns during a pretraining phase, guided by pulse designs from a coordinated quantum optimal control problem. (b) The network is further trained on a fidelity-based loss in order to learn to interpolate. The result is an efficient and compact representation of high-fidelity cont… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of regularization choices for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pulses are synthesized for a one-qubit, one-parameter gate family, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heatmaps plotting the log of the infidelity for two parameter gate families [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-qubit QEB-ADAPT-VQE operator, Ae 12(θ) (8) [14], [46]. occurs in the ansatz built. When decomposed into a basis gate set, this gate contains 3 CNOT gates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average infidelity of a densely sampled test set is plotted versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Optimal control of families of quantum gates,

    F. Sauvage and F. Mintert, “Optimal control of families of quantum gates,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 129, no. 5, p. 050507, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [17]

    Efficient control pulses for continuous quantum gate families through coordinated re-optimization,

    J. D. Chadwick and F. T. Chong, “Efficient control pulses for continuous quantum gate families through coordinated re-optimization,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1286–1294

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Open quantum assembly language,

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, “Open quantum assembly language,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03429 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

  4. [2]

    A practical quantum instruction set architecture,

    R. S. Smith, M. J. Curtis, and W. J. Zeng, “A practical quantum instruction set architecture,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03355 , 2016

    arXiv 2016

  5. [3]

    A software methodology for compiling quantum programs,

    T. H ¨aner, D. S. Steiger, K. Svore, and M. Troyer, “A software methodology for compiling quantum programs,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 020501, 2018

    2018

  6. [4]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  7. [5]

    Optimized compilation of aggregated instructions for realistic quantum computers,

    Y . Shi, N. Leung, P. Gokhale, Z. Rossi, D. I. Schuster, H. Hoffmann, and F. T. Chong, “Optimized compilation of aggregated instructions for realistic quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , 2019, pp. 1031–1044

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al., “Variational quantum algorithms,” Nature Reviews Physics , vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    Implementation of XY entangling gates with a single calibrated pulse,

    D. M. Abrams, N. Didier, B. R. Johnson, M. P. d. Silva, and C. A. Ryan, “Implementation of XY entangling gates with a single calibrated pulse,” Nature Electronics, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 744–750, 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Demonstrating a continuous set of two-qubit gates for near-term quantum algorithms,

    B. Foxen, C. Neill, A. Dunsworth, P. Roushan, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, K. Satzinger, R. Barends et al. , “Demonstrating a continuous set of two-qubit gates for near-term quantum algorithms,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 125, no. 12, p. 120504, 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    Improving the performance of deep quantum optimization algorithms with continuous gate sets,

    N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, C. K. Andersen, A. Di Paolo, A. Remm, S. Lazar, S. Krinner, G. J. Norris, M. Gabureac, J. Heinsoo et al., “Improving the performance of deep quantum optimization algorithms with continuous gate sets,” PRX Quantum, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 020304, 2020

    2020

  4. [10]

    Simulating non-native cubic interactions on noisy quantum machines,

    Y . Shi, A. R. Castelli, X. Wu, I. Joseph, V . Geyko, F. R. Graziani, S. B. Libby, J. B. Parker, Y . J. Rosen, L. A. Martinez et al. , “Simulating non-native cubic interactions on noisy quantum machines,” Physical Review A, vol. 103, no. 6, p. 062608, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,” Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 3007, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,

    B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, “Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 10, 2020

    2020

  7. [13]

    Symmetry breaking slows convergence of the ADAPT Variational Quantum Eigensolver,

    L. W. Bertels, H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, “Symmetry breaking slows convergence of the ADAPT Variational Quantum Eigensolver,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 6656–6669, 2022

    2022

  8. [14]

    Efficient quantum circuits for quantum computational chemistry,

    Y . S. Yordanov, D. R. Arvidsson-Shukur, and C. H. Barnes, “Efficient quantum circuits for quantum computational chemistry,” Physical Review A, vol. 102, no. 6, p. 062612, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Continuous quantum gate sets and pulse-class meta-optimization,

    F. Preti, T. Calarco, and F. Motzoi, “Continuous quantum gate sets and pulse-class meta-optimization,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 040311, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Bilinear dynamic mode decomposition for quantum control,

    A. Goldschmidt, E. Kaiser, J. L. Dubois, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Bilinear dynamic mode decomposition for quantum control,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 23, no. 3, p. 033035, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe,

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Filipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte-Herbr ¨uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, “Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Active learning with statistical models,

    D. A. Cohn, Z. Ghahramani, and M. I. Jordan, “Active learning with statistical models,” Journal of artificial intelligence research , vol. 4, pp. 129–145, 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    Direct collocation for quantum optimal control,

    A. Trowbridge, A. Bhardwaj, K. He, D. I. Schuster, and Z. Manchester, “Direct collocation for quantum optimal control,” in 2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1278–1285. 10

    2023

  14. [22]

    Pad´e Integrator Direct Collocation (Piccolo.jl),

    “Pad´e Integrator Direct Collocation (Piccolo.jl),” https://github.com/ kestrelquantum/Piccolo.jl

  15. [23]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep learning. MIT press, 2016, http://www.deeplearningbook.org

    2016

  16. [24]

    Neural network approximation of piecewise continuous functions: application to friction compensation,

    R. Selmic and F. Lewis, “Neural network approximation of piecewise continuous functions: application to friction compensation,” in Proceed- ings of 12th IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control , 1997, pp. 227–232

    1997

  17. [25]

    Gradient-based optimal control of open quantum systems using quantum trajectories and automatic differentiation,

    M. Abdelhafez, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, “Gradient-based optimal control of open quantum systems using quantum trajectories and automatic differentiation,” Physical Review A , vol. 99, no. 5, p. 052327, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise,

    T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, “Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 095004, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms,

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr ¨uggen, and S. J. Glaser, “Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance , vol. 172, no. 2, pp. 296 – 305, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    One decade of quantum optimal control in the chopped random basis,

    M. M. M ¨uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, “One decade of quantum optimal control in the chopped random basis,” Reports on Progress in Physics , vol. 85, no. 7, p. 076001, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits,

    S. Machnes, E. Ass´emat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm, “Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 120, no. 15, p. 150401, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Krotov: A Python implementation of krotov’s method for quantum optimal control,

    M. Goerz, D. Basilewitsch, F. Gago-Encinas, M. G. Krauss, K. P. Horn, D. M. Reich, and C. Koch, “Krotov: A Python implementation of krotov’s method for quantum optimal control,” SciPost Physics, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 080, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Optimal control of closed quantum sys- tems via B-splines with carrier waves,

    N. A. Petersson and F. Garcia, “Optimal control of closed quantum sys- tems via B-splines with carrier waves,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14310, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Software tools for quantum control: Improving quantum computer performance through noise and error suppression,

    H. Ball, M. Biercuk, A. Carvalho, J. Chen, M. R. Hush, L. A. De Castro, L. Li, P. J. Liebermann, H. Slatyer, C. Edmunds et al., “Software tools for quantum control: Improving quantum computer performance through noise and error suppression,” Quantum Science and Technology , 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Robust quantum optimal control with trajectory optimization,

    T. Propson, B. E. Jackson, J. Koch, Z. Manchester, and D. I. Schuster, “Robust quantum optimal control with trajectory optimization,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 014036, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Sampling-based learning control for quantum systems with uncertainties,

    D. Dong, M. A. Mabrok, I. R. Petersen, B. Qi, C. Chen, and H. Rabitz, “Sampling-based learning control for quantum systems with uncertainties,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2155–2166, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Control optimization for parametric hamiltonians by pulse reconstruction,

    P. Luchi, F. Turro, S. Quaglioni, X. Wu, V . Amitrano, K. Wendt, J. L. DuBois, and F. Pederiva, “Control optimization for parametric hamiltonians by pulse reconstruction,” The European Physical Journal A, vol. 59, no. 9, p. 196, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Exploring adiabatic quantum trajectories via optimal control,

    C. Brif, M. D. Grace, M. Sarovar, and K. C. Young, “Exploring adiabatic quantum trajectories via optimal control,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 16, no. 6, p. 065013, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering,

    P. De Fouquieres, S. Schirmer, S. Glaser, and I. Kuprov, “Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance , vol. 212, no. 2, pp. 412–417, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers: Corrigendum and additional data,

    D. D. Lewis, “A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers: Corrigendum and additional data,” in Acm Sigir Forum, vol. 29, no. 2. ACM New York, NY , USA, 1995, pp. 13–19

    1995

  31. [39]

    Characterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative randomized benchmarking,

    S. Sheldon, L. S. Bishop, E. Magesan, S. Filipp, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Characterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative randomized benchmarking,” Physical Review A , vol. 93, p. 012301, Jan 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Adaptive hybrid optimal quantum control for imprecisely characterized systems,

    D. J. Egger and F. K. Wilhelm, “Adaptive hybrid optimal quantum control for imprecisely characterized systems,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 112, no. 24, p. 240503, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Optimal quantum control using randomized benchmarking,

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey et al. , “Optimal quantum control using randomized benchmarking,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 112, no. 24, p. 240504, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al. , “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    The snake optimizer for learning quantum processor control parameters,

    P. V . Klimov, J. Kelly, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, “The snake optimizer for learning quantum processor control parameters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04594, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Experimental deep rein- forcement learning for error-robust gate-set design on a superconducting quantum computer,

    Y . Baum, M. Amico, S. Howell, M. Hush, M. Liuzzi, P. Mundada, T. Merkh, A. R. Carvalho, and M. J. Biercuk, “Experimental deep rein- forcement learning for error-robust gate-set design on a superconducting quantum computer,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, nov 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,” Applied Physics Reviews , vol. 6, no. 2, p. 021318, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Qubit-excitation-based adaptive variational quantum eigen- solver,

    Y . S. Yordanov, V . Armaos, C. H. W. Barnes, and D. R. M. Arvidsson- Shukur, “Qubit-excitation-based adaptive variational quantum eigen- solver,” Communications Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, Oct. 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Metrology of quantum control and measurement in super- conducting qubits,

    Z. Chen, “Metrology of quantum control and measurement in super- conducting qubits,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    IBM Quantum documentation: System information,

    “IBM Quantum documentation: System information,” https://docs. quantum.ibm.com/run/system-information

  41. [49]

    d’Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dynamics

    D. d’Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dynamics . Chap- man and Hall/CRC, 2021. 11

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.