Robust Control of High-dimensional Quantum Systems against Coherent and Incoherent Errors

Re-Bing Wu; Yidian Fan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Robust Control of High-dimensional Quantum Systems against Coherent and Incoherent Errors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a Suzuki-Trotter splitting of the augmented open-system propagator makes robust multi-qubit gate design feasible in minutes rather than hours.

desk verdict A genuinely useful speedup for robust quantum control, but the second-order accuracy claim has a real gap in the multi-control case and the paper needs a fix before it should be published. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18590 v2 pith:T27R3JQQ submitted 2025-06-23 quant-ph

Yidian Fan , Re-Bing Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords robustquantumcontrolopensystemsSuzuki-TrotterexpansionaugmentedsystemGRAPEcoherenterrorsdecoherencemulti-qubitgatesynthesis

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 seeks to make robust quantum control design feasible for multi-qubit systems subject to both parametric (coherent) uncertainties and environmental (incoherent) decoherence. Its strategy is to expand the density matrix in a Taylor series in the uncertain parameters, turning the robust-control problem into optimal control of a larger deterministic augmented system, and then to accelerate the required simulations by a Suzuki-Trotter splitting of the augmented open-system propagator. The resulting ST-GRAPE algorithm is claimed to propagate the augmented state in $O(Nd^3)$ per time step instead of the $O(N^2 d^4)$ needed by standard ODE solvers, and the paper's multi-qubit simulations show it finding robust Hadamard, Toffoli, and CCCNOT controls in much less time. If the claim holds, robust first- and second-order gate designs that previously took hours can be produced in minutes at the tested system sizes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the second-order Suzuki-Trotter factorization of the augmented one-step propagator $S_k = \exp\big([H_{\rm eff} + u_c(t_k)H_c + C + \sum_j E_j]\Delta t\big)$ into a symmetric product of cheap factors (Eq. 21). Its efficiency rests on three structural facts: (i) the effective-Hamiltonian and control factors act on the $N$ Taylor sub-blocks independently as conjugation by $d\times d$ unitaries, costing $O(Nd^3)$; (ii) each uncertainty shift matrix $R_j$ is nilpotent with $R_j^{n+1}=0$, so $e^{E_j\Delta t/2}$ is a finite degree-$n$ polynomial; and (iii) the decoherence factor $e^{C\Delta t/2}$ is truncated to second order in $\gamma\Delta t$ under the premise of low decoherence rates. The same structure carries to the adjoint propagation needed for the backward GRAPE sweep, and the derivative of the Trotterized propagator with respect to a control amplitude is computed exactly.

What would settle it

Run ST-GRAPE's forward propagator on the paper's spin chain with $T_1=T_2$ shortened from 30 $\mu$s to about 1 $\mu$s, keeping $\Delta t=0.5$ ns, and compare the Trotterized augmented state with the exact ODE-solver state through $\delta_{\rm ST}$ (Eq. 48); if the relative error climbs far above the <2% level reported at 30 $\mu$s, the second-order truncation of $e^{C\Delta t/2}$ is the limiting assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ST-GRAPE is a gradient-based control optimizer that computes both the forward and backward sweeps of the Taylor-augmented master equation with a second-order Suzuki-Trotter factorization instead of exact matrix exponentials or an ODE integrator. The factorization replaces the full propagator $\exp([H_{\rm eff} + u_c(t_k)H_c + C + \sum_j E_j]\Delta t)$ by a symmetric product of cheap factors, and three structural facts keep the cost at $O(Nd^3)$: the effective-Hamiltonian and control factors act blockwise as conjugation by unitaries on each Taylor sub-block; the uncertainty coupling matrices $R_j$ are nilpotent, so $\exp(E_j\Delta t/2)$ is a finite polynomial; and the decoherence factor $\exp(C\Delta t/2)$ is truncated to second order in $\gamma\Delta t$ under the premise that decoherence rates are low. The paper reports that on a spin-chain model this makes forward propagation roughly ten times faster than an ODE solver for six or more qubits, and that the controls it finds match or beat the robustness of controls from the full method, cutting the average gate error of a 3-qubit Toffoli gate at $T=80$ ns from about 0.30 to about 0.03 under 2 MHz parameter noise.

Load-bearing premise

The speed and accuracy balance depends on decoherence being weak: $e^{C\Delta t/2}$ is truncated at second order in $\gamma\Delta t$ (Eq. 27), so when $T_1$ and $T_2$ are short enough that $\gamma\Delta t$ is not small, the dropped $O(\gamma^3\Delta t^3)$ terms degrade accuracy without any supplied bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For six-qubit Hadamard state preparation, ST-GRAPE reached fidelity 0.9925 in about 27 minutes, while GRAPE took about 64 minutes to reach the same level.
Forward propagation of the augmented system becomes about ten times faster than an ODE solver for six or more qubits, with fitted scaling exponents $d^{1.56}$ versus $d^{2.36}$.
Robust controls suppress errors over a wider uncertainty region: the area of the $\geq 0.99$ fidelity region roughly quadrupled for the six-qubit Hadamard control, and the Toffoli average gate error at $T=80$ ns dropped from about 0.30 to 0.039 for first-order and 0.033 for second-order robust solutions.
Gate synthesis requires only $d+1$ independent state-preparation subroutines per iteration instead of $d^2$, and these subroutines can be parallelized across cores.
Because the derivative of the Trotterized propagator is exact and the optimizer periodically checks the true objective, ST-GRAPE avoids being trapped by false optima introduced by the approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

Because each Suzuki-Trotter factor acts blockwise and independently on the $N$ Taylor sub-blocks, the algorithm's data layout is almost embarrassingly parallel; a GPU implementation, which the paper lists as future work, should push the practical crossover point below five qubits.
The augmented-system framework with nilpotent shift matrices should extend to non-additive uncertainties such as multiplicative control errors, as long as the same shift-structure recurrence for the Taylor coefficients remains valid; the paper demonstrates only additive noise.
An adaptive step-size variant suggests itself: instead of terminating when the Trotterized objective diverges from the true one, reduce $\Delta t$ at that iteration and continue, potentially preserving most of the speedup while improving final fidelity.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea is solid and worth reading: applying Suzuki-Trotter splitting to the Taylor-augmented open-system dynamics, with the nilpotent-block algebra for the uncertainty propagators, gives a practical speedup for robust control design in multi-qubit systems. The numerical results show real improvement—about 10x for 6+ qubits in their benchmarks, and the robustness gains against the sampled noise are demonstrated cleanly. The paper also does the right thing by validating the Trotter approximation against an exact ODE solver and Monte Carlo sampling, rather than only fitting its own objective. That earns it respect.

The soft spot is the error analysis for multiple control Hamiltonians, and it is not minor. Section II.C proves an O(Δt^2) bound for a single diagonal control Hamiltonian, and Appendix B extends this to multiple non-diagonal controls by splitting them into groups of commuting operators. For the spin-chain example that means splitting the x-controls from the y-controls. But those two groups do not commute—[σx_i, σy_i] = 2i σz_i—so Eq. (B2) is a first-order Lie-Trotter splitting, not a second-order one. The symmetric placement of the control factors in Eq. (21) does not cancel the leading error; the local error is still O(Δt^2), giving global O(Δt), not O(Δt^2). The claimed accuracy-versus-stepsize trade-off in Eq. (22) is therefore not established for the main examples. The empirical δST below 2% at Δt = 0.5 ns suggests the approximation is still fine in the tested regime, but that is a numerical accident relative to the proof, not a consequence of second-order structure. The authors need to either prove a proper second-order bound for the multi-control case or report the actual first-order error and justify it at their operating point.

The other issues are less serious. The penalty weights λ are free optimization parameters, but their values are never reported, which makes the quantitative comparisons hard to reproduce. No code or data is shipped. The stopping rule for ST-GRAPE ('check J every 50 iterations, stop when it drops') is described, but the exact tolerance is not given. The weak-decoherence truncation in Eq. (27) is a regime assumption, and with T1,T2 = 30 μs it is very well satisfied—so that one is a minor caveat, not a flaw.

Who gets value: quantum control practitioners working on robust gate design in multi-qubit / moderate-dimensional systems. The paper deserves a serious referee and a conditional acceptance after the error-analysis gap is fixed and the reproducibility details are added. The central algorithm is promising; it just needs to be described accurately.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ST-GRAPE, an algorithm for robust quantum control of open quantum systems with parametric uncertainties. The density matrix is expanded in powers of the uncertainty parameters, yielding an augmented Lindblad system, and a Suzuki-Trotter decomposition is applied to the step propagator to reduce the per-step computational cost from O(N^2 d^4) for ODE solvers to O(N d^3). A GRAPE-type gradient for the Trotterized objective is derived, and the true objective is periodically re-evaluated to guard against Trotter-induced false optima. Numerical experiments on spin-chain models demonstrate improved robustness for Hadamard state preparation, Toffoli gates, and CCCNOT gates, with speedups for moderately large systems.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it combines the augmented-system approach to robustness with a scalable propagation scheme and a cheap exact gradient for the approximate objective. The manuscript deserves credit for a careful complexity accounting, for validating the Suzuki-Trotter state against an independent exact ODE solver (δ_ST below 2% for up to 10 qubits in Fig. 2), and for evaluating robustness through Monte Carlo sampling of gate error CDFs rather than only through the optimized objective. A possible concern that the multi-control grouping in Eq. (B2) reduces the overall order to first order does not land: because the grouped factors are inserted symmetrically on both sides of Eq. (21), the standard palindromic-splitting argument keeps the local error at O(Δt^3). The main unresolved issues are the missing quantitative bound for the decoherence truncation in Eq. (27) and the need to state the hypotheses of the d+1-state gate-synthesis theorem precisely.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II C, Eq. (27)] The truncation of e^{CΔt/2} to second order is justified only by the qualitative statement that 'modern devices ... maintain low decoherence rates γ_i.' No quantitative condition is given. The local error of this truncation is O(γ^3Δt^3), which is of the same order in Δt as the Trotter error, but the prefactor grows as γ^3 and may involve the norm of C. The paper should state a concrete condition (e.g., γ_i Δt ≪ 1 with an explicit norm bound) and, in the numerical section, verify that the measured δ_ST is not dominated by this truncation. As it stands, the advertised O(Δt^2) accuracy is established only in the low-decoherence regime and without a quantitative error bound.
[Sec. II C / Appendix B, Eqs. (21), (22), (B2)] The second-order statement for multiple control groups is not demonstrated in the text. Equation (B2) is a first-order factorization when the grouped generators do not commute, and a reader may conclude that Eq. (22) fails for the spin-chain controls in Eq. (45). In fact, because the factors are inserted symmetrically on both sides of Eq. (21), the local error remains O(Δt^3) by the standard palindromic-splitting argument; however, the manuscript does not state or prove this, nor does it cite the specific result in Ref. [43] that covers it. Please add a short proof or an explicit reference, and include a Δt-convergence test for a case with two noncommuting control groups to substantiate Eq. (22) numerically.
[Sec. III B / Appendix D, Eq. (D2)] The reduction from d^2 to d+1 initial states is a central efficiency claim, but the hypotheses of the cited theorem are not stated. In particular, Eq. (D2) lists ρ(3)=I_d, which is not a normalized density matrix, and the theorem in Refs. [32,73] is invoked for a general CPTP map without specifying its assumptions. Please state the theorem precisely, including trace normalization and any restrictions on the map, so that the validity of Eq. (37) for open-system dynamics is clear.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] Because the grouping in Eq. (B2) is only first-order by itself, it would help the reader to add one sentence explaining that the palindromic placement in Eq. (21) is what preserves second-order accuracy.
[Sec. IV, Eq. (46)] The definition σ±_i = σx_i ± σy_i is nonstandard; the usual lowering and raising operators include a factor 1/2 and an imaginary unit, which affects the normalization of the Lindblad rates. Please reconcile this notation with the reported T1 and T2 values.
[Sec. III A, Eq. (32)] The choice of penalty weights λ_{p1,...,pm} is not discussed, nor is the sensitivity of the resulting robustness to these weights. A brief explanation of how the weights were set in the simulations would improve reproducibility.
[Sec. IV A] The fitted scalings d^2.36 for the ODE solver and d^1.56 for the S-T expansion differ from the dense-matrix scalings in Table I; the attribution of this difference to sparsity is plausible but not supported by an analysis. Please quantify the sparsity or state explicitly that the exponents are empirical.
[Sec. III C, after Eq. (44)] The statement that the gradient in Eq. (44) is 'exact' could be misinterpreted: it is the exact derivative of the Trotterized objective, not of the true objective function. Please phrase this distinction explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the augmented-system equations are derived from Taylor expansion, and ST-GRAPE is validated against independent ODE integration and Monte Carlo noise sampling rather than against its own fitted quantities.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the augmented-system equations (10)-(11) follow by direct Taylor expansion and coefficient matching from Eqs. (5)-(7), not from the conclusions. The S-T approximation is benchmarked against an independent ODE solver in Eq. (48), and the robustness claims are tested by Monte Carlo sampling over uncertainty distributions, not by re-evaluating fitted expansion coefficients. The only free parameters are the penalty weights lambda in Eq. (32), which are optimization knobs rather than fitted inputs called predictions. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [6,11,17,70]) appear only for background and do not carry the derivation; the load-bearing citations for the augmented formalism and the d+1-state gate synthesis are external ([26] and [32,73]). No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by the paper's own equations, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the present authors. Potential technical concerns about the Trotter order for multiple control groups are correctness or accuracy issues, not circularity, so they do not affect this verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, interactions, or conserved quantities are postulated. The augmented state (rho_{p1...pm}) is a mathematical coordinate representation of Taylor coefficients, not an independent physical object, and its validity is internally checked against exact ODE integration.

free parameters (2)

lambda_{p1,...,pm} penalty weights in J = not reported
In Eq. (32), the weights balancing target fidelity against suppression of each Taylor coefficient are chosen by hand; no values or selection rule are given, yet the robustness/performance trade-off and the comparison with J_tilde (Fig. 6) depend directly on them.
N_r = 50 (true-objective re-check interval) = 50 iterations
ST-GRAPE checks the true objective J every 50 iterations and stops as soon as J decreases; this interval and the stopping rule are heuristic choices that affect the final solution and runtime, but are not varied or justified.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The uncertainty parameters epsilon_j are small enough that truncating the Taylor expansion of rho(t) at order n is accurate (Sec. II A, Eq. (5)).
The whole augmented-system construction replaces the uncertain master equation by a finite set of Taylor coefficients; if the uncertainties are not small, the neglected higher-order terms dominate and the 'robust' design is not actually robust. The paper states 'the uncertainty parameters are usually small' but gives no quantitative criterion.
domain assumption Decoherence rates gamma_i are low enough that e^{C Delta t/2} can be truncated at second order in gamma Delta t (Eq. (27)).
The O(Nd^3) speedup and the O(Delta t^2) accuracy both rely on this truncation. Strong decoherence would require retaining higher powers of C, whose cost is not analyzed. The paper justifies it by 'modern devices... maintain low decoherence rates'.
domain assumption The Lindblad master equation with additive uncertainty superoperators E_j captures the relevant coherent and incoherent errors (Eqs. (2)-(4)).
All results are derived from this model; multiplicative noise, non-Markovian environments, and parameter-dependent Lindblad operators are outside the framework (the paper notes multiplicative noise as future work).
standard math The d+1 initial states of Ref. [32,73] are sufficient to characterize and robustly optimize a unitary gate under dissipative evolution (Appendix D).
Imported as a proven theorem from Goerz, Reich and Koch [32] and Reich et al. [73]. The robust-gate objective (37) inherits this characterization, though the paper does not re-prove it for the augmented robust objective.
domain assumption The quantum control landscape is trap-free or at least benign enough for local gradient ascent (Sec. III C, Refs. [74-76]).
GRAPE and L-BFGS-B find local optima; the cited landscape results are for closed-system ideal control, whereas the robust open-system objective J may have traps. The simulations suggest convergence in the tested examples, but no landscape analysis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Control of High-dimensional Quantum Systems against Coherent and Incoherent Errors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T27R3JQQ

@misc{pith2026250618590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Control of High-dimensional Quantum Systems against Coherent and Incoherent Errors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T27R3JQQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18590}
}

read the original abstract

Toward scalable quantum computing, the control of quantum systems needs to be robust against both coherent errors induced by parametric uncertainties and incoherent errors induced by environmental decoherence. This poses significant challenges for high-dimensional systems due to the computational intensity involved in the control design process. In this paper, we propose a systematic framework to improve the design efficiency. By employing the Taylor series expansion of uncertain parameters, the problem of robust control for an uncertain quantum system is reformulated as the optimal control problem of an augmented deterministic system. The Suzuki-Trotter expansion is then applied to accelerate the calculation of the system dynamics. Numerical simulations of quantum state preparation and quantum gate synthesis demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can successfully identify robust solutions in multi-qubit systems. The enhanced efficiency effectively extends the feasibility of high-order robust control for realistic high-dimensional quantum systems with multiple error sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18590 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Benchmarking the ODE solver and the S-T expan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Robust control optimization for the 6-qubit Hadamard transform. (a) Infidelity of controls optimized by GRAPE and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scalability of the GRAPE and ST-GRAPE algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Robust control optimization for Toffoli gate synthe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. CDFs of gate errors under robust control solutions in CCCNOT gate synthesis. The non-robust ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[43]

A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Advances in Physics 63, 77 (2014)

2014
[1]

The curves are derived from the same 2 000 noise samples used to generate panel (b)

(c) CDFs of gate errors under robust control solutions at T = 80 ns. The curves are derived from the same 2 000 noise samples used to generate panel (b). The background histograms in both panels (b) and (c) count the number of samples within different error intervals. 12 circuits, besides reducing the gate errors, the gate dura- tion T should also align w...
[2]

and the second-order robust ( u∗
[3]

The red line benchmarks the robust solution ˜ u, which is optimized using GRAPE under the alternative objective function ˜J defined in Eq

control solutions are optimized from a random seed at T = 100 ns by GRAPE and ST-GRAPE, respectively. The red line benchmarks the robust solution ˜ u, which is optimized using GRAPE under the alternative objective function ˜J defined in Eq. (34). Panel (a) shows results for 2 000 uncertainty samples ( ϵ1,··· ,ϵ 4) drawn from a normal distribution N (0,σ 2...
[4]

Krantz, M

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied physics reviews 6 (2019)

2019
[5]

Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

2018
[6]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

2010
[7]

Khaneja, T

N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of magnetic resonance 172, 296 (2005)

2005

Show all 87 references

[8]

Koswara, V

A. Koswara, V. Bhutoria, and R. Chakrabarti, Quantum robust control theory for hamiltonian and control field uncertainty, New Journal of Physics 23, 063046 (2021)

2021
[9]

R.-B. Wu, B. Chu, D. H. Owens, and H. Rabitz, Data- driven gradient algorithm for high-precision quantum control, Physical Review A 97, 042122 (2018)

2018
[10]

M. A. Rol, L. Ciorciaro, F. K. Malinowski, B. M. Tarasin- ski, R. E. Sagastizabal, C. C. Bultink, Y. Salathe, N. Haandbæk, J. Sedivy, and L. DiCarlo, Time-domain characterization and correction of on-chip distortion of control pulses in a quantum processor, Applied Physics Let...

2020
[11]

P. Zhao, K. Linghu, Z. Li, P. Xu, R. Wang, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Quantum crosstalk analysis for simul- taneous gate operations on superconducting qubits, PRX quantum 3, 020301 (2022)

2022
[12]

C. A. Weidner, E. A. Reed, J. Monroe, B. Sheller, S. O’Neil, E. Maas, E. A. Jonckheere, F. C. Lang- bein, and S. G. Schirmer, Robust quantum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice (2024), arXiv:2401.00294 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[13]

C. Chen, D. Dong, R. Long, I. R. Petersen, and H. A. Rabitz, Sampling-based learning control of inhomoge- neous quantum ensembles, Physical Review A89, 023402 (2014)

2014
[14]

R.-B. Wu, H. Ding, D. Dong, and X. Wang, Learning ro- bust and high-precision quantum controls, Physical Re- view A 99, 042327 (2019)

2019
[15]

Turinici, Stochastic learning control of inhomogeneous quantum ensembles, Phys

G. Turinici, Stochastic learning control of inhomogeneous quantum ensembles, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053403 (2019)

2019
[16]

X. Ge, H. Ding, H. Rabitz, and R.-B. Wu, Robust quan- tum control in games: An adversarial learning approach, Physical Review A 101, 052317 (2020)

2020
[17]

Li and N

J.-S. Li and N. Khaneja, Control of inhomogeneous quan- tum ensembles, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 73, 030302 (2006)

2006
[18]

Van Damme, Q

L. Van Damme, Q. Ansel, S. Glaser, and D. Sugny, Ro- bust optimal control of two-level quantum systems, Phys- ical Review A 95, 063403 (2017)

2017
[19]

J.-S. Li, W. Zhang, and Y.-H. Kuan, Moment quantiza- tion of inhomogeneous spin ensembles, Annual Reviews in Control 54, 305 (2022)

2022
[20]

X. Cao, J. Cui, M. H. Yung, and R.-B. Wu, Robust con- trol of single-qubit gates at the quantum speed limit, Physical Review A 110, 022603 (2024)

2024
[21]

P. M. Poggi, G. De Chiara, S. Campbell, and A. Kiely, Universally robust quantum control, Physical review let- ters 132, 193801 (2024)

2024
[22]

Propson, B

T. Propson, B. E. Jackson, J. Koch, Z. Manchester, and D. I. Schuster, Robust quantum optimal control with trajectory optimization, Physical Review Applied 17, 014036 (2022)

2022
[23]

D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal, On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization, Mathematical pro- gramming 45, 503 (1989)

1989
[24]

R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, and C. Zhu, A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization, SIAM Journal on scientific computing 16, 1190 (1995)

1995
[25]

T. J. Green, J. Sastrawan, H. Uys, and M. J. Biercuk, Ar- bitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of uni- versal noise, New Journal of Physics 15, 095004 (2013)

2013
[26]

Koswara and R

A. Koswara and R. Chakrabarti, Robustness of controlled quantum dynamics, Physical Review A 90, 043414 (2014)

2014
[27]

H. Haas, D. Puzzuoli, F. Zhang, and D. G. Cory, En- gineering effective hamiltonians, New Journal of Physics 21, 103011 (2019)

2019
[28]

Koswara, V

A. Koswara, V. Bhutoria, and R. Chakrabarti, Robust control of quantum dynamics under input and parameter uncertainty, Physical Review A 104, 053118 (2021)

2021
[29]

Puzzuoli, S

D. Puzzuoli, S. F. Lin, M. Malekakhlagh, E. Pritchett, B. Rosand, and C. J. Wood, Algorithms for perturbative analysis and simulation of quantum dynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 489, 112262 (2023)

2023
[30]

R. Liu, X. Yang, and J. Li, Robust quantum optimal control for markovian quantum systems, Physical Review A 110, 012402 (2024)

2024
[31]

B. Shao, X. Yang, R. Liu, Y. Zhai, D. Lu, T. Xin, and J. Li, Multiple classical noise mitigation by multiobjec- tive robust quantum optimal control, Physical Review Applied 21, 034042 (2024)

2024
[32]

Z.-J. Chen, H. Huang, L. Sun, Q.-X. Jie, J. Zhou, Z. Hua, Y. Xu, W. Wang, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, et al. , Robust and optimal control of open quantum systems, Science Advances 11, eadr0875 (2025)

2025
[33]

Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, A

T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, A. Sp¨ orl, N. Khaneja, and S. Glaser, Optimal control for generating quantum gates in open dissipative systems, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 154013 (2011)

2011
[34]

F. F. Floether, P. De Fouquieres, and S. G. Schirmer, Robust quantum gates for open systems via optimal con- trol: Markovian versus non-markovian dynamics, New Journal of Physics 14, 073023 (2012)

2012
[35]

M. H. Goerz, D. M. Reich, and C. P. Koch, Optimal control theory for a unitary operation under dissipative evolution, New Journal of Physics 16, 055012 (2014)

2014
[36]

C. P. Koch, Controlling open quantum systems: tools, achievements, and limitations, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 28, 213001 (2016)

2016
[37]

Boutin, C

S. Boutin, C. K. Andersen, J. Venkatraman, A. J. Ferris, and A. Blais, Resonator reset in circuit QED by optimal control for large open quantum systems, Physical Review A 96, 042315 (2017)

2017
[38]

Gautier, ´E

R. Gautier, ´E. Genois, and A. Blais, Optimal control in large open quantum systems: the case of transmon readout and reset, Physical Review Letters 134, 070802 (2025). 17

2025
[39]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press, USA, 2002)

2002
[40]

Jing and L.-A

J. Jing and L.-A. Wu, One-component quantum mechan- ics and dynamical leakage-free paths, Scientific reports 12, 9247 (2022)

2022
[41]

Abdelhafez, D

M. Abdelhafez, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Gradient- based optimal control of open quantum systems us- ing quantum trajectories and automatic differentiation, Physical Review A 99, 052327 (2019)

2019
[42]

R. Dum, A. Parkins, P. Zoller, and C. Gardiner, Monte carlo simulation of master equations in quantum optics for vacuum, thermal, and squeezed reservoirs, Physical Review A 46, 4382 (1992)

1992
[44]

Dalgaard, C

M. Dalgaard, C. A. Weidner, and F. Motzoi, Dynamical uncertainty propagation with noisy quantum parameters, Physical Review Letters 128, 150503 (2022)

2022
[45]

Bhole and J

G. Bhole and J. A. Jones, Practical pulse engineering: Gradient ascent without matrix exponentiation, Fron- tiers of Physics 13, 1 (2018)

2018
[46]

J. H. M. Jensen, F. S. Møller, J. J. Sørensen, and J. F. Sherson, Approximate dynamics leading to more optimal control: Efficient exact derivatives, Physical Review A 103, 062612 (2021)

2021
[47]

J. H. M. Jensen, F. S. Møller, J. J. Sørensen, and J. F. Sherson, Achieving fast high-fidelity optimal control of many-body quantum dynamics, Physical Review A 104, 052210 (2021)

2021
[48]

A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 86, 032324 (2012)

2012
[49]

M. H. Michael, M. Silveri, R. Brierley, V. V. Albert, J. Salmilehto, L. Jiang, and S. M. Girvin, New class of quantum error-correcting codes for a bosonic mode, Physical Review X 6, 031006 (2016)

2016
[50]

Acharya, L

R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, et al. , Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13687 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[51]

Leung, M

N. Leung, M. Abdelhafez, J. Koch, and D. Schuster, Speedup for quantum optimal control from automatic dif- ferentiation based on graphics processing units, Physical Review A 95, 042318 (2017)

2017
[52]

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 Con- ference on Architectural Support for Programming Lan- ...

2019
[53]

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)

2020 arXiv
[54]

Piveteau and D

C. Piveteau and D. Sutter, Circuit knitting with classi- cal communication, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (2023)

2023
[55]

R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Implementing a uni- versal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nature communications 8, 94 (2017)

2017
[56]

L. Hu, Y. Ma, W. Cai, X. Mu, Y. Xu, W. Wang, Y. Wu, H. Wang, Y. Song, C.-L. Zou, et al., Quantum error cor- rection and universal gate set operation on a binomial bosonic logical qubit, Nature Physics 15, 503 (2019)

2019
[57]

Z. Ni, S. Li, X. Deng, Y. Cai, L. Zhang, W. Wang, Z.-B. Yang, H. Yu, F. Yan, S. Liu, et al. , Beating the break- even point with a discrete-variable-encoded logical qubit, Nature 616, 56 (2023)

2023
[58]

Van Loan, Computing integrals involving the matrix exponential, IEEE transactions on automatic control 23, 395 (1978)

C. Van Loan, Computing integrals involving the matrix exponential, IEEE transactions on automatic control 23, 395 (1978)

1978
[59]

Carbonell, J

F. Carbonell, J. Jimenez, and L. Pedroso, Computing multiple integrals involving matrix exponentials, Jour- nal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 213, 300 (2008)

2008
[60]

D. L. Goodwin and I. Kuprov, Auxiliary matrix formal- ism for interaction representation transformations, opti- mal control, and spin relaxation theories, The Journal of chemical physics 143 (2015)

2015
[61]

Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234 (2013)

2013
[62]

T. F. Havel, Robust procedures for converting among lindblad, kraus and matrix representations of quantum dynamical semigroups, Journal of Mathematical Physics 44, 534 (2003)

2003
[63]

N. J. Higham, The scaling and squaring method for the matrix exponential revisited, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 26, 1179 (2005)

2005
[64]

A. H. Al-Mohy and N. J. Higham, A new scaling and squaring algorithm for the matrix exponential, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 31, 970 (2010)

2010
[65]

Virtanen, R

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peter- son, W. Weckesser, J. Bright,et al., Scipy 1.0: fundamen- tal algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature methods 17, 261 (2020)

2020
[66]

Kr¨ amer, D

S. Kr¨ amer, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, and H. Ritsch, Quantumoptics. jl: A julia framework for sim- ulating open quantum systems, Computer Physics Com- munications 227, 109 (2018)

2018
[67]

Puzzuoli, C

D. Puzzuoli, C. J. Wood, D. J. Egger, B. Rosand, and K. Ueda, Qiskit dynamics: A python package for simu- lating the time dynamics of quantum systems, Journal of Open Source Software 8, 5853 (2023)

2023
[68]

A. C. Hindmarsh, ODEPACK, a systemized collection of ode solvers, Scientific computing (1983)

1983
[69]

Hairer, G

E. Hairer, G. Wanner, and S. P. Nørsett, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems , Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Vol. 8 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993)

1993
[70]

Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, Journal of mathematical physics 32, 400 (1991)

M. Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, Journal of mathematical physics 32, 400 (1991)

1991
[71]

A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling, Physi- cal Review X 11, 011020 (2021)

2021
[72]

J. Han, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y. Ma, Y. Xu, W. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Song, C.-L. Zou, et al., Experimental simu- lation of open quantum system dynamics via trotteriza- tion, Physical Review Letters 127, 020504 (2021)

2021
[73]

Ge and R.-B

X. Ge and R.-B. Wu, Risk-sensitive optimization for ro- bust quantum controls, Physical Review A 104, 012422 (2021). 18

2021
[74]

Barends, J

R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, et al. , Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, Nature 508, 500 (2014)

2014
[75]

J. P. Palao and R. Kosloff, Optimal control theory for unitary transformations, Physical Review A 68, 062308 (2003)

2003
[76]

D. M. Reich, G. Gualdi, and C. P. Koch, Minimum num- ber of input states required for quantum gate charac- terization, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 88, 042309 (2013)

2013
[77]

H. A. Rabitz, M. M. Hsieh, and C. M. Rosenthal, Quan- tum optimally controlled transition landscapes, Science 303, 1998 (2004)

2004
[78]

Rabitz, M

H. Rabitz, M. Hsieh, and C. Rosenthal, Optimal con- trol landscapes for quantum observables, The Journal of chemical physics 124 (2006)

2006
[79]

Rabitz, M

H. Rabitz, M. Hsieh, and C. Rosenthal, Landscape for optimal control of quantum-mechanical unitary trans- formations, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 72, 052337 (2005)

2005
[80]

M. H. Goerz, S. C. Carrasco, and V. S. Malinovsky, Quantum optimal control via semi-automatic differenti- ation, Quantum 6, 871 (2022)

2022
[81]

Lambert, E

N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agar- wal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johans- son, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024), arXiv:2412.04705...

2024 arXiv
[82]

R. Li, K. Kubo, Y. Ho, Z. Yan, Y. Nakamura, and H. Goto, Realization of high-fidelity cz gate based on a double-transmon coupler, Physical Review X 14, 041050 (2024)

2024
[83]

M. A. Nielsen, A simple formula for the average gate fi- delity of a quantum dynamical operation, Physics Letters A 303, 249 (2002)

2002
[84]

L. H. Pedersen, N. M. Møller, and K. Mølmer, Fidelity of quantum operations, Physics Letters A 367, 47 (2007)

2007
[85]

Magesan, J

E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, Scalable and robust randomized benchmarking of quantum pro- cesses, Physical review letters 106, 180504 (2011)

2011
[86]

Proctor, K

T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, M. Sarovar, and R. Blume-Kohout, What randomized benchmarking ac- tually measures, Physical review letters 119, 130502 (2017)

2017
[87]

Hocker, C

D. Hocker, C. Brif, M. D. Grace, A. Donovan, T.-S. Ho, K. M. Tibbetts, R. Wu, and H. Rabitz, Characteriza- tion of control noise effects in optimal quantum unitary dynamics, Physical Review A 90, 062309 (2014)

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [43]

A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Advances in Physics 63, 77 (2014)

2014

[2] [1]

The curves are derived from the same 2 000 noise samples used to generate panel (b)

(c) CDFs of gate errors under robust control solutions at T = 80 ns. The curves are derived from the same 2 000 noise samples used to generate panel (b). The background histograms in both panels (b) and (c) count the number of samples within different error intervals. 12 circuits, besides reducing the gate errors, the gate dura- tion T should also align w...

[3] [2]

and the second-order robust ( u∗

[4] [3]

The red line benchmarks the robust solution ˜ u, which is optimized using GRAPE under the alternative objective function ˜J defined in Eq

control solutions are optimized from a random seed at T = 100 ns by GRAPE and ST-GRAPE, respectively. The red line benchmarks the robust solution ˜ u, which is optimized using GRAPE under the alternative objective function ˜J defined in Eq. (34). Panel (a) shows results for 2 000 uncertainty samples ( ϵ1,··· ,ϵ 4) drawn from a normal distribution N (0,σ 2...

[5] [4]

Krantz, M

P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied physics reviews 6 (2019)

2019

[6] [5]

Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

2018

[7] [6]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

2010

[8] [7]

Khaneja, T

N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of magnetic resonance 172, 296 (2005)

2005