pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.20730 · v3 · submitted 2025-06-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

Engineering Precise and Robust Effective Hamiltonians

Jiahui Chen , David Cory This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 07:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords effective Hamiltonian engineeringquantum controltoggling framerobust controlzeroth-order approximationstate transfercumulant expansion
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework identifies the minimal subspace of the toggling-frame Hamiltonian to determine every achievable zeroth-order effective Hamiltonian for quantum control.

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

The paper develops a general method for designing quantum controls that produce a chosen effective Hamiltonian at the lowest order of approximation. It does so by locating the smallest set of toggling-frame operators whose linear combinations can generate any target zeroth-order term. A sympathetic reader would care because this removes guesswork from control design and directly supports applications in quantum simulation, sensing, and computation where unwanted higher-order effects and systematic errors must be kept small. The same machinery also yields protocols for robust state transfer and handles parameter fluctuations through a cumulant expansion. Concrete examples in the work show how the identified subspace leads to controls that are both precise and robust.

Core claim

The control design identifies the minimal subspace of the toggling-frame Hamiltonian and the full set of achievable, zeroth-order, effective Hamiltonians. This identification enables the construction of controls that realize any desired zeroth-order term while minimizing higher-order contributions and improving robustness against systematic errors.

What carries the argument

The minimal subspace of the toggling-frame Hamiltonian, which spans all possible zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians that can be reached by control sequences.

Load-bearing premise

The toggling-frame description remains valid and higher-order terms can be suppressed independently of the chosen zeroth-order target without creating new restrictions on achievable controls or robustness.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies the designed control sequence, measures the resulting effective Hamiltonian through spectroscopy or process tomography, and checks whether the observed higher-order residuals stay below the level predicted by the subspace analysis or exceed it in a manner inconsistent with the framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20730 by David Cory, Jiahui Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Illustration of a very simplified control system. The input s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Schematic for finding achievable scaling factors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Control parameters of a Hadamard gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A simple resonant circuit with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Control sequence for Hadamard gate that is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The control parameters (blue) and the relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Minimal length of sequence for a CNOT gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Control landscapes of different sequences as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Time-dependent control parameters of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a) Control landscape of the sequence (Fig. 9) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Control landscape of the sequence in Fig. 11. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Simulated survival probabilities of the states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: A network of three clusters. Different clusters are controll [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Schematic for finding achievable scaling factors. The set of achi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Volume of the simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Illustration of the discretization of output field parameters. T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: A simple resonant circuit with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Engineering effective Hamiltonians is essential for advancing quantum technologies including quantum simulation, sensing, and computing. This paper presents a general framework for effective Hamiltonian engineering, enabling robust, precise, and efficient quantum control strategies. To achieve efficiency, we focus on creating target zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians while minimizing higher-order contributions and enhancing robustness against systematic errors. The control design identifies the minimal subspace of the toggling-frame Hamiltonian and the full set of achievable, zeroth-order, effective Hamiltonians. The framework also enables robust state transfer, characterization of achievable density matrices, and extension to stochastic parameter fluctuations via a cumulant expansion. Examples are included to illustrate the process flow and resultant precision and robustness.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a general framework for engineering effective Hamiltonians in quantum control. It focuses on achieving specified zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians within the toggling frame while suppressing higher-order terms in the Magnus expansion to improve robustness against systematic errors. The approach identifies the minimal subspace of the toggling-frame Hamiltonian and claims to characterize the complete set of achievable zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians. Extensions include robust state transfer, characterization of achievable density matrices, and handling of stochastic fluctuations via cumulant expansion, with examples illustrating the process.

Significance. If the decoupling between zeroth-order targets and higher-order suppression holds generally, the framework would provide a useful systematic tool for designing precise and robust quantum control sequences. The emphasis on identifying the full achievable set and minimal subspace could aid efficiency in applications such as quantum simulation and sensing, building on standard Magnus and cumulant techniques.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Control design and minimal subspace): The claim that the identified subspace yields the full set of achievable zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians requires a general proof or exhaustive verification rather than reliance on the examples. Without this, the completeness assertion remains unestablished for arbitrary targets.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Magnus expansion and higher-order terms): The central assumption that higher-order contributions can be minimized independently of the chosen zeroth-order target without restricting the achievable set is load-bearing but demonstrated only on selected examples. The nested commutators in the Magnus series couple the orders, so a general argument or counterexample analysis is needed to support the robustness and efficiency guarantees.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Examples section] The process flow for the examples would be clearer with an explicit step-by-step table or pseudocode listing the pulse design, subspace identification, and error suppression steps.
  2. [Notation and preliminaries] Notation for toggling-frame operators and the effective Hamiltonian is introduced without a consolidated definition; adding a short table of symbols would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for providing constructive comments that help improve the clarity and rigor of our work. We respond to each major comment in turn below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Control design and minimal subspace): The claim that the identified subspace yields the full set of achievable zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians requires a general proof or exhaustive verification rather than reliance on the examples. Without this, the completeness assertion remains unestablished for arbitrary targets.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for a clearer justification of completeness. The minimal subspace is constructed explicitly as the linear span of all toggling-frame operators that are independently addressable by the available control resources; any zeroth-order effective Hamiltonian is then obtained as a linear combination within this span. This construction is general and does not rely on the specific examples, which are provided only for illustration. To make the argument fully explicit, we will insert a short theorem and proof of completeness in the revised Section 3. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Magnus expansion and higher-order terms): The central assumption that higher-order contributions can be minimized independently of the chosen zeroth-order target without restricting the achievable set is load-bearing but demonstrated only on selected examples. The nested commutators in the Magnus series couple the orders, so a general argument or counterexample analysis is needed to support the robustness and efficiency guarantees.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies the potential coupling through nested commutators. Within the toggling-frame formulation, however, the control parameters that enter the higher-order Magnus terms can be varied while the zeroth-order average is held fixed, because the higher-order corrections depend on the detailed time-ordering inside the pulses rather than on the subspace projection itself. This separation has been verified across the examples in the manuscript. We acknowledge that a fully general proof for arbitrary Hamiltonians would be desirable; we will therefore add a concise discussion of the conditions under which the separation holds and include a brief analysis of possible counterexamples in the revised Section 4.2. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; framework extends standard quantum control methods

full rationale

The paper presents a general framework that identifies the minimal subspace of the toggling-frame Hamiltonian and the set of achievable zeroth-order effective Hamiltonians while minimizing higher-order terms via established techniques such as the Magnus expansion and cumulant expansion. No quoted equations or derivation steps in the abstract or description reduce any claimed result or prediction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or input by construction. The central claims build on standard quantum control concepts without self-definitional loops or renaming of known results, rendering the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks in the field.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard domain assumptions of quantum control theory; no explicit free parameters or new invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The toggling-frame transformation is a valid and useful representation for deriving effective Hamiltonians
    Central to identifying the minimal subspace and achievable zeroth-order terms.
  • domain assumption Higher-order contributions can be minimized while preserving the target zeroth-order Hamiltonian
    Required for the efficiency and robustness claims.
  • domain assumption Cumulant expansion accurately captures stochastic parameter fluctuations
    Used for the extension to random errors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5629 in / 1407 out tokens · 37435 ms · 2026-05-19T07:33:37.140546+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 119 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Choose Htarget = sà z/ √

    work page

  2. [2]

    Therefore, Htarget = 0 is achievable in zeroth order

    Via Algorithm 3, the range of achiev- able scaling factors is [-1,1]. Therefore, Htarget = 0 is achievable in zeroth order. Step 4. Design robust sequence. The target gate fi- delity is 0.9999, so given the strength of the depolarizing channel, the maximum gate time Tseq is 10 µs . Within this range, the number of intervals can be varied until the target fi...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For comparison, the control landscapes of a non-robust sequence with the same Tseq are also shown. Step 5. Calculate FoM. To simulate the FoM, as- sume ϵ > N ( 0, 0. 012) , i.e., a normal distribution with zero mean and variance 0 . 012 and that ∆ É > N ( 0, ( 0. 5MHz) 2) . The average gate fidelity (Eqs. (17) and (18)) of the resulting CPTP map of the rob...

    work page

  4. [4]

    0329 0 . 0036 0 . 9994 −0. 0076 −0. 9999 0 . 0039

    work page

  5. [5]

    9994 −0. 0077 −0. 0329 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ , ¯Λnon-robust = ⎛ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ 1

    work page

  6. [6]

    0101 0 . 0067 0 . 9708

    work page

  7. [7]

    0089 −0. 9865 0 . 0240

    work page

  8. [8]

    9747 0 . 0336 −0. 0227 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ . (27) The low FoM of the non-robust sequence is mainly due to its poor robustness rather than a unitary error. Averag- ing over parameter distributions typically causes depolar- ization of the density matrix. In general, the coherence of the error can be measured by the orthogonality of ¯Λ: R( ¯Λ) = ¯ΛT ¯Λ dim( ¯Λ) . (28)...

    work page

  9. [9]

    99993 and R( ¯Λnon-robust) = 0. 96703 . B. Robust Hadamard with finite control bandwidth Here, we add distortion to the Hadamard control se- quence from having a finite bandwidth (80 MHz) in a linear control system. The gate is designed to be robust to variations in bandwidth and to small anti-symmetric phase transients. For a square pulse, anti-symmetric p...

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    997+ 0.003 −0.002. FIG. 7: Control landscapes of different sequences as a function of the nonlinear coefficient ³ L. The main panel shows the full fidelity profile; the smaller panel on the right displays a zoomed view around the high-fidelity region near ³ L = 0. Although the robustness extends to negative³ L, ³ L is typically positive. D. Two-qubit gates The ...

    work page

  11. [11]

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

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, The physical implementation of quan- tum computation, Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics 48, 771 (2000)

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    J. Preskill, Reliable quantum computers, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 385 (1998)

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. K¨ ockenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, et al. , Training schr¨ odinger’s cat: Quantum optimal control: Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in europe, The European Physical Journal D 69, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. Corcoles, S. T. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, J. R. Rozen, et al. , Universal quantum gate set approaching fault-tolerant thresholds¡? format?¿ with superconducting qubits, Physical review letters 109, 060501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    M. A. Pravia, N. Boulant, J. Emerson, A. Farid, E. M. Fortunato, T. F. Havel, R. Martinez, and D. G. Cory, Robust control of quantum information, The Journal of chemical physics 119, 9993 (2003)

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Cappellaro, J

    P. Cappellaro, J. Hodges, T. Havel, and D. Cory, Princi- ples of control for decoherence-free subsystems, The Jour- nal of chemical physics 125 (2006)

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

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

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    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)

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Engineered two-dimensional ising interactions in a trapped-ion quantum simulator with hundreds of spins, Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Physical review A 52, R2493 (1995)

    work page 1995

  22. [22]

    Haeberlen and J

    U. Haeberlen and J. S. Waugh, Coherent averaging effects in magnetic resonance, Physical Review 175, 453 (1968)

    work page 1968

  23. [23]

    J. S. Waugh, L. M. Huber, and U. Haeberlen, Approach to high-resolution nmr in solids, Physical Review Letters 20, 180 (1968)

    work page 1968

  24. [24]

    Mansfield, Symmetrized pulse sequences in high res- olution nmr in solids, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 4, 1444 (1971)

    P. Mansfield, Symmetrized pulse sequences in high res- olution nmr in solids, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 4, 1444 (1971)

    work page 1971

  25. [25]

    W.-K. Rhim, D. Elleman, and R. Vaughan, Analysis of multiple pulse nmr in solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics 59, 3740 (1973)

    work page 1973

  26. [26]

    Burum and W

    D. Burum and W. Rhim, Analysis of multiple pulse nmr in solids. iii, The Journal of Chemical Physics 71, 944 (1979)

    work page 1979

  27. [27]

    magic echo

    K. Takegoshi and C. McDowell, A “magic echo” pulse sequence for the high-resolution nmr spectra of abundant spins in solids, Chemical physics letters 116, 100 (1985)

    work page 1985

  28. [28]

    D. Cory, J. Miller, and A. Garroway, Time-suspension multiple-pulse sequences: Applications to solid-state imaging, Journal of Magnetic Resonance (1969) 90, 205 (1990)

    work page 1969

  29. [29]

    Raleigh, M

    D. Raleigh, M. Levitt, and R. G. Griffin, Rotational res- onance in solid state nmr, Chemical Physics Letters 146, 71 (1988)

    work page 1988

  30. [30]

    Levitt, D

    M. Levitt, D. Raleigh, F. Creuzet, and R. Griffin, The- ory and simulations of homonuclear spin pair systems in rotating solids, The Journal of chemical physics 92, 6347 (1990)

    work page 1990

  31. [31]

    W. Rose, H. Haas, A. Q. Chen, N. Jeon, L. J. Lauhon, D. G. Cory, and R. Budakian, High-resolution nanoscale solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spec- troscopy, Physical Review X 8, 011030 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    H. Haas, S. Tabatabaei, W. Rose, P. Sahafi, M. Piscitelli , A. Jordan, P. Priyadarsi, N. Singh, B. Yager, P. J. Poole, et al. , Nuclear magnetic resonance diffraction with subangstrom precision, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2209213119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    M. F. O’Keeffe, L. Horesh, J. F. Barry, D. A. Braje, and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian engineering with constrained optimization for quantum sensing and control, New Jour- nal of Physics 21, 023015 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Poggiali, P

    F. Poggiali, P. Cappellaro, and N. Fabbri, Optimal con- trol for one-qubit quantum sensing, Physical Review X 8, 021059 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Tseng, S

    C. Tseng, S. Somaroo, Y. Sharf, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, T. F. Havel, and D. G. Cory, Quantum simulation of a three-body-interaction hamiltonian on an nmr quantum computer, Physical Review A 61, 012302 (1999)

    work page 1999

  36. [36]

    A. D. Bookatz, P. Wocjan, and L. Viola, Hamilto- nian quantum simulation with bounded-strength con- trols, New Journal of Physics 16, 045021 (2014)

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    K. X. Wei, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cappellaro, Exploring localization in nuclear spin chains, Physical review letters 120, 070501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Niknam, L

    M. Niknam, L. F. Santos, and D. G. Cory, Sensitivity of quantum information to environment perturbations mea- sured with a nonlocal out-of-time-order correlation func- tion, Physical Review Research 2, 013200 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    P. Peng, C. Yin, X. Huang, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cap- pellaro, Floquet prethermalization in dipolar spin chains, Nature Physics 17, 444 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    R. A. Jalabert and H. M. Pastawski, Environment- independent decoherence rate in classically chaotic sys- tems, Physical review letters 86, 2490 (2001)

    work page 2001

  41. [41]

    A. M. Souza, G. A. Alvarez, and D. Suter, Robust dy- namical decoupling for quantum computing and quantum memory, Physical review letters 106, 240501 (2011). 16

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Toˇ sner, T

    Z. Toˇ sner, T. Vosegaard, C. Kehlet, N. Khaneja, S. J. Glaser, and N. C. Nielsen, Optimal control in nmr spec- troscopy: Numerical implementation in simpson, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 197, 120 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Physical Review Letters 82, 2417 (1999)

    work page 1999

  44. [44]

    Zhang, N

    W. Zhang, N. Konstantinidis, V. Dobrovitski, B. Har- mon, L. F. Santos, and L. Viola, Long-time electron spin storage via dynamical suppression of hyperfine- induced decoherence in a quantum dot, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 77, 125336 (2008)

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    J. Choi, H. Zhou, H. S. Knowles, R. Landig, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Robust dynamic hamiltonian engineering of many-body spin systems, Physical Review X 10, 031002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    H. Zhou, L. S. Martin, M. Tyler, O. Makarova, N. Leitao, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Robust higher-order hamilto- nian engineering for quantum sensing with strongly in- teracting systems, Physical Review Letters 131, 220803 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Tyler, H

    M. Tyler, H. Zhou, L. S. Martin, N. Leitao, and M. D. Lukin, Higher-order methods for hamiltonian engineering pulse sequence design, Physical Review A 108, 062602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    P. Peng, X. Huang, C. Yin, L. Joseph, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cappellaro, Deep reinforcement learning for quan- tum hamiltonian engineering, Physical Review Applied 18, 024033 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Y. Baum, M. Amico, S. Howell, M. Hush, M. Liuzzi, P. Mundada, T. Merkh, A. R. Carvalho, and M. J. Bier- cuk, Experimental deep reinforcement learning for error- robust gate-set design on a superconducting quantum computer, PRX Quantum 2, 040324 (2021)

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    E. M. Fortunato, M. A. Pravia, N. Boulant, G. Tekle- mariam, T. F. Havel, and D. G. Cory, Design of strongly modulating pulses to implement precise effective hamil- tonians for quantum information processing, The Journal of chemical physics 116, 7599 (2002)

    work page 2002

  51. [51]

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

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix computations (JHU press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    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)

    work page 2005

  54. [54]

    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)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    d’Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dy- namics (Chapman and hall/CRC, 2021)

    D. d’Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dy- namics (Chapman and hall/CRC, 2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Magesan, D

    E. Magesan, D. Puzzuoli, C. E. Granade, and D. G. Cory, Modeling quantum noise for efficient testing of fault- tolerant circuits, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 87, 012324 (2013)

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    B. C. Gerstein and C. R. Dybowski, Transient techniques in nmr of solids: an introduction to theory and practice, (1985)

    work page 1985

  58. [58]

    Y. S. Weinstein, T. F. Havel, J. Emerson, N. Boulant, M. Saraceno, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, Quantum pro- cess tomography of the quantum fourier transform, The Journal of chemical physics 121, 6117 (2004)

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    I. N. Hincks, D. G. Cory, and C. Ramanathan, Equivalent hamiltonians for state to state transfer in the case of partial quantum control, arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.0944 (2011)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

    Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, arXiv preprint math- ph/0609050 (2006)

    F. Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, arXiv preprint math- ph/0609050 (2006)

    work page arXiv 2006

  61. [61]

    Hayes, S

    D. Hayes, S. T. Flammia, and M. J. Biercuk, Pro- grammable quantum simulation by dynamic hamiltonian engineering, New Journal of Physics 16, 083027 (2014)

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Tsallis and D

    C. Tsallis and D. A. Stariolo, Generalized simulated an- nealing, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli- cations 233, 395 (1996)

    work page 1996

  63. [63]

    C. P. Slichter, Principles of magnetic resonance , Vol. 1 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    Schanze, An exact d-dimensional tsallis random num- ber generator for generalized simulated annealing, Com- puter physics communications 175, 708 (2006)

    T. Schanze, An exact d-dimensional tsallis random num- ber generator for generalized simulated annealing, Com- puter physics communications 175, 708 (2006)

    work page 2006

  65. [65]

    Mehring and J

    M. Mehring and J. S. Waugh, Phase transients in pulsed nmr spectrometers, Review of Scientific Instruments 43, 649 (1972)

    work page 1972

  66. [66]

    T. M. Barbara, J. F. Martin, and J. G. Wurl, Phase tran- sients in nmr probe circuits, Journal of Magnetic Reso- nance (1969) 93, 497 (1991)

    work page 1969

  67. [67]

    Hincks, C

    I. Hincks, C. Granade, T. W. Borneman, and D. G. Cory, Controlling quantum devices with nonlinear hardware, Physical Review Applied 4, 024012 (2015)

    work page 2015

  68. [68]

    I. N. Hincks, C. E. Granade, T. W. Borneman, and D. G. Cory, Generating a control sequence for quantum control (2020), united States Patent

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    S. A. Maas, Nonlinear microwave and RF circuits (Artech house, 2003)

    work page 2003

  70. [70]

    Mohebbi, O

    H. Mohebbi, O. Benningshof, I. Taminiau, G. Miao, and D. Cory, Composite arrays of superconducting microstrip line resonators, Journal of Applied Physics 115 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Dahm and D

    T. Dahm and D. Scalapino, Theory of intermodulation in a superconducting microstrip resonator, Journal of ap- plied physics 81, 2002 (1997)

    work page 2002

  72. [72]

    Somaroo, C

    S. Somaroo, C. Tseng, T. Havel, R. Laflamme, and D. G. Cory, Quantum simulations on a quantum computer, Physical review letters 82, 5381 (1999)

    work page 1999

  73. [73]

    T. W. Borneman, M. D. H¨ urlimann, and D. G. Cory, Application of optimal control to cpmg refocusing pulse design, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 207, 220 (2010)

    work page 2010

  74. [74]

    Caneva, T

    T. Caneva, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Chopped random-basis quantum optimization, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 84, 022326 (2011)

    work page 2011

  75. [75]

    M. M. M¨ uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, One decade of quantum optimal con- trol in the chopped random basis, Reports on progress in physics 85, 076001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Cappellaro, J

    P. Cappellaro, J. Emerson, N. Boulant, C. Ramanathan, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, Entanglement assisted metrol- ogy, Physical review letters 94, 020502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  77. [77]

    To minimize the cross term between H 1 pert and H 2 pert, consider N = 2, the total Hamiltonian is Htot( t) = Hpri( t) + ( ω1−ω0) σz⊗σz⊗1+ ( ω2−ω0) σz⊗1⊗σz+ H 2 pert. (49) 17 Since both Hpri( t) and H 2 pert are symmetric with respect to a permutation of the two qubits in the spin amplifier, we only need to consider ( ω1 −ω0) σz ⊗σz ⊗1 for leading- order r...

    work page

  78. [78]

    D. G. Cory, A. F. Fahmy, and T. F. Havel, Ensemble quantum computing by nmr spectroscopy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94, 1634 (1997)

    work page 1997

  79. [79]

    T. W. Borneman and D. G. Cory, Bandwidth-limited control and ringdown suppression in high-q resonators, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 225, 120 (2012)

    work page 2012

  80. [80]

    Balasubramanian, I

    G. Balasubramanian, I. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al-Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hemmer, A. Krueger, et al. , Nanoscale imaging magnetometry with diamond spins under ambient conditions, Nature 455, 648 (2008)

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.