Quantum Transport Protected by Acceleration From Nonadiabaticity and Dissipation

Arnab Chakrabarti; Biswarup Ash; Gershon Kurizki; Igor Mazets; Xi Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Quantum Transport Protected by Acceleration From Nonadiabaticity and Dissipation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an optimally varying trap acceleration can simultaneously suppress non-adiabatic wavepacket leakage and bath-induced dissipation, yielding higher transport fidelity than counterdiabatic shortcuts to adiabaticity.

desk verdict Genuinely new control idea and a careful derivation, but the fidelity target is the lab-frame eigenstate rather than the co-moving transported state, so the headline results don't hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21462 v1 pith:ZBYJWXHQ submitted 2025-06-26 quant-ph

Arnab Chakrabarti , Biswarup Ash , Igor Mazets , Xi Chen , Gershon Kurizki This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz

keywords quantumtransportcontrolnon-adiabaticleakageopensystemsnon-MarkovianbathshortcutstoadiabaticityBosepolaronLoschmidtechooptimalacceleration

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 the fidelity of a quantum wavepacket carried in a shallow, moving trap can be maximized by choosing the right acceleration schedule, rather than by adding counterdiabatic fields. The core difficulty is that fast motion leaks the wavepacket out of the trap through non-adiabatic transitions, while slow motion lets the surrounding bath dissipate it; the proposed acceleration control (AC-QUDIT) treats both losses in one optimal-trajectory problem. If correct, this gives a general way to transport trapped atoms, ions, and impurity atoms in condensates with high fidelity even at speeds faster than sound, without feedback or shortcuts to adiabaticity. The work matters because fast, low-loss transport is a basic operation for quantum information processing and for studies of Bose polarons.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Wigner-Weisskopf resummation of second-order self-energy diagrams for the Loschmidt-echo amplitude, which converts the transport problem into a cost-functional optimization. The central object is the fidelity functional $J[x_\circ,\dot{x}_\circ]$, whose minimization with the kinetic-energy constraint produces the integro-differential Euler-Lagrange equation; in the speed regime $|v| < (\omega_{\epsilon n}+\Omega_k)/k$, a frequency-discriminator approximation linearizes it to $\lambda \ddot{v}(t) = -\eta(t) - \zeta(t) v(t) + \int_0^{t_f} \phi(t-\tau) v(\tau)\,d\tau$, Eq. (7). This equation is the handle that turns the problem into a solvable boundary-value problem, with the bath response beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime entering through the kernels $\eta$, $\zeta$, and $\phi$.

What would settle it

Numerically propagate the full Schrödinger equation (or an exact non-Markovian master equation) for the Morse-trap impurity in a Bose-Einstein condensate with the paper's parameters, including $m=0.5 m_B$, $\tilde{g}=1.0\,t_B^{-1}$, and $v(t_f)=1.5c$, and compare the survival probability along the AC-QUDIT trajectory with the constant-speed and counterdiabatic-field trajectories; if the AC-QUDIT trajectory does not give the highest fidelity, or if the fidelity deviates from $\exp(-J)$, the leading-order approximation is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the survival probability of the transported wavepacket, the probability of remaining in the instantaneous bound state with no bath excitations, has the exponential form $P(t_f)=\exp(-J[x_\circ,\dot{x}_\circ])$, where $J$ is the sum of two positive loss terms: the power spectrum of the trap speed weighted by bound-to-continuum coupling (non-adiabatic leakage) and the squared phonon-mediated transition amplitudes (bath-induced loss). Minimizing $J$ under a kinetic-energy constraint leads to an Euler-Lagrange equation whose linearized form, Eq. (7), determines the optimal acceleration $\ddot{v}(t)$. The paper argues that this acceleration-controlled strategy suppresses both loss channels simultaneously and yields higher fidelity than counterdiabatic-field shortcuts to adiabaticity, especially when the target speed is non-adiabatic or supersonic, and even in the dissipationless vacuum case.

Load-bearing premise

The whole optimization rests on the leading-order Wigner-Weisskopf approximation, which replaces the unbound-sector propagator by the identity and requires the coupling strengths to be weaker than the inverse reservoir time scales; the paper's showcase non-adiabatic trajectory, with $v(t_f)=1.5c$, gives $v\mu/\omega \approx 1.65\,t_B^{-1}$, which exceeds the smallest transition frequency $\approx 0.84\,t_B^{-1}$, so if that approximation breaks down the optimized trajectory may not maximize the true fidelity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, the same acceleration-optimization recipe applies to any shallow anharmonic trap coupled to a bosonic bath, not just the Morse-trap example shown numerically.
For fast, non-adiabatic transport in a Bose-Einstein condensate, AC-QUDIT should give strictly higher survival probability than both constant-speed transport and counterdiabatic-field shortcuts to adiabaticity at equal parameters.
In vacuum (zero system-bath coupling), the optimized velocity profile itself becomes the control, so the method covers standard tweezer transport of cold atoms without needing a dissipative environment.
Because the method needs only a precomputed trajectory and no measurement feedback, it can be embedded in quantum information protocols that require deterministic state transport.
Even for supersonic final speeds, where the adiabatic condition is violated, the predicted fidelity remains high, meaning fast transport need not be abandoned in phonon baths.

Reading between the lines

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

If the fidelity-functional picture is right, non-adiabatic leakage behaves as an additional 'bath' with an acceleration-dependent spectrum; this suggests that similar acceleration-shaping arguments could be used to design decoherence-suppressing trajectories in other continuous-variable platforms, such as mechanical oscillators or molecular wavepackets on potential surfaces.
The paper compares against counterdiabatic fields; a natural extension would be to benchmark AC-QUDIT against other numerical optimal-control waveforms on the same open-system fidelity, which the paper does not attempt.
A direct experimental test would measure the Loschmidt-echo probability of an impurity transported through a Bose-Einstein condensate along the AC-QUDIT trajectory versus a constant-speed trajectory; the predicted advantage should grow as the target speed crosses the sound speed.
The linearized Eq. (7) is restricted to speeds below $|(\omega_{\epsilon n}+\Omega_k)/k|$; if experiments push into the regime where that approximation fails, one would need the full nonlinear Euler-Lagrange equation, and the paper's supersonic predictions might shift.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

I've read the AC-QUDIT paper. The headline is right: there's a genuinely new idea here. The authors generalize the Kofman-Kurizki control formula from discrete variables to continuous-variable wavepackets, treat non-adiabatic leakage as an effective bath with an acceleration-colored spectrum, and show that the resulting Euler-Lagrange equation can be solved analytically in a regime beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit. The numerical work is careful and the supplementary material is thorough. All of that deserves credit.

But the central claim—that AC-QUDIT gives >95% transport fidelity at supersonic final speeds—rests on a fidelity definition I don't think is the right one. The paper's P(tf) is the survival probability in the instantaneous lab-frame eigenstate |n(t)> with no phonons. For a trap moving at speed v, the physical bound state that follows the trap is the Galilean-boosted state e^{i m v q} Φ_n(q), not |n(t)>. The overlap between those two is <1 for v≠0. The paper reports P≈0.95 for parameters where that maximum overlap is around 0.8. So the optimized trajectory is not actually transporting the wavepacket with the trap; it's maximizing the chance to be in the zero-momentum eigenstate at the final instant, which leaves the particle left behind as soon as the trap moves on. That makes the v(tf)≠0 comparison with STA and constant-speed transport misleading.

The reader's concern about the Wigner-Weisskopf leading-order approximation is also legitimate, but it's secondary. If you fix the fidelity target to the co-moving state (or set v(tf)=0), the method might well be sound; the non-Markovian control equation itself is an interesting piece of work.

There are smaller issues too: the CDF comparison runs CDF on the AC-QUDIT trajectory rather than an optimized STA trajectory, and the constant-speed baseline doesn't match the transport distance. These are addressable.

All that said, I'd send this to a serious referee. The core idea is worth engaging with, and the flaws are crisp enough to be fixed in revision. But as it stands, the headline result is not established.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a control strategy, AC-QUDIT, for transporting a wavepacket in a shallow anharmonic trap through a dissipative bosonic bath. The central result is a Euler-Lagrange optimization of the trap trajectory x0(t) that minimizes the exponent J in the reported survival probability P(tf)=exp(-J) (Eq. 5), yielding the linearized integro-differential equation (7) for the trap velocity. The paper compares this optimized protocol with constant-speed transport and with counterdiabatic-field shortcuts to adiabaticity, reporting higher survival probabilities especially for fast, non-adiabatic, supersonic final trap speeds. The derivation is presented in detail, with the nonlinear EL equation, its linearization, Green's function solution, and numerical Picard-iteration checks. However, the fidelity target used in the optimization is the instantaneous lab-frame eigenstate at rest, rather than the physically transported co-moving state, and the leading-order Wigner-Weisskopf approximation is applied in a regime where the paper's own stated validity condition fails. These issues undermine the central quantitative claims.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the method would be a significant step: it extends non-Markovian dynamical-control ideas to continuous-variable wavepacket transport, goes beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit in the Fröhlich coupling, and provides a concrete optimization equation for a non-trivial open-system transport problem. The paper contains a substantial analytic apparatus and numerical cross-checks of the linearized and nonlinear equations, which are strengths. However, the present formulation does not establish transport fidelity in the moving frame, and the showcased non-adiabatic regime lies outside the stated validity of the Wigner-Weisskopf approximation on which the fidelity expression is based. As a result, the reported quantitative advantages over STA are not currently supported.

major comments (3)

[Methods A; Eq. (5a); Fig. 3D] The fidelity optimized by Eq. (7) is P(tf)=|⟨ν(tf)|ψ(tf)⟩|^2 with |ν(t)⟩=|n(t)⟩⊗|0_bath⟩, i.e. the instantaneous lab-frame eigenstate of the trap at rest (Eq. (5a) and SI VI, Eq. (S31)). For a trap moving with speed v(tf)≠0, the physical no-loss transported state in the lab frame is the Galilean-boosted state e^{im v(tf) q} Φ_n(q) in the moving coordinate q=x-x0(tf); its overlap with |n(tf)⟩ is C(tf)=⟨Φ_n|e^{im v(tf) q}|Φ_n⟩, which is strictly less than unity. For the parameters of Fig. 3D (m=0.5 mB, v(tf)=1.5c, a'=1), even a conservative harmonic estimate gives |C|^2≈0.82, yet the reported P(tf)≈0.95 at tf≈0.5 tB. A state whose overlap with |n(tf)⟩ exceeds |C(tf)|^2 cannot be the state that continues to follow the moving trap, so Eq. (7) is optimizing survival in the rest eigenstate rather than the fidelity of the transported wavepacket. The co-moving momentum of the transported state is therefore being treated as irreversible loss through the integration over the continuum in the Wigner-Weisskopf step. The v(tf)=0 limit avoids this objection, but the headline figures and the claimed supersonic advantage all use v(tf)≠0; as presented, the comparison with STA in Figs. 2-3 is not a comparison of transport fidelities.
[SI V, Eqs. (S27)-(S28); Methods, Eq. (14)] The expression P(tf)=exp(-J) in Eq. (5) is obtained from the leading-order Wigner-Weisskopf replacement U_M(t,s)→1 and A(s)→A(t) in Eqs. (S27)-(S28). The main text states that this approximation is valid when the coupling strengths are weaker than the inverse time-scales of the corresponding reservoir. For the showcased non-adiabatic case v(tf)=1.5c with m=0.5 mB, Eq. (14) gives v μ/ω ≈ 1.65 tB^-1, which exceeds the minimum continuum frequency min|ω_ϵn| ≈ 0.84 tB^-1. Thus the non-adiabatic coupling is not weak compared with the continuum response in exactly the regime where the paper claims its largest advantage. The same is true for the stronger phonon coupling g~=1.0 tB^-1, which is comparable to the minimum continuum frequency. The claim in SI V that the explored parameters satisfy the validity condition is therefore internally inconsistent with the paper's own non-adiabaticity criterion, and the linearized Eq. (7) cannot be taken to minimize the true decay rate in that regime.
[Comparison with STA; Eq. (10); Fig. 3] The claim that AC-QUDIT is 'rigorously proven' to outperform CDF-based STA is not established by Eq. (10). That inequality compares, for one and the same trajectory, the non-adiabatic loss with and without the CDF term; it does not optimize over CDF trajectories. In Fig. 3 the CDF protocol is evaluated on the trajectory that is optimal for AC-QUDIT, while CDF protocols are normally designed with their own boundary conditions and trajectory optimization. No proof is given that no CDF trajectory can achieve a smaller loss. In addition, the comparison for v(tf)≠0 is not against a valid STA protocol, since the standard CDF method requires v(0)=v(tf)=0; the paper acknowledges this but then presents the nonzero-final-speed comparison as evidence of superiority. A fair comparison would need to optimize both methods under the same boundary conditions and then show the inequality of the optimized costs.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (1)] The text below Eq. (1) contains the typo 'anihilation operators'; it should read 'annihilation operators'.
[Paragraph after Eq. (5b)] The sentence 'The first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (S35) describes non-adiabatic transitions' refers to the displayed equation in the main text, which is Eq. (5b), not Eq. (S35).
[Numerical results, Fig. 2D discussion] The phrase 'Since the final speed is adiabatic' in the paragraph discussing Fig. 2D contradicts the classification of v(tf)=1.5c as non-adiabatic by Eq. (14) in the same section; this should be corrected or clarified.
[Fig. 3D caption] The caption's expression 'v(tf)=1.5c i.e. 1.5/2atc' is difficult to parse; the relation c=1/(2 a t_c) should be stated explicitly with parentheses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained; the optimization target is derived from the stated microscopic Hamiltonian, not fitted or renamed as the predicted result.

full rationale

The central chain is a standard variational open-system calculation rather than a circular construction. The fidelity is derived in Eq. (5) from the Fröhlich system-bath Hamiltonian through a Wigner-Weisskopf resummation, giving P(tf) = exp(-J[x0, x0dot]). The optimal-control equation (7) is then obtained as the Euler-Lagrange stationarity condition of J plus a kinetic-energy constraint, so minimizing J and thereby maximizing P is a direct variational consequence, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The trajectory solving Eq. (7) is independently cross-checked against the fully nonlinear integro-differential equation (11) in SI XI and XIII, and all model inputs (Morse-potential matrix elements, continuum states, bath spectra, coupling strengths) are computed from standard formulas rather than adjusted to force the reported fidelities. Self-citations to the Kofman-Kurizki formula are contextual generalizations, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The main caveats, namely that the fidelity is defined against the instantaneous zero-momentum eigenstate |n(t)>⊗|0_bath> and that the leading-order Wigner-Weisskopf approximation in SI V may be strained for the showcased supersonic final speeds, are physical-validity concerns about the objective itself, not circular steps in the derivation. The paper therefore exhibits no significant circularity.

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

The central result is an optimal-control equation for the trap trajectory, derived by minimizing the decay exponent of an approximate fidelity. The derivation rests on the Wigner-Weisskopf weak-coupling approximation and on chosen numerical parameters for the Morse-trap/BEC example. No unconstrained new entities are introduced, and no constants are fitted to experimental data.

free parameters (6)

Lagrange multiplier lambda = 1 (main text); 0.07 (Fig. S-2)
Chosen by hand; sets the kinetic-energy budget for the optimized trajectory.
Trap depth D' = 2 (in units of 1/tB)
Chosen to support a single bound state (Friedrichs model) with t_c' = 0.5.
Morse width parameter a' = 1 or 2 (in units of 1/xi)
Sets the trap width in the numerical examples.
Impurity mass m' = 0.25, 0.5, 2 (in units of mB)
Sets the non-adiabatic coupling strength; m' = 0.5 and 2 are used in main figures.
System-bath coupling strength g~ = 0.2 and 1.0 tB^-1
Sets the dissipative rate in the numerical examples.
Continuum and wavevector cutoffs = epsilon_max = 5, |k|max = 5
Numerical truncation of the sums and integrals in Eq. (7).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Wigner-Weisskopf leading-order approximation: U_M(t,s) ~ I and A(s) ~ A(t) in the self-energy kernel (SI V, Eqs. (S27)-(S28)).
Assumes system-bath and non-adiabatic couplings are weak compared to reservoir time scales; used to derive the exponential fidelity Eq. (5).
domain assumption Single-bound-state (Friedrichs model) shallow trap with a continuum of unbound states.
Simplifies the analysis; the authors claim the assumption is non-essential.
domain assumption Frohlich-type bilinear system-bath coupling, no rotating-wave approximation, valid beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime.
Defines the bath interaction and enables the FM control mechanism; the beyond-Lamb-Dicke terms are essential for the method.
domain assumption Bogoliubov phonon dispersion Omega_k = c|k| sqrt(1 + (xi k)^2/2) and g_k model for BEC (Methods C).
Used for the numerical BEC example; the general method does not depend on this specific dispersion.
domain assumption Survival probability equals the Loschmidt echo probability in the instantaneous bound state with vacuum bath.
Defines fidelity; the authors note in SI VI that other mixed-state fidelities could differ.
domain assumption Frequency discriminator approximation (FDA): |v(t)| < v_s = |(omega_epsilon_n + Omega_k)/k|, and linearization of the EL equation to first order in kv/(omega+Omega).
Needed to obtain the analytically solvable Eq. (7); numerically verified for the explored parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Transport Protected by Acceleration From Nonadiabaticity and Dissipation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBYJWXHQ

@misc{pith2026250621462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Transport Protected by Acceleration From Nonadiabaticity and Dissipation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBYJWXHQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21462}
}

read the original abstract

We put forth a hitherto unexplored control strategy that enables high-fidelity fast transport of an unstable quantum wavepacket even in the presence of bath-induced dissipation. The wavepacket, which is confined within any shallow (anharmonic) potential trap is steered in acceleration, so as to maximize the transfer fidelity. This strategy can generally optimize any non-Markovian bath-dressed continuous-variable system dynamics. It can simultaneously cope with wavepacket leakage via non-adiabatic transitions and bath-induced dissipation in an optimal fashion. It can outperform methods based on counterdiabatic fields (shortcuts to adiabaticity) particularly for fast non-adiabatic transport. Transport fidelity is maximized even for trajectories exceeding the speed of bath-excitation propagation, e.g. for supersonic transfer through phonon baths. This general approach is illustrated for optimized transfer of impurities in Bose-Einstein condensates. It is applicable to both dissipative and non-dissipative transfer of trapped atoms and ions and molecular reaction products.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21462 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

[1]

Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

2010
[2]

L., Reinhard, F

Degen, C. L., Reinhard, F. & Cappellaro, P. Quantum sensing. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[3]

& Kofman, A

Kurizki, G. & Kofman, A. G. Thermodynamics and Con- trol of Open Quantum Systems (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2022)

2022
[4]

& Petruccione, F

Breuer, H-P. & Petruccione, F. The theory of open quan- tum systems (Oxford university press, Oxford, 2002)

2002
[5]

& Kurizki, G

Clausen, J., Bensky, G. & Kurizki, G. Bath-Optimized Minimal-Energy Protection of Quantum Operations from Decoherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 040401 (2010)

2010
[6]

& Loyd, S

Viola, L. & Loyd, S. Dynamical suppression of decoher- ence in two-state quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

1998
[7]

Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes

Gamow, G. Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes. Z. Phys. 51, 204 (1928)

1928
[8]

Kofman, A. G. & Kurizki, G. Universal Dynamical Con- trol of Quantum Mechanical Decay: Modulation of the Coupling to the Continuum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 270405 (2001)

2001

Show all 96 references

[9]

R., Bharucha, C

Wilkinson, S. R., Bharucha, C. F., Fischer, M. C., Madison, K. W., Morrow, P. R., Niu, Q., Sundaram, B. & Raizen, M. G. Experimental evidence for non- exponential decay in quantum tunnelling. Nature 387, 575–577 (1997)

1997
[10]

& Kofman, A

Barone, A., Kurizki, G. & Kofman, A. G. Dynamical Control of Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 200403 (2004)

2004
[11]

& Zakrzewski, J

Buchleitner, A., Delande, D. & Zakrzewski, J. Non- dispersive wave packets in periodically driven quantum systems. Phys. Rep., 368, 409–547 (2002)

2002
[12]

& Coalson, R

Boyanovsky, D., Jasnow, D., Wu, X-L. & Coalson, R. C. Dynamics of relaxation and dressing of a quenched Bose polaron. Phys. Rev. A 100, 043617 (2019)

2019
[13]

H., Garc ´ ıa-March, M

Lampo, A., Lim, S. H., Garc ´ ıa-March, M. ´A. & Lewen- stein, M. Bose polaron as an instance of quantum Brow- nian motion. Quantum 1, 30 (2017)

2017
[14]

E., Kurizki, G., Katz, N

Mazets, I. E., Kurizki, G., Katz, N. & Davidson, N. Op- tically Induced Polarons in Bose-Einstein Condensates: Monitoring Composite Quasiparticle Decay. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 190403 (2005)

2005
[15]

& Jendrzejewski, F

Niedenzu, W., Mazets, I., Kurizki, G. & Jendrzejewski, F. Quantum refrigerator for an atomic clock. Quantum 3, 155 (2019)

2019
[16]

Jain, S. et. al. Penning micro-trap for quantum comput- ing. Nature 627, 510 – 514 (2024)

2024
[17]

Sterk, J. D. et al. Closed-loop optimization of fast trapped-ion shuttling with sub-quanta excitation. Npj Quantum Inf. 8, 68 (2022)

2022
[18]

Walther, A. et al. Controlling Fast Transport of Cold Trapped Ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080501 (2012)

2012
[19]

Rowe, M. A. et al. Transport of quantum states and separation of ions in a dual RF ion trap. Preperint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0205094 (2002)

2002 doi arXiv
[20]

R., von Raven, H., Wien- and, J

Klostermann, T., Cabrera, C. R., von Raven, H., Wien- and, J. F., Schweizer, C., Bloch, I. & Aidelsburger, M. Fast long-distance transport of cold cesium atoms. Phys. Rev. A 105, 043319 (2022)

2022
[21]

Greiner, M., Bloch, I., H¨ ansch, T. W. & Esslinger, T. Magnetic transport of trapped cold atoms over a large distance. Phys. Rev. A 63, 031401 (2001)

2001
[22]

& Kurizki, G

Opatrn´ y, T. & Kurizki, G. Matter-Wave Entanglement and Teleportation by Molecular Dissociation and Colli- sions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3180 (2001)

2001
[23]

& Kurizki, G

Deb, B. & Kurizki, G. Formation of Giant Quasibound Cold Diatoms by Strong Atom-Cavity Coupling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 714 (1999)

1999
[24]

& Brumer, P

Shapiro, M. & Brumer, P. Quantum control of molecular processes (John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim, 2012)

2012
[25]

Tannor, D. J. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics: A time-dependent perspective (University Science Books, Sausalito, 2007)

2007
[26]

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

2009
[27]

& Polkovnikov, A

Sels, D. & Polkovnikov, A. Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, E3909 (2017)

2017
[28]

& Muga, J

Torrontegui, E., Ib´ a˜ nez, S., Chen, X., Ruschhaupt, A., Gu´ ery-Odelin, D. & Muga, J. G. Fast atomic transport without vibrational heating. Phys. Rev. A 83, 013415 (2011)

2011
[29]

& Muga, J

Chen, X., Torrontegui, E., Stefanatos, D., Li, J-S. & Muga, J. G. Optimal trajectories for efficient atomic transport without final excitation. Phys. Rev. A 84, 043415 (2011)

2011
[30]

& Muga, J

Chen, X., Torrontegui, E. & Muga, J. G. Lewis- Riesenfeld invariants and transitionless quantum driving. Phys. Rev. A 83, 062116 (2011)

2011
[31]

& Gu´ ery-Odelin, D

Zhang, Q., Chen, X. & Gu´ ery-Odelin, D. Fast and op- timal transport of atoms with nonharmonic traps. Phys. Rev. A 92, 043410 (2015)

2015
[32]

Ban, Y., Chen, X., Muga, J. G. & Sherman, E. Y. Quantum state engineering of spin-orbit-coupled ultra- cold atoms in a Morse potential. Phys. Rev. A 91, 023604 (2015)

2015
[33]

& Gu´ ery-Odelin, D

Zhang, Q., Chen, X. & Gu´ ery-Odelin, D. Robust Control of Linear Systems and Shortcut to Adiabaticity Based on Superoscillations. Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 054055 (2022)

2022
[34]

& Mølmer, K

Opatrn´ y, T. & Mølmer, K. Partial suppression of nona- diabatic transitions. New J. Phys. 16, 015025 (2014)

2014
[35]

& Muga, J

Gu´ ery-Odelin, D., Ruschhaupt, A., Kiely, A., Tor- rontegui, E., Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, S. & Muga, J. G. Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

2019
[36]

& Sagi, Y

Ness, G., Shkedrov, C., Floshaim, Y. & Sagi, Y. Realistic shortcuts to adiabaticity in optical transfer.New J. Phys. 20, 095002 (2018)

2018
[37]

& Schlagheck, P

Dengis, S., Wimberger, S. & Schlagheck, P. Accelerated creation of NOON states with ultracold atoms via coun- terdiabatic driving. Phys. Rev. A 111, L031301 (2025)

2025
[38]

Lewis, H. R. & Riesenfeld, W. B. An Exact Quantum Theory of the Time-Dependent Harmonic Oscillator and 13 of a Charged Particle in a Time-Dependent Electromag- netic Field. J. Math. Phys. 10, 1458 (1969)

1969
[39]

Lewis, H. R. & Leach, P. G. L. A direct approach to find- ing exact invariants for one-dimensional time-dependent classical Hamiltonians. J. Math. Phys. 23, 2371–2374 (1982)

1982
[40]

& Chandran, A

Villazon, T., Polkovnikov, A. & Chandran, A. Swift heat transfer by fast-forward driving in open quantum sys- tems. Phys. Rev. A 100, 012126 (2019)

2019
[41]

Yin, Z., Li, C., Allcock, J., Zheng, Y., Gu, X., Dai, M., Zhang, S. & An, S. Shortcuts to adiabaticity for open sys- tems in circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nat. Commun. 13, 188 (2022)

2022
[42]

& Song, J

Chen, Y-H., Xia, Y., Chen, Q-Q. & Song, J. Fast and noise-resistant implementation of quantum phase gates and creation of quantum entangled states. Phys. Rev. A 91, 012325 (2015)

2015
[43]

V., Lam, C-H., Yu, T., Lin, H- Q., You, J

Luo, D-W., Pyshkin, P. V., Lam, C-H., Yu, T., Lin, H- Q., You, J. Q. & Wu, L-A. Dynamical invariants in a non-Markovian quantum-state-diffusion equation. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062127 (2015)

2015
[44]

Jing, J., Wu, L-A., Sarandy, M. S. & Muga, J. G. Inverse engineering control in open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 88, 053422 (2013)

2013
[45]

G., Kosloff, R

Levy, A., Kiely, A., Muga, J. G., Kosloff, R. & Tor- rontegui, E. Noise resistant quantum control using dy- namical invariants. New J. Phys. 20, 025006 (2018)

2018
[46]

G., Chen, X., Poschinger, U

Lu, X-J., Muga, J. G., Chen, X., Poschinger, U. G., Schmidt-Kaler, F. & Ruschhaupt, A. Fast shuttling of a trapped ion in the presence of noise. Phys. Rev. A 89, 063414 (2014)

2014
[47]

& Muga, J

Ruschhaupt, A., Chen, X., Alonso, D. & Muga, J. G. Op- timally robust shortcuts to population inversion in two- level quantum systems. New J. Phys. 14, 093040 (2012)

2012
[48]

Sarandy, M. S. and Duzzioni, E. I. and Moussa, M. H. Y. Dynamical invariants and nonadiabatic geomet- ric phases in open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 76, 052112 (2007)

2007
[49]

L., Zhang, X

Wu, S. L., Zhang, X. Y. & Yi, X. X. Dynamical invari- ants of open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062122 (2015)

2015
[50]

K., Mana, N

Maamache, M., Djeghiour, O. K., Mana, N. & Koussa, W. Pseudo-invariants theory and real phases for systems with non-Hermitian time-dependent Hamiltonians. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, 1–8 (2017)

2017
[51]

M., Paternostro, M

Vacanti, G., Fazio, R., Montangero, S., Palma, G. M., Paternostro, M. & Vedral, V. Transitionless quantum driving in open quantum systems. New J. Phys. 16, 053017 (2014)

2014
[52]

L., del Campo, A

Dupays, L., Egusquiza, I. L., del Campo, A. & Chenu, A. Superadiabatic thermalization of a quantum oscillator by engineered dephasing. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033178 (2020)

2020
[53]

L., Huang, X

Wu, S. L., Huang, X. L., Li, H. & Yi, X. X. Adiabatic evolution of decoherence-free subspaces and its shortcuts. Phys. Rev. A 96, 042104 (2017)

2017
[54]

Pancotti, N., Scandi, M., Mitchison, M. T. & Perarnau- Llobet, M. Speed-Ups to Isothermality: Enhanced Quan- tum Thermal Machines through Control of the System- Bath Coupling. Phys. Rev. X 10, 031015 (2020)

2020
[55]

Alipour, S., Chenu, A., Rezakhani, A. T. & del Campo, A. Shortcuts to Adiabaticity in Driven Open Quantum Systems: Balanced Gain and Loss and Non-Markovian Evolution. Quantum 4, 336 (2020)

2020
[56]

& Kosloff, R

Dann, R., Tobalina, A. & Kosloff, R. Shortcut to Equi- libration of an Open Quantum System. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250402 (2019)

2019
[57]

& Gu´ ery-Odelin, D

Impens, F. & Gu´ ery-Odelin, D. Fast quantum control in dissipative systems using dissipationless solutions. Sci. Rep. 9, 4048 (2019)

2019
[58]

Santos, A. C. & Sarandy, M. S. Generalized transitionless quantum driving for open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 104, 062421 (2021)

2021
[59]

L., Ma, W., Huang, X

Wu, S. L., Ma, W., Huang, X. L. & Yi, X. Shortcuts to Adiabaticity for Open Quantum Systems and a Mixed- State Inverse Engineering Scheme. Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 044028 (2021)

2021
[60]

& Mukherjee, V

Mahunta, S. & Mukherjee, V. Shortcuts to adiabaticity in open quantum critical systems.Phys. Rev. B 111, 064301 (2025)

2025
[61]

& Busch, T

Boubakour, M., Endo, S., Fogarty, T. & Busch, T. Dy- namical invariant based shortcut to equilibration in open quantum systems. Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 025036 (2025)

2025
[62]

A., Dominique, S

Zhou, M., C´ ardenas-L´ opez, F. A., Dominique, S. & Chen, X., Optimal Control for Open Quantum Sys- tem in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.20149 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[63]

& Wigner, E

Weisskopf, V. & Wigner, E. Berechnung der nat¨ urlichen Linienbreite auf Grund der Diracschen Lichttheorie. Z. Phys. 63, 54 (1930)

1930
[64]

Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. Quantum Optics Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, (1997)

1997
[65]

A., Bensky, G

Zwick, A., ´Alvarez, G. A., Bensky, G. & Kurizki, G. Op- timized dynamical control of state transfer through noisy spin chains. New J. Phys. , 16, 065021 (2014)

2014
[66]

Interaction of electrons with lattice vibra- tions

Fr¨ olich, H. Interaction of electrons with lattice vibra- tions. Proc. R. Soc. A 215, 219 (1952)

1952
[67]

& Wineland, D

Leibfried, D., Blatt, R., Monroe, C. & Wineland, D. Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

2003
[68]

Friedrichs, K. O. On the perturbation of continuous spec- tra. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1, 361 (1948)

1948
[69]

Gorin, T., Prosen, T., Seligman, T. H. & ˇZnidariˇ c, M. Dynamics of Loschmidt echoes and fidelity decay. Phys. Rep. 435 , 33 – 156 (2006)

2006
[70]

& Laloe, F

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B. & Laloe, F. Quantum Me- chanics, Volume II (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co., Weinheim, 2020)

2020
[71]

& Grynberg, G

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Dupont-Roc, J. & Grynberg, G. Atom-photon interactions: basic processes and appli- cations (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co., Weinheim, 2004)

2004
[72]

H., Knight, P

Keitel, C. H., Knight, P. L., Narducci, L. M. & Scully, M. O. Resonance fluorescence in a tailored vacuum. Opt. Commun. 118, 143–153 (1995)

1995
[73]

& Strasberg, P

Riera-Campeny, A., Sanpera, A. & Strasberg, P. Quan- tum systems correlated with a finite bath: Nonequilib- rium dynamics and thermodynamics. PRX Quantum 2, 010340 (2021)

2021
[74]

K., Ardila, L

Nielsen, K. K., Ardila, L. A. P., Bruun, G. M. & Pohl, T. Critical slowdown of non-equilibrium polaron dynamics. New J. Phys. 21, 043014 (2019)

2019
[75]

& Kurizki, G

Gordon, G., Erez, N. & Kurizki, G. Universal dynam- ical decoherence control of noisy single-and multi-qubit systems. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 40, S75 (2007). 14

2007
[76]

& Holman, R

Boyanovsky, D. & Holman, R. On the perturbative sta- bility of quantum field theories in de Sitter space. JHEP 2011, 1–37 (2011)

2011
[77]

Communications Systems (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2001)

Haykin, S. Communications Systems (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2001)

2001
[78]

& Polkovnikov, A

Kolodrubetz, M., Sels, D., Mehta, P. & Polkovnikov, A. Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems. Phys. Rep. 697, 1 – 87 (2017)

2017
[79]

& Schlagheck, P

Keshavamurthy, S. & Schlagheck, P. Dynamical tunnel- ing: theory and experiment (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2011)

2011
[80]

& Sagi, Y

Ness, G., Alberti, A. & Sagi, Y. Quantum Speed Limit for States with a Bounded Energy Spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 140403 (2022)

2022
[81]

Lam, M. R. et. al. Demonstration of Quantum Brachis- tochrones between Distant States of an Atom.Phys. Rev. X 11, 011035 (2021)

2021
[82]

V., Konotop, V

Fu, Q., Wang, P., Kartashov, Y. V., Konotop, V. V. & Ye, F. Nonlinear Thouless Pumping: Solitons and Trans- port Breakdown. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 154101 (2022)

2022
[83]

S., Oganesyan, K

Gevorkyan, A. S., Oganesyan, K. B., Rostovtsev, Y. B. & Kurizki, G. Gamma radiation production using chan- neled positron annihilation in crystals. Laser Phys. Lett. 12, 076002 (2015)

2015
[84]

Imambekov, A., Schmidt, T. L. & Glazman, Leonid I. One-dimensional quantum liquids: Beyond the Luttinger liquid paradigm. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1253–1306 (2012)

2012
[85]

Schmiedmayer, J. Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions One- dimensional atomic superfluids as a model system for quantum thermodynamics 823–851 (Springer, Cham, 2019)

2019
[86]

& Muga, J

Torrontegui, E., Chen, X., Modugno, M., Ruschhaupt, A., Gu´ ery-Odelin, D. & Muga, J. G. Fast transitionless expansion of cold atoms in optical Gaussian-beam traps. Phys. Rev. A 85, 033605 (2012)

2012
[87]

Gordon, G., Mazets, I. E. & Kurizki, G. Quantum par- ticle localization by frequent coherent monitoring. Phys. Rev. A 87, 052141 (2013)

2013
[88]

Xu, K. et. al. Probing dynamical phase transitions with a superconducting quantum simulator. Sci. Adv. 25 , eaba4935 (2020)

2020
[89]

G., Simon, J

Roberts, G., Vrajitoarea, A., Saxberg, B., Panetta, M. G., Simon, J. & Schuster, D. I. Manybody interferometry of quantum fluids. Sci. Adv. 10 , eado1069 (2024)

2024
[90]

Cetina, M. et. al. Ultrafast many-body interferometry of impurities coupled to a Fermi sea. Science 354 , 96–99 (2016)

2016
[91]

Braum¨ uller, J. et. al. Probing quantum information prop- agation with out-of-time-ordered correlators. Nat. Phys. 18 , 172–178 (2022)

2022
[92]

& Marino, J

Tonielli, F., Chakraborty, N., Grusdt, F. & Marino, J. Ramsey interferometry of non-Hermitian quantum im- purities. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 032003 (2020)

2020
[93]

Tamarkin, J. D. The Notion of the Green’s Function in the Theory of Integro-Differential Equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 29, 755–800 (1927)

1927
[94]

& Wazwaz, A-M

Singh, R. & Wazwaz, A-M. Numerical solutions of fourth-order Volterra integro-differential equations by the Green’s function and decomposition method. Math. Sci. 10, 159–166 (2016)

2016
[95]

Zemyan, S. M. The classical theory of integral equations: A Concise Treatment (Springer Science+Business Media, Heidelberg, 2012)

2012
[96]

bound” sector of the instantaneous system states in many-body product basis, while that inside the second pair of square brackets indicate the “unbound

Sarandy, M. S. & Lidar, D. A. Adiabatic approxima- tion in open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 71, 012331 (2005). 15 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION: QUANTUM TRANSPOR T PROTECTED BY ACCELERA TION FROM NONADIABA TICITY AND DISSIP A TION I. THE MORSE POTENTIAL In our numerical analy...

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

2010

[2] [2]

L., Reinhard, F

Degen, C. L., Reinhard, F. & Cappellaro, P. Quantum sensing. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017

[3] [3]

& Kofman, A

Kurizki, G. & Kofman, A. G. Thermodynamics and Con- trol of Open Quantum Systems (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2022)

2022

[4] [4]

& Petruccione, F

Breuer, H-P. & Petruccione, F. The theory of open quan- tum systems (Oxford university press, Oxford, 2002)

2002

[5] [5]

& Kurizki, G

Clausen, J., Bensky, G. & Kurizki, G. Bath-Optimized Minimal-Energy Protection of Quantum Operations from Decoherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 040401 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

& Loyd, S

Viola, L. & Loyd, S. Dynamical suppression of decoher- ence in two-state quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

1998

[7] [7]

Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes

Gamow, G. Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes. Z. Phys. 51, 204 (1928)

1928

[8] [8]

Kofman, A. G. & Kurizki, G. Universal Dynamical Con- trol of Quantum Mechanical Decay: Modulation of the Coupling to the Continuum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 270405 (2001)

2001