Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

This paper introduces GEOPE, a geodesic-guided quantum optimal control algorithm that solves each update as a convex least-squares projection of the constrained Hamiltonian's available directions onto the shortest path to the target gate.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A new quantum optimal control algorithm that follows the geodesic on SU(2^n) converges to high-fidelity multi-qubit gates in far fewer iterations than GRAPE, including 5- and 6-qubit quantum Fourier transforms on Rydberg atom arrays.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Genuinely new algorithm with a solid 3-qubit win over GRAPE; the 5- and 6-qubit claims need the missing comparisons before the headline 'beyond GRAPE' can be taken at face value. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.16029 v1 pith:5G4MXE3G submitted 2025-08-22 quant-ph

Quantum Optimal Control with Geodesic Pulse Engineering

Dylan Lewis , Roeland Wiersema , Sougato Bose This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a02.40.Ky
keywords quantum optimal controlgeodesic pulse engineeringGRAPERydberg atom arraysmulti-qubit gatesRiemannian manifoldquantum Fourier transformpiecewise constant pulses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces GEOPE, an optimal-control algorithm that sets the parameters of a piecewise-constant pulse sequence by aiming each update along the shortest path—the geodesic—on the manifold of unitary matrices between the current evolution and the target gate. The update direction is found by projecting the geodesic direction onto the directions the hardware Hamiltonian can actually generate, which turns into a convex least-squares problem, followed by a line search along that direction. The authors report that GEOPE reaches high-fidelity solutions in at least ten times fewer iterations than three GRAPE variants for Toffoli, CCZ, and three-qubit QFT gates on Rydberg atom arrays, and that it can find five- and six-qubit QFT gates that their GRAPE implementations could not solve in reasonable time. If true, it makes practical optimal control of larger multi-qubit gates more feasible under realistic hardware constraints, without relying on second derivatives.

Core claim

The central claim is that constrained quantum optimal control can be solved more efficiently by following geodesics on SU(2^n) rather than by ascending the fidelity landscape. At each algorithmic step, the current unitary and the target define a unique shortest geodesic; GEOPE computes its tangent generator, Γ = -i log(U_G^† V), using the principal branch of the matrix logarithm, and solves a linear least-squares problem to express that tangent direction as a combination of the Jacobians of the allowable control parameters as closely as the hardware restrictions permit. A golden-section line search then chooses the step size. The authors present numerical evidence that this rule converges to

What carries the argument

The central object is the geodesic on the Riemannian manifold SU(2^n) from the current gate U_G(Φ) to the target V, generated by Γ = -i log(U_G^† V), with the logarithm taken on its principal branch so the path is the shortest one. GEOPE's update is the minimizer of a convex least-squares problem that matches the Jacobian-generated tangent directions of the restricted Hamiltonian to this geodesic direction; when the line search cannot improve the fidelity, a Gram-Schmidt procedure steps in a direction orthogonal to the geodesic to exit the local minimum. This replaces the non-convex fidelity maximization of GRAPE with a convex projection plus line search.

Load-bearing premise

The speedup depends on the Gram-Schmidt escape step reliably pulling the search out of local minima when the best geodesic-aligned update cannot improve the fidelity, and this heuristic is neither analyzed nor proven.

What would settle it

Run the five-qubit QFT benchmark (L = 120) with the Gram-Schmidt escape branch disabled: if GEOPE's success probability collapses, its advantage rests on that unverified heuristic rather than on geodesic alignment. Conversely, run the same benchmark with random escape directions but no geodesic alignment: if success is comparable, the geodesic projection itself is not doing the claimed work.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Gradient-free geometric steering can outperform both first- and second-order GRAPE without computing a Hessian, so the practical bottleneck shifts from convergence rate to the cost of Jacobian evaluation.
  • Five- and six-qubit quantum Fourier transform gates become numerically accessible under Rydberg atom array constraints, well beyond what the paper's GRAPE implementations reached.
  • Because GEOPE only needs the set of accessible Hamiltonian terms, the same algorithm can be applied to ion traps, superconducting qubits, or semiconductor quantum dots by changing the restriction set.
  • The loss function can be extended to penalize pulse-to-pulse jumps and total evolution time, pointing toward smooth, experimentally friendlier pulses.
  • The same geodesic-update idea could be rephrased on Hilbert space or homogeneous spaces for state preparation, as the paper itself suggests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the geodesic projection likely acts as a preconditioner that keeps updates aligned with the global target rather than the local fidelity gradient, so the advantage over GRAPE may grow as the number of qubits or the hardware restrictions increase—this could be tested by scaling benchmarks across different interaction graphs.
  • Editorial inference: the unproven Gram-Schmidt escape is the least-controlled part of the loop; a deterministic second-order correction in the orthogonal space might replace it and make the algorithm's success less reliant on random restarts.
  • Editorial inference: the convex formulation invites combining GEOPE with constrained least-squares solvers to enforce pulse amplitude or bandwidth limits directly, which could be verified by adding box constraints to the update problem.
  • Editorial inference: comparing GEOPE against gradient-free methods such as CRAB on the same Rydberg benchmarks would clarify whether the speedup comes specifically from geodesic alignment or from the convex projection step alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GEOPE, a quantum optimal control algorithm that replaces the fidelity-gradient ascent of GRAPE with an update direction obtained by least-squares projection of the geodesic direction (the principal-branch logarithm from the current unitary to the target) onto the span of the Jacobians of the constrained Hamiltonian parameters. A golden-section line search sets the step, and a Gram-Schmidt random step (Eq. B17) is used when the line search cannot improve fidelity. The algorithm is demonstrated on Rydberg-atom Hamiltonians for 3-qubit Toffoli/CCZ gates with 12 and 20 piecewise steps, a 5-qubit QFT with L=120, and a 6-qubit QFT with L=400. The central claims are that GEOPE converges significantly faster than both first-order (Adam) and second-order (Newton-Raphson, RFO) GRAPE and that it can find 5- and 6-qubit QFT gates that the paper's GRAPE implementations could not.

Significance. If the scaling claims hold, the paper would contribute a genuinely new geometric principle to quantum optimal control: instead of locally maximizing fidelity, each update follows the known geodesic to the target as closely as the constrained control landscape allows. The convex least-squares subproblem is clearly specified, the algorithm is simple to implement, and the authors provide code, which strengthens reproducibility. The 3-qubit comparisons use Bayesian-tuned hyperparameters for all methods and show large iteration-count advantages for GEOPE; this part is credible and useful. However, the paper's strongest conclusions—the 'significant' speedup over GRAPE and the 'unprecedented' 5- and 6-qubit QFT results—rest on the 5-qubit comparison of Fig. 5, which the authors admit reuses 3-qubit hyperparameters, and on a 6-qubit demonstration with no GRAPE comparison at all. Given the demonstrated sensitivity of the second-order GRAPE methods to their single hyperparameters (Figs. F1 and F2), the beyond-3-qubit claims are not yet established at the level of the paper's conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Fig. 5; App. E, Table E1; Figs. F1/F2] The 5-qubit QFT comparison is the load-bearing evidence for the 'beyond GRAPE' scaling claim, but the paper explicitly states that the 3-qubit hyperparameters were reused for the 5-qubit GRAPE runs. App. E tunes hyperparameters only on 3-qubit targets, and Figs. F1 and F2 show that the Newton-Raphson and RFO variants are highly sensitive to their δ or κ values: for the same gate and L, different hyperparameter choices change whether a solution is found within 200 iterations. There is no argument that δ or κ optimized for 12/20-layer 3-qubit problems transfers to a 120-layer 5-qubit landscape with a different interaction graph and far more parameters. Thus Fig. 5 does not establish that GRAPE cannot find the 5-qubit QFT with appropriate tuning; it may only establish that the reused hyperparameters were poor. The authors should either perform a 5-qubit hyperparameter search (at least for a
  2. [§III, 6-qubit paragraph; Ref. [45]] The 6-qubit QFT result is reported as 'well beyond the capabilities of our GRAPE implementation,' but no GRAPE data, runtime, success probability, or infidelity-vs-iteration curve is shown for this case. The only quantitative detail is L=400 and that parameter values are in the repository. Since the 6-qubit claim is part of the conclusion ('unprecedented 5- and 6-qubit Quantum Fourier Transform gates'), the absence of any comparison or even a GEOPE success statistic makes the claim unverifiable from the manuscript. Provide at least the number of trials, the success rate, the final infidelity, and, if possible, a GRAPE baseline with documented hyperparameters and a wall-clock comparison.
  3. [App. B I, Eq. (B17); Algorithm 1] The Gram-Schmidt escape is a load-bearing heuristic: whenever the projected geodesic direction cannot improve fidelity, the algorithm steps in a random direction orthogonal to γ, with step size ηGS=1.2ηmax. The paper states only that this 'minimises the chance that the algorithm steps back into the same minimum.' No analysis, convergence guarantee, or ablation is provided. Since the 5- and 6-qubit successes depend on escaping local minima reliably, this unverified heuristic underlies the main numerical claims. The authors should at least report the frequency with which the escape branch is taken for the reported gates and test sensitivity to ηGS and to the random seed of the escape; ideally, compare against an alternative restart strategy.
  4. [App. D; §III, Fig. 4] The paper's speed comparisons are reported in algorithmic iterations, but App. D states that GEOPE has complexity O(KLN^4) whereas GRAPE has O(KLN^3), with K=O(n^2) and N=2^n. A factor-N-per-iteration difference is substantial for n=5–6, yet the conclusion claims GEOPE 'converges significantly faster.' Iteration count alone does not establish practical speedup; the 5-qubit text notes second-order GRAPE took hours while GEOPE took minutes, but this is anecdotal and confounded by the reused hyperparameters. Please report wall-clock times or iteration-normalized runtimes for all methods on the same hardware, and discuss whether the O(N) per-iteration overhead is offset by the observed iteration savings in the regimes advertised.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'illustrtated' should be 'illustrated.'
  2. [App. A, notation for Φ] The appendix defines Φ as 'Matrix constructed from the L restricted Lie algebra vectors θl'; this should be 'ϕl' to match the main text and avoid confusion with unrestricted vectors θ.
  3. [Eq. (B15)] The sum 'j∀Gj∈H' is notationally awkward and should be written as a set summation over basis elements in H; also the index of δϕ(m)_{l,j} should be made consistent with j labeling the restricted basis element.
  4. [Algorithm 1] The loops 'for l ∈ (1, . . . , N2 − 1)' and 'j ← P_{N2-1}' use 'N2' where the text elsewhere writes N=2^n; the intended N^2−1 should be spelled out to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Refs. [32] and [39]] References [32] and [39] are the same work (arXiv preprint and published version). Citing both is acceptable, but the main text should avoid implying they are two distinct prior methods; consider citing only the published version once the preprint is updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GEOPE's update rule is a least-squares projection onto the geodesic direction, with no fitted input renamed as prediction; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The geodesic direction Γ = log(UG(Φ)†V) in Eq. (4)/(B10) is computed directly from the current unitary and the target, not from fitted data. The GEOPE update minimizes the convex least-squares objective Eq. (6)/(B12), aligning the Jacobian expansion of the control parameters with that geodesic direction, and the step size is chosen by a fidelity line search, Eq. (B16). No parameter is fitted to the target result and then presented as a prediction: the target V enters only as the objective of the optimization, and the controls are solved for independently. The Gram-Schmidt escape step (Eq. B17) is a heuristic but it is not circular; it does not encode the target. The self-citations to Refs. [32]/[39] describe a prior L=1 time-independent geodesic method and are used as motivation/context, not as the load-bearing justification for the L>1 result; the present algorithm's update equations are derived in the paper itself. The numerical comparison against GRAPE is an empirical benchmark, and while the 5-qubit GRAPE comparison reuses 3-qubit hyperparameters (a fairness concern), that is a correctness/experimental-design issue, not circularity: it does not make GEOPE's success equivalent to its inputs. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

GEOPE introduces no new physical entities; its new elements are algorithmic. The free parameters are the step-size hyperparameters and the piecewise-step count L, all explicitly chosen per experiment. The key unproven assumption is the Gram-Schmidt escape's effectiveness, which the numerical results rely on.

free parameters (3)
  • ηmax (GEOPE maximum step size) = 1.98 (Toffoli 12), 1.29 (Toffoli 20), 1.80 (CCZ 12), 1.42 (CCZ 20), 2.00 (3-QFT 12), 1.25 (3-QFT 20)
    Chosen by Bayesian optimization per gate in App. E; limits the line-search step and is part of GEOPE's hyperparameter.
  • ηGS (Gram-Schmidt step size) = 1.2 ηmax
    Hand-chosen factor (App. B I) that sets the magnitude of escape steps; authors note larger values work better.
  • L (number of piecewise steps) = 12, 20, 120, 400
    Selected per experiment as the control ansatz; not fit to data but a free modeling choice that affects reachability and success.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The accessible Hamiltonians H generate su(2^n) (controllability), so any target unitary can be approximated with enough steps L
    Stated in Section II A with citation [33]; without controllability, no algorithm can reach arbitrary targets.
  • standard math The principal branch of the matrix logarithm gives the shortest geodesic on SU(N) with the bi-invariant metric
    Used in Eq. (4) to define Γ; standard result in Lie group geometry, cited via textbooks.
  • domain assumption First-order Taylor expansion of UG(Φ+δΦ) is an adequate local model for the update
    Eq. (B9) and the least-squares objective (Eq. 6 and B12) rely on small-step linearization; standard in derivative-based optimization.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gram-Schmidt random escape (Eq. B17) moves the iteration out of local minima where the projected geodesic fails
    No convergence proof is given; this heuristic is load-bearing for the algorithm's practical success (App. B I, Algorithm 1).

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Optimal Control with Geodesic Pulse Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5G4MXE3G

@misc{pith2026250816029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Optimal Control with Geodesic Pulse Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5G4MXE3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16029}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Designing multi-qubit quantum logic gates with experimental constraints is an important problem in quantum computing. Here, we develop a new quantum optimal control algorithm for finding unitary transformations with constraints on the Hamiltonian. The algorithm, geodesic pulse engineering (GEOPE), uses differential programming and geodesics on the Riemannian manifold of $\textrm{SU}(2^n)$ for $n$ qubits. We demonstrate significant improvements over the widely used gradient-based method, GRAPE, for designing multi-qubit quantum gates. Instead of a local gradient descent, the parameter updates of GEOPE are designed to follow the geodesic to the target unitary as closely as possible. We present numerical results that show that our algorithm converges significantly faster than GRAPE for a range of gates and can find solutions that are not accessible to GRAPE in a reasonable amount of time. The strength of the method is illustrtated with varied multi-qubit gates in 2D neutral Rydberg atom platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16029 by Dylan Lewis, Roeland Wiersema, Sougato Bose.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. An illustration of a single algorithmic step of equal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The labels (a) and (b) refer to depictions of the SU( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Graphs of the Rydberg interactions with the relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The cumulative success probability from 100 optimisation runs for finding: (a) CCX gate with 12 piecewise steps; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The infidelity of 10 optimisation trials for GEOPE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Pulse Quality Optimisation in Quantum Optimal Control

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GECKO traverses level sets of the quantum control landscape using SU group geometry to improve pulse quality metrics while preserving the target unitary to first order.

  2. Robust Nonperturbative Trapped-Ion Quantum Logic

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Optimized nonperturbative laser pulses realize high-fidelity entangling gates on trapped ions in about one trap period, with resilience to temperature, laser intensity, and detuning noise.

  3. From Characterization To Construction: Generative Quantum Circuit Synthesis from Gate Set Tomography Data

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A generative QMLC framework tokenizes GST data, embeds it via curriculum-trained set-vision transformers into a context-aware latent space, and uses diffusion models to synthesize circuits conditioned on desired measu...

  4. Stabilizers for Compiling Logical Circuits under Hardware Constraints

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Stabilizer redundancy from error-correcting codes reduces the choice of physical operators for a logical target to a least-squares problem with closed-form solution, allowing native hardware Hamiltonians to replace co...

  5. Harnessing subspace controllability: Dynamical generation of Dicke states in Heisenberg-coupled qubit arrays with a single local control

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    In Heisenberg-coupled qubit arrays, Dicke states including W states can be prepared with a single local control in times that grow approximately quadratically with qubit number (numerically up to N=9).

  6. Model predictive quantum control: A modular approach for efficient and robust quantum optimal control

    eess.SY 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    Splitting quantum optimal control into repeated short-horizon MPC problems, with terminal constraints or optimized setpoints, gives faster and more robust qubit state preparation in simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D. L. Goodwin and M. S. Vinding, Accelerated newton- raphson grape methods for optimal control, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L012042 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Kallies, Concurrent optimization of robust refocused pulse sequences for magnetic resonance spectroscopy , Ph.D

    W. Kallies, Concurrent optimization of robust refocused pulse sequences for magnetic resonance spectroscopy , Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Werschnik and E

    J. Werschnik and E. K. U. Gross, Quantum optimal con- trol theory, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 40, R175 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    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, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Training Schr¨ odinger’s cat: quantum opti- mal control, The European Physical Journal D 69, 279 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, Introduction to the Pontryagin Maximum Principle for Quantum Optimal Control, PRX Quantum 2, 030203 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Introduction to Theoretical and Experimental aspects of Quantum Optimal Control

    Q. Ansel, E. Dionis, F. Arrouas, B. Peaudecerf, S. Gu´ erin, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and D. Sugny, Introduction to Theoretical and Experimental aspects of Quantum Optimal Control, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 133001 (2024), arXiv:2403.00532 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 172, 296 (2005). 6

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    V. F. Krotov, Global Methods in Optimal Control The- ory, in Advances in Nonlinear Dynamics and Control: A Report from Russia , edited by A. B. Kurzhanski (Birkh¨ auser, Boston, MA, 1993) pp. 74–121

    work page 1993

  9. [9]

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

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    Morzhin and A

    O. Morzhin and A. Pechen, Krotov Method for Optimal Control in Closed Quantum Systems, Russian Mathematical Surveys 74, 851 (2019), arXiv:1809.09562 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Caneva, T

    T. Caneva, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Chopped random-basis quantum optimization, Physical Review A 84, 022326 (2011), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    M. M. M¨ uller, R. S. Said, F. Jelezko, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, One decade of quantum optimal control in the chopped random basis, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 076001 (2022), publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Bukov, A

    M. Bukov, A. G. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Reinforcement Learning in Different Phases of Quantum Control, Physical Review X 8, 031086 (2018), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    A. G. Day, M. Bukov, P. Weinberg, P. Mehta, and D. Sels, Glassy Phase of Optimal Quantum Control, Physical Review Letters 122, 020601 (2019), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Khalid, C

    I. Khalid, C. A. Weidner, E. A. Jonckheere, S. G. Schirmer, and F. C. Langbein, Sample-efficient model- based reinforcement learning for quantum control, Physical Review Research 5, 043002 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    M.-Y. Mao, Z. Cheng, Y. Xia, A. M. Ole´ s, and W.-L. You, Machine-learning-inspired quantum optimal control of nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation via reverse engineering, Physical Review A 108, 032616 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    C. Lin, D. Sels, Y. Ma, and Y. Wang, Stochastic optimal control formalism for an open quantum system, Physical Review A 102, 052605 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Villanueva and H

    A. Villanueva and H. Kappen, Stochastic optimal control of open quantum systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18635 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Filipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in europe, EPJ Quantum Technology 9, 19 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Quantum optimal control of superconducting qubits based on machine-learning characterization

    E. Genois, N. J. Stevenson, N. Goss, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais, Quantum optimal control of superconducting qubits based on machine-learning characterization (2024), arXiv:2410.22603 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    Dolde, V

    F. Dolde, V. Bergholm, Y. Wang, I. Jakobi, B. Naydenov, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, F. Jelezko, P. Neumann, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, J. Biamonte, and J. Wrachtrup, High-fidelity spin entanglement using optimal control, Nature Communications 5, 3371 (2014), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    D. J. Gorman, K. C. Young, and K. B. Whaley, Overcoming dephasing noise with robust optimal control, Physical Review A 86, 012317 (2012), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    M. A. Nielsen, M. R. Dowling, M. Gu, and A. C. Doherty, Quantum Computation as Geometry, Science 311, 1133 (2006), publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    M. A. Nielsen, M. R. Dowling, M. Gu, and A. C. Doherty, Optimal control, geometry, and quantum computing, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 73, 062323 (2006)

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Nandy, and A. Sinha, Renormalized circuit complexity, Physical Review Letters 124, 101602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Perrier, D

    E. Perrier, D. Tao, and C. Ferrie, Quantum geometric machine learning for quantum circuits and control, New Journal of Physics 22, 103056 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Time- optimal unitary operations, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 75, 042308 (2007)

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    X. Wang, M. Allegra, K. Jacobs, S. Lloyd, C. Lupo, and M. Mohseni, Quantum Brachistochrone Curves as Geodesics: Obtaining Accurate Minimum-Time Protocols for the Control of Quantum Systems, Physical Review Letters 114, 170501 (2015), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Swaddle, L

    M. Swaddle, L. Noakes, H. Smallbone, L. Salter, and J. Wang, Generating three-qubit quantum circuits with neural networks, Physics Letters A 381, 3391 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Swaddle, SubRiemannian geodesics and cubics for ef- ficient quantum circuits , Master’s thesis, The University of Western Australia (2017)

    M. Swaddle, SubRiemannian geodesics and cubics for ef- ficient quantum circuits , Master’s thesis, The University of Western Australia (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Lewis, R

    D. Lewis, R. Wiersema, J. Carrasquilla, and S. Bose, Geodesic Algorithm for Unitary Gate Design with Time- Independent Hamiltonians (2024), arXiv:2401.05973 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

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

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

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

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

    work page 1998

  35. [35]

    are there traps in quantum control landscapes?

    H. Rabitz, T.-S. Ho, R. Long, R. Wu, and C. Brif, Comment on “are there traps in quantum control landscapes?”, Physical review letters 108, 198901 (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    K. W. Moore Tibbetts, C. Brif, M. D. Grace, A. Donovan, D. L. Hocker, T.-S. Ho, R.-B. Wu, and H. Rabitz, Exploring the tradeoff between fidelity and time optimal control of quantum unitary transformations, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062309 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Ge, R.-B

    X. Ge, R.-B. Wu, and H. Rabitz, The optimization landscape of hybrid quantum–classical algorithms: From quantum control to nisq applications, Annual Reviews in Control 54, 314 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Beato, P

    N. Beato, P. Patil, and M. Bukov, Towards a theory of phase transitions in quantum control landscapes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11110 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Lewis, R

    D. Lewis, R. Wiersema, J. Carrasquilla, and S. Bose, Geodesic algorithm for unitary gate design with time- independent Hamiltonians, Physical Review A 111, 052618 (2025), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits, A VS Quantum Science 3, 023501 (2021), arXiv:2011.03031 7 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P. Shaffer, Ry- dberg atom quantum technologies, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 53, 012002 (2019), publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization (2017), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    D. L. Goodwin and I. Kuprov, Auxiliary matrix formalism for interaction representation transformations, optimal control, and spin relaxation theories, The Journal of Chemical Physics 143, 084113 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    D. L. Goodwin and I. Kuprov, Modified Newton-Raphson GRAPE methods for optimal control of spin systems, The Journal of Chemical Physics 144, 204107 (2016)

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Lewis and R

    D. Lewis and R. Wiersema, Quantum Optimal Control with Geodesic Pulse Engineering (2025), https:// github.com/dyylan/geodesic_control

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Nogueira, Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python (2014–)

    F. Nogueira, Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python (2014–)

    2014

  47. [47]

    L. J. Bond, A. Safavi-Naini, and J. Min´ aˇ r, Fast Quantum State Preparation and Bath Dynamics Using Non- Gaussian Variational Ansatz and Quantum Optimal Control, Physical Review Letters 132, 170401 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Wiersema, A

    R. Wiersema, A. F. Kemper, B. N. Bakalov, and N. Killoran, Geometric quantum machine learning with horizontal quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013148 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    I. F. Nyisomeh, J. T. Diffo, M. E. Ateuafack, and L. C. Fai, Landau–Zener transitions in coupled qubits: Effects of coloured noise, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 116, 113744 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    McEwen, D

    M. McEwen, D. Kafri, Z. Chen, J. Atalaya, K. J. Satzinger, C. Quintana, P. V. Klimov, D. Sank, C. Gidney, A. G. Fowler, F. Arute, K. Arya, B. Buckley, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. Dunsworth, C. Erickson, B. Foxen, M. Giustina, T. Huang, S. Hong, E. Jeffrey, S. Kim, K. Kechedzhi, F. Kostritsa, P. Laptev, A. Megrant, X. Mi, ...

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Power-optimized amplitude modulation for robust trapped-ion entangling gates: a study of gate-timing errors

    L. Ellert-Beck and W. Ge, Power-optimized amplitude modulation for robust trapped-ion entangling gates: a study of gate-timing errors (2024), arXiv:2412.17789 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Helgason, Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces (Academic Press, 1979) google-Books- ID: DWGvsa6bcuMC

    S. Helgason, Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces (Academic Press, 1979) google-Books- ID: DWGvsa6bcuMC

    work page 1979

  53. [53]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    H. E. Haber, Notes on the Matrix Exponential and Log- arithm,

    work page

  55. [55]

    Armijo, Minimization of functions having lipschitz continuous first partial derivatives, Pacific Journal of mathematics 16, 1 (1966)

    L. Armijo, Minimization of functions having lipschitz continuous first partial derivatives, Pacific Journal of mathematics 16, 1 (1966)

    work page 1966

  56. [56]

    Banerjee, N

    A. Banerjee, N. Adams, J. Simons, and R. Shepard, Search for stationary points on surfaces, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 89, 52 (1985)

    work page 1985

  57. [57]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization (Cambridge university press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    P. I. Frazier, A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization (2018), arXiv:1807.02811 [stat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Srinivas, A

    N. Srinivas, A. Krause, S. Kakade, and M. Seeger, Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: no regret and experimental design, inProceedings of the 27th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’10 (Omnipress, Madison, WI, USA, 2010) pp. 1015–1022. 8 Appendix A. NOT A TION We give a concise description of th...

    work page 2010

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.