pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26625 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Tikhonov-regularised projected gradient flow for equality-constrained bilinear quantum control

Tanveer Ahmad This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Tikhonov regularizationprojected gradient flowbilinear quantum controlequality constraintsGram matrix regularizationmonotonicityconvergence rateCFL condition
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tikhonov regularization of the Gram matrix makes projected gradient flows for equality-constrained bilinear quantum control stable under discretization while preserving monotonicity and achieving O(ε²) convergence.

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

This paper shows how to regularise a projected gradient flow that maximises a smooth bilinear objective subject to equality constraints in quantum control. The unregularised flow is monotone in continuous time but the associated Gram matrix is often extremely ill-conditioned, causing instability once the flow is discretised. By adding a small Tikhonov term ε²I to the Gram matrix the authors prove that monotonicity is retained for every ε, that the equality constraints are satisfied up to an error of order ε², and that the regularised trajectory converges in L² to the unregularised one at the same rate provided the original Gram matrix stays invertible. They also derive a step-size restriction that guarantees monotonicity of the forward-Euler discretisation. Numerical tests on a three-level Bell-state preparation problem confirm the predicted rates and show that moderate regularisation removes the need for step-size rejections while keeping final fidelity unchanged.

Core claim

The authors prove that the Tikhonov-regularised projected gradient flow with Gram matrix Γ_ε = Γ + ε²I satisfies an exact spectral identity κ(Γ_ε) = (σ_max² + ε²)/(σ_min² + ε²), maintains objective monotonicity dJ/ds ≥ 0 for all ε ≥ 0, produces constraint drift of size O(ε²), converges in L²(0,T) to the unregularised trajectory at rate O(ε²) under uniform invertibility of Γ, and obeys a discrete CFL condition Δs G ||Γ_ε^{-1}|| ≤ α < 2 that ensures monotonicity of forward Euler up to O(Δs²) truncation error.

What carries the argument

The regularised moving Gram matrix Γ_ε(s) obtained by adding ε²I to the integral matrix whose entries are inner products of the control-dependent functions c_ℓ(s,t).

If this is right

  • Monotonic ascent of the objective is guaranteed in continuous time for any regularisation strength ε.
  • Constraint violation stays O(ε²) with an explicit, computable constant.
  • The forward-Euler scheme remains monotone when the step size satisfies the CFL inequality involving the inverse norm of Γ_ε.
  • The regularised solution converges to the unregularised solution in L² at rate O(ε²) whenever Γ is uniformly invertible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The technique offers a systematic way to stabilise projected gradient methods in other optimal-control problems that rely on inverting ill-conditioned Gram matrices.
  • Adaptive choice of ε during the integration could trade off bias in the constraints against numerical robustness.
  • The same spectral identity may be useful for analysing convergence rates in related regularised projection schemes.

Load-bearing premise

The unregularised Gram matrix remains uniformly invertible throughout the evolution.

What would settle it

Compute the L² distance between regularised and unregularised controls for a sequence of decreasing ε values on the three-level benchmark; if the distance does not decrease proportionally to ε², the O(ε²) convergence claim is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26625 by Tanveer Ahmad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Baseline unregularised flow (ε = 0). (a) objective J[E (n) ]; (b) relative fluence drift (h2 − h (0) 2 )/h(0) 2 ; (c) |h1| (logarithmic scale); (d) Gram-matrix condition number cond(Γ(s (n) )). The persistence of cond(Γ) in the band 109–1011 across all three pulse durations documents the generic ill-conditioning of the unregularised flow. on a straight line of slope 2 in log-log coordinates over eight deca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Empirical verification of Theorem 4.6. Markers: ∥Eε(s ∗ ) − E0(s ∗ )∥L2 / ∥E0(s ∗ )∥L2 against ε. Dashed line: O(ε 2 ) reference. The ε 2 rate is reproduced over eight decades in ε. 6.4 Conditioning–drift trade-off view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Maximum condition number maxs cond(Γε(s)) along the regularised flow versus ε. The plateau at small ε matches cond(Γ) (dashed line). (b) Relative fluence drift at the final iterate. The decrease at moderate ε reflects the CFL margin of Theorem 5.1. 6.5 Practical impact of regularisation We test the practical impact of regularisation in the aggressive-step regime. For initial step sizes ∆s ∈ {10−6 , 5 ·… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Practical impact of regularisation at τ = 250 fs. (a) Iterations to reach J = 0.99 versus initial step size ∆s. (b) Total step-halving rejections. (c) Relative fluence drift at termination. Regularisation with ε ∈ {10−3 , 10−2} outperforms the unregularised baseline on all three metrics; aggressive step sizes violate the CFL bound for every ε. 16 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initial control (dashed) and final controls obtained with view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study a projection-type gradient flow for equality-constrained maximisation of a smooth bilinear control objective on $\mathcal{H}=L^2(0,T;\mathbb{R})$, eliminating Lagrange multipliers through an $(M{+}1)\times(M{+}1)$ moving Gram matrix $\Gamma(s)_{\ell\ell'}=\int_0^T S(t)\,c_\ell(s,t)\,c_{\ell'}(s,t)\,\mathrm{d}t$. The flow generates monotonic ascent in continuous time but becomes unstable on discretisation; existing implementations rely on heuristic step-size safeguards lacking rigorous justification. We close this gap by replacing $\Gamma$ with $\Gamma_{\varepsilon}:=\Gamma+\varepsilon^{2}I$ and prove: (i) an exact spectral identity giving $\kappa(\Gamma_{\varepsilon})=(\sigma_{\max}^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})/(\sigma_{\min}^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})$; (ii) objective monotonicity $\mathrm{d}J/\mathrm{d}s\ge 0$ for all $\varepsilon\ge 0$; (iii) constraint drift $|h_{m}-C_{m}|=\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})$ with a computable prefactor; (iv) convergence of the regularised trajectory to the unregularised one in $L^{2}(0,T)$ at rate $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{2})$ under uniform invertibility of $\Gamma$; and (v) a discrete CFL criterion $\Delta s\,G\,\|\Gamma_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\|\le\alpha<2$ guaranteeing objective monotonicity of the forward-Euler scheme up to $\mathcal{O}(\Delta s^{2})$ local truncation error. The theory is validated on a three-level bilinear benchmark for all-optical Bell-state preparation, where $\kappa(\Gamma)\in[10^{9},10^{11}]$, the predicted $\varepsilon^{2}$ rate is confirmed over eight decades, and moderate regularisation eliminates step rejections and reduces constraint drift by more than an order of magnitude at unchanged final fidelity.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Tikhonov regularization (Γ_ε = Γ + ε² I) for a projected gradient flow solving equality-constrained bilinear quantum control problems on L²(0,T;ℝ). It proves an exact spectral identity for the condition number κ(Γ_ε), objective monotonicity dJ/ds ≥ 0 for all ε ≥ 0, O(ε²) constraint drift with computable prefactor, L² convergence of regularized to unregularized trajectories at O(ε²) under uniform invertibility of Γ, and a CFL-type criterion Δs G ‖Γ_ε^{-1}‖ ≤ α < 2 for monotonicity of forward-Euler discretizations up to O(Δs²) error. The claims are validated numerically on a three-level all-optical Bell-state preparation benchmark with κ(Γ) ∈ [10^9,10^11], confirming the ε² scaling over eight decades and reduced step rejections.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a principled, parameter-controlled stabilization method for discretizing constrained gradient flows in quantum optimal control, directly addressing instability without heuristic safeguards. The exact spectral identity, monotonicity preservation for any ε, and explicit discrete stability criterion are clear strengths, as is the numerical confirmation of the predicted scaling on a severely ill-conditioned problem. These elements advance both theory and practice in the field.

major comments (1)
  1. [L² convergence result (claim (iv))] L² convergence result (claim (iv)): The O(ε²) L² convergence of the regularised to unregularised trajectory is proved only under the assumption of uniform invertibility of Γ (i.e., σ_min(Γ(s)) bounded below by a positive constant independent of s). The three-level benchmark reports κ(Γ) ∈ [10^9,10^11], so σ_min can reach ~10^{-11} σ_max. The manuscript must verify that inf_s σ_min(Γ(s)) > 0 holds on the computed trajectory (or show that the observed ε² rate persists when the assumption is only marginally satisfied); otherwise the numerical scaling may be an artefact of the chosen ε range rather than confirmation of the general theorem.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Discrete CFL criterion] The constant G appearing in the discrete CFL criterion Δs G ‖Γ_ε^{-1}‖ ≤ α < 2 must be defined explicitly (e.g., as a Lipschitz bound on the vector field) in the statement of the discrete monotonicity theorem.
  2. [Constraint drift bound] The 'computable prefactor' for the O(ε²) constraint drift |h_m - C_m| should be stated explicitly in the corresponding theorem so that readers can obtain a priori estimates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and for identifying a point that strengthens the connection between our theory and numerics. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: L² convergence result (claim (iv)): The O(ε²) L² convergence of the regularised to unregularised trajectory is proved only under the assumption of uniform invertibility of Γ (i.e., σ_min(Γ(s)) bounded below by a positive constant independent of s). The three-level benchmark reports κ(Γ) ∈ [10^9,10^11], so σ_min can reach ~10^{-11} σ_max. The manuscript must verify that inf_s σ_min(Γ(s)) > 0 holds on the computed trajectory (or show that the observed ε² rate persists when the assumption is only marginally satisfied); otherwise the numerical scaling may be an artefact of the chosen ε range rather than confirmation of the general theorem.

    Authors: We agree that claim (iv) requires inf_s σ_min(Γ(s)) > 0. In the three-level benchmark the trajectory was generated with the regularized flow; post-processing shows that the smallest eigenvalue of Γ(s) remains bounded below by a positive constant of order 10^{-12} (with σ_max normalized to O(1)) for all s along the path. This bound is independent of s and satisfies the uniform-invertibility hypothesis. We will add a supplementary plot of σ_min(Γ(s)) versus s in the revised manuscript to make the verification explicit. With this confirmation the observed ε² scaling over eight decades is consistent with the theorem rather than an artifact of the chosen ε interval. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: all stated results are direct mathematical consequences of the regularized flow equations under explicitly stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper defines the regularized Gram matrix Γ_ε := Γ + ε²I and derives (i) the exact spectral identity for its condition number, (ii) monotonicity dJ/ds ≥ 0, (iii) O(ε²) constraint drift, (iv) L² convergence rate under the uniform invertibility assumption on Γ, and (v) the discrete CFL condition, all by algebraic manipulation and standard ODE estimates on the projected gradient flow. These steps follow from the definitions and the flow equations themselves; no quantity is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The numerical benchmark on the three-level system serves only as validation, not as input to the proofs. The high observed κ(Γ) is compatible with the stated assumption provided σ_min remains bounded away from zero along the trajectory, but this is a question of assumption validity rather than circularity in the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the objective and the Gram matrix together with the tunable regularization parameter ε; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • ε (regularization parameter)
    Positive scalar introduced to regularize Γ; its magnitude controls the trade-off between conditioning and constraint violation, with all error terms scaling as O(ε²).
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The control objective J is smooth and bilinear.
    Invoked to define the gradient flow and to establish monotonicity dJ/ds ≥ 0.
  • domain assumption The unregularized Gram matrix Γ is uniformly invertible.
    Required to prove L² convergence of the regularized trajectory to the unregularized one at rate O(ε²).
invented entities (1)
  • Regularized Gram matrix Γ_ε := Γ + ε² I no independent evidence
    purpose: To improve the condition number of the matrix appearing in the projection step and thereby stabilize the discrete flow.
    Mathematical construction introduced in the paper; no independent physical evidence is supplied beyond the analysis and benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5668 in / 1745 out tokens · 69169 ms · 2026-05-07T13:36:14.203729+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chap- man & Hall/CRC Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science Series

    Domenico D’Alessandro.Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics. Chap- man & Hall/CRC Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Springer, Dordrecht, 2009

    Michael Hinze, René Pinnau, Michael Ulbrich, and Stefan Ulbrich.Optimization with PDE Constraints, volume 23 ofMathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    American Math- ematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010

    Fredi Tröltzsch.Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations: Theory, Methods and Applications, volume 112 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Math- ematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    A. P. Peirce, M. A. Dahleh, and H. Rabitz. Optimal control of quantum-mechanical systems: existence, numerical approximation, and applications.Physical Review A, 37(12):4950–4964, 1988

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    Introduction to the Pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control.PRX Quantum, 2(3):030203, 2021

    Ugo Boscain, Mario Sigalotti, and Dominique Sugny. Introduction to the Pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control.PRX Quantum, 2(3):030203, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Computational Science and Engineering

    Alfio Borzì and Volker Schulz.Computational Optimization of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations. Computational Science and Engineering. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2012. 19

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Palao and Ronnie Kosloff

    José P. Palao and Ronnie Kosloff. Quantum computing by an optimal control al- gorithm for unitary transformations.Physical Review Letters, 89(18):188301, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Reich, Mamadou Ndong, and Christiane P

    Daniel M. Reich, Mamadou Ndong, and Christiane P. Koch. Monotonically convergent optimization in quantum control using Krotov’s method.Journal of Chemical Physics, 136(10):104103, 2012

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Goerz, Daniel Basilewitsch, Fernando Gago-Encinas, Matthias G

    Michael H. Goerz, Daniel Basilewitsch, Fernando Gago-Encinas, Matthias G. Murphy, Daniel M. Reich, K. Birgitta Whaley, and Christiane P. Koch. Krotov: a Python implementation of Krotov’s method for quantum optimal control.SciPost Physics, 7:080, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Navin Khaneja, Timo Reiss, Cindie Kehlet, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, and Stef- fen J. Glaser. Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse se- quences by gradient ascent algorithms.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 172(2):296– 305, 2005

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Machnes, E

    S. Machnes, E. Assémat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm. Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits.Physical Review Letters, 120(15):150401, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    A. Oza, A. Pechen, J. Dominy, V. Beltrani, K. Moore, and H. Rabitz. Optimization search effort over the control landscapes for open quantum systems with Kraus-map evolution.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 42(20):205305, 2009

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Morzhin and Alexander N

    Oleg V. Morzhin and Alexander N. Pechen. Gradient projection method for con- strained quantum control.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 58(13):135302, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Glaser, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Christiane P

    Steffen J. Glaser, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Christiane P. Koch, Walter Köcken- berger, Ronnie Kosloff, Ilya Kuprov, Burkhard Luy, Sophie Schirmer, Thomas Schulte- Herbrüggen, Dominique Sugny, and Frank K. Wilhelm. Training Schrödinger’s cat: quantum optimal control.European Physical Journal D, 69:279, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Werschnik and E

    J. Werschnik and E. K. U. Gross. Quantum optimal control theory.Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 40(18):R175–R211, 2007

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Koch, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Gunther Dirr, Stefan Filipp, Steffen J

    Christiane P. Koch, Ugo Boscain, Tommaso Calarco, Gunther Dirr, Stefan Filipp, Steffen J. Glaser, Ronnie Kosloff, Simone Montangero, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, Dominique Sugny, and Frank K. Wilhelm. Quantum optimal control in quantum tech- nologies. strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe. EPJ Quantum Technology, 9:19, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Sugny, S

    D. Sugny, S. Vranckx, M. Ndong, N. Vaeck, O. Atabek, and M. Desouter-Lecomte. Control of molecular dynamics with zero-area fields: Application to molecular orient- ation and photofragmentation.Physical Review A, 90(5):053404, 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Monotonic convergent quantum optimal control method with exact equality constraints on the optimized control fields

    Chuan-Cun Shu, Tak-San Ho, and Herschel Rabitz. Monotonic convergent quantum optimal control method with exact equality constraints on the optimized control fields. Physical Review A, 93(5):053418, 2016. 20

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    All-optical generation of quantum entangled states with strictly constrained ultrafast laser pulses.Physical Review A, 100(2):023409, 2019

    Yu Guo, Xiaobing Luo, Shan Ma, and Chuan-Cun Shu. All-optical generation of quantum entangled states with strictly constrained ultrafast laser pulses.Physical Review A, 100(2):023409, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Wright.Numerical Optimization

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright.Numerical Optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2011

    Michael Ulbrich.Semismooth Newton Methods for Variational Inequalities and Con- strained Optimization Problems in Function Spaces, volume 11 ofMOS-SIAM Series on Optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2011

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Lapert, R

    M. Lapert, R. Tehini, G. Turinici, and D. Sugny. Monotonically convergent optimal control theory of quantum systems under a nonlinear interaction with the control field. Physical Review A, 79(6):063411, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Frequency-domain quantum optimal control under multiple constraints.Physical Review A, 93(3):033417, 2016

    Chuan-Cun Shu, Tak-San Ho, Xuan Xing, and Herschel Rabitz. Frequency-domain quantum optimal control under multiple constraints.Physical Review A, 93(3):033417, 2016

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Observable-preserving control of quantum dynamics over a family of related systems.Physical Review A, 72(2):023416, 2005

    Adam Rothman, Tak-San Ho, and Herschel Rabitz. Observable-preserving control of quantum dynamics over a family of related systems.Physical Review A, 72(2):023416, 2005

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

    Exploring the level sets of quantum control landscapes.Journal of Chemical Physics, 123(13):134104, 2005

    Adam Rothman, Tak-San Ho, and Herschel Rabitz. Exploring the level sets of quantum control landscapes.Journal of Chemical Physics, 123(13):134104, 2005

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Moore and Herschel Rabitz

    Katharine W. Moore and Herschel Rabitz. Exploring constrained quantum control landscapes.Physical Review A, 84(1):012109, 2011

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Optimal and robust control of quantum state transfer by shaping spectral phase of ultrafast laser pulses.Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 20(14):9498–9506, 2018

    Yu Guo, Daoyi Dong, and Chuan-Cun Shu. Optimal and robust control of quantum state transfer by shaping spectral phase of ultrafast laser pulses.Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 20(14):9498–9506, 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Tikhonov and Vasiliy Y

    Andrey N. Tikhonov and Vasiliy Y. Arsenin.Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. V. H. Winston & Sons, Washington, DC, 1977

    work page 1977

  29. [29]

    Engl, Martin Hanke, and Andreas Neubauer.Regularization of Inverse Prob- lems, volume 375 ofMathematics and its Applications

    Heinz W. Engl, Martin Hanke, and Andreas Neubauer.Regularization of Inverse Prob- lems, volume 375 ofMathematics and its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1998

    Per Christian Hansen.Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems: Numerical Aspects of Linear Inversion. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1998

    work page 1998

  31. [31]

    Golub and Charles F

    Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan.Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 4th edition, 2013

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Funda- mentals of Algorithms

    Per Christian Hansen.Discrete Inverse Problems: Insight and Algorithms. Funda- mentals of Algorithms. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2010. 21

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Calvetti and L

    D. Calvetti and L. Reichel. Tikhonov regularization of large linear problems.BIT Numerical Mathematics, 43:263–283, 2003

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    Projected iterated Tikhonov in general form with adaptive choice of the regularization parameter

    Alessandro Buccini, Marco Donatelli, Mirjeta Pasha, and Lothar Reichel. Projected iterated Tikhonov in general form with adaptive choice of the regularization parameter. Numerical Algorithms, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Controlling the flow: stability and convergence for stochastic gradient descent with decaying reg- ularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11434, 2025

    Davide Bianchi, Andrea Della Vecchia, Giovanni Lanza, and Silvia Villa. Controlling the flow: stability and convergence for stochastic gradient descent with decaying reg- ularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11434, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    M. Saffman. Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: pro- gress and challenges.Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 49(20):202001, 2016

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Many-body physics with individually con- trolled Rydberg atoms.Nature Physics, 16(2):132–142, 2020

    Antoine Browaeys and Thierry Lahaye. Many-body physics with individually con- trolled Rydberg atoms.Nature Physics, 16(2):132–142, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Evered, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kalinowski, Sepehr Ebadi, Tom Manovitz, Hengyun Zhou, Sophie H

    Simon J. Evered, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kalinowski, Sepehr Ebadi, Tom Manovitz, Hengyun Zhou, Sophie H. Li, Alexandra A. Geim, Tout T. Wang, Nishad Maskara, Harry Levine, Giulia Semeghini, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, and Mikhail D. Lukin. High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer. Nature, 622:268–272, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Evered, Alexandra A

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Nishad Maskara, Iris Cong, Xun Gao, Pedro Sales Rodriguez, Thomas Karolyshyn, Giulia Semeghini, Michael J. Gullans, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, and Mikhail D. Lukin....

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Stuart and A

    Andrew M. Stuart and A. R. Humphries.Dynamical Systems and Numerical Analysis. Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 1996

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    Springer, Berlin, 2nd edition, 2006

    Ernst Hairer, Christian Lubich, and Gerhard Wanner.Geometric Numerical Integra- tion: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations, volume 31 ofSpringer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2nd edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros. The Magnus expansion and some of its applications.Physics Reports, 470(5–6):151–238, 2009

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    Iserles, H

    A. Iserles, H. Z. Munthe-Kaas, S. P. Nørsett, and A. Zanna. Lie-group methods.Acta Numerica, 9:215–365, 2000

    work page 2000

  44. [44]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson.Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2013. 22 A Auxiliary lemmas on the Gram matrix We collect two elementary lemmas used in the body of the paper, included for completeness. Lemma A.1(Diagonal-entry bounds forΓ −1 ε ).For every symmetric positive semidefinite Γ∈R (M+1)×(M+1) and everyε ...

    work page 2013