Fidelity-Based Robustness Margins for Finite-Time Quantum Control

C. A. Weidner; E. A. Jonckheere; F. C. Langbein; S. P. O'Neil; S. Schirmer

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Fidelity-Based Robustness Margins for Finite-Time Quantum Control

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper certifies a finite perturbation radius for quantum gate controls: the fidelity gap divided by a Lipschitz bound is a safe step, and repeating it gives a proven lower bound on the distance to the first threshold crossing.

desk verdict The certificate math is sound and the recentered continuation is a real extension; the only soft spot is that the reported numerical margins are not rigorous floating-point certificates, though the authors are mostly upfront about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03698 v1 pith:ZRZKVSNS submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph cs.SYeess.SY

S. P. O'Neil , F. C. Langbein , C. A. Weidner , E. A. Jonckheere , S. Schirmer This is my paper

classification quant-phcs.SYeess.SY

keywords quantumcontrolrobustnessmarginstructuredperturbationsgatefidelityLipschitzboundpiecewise-constanttrace-amplitudethreshold

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 aims to answer a practical question: for a quantum gate implemented by a piecewise-constant pulse sequence, how far can a scalar physical parameter (a drift error or a control amplitude error) move before the gate fidelity drops below an acceptable threshold? It proves that the answer can be certified using only the nominal controller, the threshold, and a structure-dependent constant: at any point the fidelity gap above threshold divided by a Lipschitz constant is a radius inside which the fidelity is guaranteed to stay above threshold, and recentering and repeating this step walks toward the true boundary. The bound is derived from a trace-amplitude fidelity sensitivity inequality that vanishes at perfect fidelity and is then made global by a uniform bound on the perturbed propagators. A three-qubit gate-control study shows the resulting margins depend on which Hamiltonian is perturbed and can disagree with rankings from nominal fidelity or local sensitivity by up to a factor of three. If correct, this gives a cheap, structure-aware certification tool for post-design gate robustness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the threshold-dependent Lipschitz constant L_hatH = B_T C_hatH, where B_T = sqrt((1-F_T^2)/N) and C_hatH bounds the supremum over the safe interval of the sum of perturbed propagator Frobenius norms. The bound is obtained by decomposing the trace-amplitude fidelity derivative into Hermitian and skew-Hermitian parts of the propagator factors, cancelling the Hermitian contribution, and bounding the remainder with Lemma 2; this gives a local sensitivity inequality that is converted into a global Lipschitz bound on the connected safe component. The certified step r_nu = (F_nu - F_T)/L_hatH is the mechanism of Algorithm 1: recentering at each new point makes the certificate

What would settle it

Pick one of the 61 controllers, compute the certified margin M for the H2 structure, and evaluate the actual fidelity at parameter offset M - 10^-6. If the fidelity falls below F_T, the certificate is violated. Equivalently, numerically maximize f(mu) = sum_k ||partial-tilde-U(k)/partial-mu||_F over the safe interval; any value exceeding C_hatH refutes the uniform-bound premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Given a nominal controller with fidelity F greater than the threshold F_T, the paper proves that for any parameter value nu in the connected safe interval, the step r_nu = (F_nu - F_T)/L_hatH is a certified safe radius: every parameter value within r_nu of nu has fidelity at least F_T, and strictly inside it stays within the safe component. The Lipschitz constant L_hatH = B_T C_hatH comes from bounding the derivative of the trace-amplitude gate fidelity by sqrt((1-F_T^2)/N) times a structure-dependent constant C_hatH that bounds the sum of the perturbed propagator Frobenius norms. C_hatH is explicit for affine scalar structures: t_f||H_0||_F for drift uncertainty and Delta||f_m||_1||H_m||_F

Load-bearing premise

The whole certificate rests on the constant C_hatH being a true upper bound on the sum of perturbed propagator norms everywhere in the connected safe interval; if that uniform bound fails at even one interior point, the certified radius can be too large.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any controller meeting F_T < F_mu0, the certificate gives a proven safe interval around the nominal parameter without exhaustive search over perturbation directions for a single scalar structure.
Iterating the recentered step yields a certified lower bound on the distance to the first threshold crossing in each direction, usable for post-design certification of gates.
The derivative bound vanishes at unit fidelity, so near-perfect gates inherit an O(epsilon^-1/2) scaling of the log-sensitivity of fidelity error, matching static-field observations; the margin itself remains finite and threshold-dependent.
Because L_hatH depends only on the threshold and the perturbation structure, not on the current point, the algorithm can be run with only local fidelity evaluations.
Margins for drift versus control Hamiltonians rank controllers differently: the drift margin anticorrelates with nominal sensitivity while control-structure margins do not, so finite margins carry off-nominal information not present in nominal fidelity or local sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

Since each step in the case study is certified and the post-hoc bracket between the reported margin and an upper witness is tight, the iteration likely reaches near the true boundary for many controllers; a testable extension is to use the directional statuses to produce two-sided brackets without extra bisection.
The same recentering argument could be adapted to simultaneous scalar parameters by cycling coordinates or replacing the interval Lipschitz constant with a gradient-norm bound over a rectangle, but the paper explicitly leaves multiparameter extensions open.
The structure-dependent ranking suggests margin-aware synthesis: optimizing the certified margin as part of the controller objective might select controllers that nominal fidelity alone would rank differently; that goes beyond what the paper demonstrates.
The reported anti-correlation between nominal drift sensitivity magnitude and finite drift margin implies local differential sensitivity can be misleading as a robustness proxy; checking this on other spin-chain lengths or gate targets would be a cheap falsifiable follow-up.

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

For your money: this is a legitimate methodological contribution, not a rehash. The genuinely new piece is the threshold-dependent Lipschitz certificate in Theorem 2 plus the recentering iteration in Algorithm 1. The sensitivity bound extends their earlier static-control lemma to piecewise-constant control and vanishes at perfect fidelity. The uniform bound C_hatH that the reader flagged as an unproven premise is actually proven: Lemma 3 plus the affine structure gives f(mu) <= C_hatH globally, not just on the safe interval. So that concern does not land. The centering argument is also fine: it only changes the propagator by a global phase and the bound tightens. The proofs of Lemmas 1-4 and Theorem 2 are standard and checkable: skew-Hermitian/Hermitian orthogonality, Cauchy-Schwarz, and the continuity-based safe-component argument all go through. The paper also does a good job of stating what the algorithm does not certify: the status flags are honest, the DOMAIN-TRUNC case is clearly labeled as only a lower bound, and no claim is made about disconnected safe sets. The numerical validation uses a versioned, frozen toolbox with data and scripts, which is more than most papers do. The factor-of-three ranking observation is interesting but descriptive: it shows that nominal sensitivity alone doesn't rank controllers for control-structure perturbations, at least for these 61 controllers on one spin-chain family. That's a modest empirical claim, and the authors don't oversell it. The real soft spot is practical rather than mathematical. Algorithm 1's certified steps require exact fidelity values, but the implementation uses floating-point evaluation without rigorous error bounds. If a computed F_nu is slightly too high, the step can overshoot the true safe radius; the bisection safeguard only reacts after the numerical evaluation reports F < F_T. That tempers the word 'certified' for the reported margins. The post hoc upper witness brackets them to about 5e-4, which suggests the error is small in practice, but it's still a gap between the exact-arithmetic theorem and the floating-point numbers in Table I. A short discussion of interval-arithmetic or a posteriori error bounds would close it. Minor: the single numerical example limits generality, and the toolbox not being independently run means I can't fully verify the numbers, but the frozen artifact is a good start. Who this is for: quantum control people doing post-design robustness certification, and anyone building on norm-based fidelity bounds. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it out, with a request that the referee check the numerical certification caveat and see whether the recentering iteration can be made rigorous with validated numerics. In my own work I'd cite it for the threshold-dependent Lipschitz certificate.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers finite-dimensional closed quantum systems under piecewise-constant coherent control and develops a scalar-parameter robustness margin for trace-amplitude gate fidelity. It derives a differential sensitivity bound (Theorem 1) from the skew-Hermitian nature of propagated perturbations and a Hermitian/skew-Hermitian decomposition, then converts the bound into a threshold-dependent Lipschitz constant on the connected safe component (Lemmas 3–4). The central result, Theorem 2, gives a certified radius r_nu = (F_nu - F_T)/L_hatH around any recentering point nu, and Algorithm 1 iterates this step to move toward the first threshold crossing. A three-qubit gate-control study with 61 controllers compares margins for drift and two control-Hamiltonian uncertainty structures. The main mathematical steps are checkable and the exact-arithmetic certificate is genuine; the principal weakness is the gap between the exact-arithmetic certificate and the floating-point numerical implementation used for the reported margins.

Significance. If the result is taken at face value, the paper provides a useful post-design certification tool: the Lipschitz constant is derived from the declared perturbation structure and the fidelity threshold, with no fitted parameters, and Theorem 2 gives an explicit, constructive safe-step certificate. The proof of the uniform bound f(mu) <= C_hatH, which a reader might initially treat as an assumption, is indeed supplied by Lemma 3 together with the affine structure of Eq. (4). The paper also ships reproducible code and data (Zenodo release), which raises confidence in the numerical experiments. The main mathematical contribution, a structure-specific fidelity-threshold margin with iterative recentering, is sound. The numerical certification gap, discussed below, tempers but does not invalidate the central theorem.

major comments (1)

[Algorithm 1 and Section VI] The word 'certified' is load-bearing for the numerical margins reported in Section VI, but Algorithm 1 is certified only in exact arithmetic. The update nu+ = nu +/- (F_nu - F_T)/L_hatH uses Theorem 2 with the current fidelity F_nu, and the theorem requires F_nu to be exact. In the implementation, F_nu is a floating-point evaluation, and the bisection branch (Algorithm 1, lines 8–11) is only a numerical safeguard: it cannot detect or correct a case where a rounded-up F_nu causes the certified step to overshoot the true safe radius. The paper is partially transparent about this ('floating-point evaluations of analytically certified lower bounds'), but the abstract and conclusion continue to describe the margins and steps as 'certified' without this qualification. Please either implement the algorithm with interval/validated arithmetic for the reported numbers, or consistently state that t

minor comments (5)

[Section V(b)] After centering, the notation for the perturbation structure is inconsistent: the text defines hat H_mu = hat H_mu - N^{-1}(Tr hat H_mu)I, and later writes 'Writing H_m = Hm - N^{-1}(Tr H_m)I' without the hat. This should be made uniform to avoid confusion between the original and centered structures.
[Lemma 4 proof] The phrase 'the lower half of Lemma 4' is unclear: Lemma 4 states a two-sided Lipschitz inequality. Presumably the intended use is the lower bound |F_b - F_a| <= L |b-a|, which in the proof yields F_gamma(lambda) >= F_nu - L lambda |mu_1-nu|. Please rephrase.
[Eq. (12)] The definition of B_T is written as B_T = sqrt((1-F_T^2)/N), but the derivation in Theorem 1 gives B_T = sqrt(1-F_T^2)/N. The square root covers only 1-F_T^2, not the division by N. Please check the typography in this displayed equation; the subsequent algebra appears correct.
[Algorithm 1] The threshold status 'UNSET' is used but never explained. If it is just an internal flag, that is fine; still, a one-line clarification would help reproducibility.
[Table I] The correlations are reported descriptively without confidence intervals or significance tests. Since the sample size is only 61, the reader cannot assess sampling variability. Adding a bootstrap interval or at least an explicit disclaimer that the entries are descriptive would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Lipschitz certificate is derived from the structure constant C_hatH and fidelity values, not fitted; self-citations are auxiliary lemmas.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The sensitivity formula (10) is written out explicitly and the derivative representation (8) is standard; the citation to [7] is a reference for the usual form of the derivative, not a load-bearing external uniqueness result. The uniform bound f(mu) <= C_hatH, which is the structurally weakest premise, is actually proven for the affine structure (4): for each interval dH^(k)/dmu = alpha^(k) Hhat_mu, so Lemma 3 gives f(mu) <= Delta sum |alpha^(k)| ||Hhat_mu||_F = C_hatH independent of mu; the trace-centering step changes only a global phase and cannot loosen the bound. Lemma 4 and Theorem 2 then follow in exact arithmetic: the radius (F_nu - F_T)/L_hatH is a consequence of the Lipschitz inequality, not an independently fitted parameter. Algorithm 1's repeated steps are covered by Theorem 2 at each iteration, and the numerical safeguard does not substitute a fitted quantity for a prediction. The only caveat, that reported floating-point values are not rigorously certified interval evaluations, concerns numerical certification rather than circularity. No equation is equivalent by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or unobserved entities. Its free-parameter count is zero because the method consumes declared input (threshold F_T, structure H_hat, domain Omega_mu, step limit K_max) rather than fitting them to data. The main hidden burden is the uniformity assumption behind C_hatH and the differentiability/smoothness of the safe component.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption For the considered affine structured perturbations, the sum of propagator-derivative norms f(mu) is uniformly bounded by a structure-determined constant C_hatH on the entire connected safe component.
Invoked in Section V.b to obtain a mu-independent Lipschitz constant from the inequality f(mu) <= C_hatH; the proof is only sketched for specific cases.
domain assumption The absolute-value fidelity is differentiable on the safe set where F_mu > F_T (equivalently nonzero trace overlap), and the sensitivity bound is valid throughout I.
Used in Lemma 4's integral bound and in the statement that the certificate applies on the entire connected component; requires the phase re-centering argument for all mu in I.
domain assumption The nominal controller and perturbed propagators are generated by Hermitian Hamiltonians, which guarantees unitarity and the Frobenius-norm invariance used throughout Lemmas 1-4.
The closed-system, piecewise-constant, coercive-control model of Section II and III is assumed; the paper explicitly excludes open-system and stochastic perturbations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fidelity-Based Robustness Margins for Finite-Time Quantum Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRZKVSNS

@misc{pith2026260803698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fidelity-Based Robustness Margins for Finite-Time Quantum Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRZKVSNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03698}
}

read the original abstract

We develop a structure-specific fidelity-threshold robustness margin for finite-dimensional closed quantum systems under piecewise-constant coherent control. A scalar physical parameter may perturb the drift, a control Hamiltonian, or another declared Hamiltonian component across the control horizon. A differential sensitivity bound for trace-amplitude gate fidelity yields a threshold-dependent Lipschitz constant on the connected safe parameter component and hence a certified finite perturbation radius. Recentering this certificate produces an iterative one-dimensional method that takes certified safe steps toward the first fidelity-threshold boundary in either parameter direction. A three-qubit gate-control example shows that these finite margins vary by up to a factor of three across controllers of comparable nominal fidelity and contain structure-dependent information not captured by nominal differential sensitivity alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03698 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Fidelity error versus perturbation strength for H0, H1, H2 perturbations across the controllers. The dashed line indicates the fidelity-error threshold 10−3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Robustness margins for H0, H1, and H2 across the 61 controllers ordered by increasing nominal fidelity error ε0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Robustness margins versus nominal differential-sensitivity magnitude |ζj | for H0 (top) and H1, H2 (bottom). drift margin is appreciably anticorrelated with the nominal sensitivity magnitude, whereas the control-structure margins show only weak associations with their corresponding nominal sensitivities. Extensions to simultaneous parameters, arbitrary within-gate trajectories, Lindblad-rate uncertainty, and margin… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe,

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 Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 19, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Robustness issues in quantum control,

I. R. Petersen, “Robustness issues in quantum control,” inEncyclopedia of Systems and Control. Springer, 2013, pp. 1–7

work page 2013
[3]

Robust quantum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice,

C. A. Weidner, E. A. Reed, J. Monroe, B. Sheller, S. P. O’Neil, E. Maas, E. A. Jonckheere, F. C. Langbein, and S. G. Schirmer, “Robust quantum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice,”Automatica, vol. 172, p. 111987, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties,

J. Doyle, “Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties,” IEE Proc. D, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 242–250, 1982

work page 1982
[5]

Zhou and J

K. Zhou and J. C. Doyle,Essentials of Robust Control. Prentice Hall, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

Robustness of dynamic quantum control: Differential sensitivity bounds,

S. P. O’Neil, C. A. Weidner, E. A. Jonckheere, F. C. Langbein, and S. G. Schirmer, “Robustness of dynamic quantum control: Differential sensitivity bounds,”AVS Quantum Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, p. 032001, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Sensitivity bounds for quantum control and time-domain performance guarantees,

S. P. O’Neil, E. A. Jonckheere, and S. Schirmer, “Sensitivity bounds for quantum control and time-domain performance guarantees,”IEEE Control Syst. Lett., vol. 8, pp. 169–174, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Distance bounds on quantum dynamics,

D. A. Lidar, P. Zanardi, and K. Khodjasteh, “Distance bounds on quantum dynamics,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 78, p. 012308, 2008

work page 2008

Show all 18 references

[9]

Robustness of quantum algorithms against coherent control errors,

J. Berberich, D. Fink, and C. Holm, “Robustness of quantum algorithms against coherent control errors,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 109, p. 012417, 2024

2024
[10]

Robustness of quantum algorithms: Worst-case fidelity bounds and implications for design,

J. Berberich, T. Fellner, R. L. Kosut, and C. Holm, “Robustness of quantum algorithms: Worst-case fidelity bounds and implications for design,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08481

2026
[11]

A fundamental bound for robust quantum gate control,

R. L. Kosut, D. A. Lidar, and H. Rabitz, “A fundamental bound for robust quantum gate control,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01215

2025 arXiv
[12]

Universally robust quantum control,

P. M. Poggi, G. De Chiara, S. Campbell, and A. Kiely, “Universally robust quantum control,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 132, no. 19, p. 193801, 2024

2024
[13]

Robust and optimal control of open quantum systems,

Z.-J. Chen, H. Huang, L. Sun, Q.-X. Jie, J. Zhou, Z. Hua, Y . Xu, W. Wang, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, L. Sun, and X.-B. Zou, “Robust and optimal control of open quantum systems,”Sci. Adv., vol. 11, no. 9, p. eadr0875, 2025

2025
[14]

Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: Design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms,

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,”J. Magn. Reson., vol. 172, no. 2, pp. 296–305, 2005

2005
[15]

Geometric interpre- tation of sensitivity to structured uncertainties in spintronic networks,

S. P. O’Neil, E. A. Jonckheere, and S. Schirmer, “Geometric interpre- tation of sensitivity to structured uncertainties in spintronic networks,” IEEE Control Syst. Lett., vol. 9, pp. 192–197, 2025

2025
[16]

Time-domain sensitivity of the tracking error,

S. O’Neil, S. Schirmer, F. C. Langbein, C. A. Weidner, and E. A. Jonckheere, “Time-domain sensitivity of the tracking error,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2340–2351, 2024

2024
[17]

Robust quantum gates for open systems via optimal control: Markovian versus non- Markovian dynamics,

F. F. Floether, P. de Fouqui `eres, and S. G. Schirmer, “Robust quantum gates for open systems via optimal control: Markovian versus non- Markovian dynamics,”New J. Phys., vol. 14, no. 7, p. 073023, 2012

2012
[18]

Fidelity-based quantum robustness margins,

F. C. Langbein, S. P. O’Neil, S. Schirmer, C. A. Weidner, and E. A. Jon- ckheere, “Fidelity-based quantum robustness margins,” Zenodo, 2026, ver. 1.0.2, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21776873. Available: https://qyber.black/ spinnet/code-quantum-robustness-margins

2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum optimal control in quantum technologies. strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe,

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 Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 19, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Robustness issues in quantum control,

I. R. Petersen, “Robustness issues in quantum control,” inEncyclopedia of Systems and Control. Springer, 2013, pp. 1–7

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Robust quantum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice,

C. A. Weidner, E. A. Reed, J. Monroe, B. Sheller, S. P. O’Neil, E. Maas, E. A. Jonckheere, F. C. Langbein, and S. G. Schirmer, “Robust quantum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice,”Automatica, vol. 172, p. 111987, 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties,

J. Doyle, “Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertainties,” IEE Proc. D, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 242–250, 1982

work page 1982

[5] [5]

Zhou and J

K. Zhou and J. C. Doyle,Essentials of Robust Control. Prentice Hall, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [6]

Robustness of dynamic quantum control: Differential sensitivity bounds,

S. P. O’Neil, C. A. Weidner, E. A. Jonckheere, F. C. Langbein, and S. G. Schirmer, “Robustness of dynamic quantum control: Differential sensitivity bounds,”AVS Quantum Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, p. 032001, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Sensitivity bounds for quantum control and time-domain performance guarantees,

S. P. O’Neil, E. A. Jonckheere, and S. Schirmer, “Sensitivity bounds for quantum control and time-domain performance guarantees,”IEEE Control Syst. Lett., vol. 8, pp. 169–174, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Distance bounds on quantum dynamics,

D. A. Lidar, P. Zanardi, and K. Khodjasteh, “Distance bounds on quantum dynamics,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 78, p. 012308, 2008

work page 2008