Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 81 references

Gradient-based quantum optimal control for any pulse shape reduces to a series of nested Hamiltonian commutators times simple pulse integrals, cutting matrix exponentials enough to speed multi-qubit tasks by more than ten times under local

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 18:40 UTC pith:VZDNGQDI

load-bearing objection Clean derivation of a commutator series for ∇U that really does cut matrix exponentials versus GOAT on local multi-qubit jobs; the multi-qubit speedup claim still leans on heuristic truncation that is only lightly checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26867 v1 pith:VZDNGQDI submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph

Analytical Series Expansion for Efficient Gradient Evaluation in Multi-Qubit Optimal Control

Ashutosh Mishra , Elena Lupo , Frank K. Wilhelm , Alessandro Ciani This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum optimal controlgradient evaluationtime-ordered propagatornested commutatorsHeisenberg picturemulti-qubit systemsGHZ state preparationlocal interactions
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.

Gradient methods for designing control pulses on quantum systems must repeatedly compute the time-ordered propagator and its derivatives with respect to pulse parameters. This paper derives, from first principles, the exact formal gradient for arbitrary pulse parameterizations and then expands it into a series whose building blocks are time-independent nested commutators of the Hamiltonian pieces multiplied by recursively nested integrals of the pulse envelopes. Because those commutators can be precomputed once and because local interactions make most of them vanish or become negligible, only one propagator is needed per evaluation instead of co-propagating a full set of derivative matrices. On chain and ladder geometries used to prepare GHZ states the approach delivers more than an order-of-magnitude reduction in wall time and memory relative to the standard co-propagation method, while still reaching high-fidelity optimized pulses with hundreds of parameters.

Core claim

For a unitary propagator generated by a Hamiltonian linear in control pulses, the partial derivative with respect to any pulse parameter admits the exact integral representation involving the Heisenberg-picture evolution of the corresponding drive operator; repeated integration by parts converts that integral into a truncated series whose terms are nested commutators of the static Hamiltonian pieces weighted by nested time integrals of the pulses. Under geometric locality the series truncates efficiently, so the gradient of any standard fidelity cost can be obtained from a single propagator plus inexpensive classical coefficient arithmetic.

What carries the argument

The truncated commutator series ∂U/∂α_k ≃ (∑_{n=0}^N Θ_n(t)) U(t), where each Θ_n is a sum of time-independent nested commutators of the drive and drift operators multiplied by recursively defined pulse integrals β^{(n)}; the same formal integral solution also yields higher-order derivatives and the open-system case.

Load-bearing premise

Heuristic pruning of the commutator tree by operator weight, branching order and graph distance, together with a weak light-cone bound that is not used numerically, must keep the discarded terms small enough that the truncated gradient remains accurate for optimization.

What would settle it

On the same chain or ladder GHZ task, replace the truncated series gradient by the exact co-propagated gradient (or by a series kept to substantially higher order and weight) and check whether the wall-time advantage disappears or the optimizer reaches a markedly different final fidelity; any systematic bias that grows with system size or pulse duration would falsify the claimed accuracy of the truncation.

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

If this is right

  • Any analytic or piecewise-constant pulse parameterization can use the same precomputed commutator tree, unifying GRAPE-style and continuous-pulse gradient methods.
  • Local multi-qubit platforms can optimize state-preparation or gate pulses with hundreds of parameters at roughly one-tenth the previous classical cost.
  • Higher-order derivatives of the propagator become available from the same nested-integral formal solution, enabling Hessian-based or robust optimal-control algorithms.
  • The gradient calculation is reduced to Heisenberg-picture operator evolution, so existing sparse-Pauli or tensor-network operator-propagation tools can be plugged directly into optimal-control loops.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same commutator-tree pruning works for open systems, the method could extend high-fidelity pulse design to readout and reset problems whose Lindblad generators remain local.
  • The explicit link to operator spreading suggests that control landscapes themselves may inherit light-cone structure, limiting how quickly distant parameters can trade off against one another.
  • Re-using the same commutators inside a local Magnus expansion for the propagator itself could further amortize cost when both U and ∇U are required at every iteration.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives, from the Schrödinger equation, a formal integral expression for the gradient of a time-ordered unitary propagator under arbitrary pulse parameterization (Eq. 3 / SM §S1), and expands it by repeated integration by parts into a nested-commutator series (Eqs. 6–8 / SM §S2) whose commutators are time-independent and whose coefficients are nested pulse integrals. Locality of the Hamiltonian is used to prune the commutator tree and to motivate time-slicing (Eq. 9). The series is shown to recover the exact GRAPE gradient for piecewise-constant pulses (SM §S4A) and is extended to nth-order derivatives and open systems. Numerically, dense-series gradients match GOAT to ~10^{-4} relative error on a two-qubit CRAB example; wall-time and memory for gradient evaluation on chains are reported to improve by more than an order of magnitude versus GOAT (Fig. 2b). The method is applied to GHZ preparation on a 6-qubit chain and an 8-qubit ladder (~260 parameters), reaching high final fidelities under L-BFGS-B.

Significance. If the truncated series remains faithful under the locality heuristics used in practice, the work supplies a clean, parameterization-agnostic gradient formula that unifies continuous-pulse methods with GRAPE and maps QOC gradients onto Heisenberg-picture operator evolution—an attractive bridge to Pauli-propagation and light-cone techniques. The reduction in matrix exponentials is a genuine practical gain for multi-qubit platforms with local controls, and the public ParaQeet-based repository strengthens reproducibility. The formal nth-order and open-system extensions are useful even if the multi-qubit numerics remain modest in size. These are solid contributions for a Letter in quantum control.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2a; Fig. 3; SM §S5; SM Fig. S1–S2] The central multi-qubit efficiency claim rests on the truncated series (Eqs. 6–8) plus product rule (Eq. 9) remaining accurate under the heuristic prunings of SM §S5 (operator weight, branching order, graph radius). Gradient fidelity versus GOAT is demonstrated carefully only for a 2-qubit, 12-parameter CRAB instance (Fig. 2a; SM Fig. S1), where dense relative error is ~10^{-4} but sparse already reaches ~0.1. The headline GHZ runs (6-qubit chain / 8-qubit ladder, orders 3–5, weight 3, ~260 parameters; Fig. 3 and SM Fig. S2) report only L-BFGS-B infidelity curves and final fidelities, with no side-by-side gradient check under the same truncation. Without that check (or a controlled truncation-error diagnostic on at least one multi-qubit instance), it is not established that the optimizer is descending on an unbiased landscape, and the claimed >10× wall-time/memory advantage for those tas
  2. [SM §S3; SM §S5] SM §S3 derives a Lieb–Robinson-style bound on the support of the integrand in Eq. (3) but explicitly labels it “weak” and states it is “not directly used” in the numerics. The practical truncation is purely heuristic. Either a tighter, usable bound (or a numerical light-cone diagnostic that quantifies discarded support versus N, weight, and Δt) should be supplied, or the LR section should be shortened and clearly marked as motivational only, so that the accuracy claim does not appear to rest on an unused analytic bound.
  3. [Abstract; Fig. 2b; Fig. 3] Fig. 2b compares wall time and peak RAM for a single gradient evaluation (12 parameters, varying qubit number) against GOAT. The abstract and introduction phrase the result as “more than an order of magnitude speedup” for GHZ preparation on ladder and chain geometries. Full-optimization wall-clock (or iteration-normalized) timings under identical optimizer settings, pulse ansatz, and hardware, for the same GHZ tasks, are needed to substantiate that stronger claim; otherwise the wording should be restricted to gradient-evaluation cost.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (7)–(8)] Notation for multi-indices m = (m^{(n)}, …, m^{(1)}) in Eq. (7b) and the recursive β coefficients (Eq. 8) is dense; a short explicit expansion of Θ_0–Θ_2 in the main text would help readers before they reach the SM.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 (commutator-tree schematic) is useful but the caption does not define the pruning criteria shown; cross-reference SM §S5 explicitly.
  3. [Algorithm 1; SM §S3 B] In SM Algorithm 1 and the main-text Algorithm 1, the reuse of commutators between the series and the Magnus expansion is mentioned but not quantified; a brief note on how many terms are shared would clarify the claimed saving.
  4. [Throughout] Typos / style: “ans¨ atze” (Conclusion); inconsistent spacing in “Schr¨ odinger”; “any n th-order” vs “nth-order”; “Sec. S1 B” vs “Sec. S1B”. Standardize.
  5. [SM §S1 B] The open-system formal solution (SM §S1 B) invokes the Petz recovery map when the auxiliary map is non-invertible; a sentence on when this is expected in typical Lindblad QOC settings would prevent over-reading the claim.
  6. [Data availability] Data-availability link is given; please confirm that the repository includes the exact scripts and truncation settings that reproduce Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: gradient series is derived from the Schrödinger equation; speedups and GHZ fidelities are external empirical benchmarks.

full rationale

The load-bearing claims are (i) the formal gradient (Eq. 3 / SM S1) obtained by differentiating the Schrödinger equation and integrating, (ii) the nested-commutator series (Eqs. 6–8) obtained by repeated integration by parts with the Heisenberg equation, and (iii) wall-time/memory and GHZ-optimization numbers versus GOAT and L-BFGS-B. None of these reduce to their inputs by construction: the series is an exact rewriting in the N→∞ limit inside the radius of convergence; truncations and locality heuristics are approximation choices whose accuracy is checked against GOAT on a small instance (Fig. 2a, SM Fig. S1), not tautologies. Recovering the GRAPE gradient (SM S4 A) is a consistency check, not a definitional loop. Self-reference to the authors’ ParaQeet package is tooling only. Concerns about weak Lieb–Robinson bounds and heuristic pruning affect correctness/error control, not circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work rests on standard closed-system unitary dynamics, the usual bilinear control Hamiltonian, and the modeling choice that controls and drift are geometrically local—standard in multi-qubit QOC. Free parameters are numerical truncation and pulse-ansatz hyperparameters, not physical constants fitted to claim the speedup. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Series truncation order N / commutator depth = example-dependent (3–5 typical; drift to 30)
    Chosen per example (e.g. order 5 or 3, drift commutators to order 30); controls accuracy–cost tradeoff of the central gradient approximation.
  • Operator-weight and branching-order cutoffs = weight 3; branching 7 (Fig. 2 / SM)
    Heuristic Pauli-string pruning thresholds (weight 3, branching order 7 in the two-qubit check) that discard terms; accuracy of sparse gradients depends on them.
  • Time-slice width Δt for composition rule = 3–10 (normalized time units)
    Partition length in Eq. 9 / Alg. 1 (Δt = 10, 3.0, 5.0 in different runs); must be small enough for series accuracy on each slice.
  • CRAB Fourier component count N_c and pulse envelope parameters = N_c=10; J_ij random O(0.01–0.3)
    Ansatz richness (N_c = 10) and random stray ZZ values set the optimization landscape; not derived, chosen for demos.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Closed-system Schrödinger evolution ∂t U = −i H(α,t) U with bilinear H = H0 + ∑ um(α,t) Hm
    Starting point of §QOC Problem and SM §S1A; open-system extension is formal only.
  • domain assumption Control and interaction terms are at most two-local on a graph (geometric locality)
    Eq. 11 and ‘Locality’ section; required for commutator pruning and claimed multi-qubit efficiency.
  • ad hoc to paper Series converges to the exact gradient as N→∞ inside its radius of convergence; finite-N truncation plus heuristics remain accurate
    Stated after Eq. 6; numerical support is empirical match to GOAT, not a proven remainder bound used in the runs.
  • standard math Standard Lie-algebra / BCH and Magnus-expansion approximations for short-time propagators
    Used in SM §S3B and §S4A to evaluate U and recover GRAPE.
invented entities (1)
  • Commutator-tree (indexed nested commutators with parallel coefficient tree β) no independent evidence
    purpose: Data structure to precompute static operators once and only update pulse integrals each iteration
    Fig. 1 and Alg. 1; organizational device, not a new physical object. independent_evidence false because it is an algorithmic construct validated only inside this method.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 30169 in / 3351 out tokens · 67629 ms · 2026-07-30T18:40:38.633386+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The open-loop optimization of quantum dynamics using gradient-based quantum optimal control methods involves calculating the time-ordered propagator and its gradient. In this Letter, we present a unifying framework for gradient-based quantum optimal control with respect to any general pulse parameterization by deriving the formal solution from first principles. For the case of unitary propagators, we derive a series expansion involving time-independent commutators and time-dependent coefficients, significantly reducing the number of matrix exponentials needed to compute the gradient. The expansion highlights the connection between derivatives of the propagator and operator evolution in the Heisenberg picture. The method is particularly suited for simulating optimal control tasks in quantum systems with local interactions, which is a common situation in large multi-qubit platforms. We compare the computational cost required for the series with the Gradient Optimization of Analytic conTrols (GOAT) method, and, focusing on the problem of preparation of a GHZ state, demonstrate more than an order of magnitude speedup for a qubit ladder and a chain geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26867 by Alessandro Ciani, Ashutosh Mishra, Elena Lupo, Frank K. Wilhelm.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematics of the commutator-tree, when the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Normalized derivatives of the fidelity, given by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. GHZ state-preparation on a 2D qubit ladder. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

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

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum op- timal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Eu- rope, EPJ Quantum Technology9, 19 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    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 D69, 279 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    C. Brif, R. Chakrabarti, and H. Rabitz, Control of quan- tum phenomena: past, present and future, New Journal 6 of Physics12, 075008 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Sp¨ orl, T

    A. Sp¨ orl, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, S. J. Glaser, V. Bergholm, M. J. Storcz, J. Ferber, and F. K. Wilhelm, Optimal control of coupled Josephson qubits, Physical Review A75, 012302 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    D. J. Egger and F. K. Wilhelm, Adaptive hybrid optimal quantum control for imprecisely characterized systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 240503 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Machnes, E

    S. Machnes, E. Ass´ emat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm, Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 150401 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Cykiert and E

    M. Cykiert and E. Ginossar, Robust optimal control for a systematic error in the control amplitude of transmon qubits, Physica Scripta99, 105059 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    George, J

    N. George, J. L. Allen, R. Kosut, and E. Ginossar, Minimal time robust control for two superconducting qubits, Scientific Reports16, 10.1038/s41598-025-32747- 8 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32747- 2025

  9. [9]

    Rojan, D

    K. Rojan, D. M. Reich, I. Dotsenko, J.-M. Raimond, C. P. Koch, and G. Morigi, Arbitrary-quantum-state preparation of a harmonic oscillator via optimal control, Physical Review A90, 023824 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    R. W. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Implementing a uni- versal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nature Communications8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    D. M. Reich, G. Gualdi, and C. P. Koch, Optimal strate- gies for estimating the average fidelity of quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 200401 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Maliˇ s, P

    M. Maliˇ s, P. K. Barkoutsos, M. Ganzhorn, S. Filipp, D. J. Egger, S. Bonella, and I. Tavernelli, Local control the- ory for superconducting qubits, Physical Review A99, 052316 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Mishra, F

    A. Mishra, F. K. Wilhelm, and S. Machnes, Demoli- tion measurement protocol for transmon qubits, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.18322 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Jerger, F

    M. Jerger, F. Motzoi, Y. Gao, C. Dickel, L. Buchmann, A. Bengtsson, G. Tancredi, C. W. Warren, J. Bylander, D. DiVincenzo, R. Barends, and P. A. Bushev, Dispersive Qubit Readout with Intrinsic Resonator Reset, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2406.04891 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Gautier, E

    R. Gautier, E. Genois, and A. Blais, Optimal control in large open quantum systems: The case of transmon read- out and reset, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 070802 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Schutjens, F

    R. Schutjens, F. A. Dagga, D. J. Egger, and F. K. Wil- helm, Single-qubit gates in frequency-crowded transmon systems, Physical Review A88, 052330 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  18. [18]

    Werninghaus, D

    M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, F. Roy, S. Machnes, F. K. Wilhelm, and S. Filipp, Leakage reduction in fast super- conducting qubit gates via optimal control, npj Quantum Information7, 14 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Hyypp¨ a, A

    E. Hyypp¨ a, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, M. Papiˇ c, C. F. Chan, S. Inel, A. Landra, W. Liu, J. Luus, F. Marxer, C. Ockeloen-Korppi, S. Orbell, B. Tarasinski, and J. Heinsoo, Reducing leakage of single-qubit gates for su- perconducting quantum processors using analytical con- trol pulse envelopes, PRX Quantum5, 030353 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Sheldon, E

    S. Sheldon, E. Magesan, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gam- betta, Procedure for systematically tuning up cross-talk in the cross-resonance gate, Phys. Rev. A93, 060302(R) (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    R. Wang, P. Zhao, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Control and mitiga- tion of microwave crosstalk effect with superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Letters121, 152602 (2022)

    2022

  22. [23]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  23. [24]

    de Fouquieres, S

    P. de Fouquieres, S. G. Schirmer, S. J. Glaser, and I. Kuprov, Second order gradient ascent pulse engineer- ing, Journal of Magnetic Resonance212, 412 (2011)

    2011

  24. [25]

    Y. Lu, S. Joshi, V. San Dinh, and J. Koch, Optimal control of large quantum systems: assessing memory and runtime performance of GRAPE, Journal of Physics Communications8, 025002 (2024)

    2024

  25. [26]

    Boutin, C

    S. Boutin, C. K. Andersen, J. Venkatraman, A. J. Ferris, and A. Blais, Resonator reset in circuit QED by optimal control for large open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 96, 042315 (2017)

    2017

  26. [27]

    M. H. Goerz, D. Basilewitsch, F. Gago-Encinas, M. G. Krauss, K. P. Horn, D. M. Reich, and C. P. Koch, Kro- tov: A Python implementation of Krotov’s method for quantum optimal control, SciPost Phys.7, 080 (2019)

    2019

  27. [28]

    Pagano, M

    A. Pagano, M. M. M¨ uller, T. Calarco, S. Montangero, and P. Rembold, Role of bases in quantum optimal con- trol, Phys. Rev. A110, 062608 (2024)

    2024

  28. [29]

    J. H. Romeiro, F. A. Roy, N. Bruckmoser, I. Tsitsilin, N. J. Glaser, C. M. F. Schneider, G. B. P. Huber, S. A. Sch¨ obe, J. Schirk, F. Wallner, M. Singh, J. Feigl, L. Koch, L. S¨ odergren, M. Werninghaus, and S. Filipp, Scalable Single-Step Generation of W States in 2D Supercon- ducting Qubit Lattices, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.18962 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [30]

    Muratori, V

    A. Muratori, V. M. Stojanovic, E. Cuestas, T. Calarco, and F. Motzoi,W- and Dicke-state engineering using optimal global control in nearest-neighbor coupled ring- shaped qubit arrays, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2512.19545 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    D. A. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, G. Aigeldinger, A. Ajoy, R. Alcaraz, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, C. Bengs,et al., Observation of constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergod- icity, Nature646, 825 (2025)

    2025

  31. [32]

    C.-F. Chen, A. Lucas, and C. Yin, Speed limits and locality in many-body quantum dynamics, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 116001 (2023)

    2023

  32. [33]

    D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi, and E. Altman, A universal operator growth hypothesis, Phys. Rev. X9, 041017 (2019)

    2019

  33. [34]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, Locality, quantum fluctuations, and scrambling, Phys. Rev. X9, 031048 (2019)

    2019

  34. [35]

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y. Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, Pauli Propagation: A Computational Frame- work for Simulating Quantum Systems, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.21606 (2025). 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  36. [37]

    Biamonte and V

    J. Biamonte and V. Bergholm, Tensor Networks in a Nut- shell, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1708.00006 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [38]

    Beguˇ si´ c and G

    T. Beguˇ si´ c and G. K.-L. Chan, Real-time operator evo- lution in two and three dimensions via sparse Pauli dy- namics, PRX Quantum6, 020302 (2025)

    2025

  38. [39]

    Beguˇ si´ c, J

    T. Beguˇ si´ c, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Fast and con- verged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Science Ad- vances10, eadk4321 (2024)

    2024

  39. [40]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics28, 251 (1972)

    1972

  40. [41]

    Kliesch, C

    M. Kliesch, C. Gogolin, and J. Eisert, Lieb-Robinson bounds and the simulation of time-evolution of lo- cal observables in lattice systems, inMany-Electron Approaches in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics: A Multidisciplinary View, edited by V. Bach and L. Delle Site (Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  41. [42]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and Quantum Computation(American Mathematical So- ciety, USA, 2002)

    2002

  42. [43]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-Optimal Two- and Three-Qubit Gates for Rydberg Atoms, Quantum6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  43. [44]

    F. Yan, P. Krantz, Y. Sung, M. Kjaergaard, D. L. Camp- bell, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tunable coupling scheme for implementing high-fidelity two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 054062 (2018)

    2018

  44. [45]

    Perret and Y

    A. Perret and Y. B´ erub´ e-Lauzi` ere, Preparation of cavity- Fock-state superpositions by reinforcement learning ex- ploiting measurement backaction, Phys. Rev. A109, 022609 (2024)

    2024

  45. [46]

    Blanes, F

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

    2009

  46. [47]

    Sharma and M

    K. Sharma and M. C. Tran, Hamiltonian Simulation in the Interaction Picture Using the Magnus Expansion, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.02966 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    B. T. McDonough, C. Yin, A. Lucas, and C. Zhang, Lieb- Robinson bounds with exponential-in-volume tails, PRX Quantum6, 040322 (2025)

    2025

  48. [49]

    D. V. Else, F. Machado, C. Nayak, and N. Y. Yao, Im- proved Lieb-Robinson bound for many-body Hamiltoni- ans with power-law interactions, Physical Review A101, 022333 (2020)

    2020

  49. [50]

    Wang and K

    Z. Wang and K. R. Hazzard, Tightening the Lieb- Robinson bound in locally interacting systems, PRX Quantum1, 010303 (2020)

    2020

  50. [51]

    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 Physics85, 076001 (2022)

    2022

  51. [52]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Optimal control technique for many-body quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  52. [53]

    Caneva, T

    T. Caneva, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Chopped random-basis quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. A84, 022326 (2011)

    2011

  53. [54]

    R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, and C. Zhu, A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimiza- tion, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing16, 1190 (1995)

    1995

  54. [55]

    Pang and T

    S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Quantum metrology for a gen- eral Hamiltonian parameter, Phys. Rev. A90, 022117 (2014)

    2014

  55. [56]

    Pang and A

    S. Pang and A. N. Jordan, Optimal adaptive control for quantum metrology with time-dependent Hamiltonians, Nature Communications8, 14695 (2017)

    2017

  56. [57]

    Z. Hu, S. Wang, L. Qiao, T. Isogawa, C. Li, Y. Yang, G. Wang, H. Yuan, and P. Cappellaro, Control incom- patibility in multiparameter quantum metrology, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.18896 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [58]

    Russell, H

    B. Russell, H. Rabitz, and R.-B. Wu, Control landscapes are almost always trap free: a geometric assessment, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 205302 (2017)

    2017

  58. [59]

    Beato, P

    N. Beato, P. Patil, and M. Bukov, Toward a theory of phase transitions in quantum control landscapes, Phys. Rev. X15, 041014 (2025)

    2025

  59. [60]

    Chakrabarti and H

    R. Chakrabarti and H. Rabitz, Quantum control land- scapes, International Reviews in Physical Chemistry26, 671 (2007)

    2007

  60. [61]

    De Fouquieres and S

    P. De Fouquieres and S. G. Schirmer, A closer look at quantum control landscapes and their implication for control optimization, Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics16, 1350021 (2013)

    2013

  61. [62]

    R.-B. Wu, R. Long, J. Dominy, T.-S. Ho, and H. Rab- itz, Singularities of quantum control landscapes, Physical Review A86, 013405 (2012)

    2012

  62. [63]

    P. M. Poggi, G. De Chiara, S. Campbell, and A. Kiely, Universally robust quantum control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 193801 (2024)

    2024

  63. [64]

    H. T. Nelson, E. Piliouras, K. Connelly, and E. Barnes, Designing dynamically corrected gates robust to multiple noise sources using geometric space curves, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012407 (2023)

    2023

  64. [65]

    The ParaQeet optimal control package is available athttps://jugit.fz-juelich.de/pgi-12-external/ qfc/paraqeet

  65. [66]

    R. M. Wilcox, Exponential operators and parameter dif- ferentiation in quantum physics, Journal of Mathematical Physics8, 962 (1967)

    1967

  66. [67]

    Nachtergaele, R

    B. Nachtergaele, R. Sims, and A. Young, Quasi-locality bounds for quantum lattice systems. i. Lieb-Robinson bounds, quasi-local maps, and spectral flow automor- phisms, Journal of Mathematical Physics60, 061101 (2019)

    2019

  67. [68]

    B. C. Hall,Lie groups, Lie algebras, and representations: an elementary introduction, Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics, Vol. 222 (Springer, New York, 2010)

    2010

  68. [69]

    Ho and H

    T.-S. Ho and H. Rabitz, Why do effective quantum con- trols appear easy to find?, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry180, 226 (2006)

    2006

  69. [70]

    Junge, R

    M. Junge, R. Renner, D. Sutter, M. M. Wilde, and A. Winter, Universal recoverability in quantum informa- tion, in2016 IEEE International Symposium on Infor- mation Theory (ISIT)(2016) pp. 2494–2498

    2016

  70. [71]

    Petz, Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von Neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123 (1986)

    D. Petz, Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von Neumann algebra, Communications in Mathematical Physics105, 123 (1986)

    1986

  71. [72]

    Petz, Sufficiency of channels over von Neumann al- gebras, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics39, 97 (1988)

    D. Petz, Sufficiency of channels over von Neumann al- gebras, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics39, 97 (1988). 8

    1988

  72. [73]

    Note that we leave understood the dependency on time when the derivative of operators is taken with respect to time

  73. [74]

    M. B. Hastings, Locality in quantum and Markov dynam- ics on lattices and networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 140402 (2004)

    2004

  74. [75]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, Lieb- Robinson bounds and the generation of correlations and topological quantum order, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050401 (2006)

    2006

  75. [76]

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Spectral gap and expo- nential decay of correlations, Communications in Math- ematical Physics265, 781 (2006)

    2006

  76. [77]

    M. B. Hastings, Locality in Quantum Systems, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:1008.5137 (2010)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [78]

    Poulin, Lieb-Robinson bound and locality for gen- eral Markovian quantum dynamics, Phys

    D. Poulin, Lieb-Robinson bound and locality for gen- eral Markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 190401 (2010)

    2010

  78. [79]

    Barthel and M

    T. Barthel and M. Kliesch, Quasilocality and efficient simulation of Markovian quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 230504 (2012)

    2012

  79. [80]

    Ndong, H

    M. Ndong, H. Tal-Ezer, R. Kosloff, and C. P. Koch, A Chebychev propagator with iterative time ordering for explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonians, The Journal of Chemical Physics132, 064105 (2010)

    2010

  80. [81]

    D. M. Reich, M. Ndong, and C. P. Koch, Monotoni- cally convergent optimization in quantum control using Krotov’s method, The Journal of Chemical Physics136, 104103 (2012)

    2012

Showing first 80 references.