Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Fundamental Bound for Robust Quantum Gate Control

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single time-bandwidth product $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ sets a universal lower bound on worst-case and average gate fidelity for any bounded Hamiltonian uncertainty.

desk verdict The theorem is real and the proof checks out, but the abstract's certification and unknown-unknown claims outrun the assumptions; worth refereeing with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01215 v2 pith:WQGYQ6QL submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph math.OC

Robert L. Kosut , Daniel A. Lidar , Herschel Rabitz This is my paper
classification quant-phmath.OC MSC 81P6893B35
keywords robustquantumcontrolgatefidelitylowerboundunknown-but-boundeduncertaintyinteraction-pictureaveragingBellman-Gronwallinequalitytime-bandwidthdevicecertificationfaulttolerance
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 derives a universal performance limit for coherent quantum gates operating under modeled and unmodeled errors that are 'unknown but bounded.' The central result, Theorem 1, states that once the target unitary is exactly realized in the uncertainty-free model, both the worst-case and the average gate fidelity, evaluated over arbitrary pure system-bath input states (including entangled ones), are bounded below by a single function $F_{\rm lb}$ of the dimensionless product $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$, where $T$ is the gate duration and $\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ aggregates all bounded Hamiltonian uncertainties into one frequency. This matters because the bound is device-independent: it sets a quantitative ceiling on guaranteed fidelity that no control design can exceed, and it converts the problem of certifying a hardware platform, or setting an error budget for fault tolerance, into the problem of measuring one frequency-like number. The bound does not assume an initially factorized system-bath state or a completely positive map, so it applies in the realistic regime where a gate acts on a system already entangled with its environment.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an interaction-picture analysis in which the error is carried by $\tilde U(T) = (U_S(T)\otimes U_B(T))^\dagger U(T)$. Under the transformation $\tilde U = (I+K)V$, with $K(t)$ built from the deviation of the interaction-picture Hamiltonian from its time average, the deviation $\|V(T)-I\|$ is controlled by a Bellman-Gronwall inequality. The three frequency bounds of Eq. (28)---$\Omega_{\rm unc}$ on the instantaneous Hamiltonian norm, $\Omega_{\rm avg}$ on the time-averaged interaction Hamiltonian norm, and $\Omega_{\rm dev}^{\rm avg}$ on the maximum deviation from that average---combine into $c(T) = T\Omega_{\rm avg} + (T\Omega_{\rm unc})(T\Omega_{\rm dev}^{\rm avg})/4$, and the dimensionless combination $T\Omega_{\rm bnd} = 2\sqrt{c(T)}$ enters the exponential in $F_{\rm lb}$. The bound's shape, an exponential quadratic in $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$, is what makes the infidelity upper bound rise steeply once $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ exceeds about 1.88 radians.

What would settle it

Set up a small system-bath model, say one qubit coupled through $\sigma_z$ to a few bath qubits, specify the uncertainty sets exactly, sample or exhaust the unknown Hamiltonian parameters, and compute the true worst-case fidelity by optimizing over pure input states; if any sample with valid bounds violates $F \ge F_{\rm lb}$, the theorem is refuted. On a real device, estimate $\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ from independent noise characterization and test whether measured infidelities ever fall below the predicted $1-F_{\rm lb}$ curve, which would falsify the assumed uncertainty model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: for a finite-dimensional system-bath pair, given uncertainty bounds $\Omega_{\rm unc}$, $\Omega_{\rm avg}$, and $\Omega_{\rm dev}^{\rm avg}$ as in Eq. (28), define $T\Omega_{\rm bnd} = \sqrt{(T\Omega_{\rm unc})(T\Omega_{\rm dev}^{\rm avg}) + 4T\Omega_{\rm avg}}$ and $F_{\rm lb} = \max\{1 - \tfrac{1}{2}(\exp((T\Omega_{\rm bnd}/2)^2)-1)^2, 0\}$. If the nominal (uncertainty-free) evolution reaches the target unitary up to a global phase, then the worst-case fidelity over all pure input states and the Haar-averaged fidelity both satisfy $F \ge F_{\rm lb}$. The proof covers arbitrary pure, possibly system-bath entangled initial states, arbitrary finite-norm Hamiltonian decompositions, and all bounded uncertainty sources; the paper presents this as a fundamental robustness limit that robust-control strategies cannot undercut, and a falsifiable benchmark for hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem's guarantee is only as strong as the three uncertainty bounds in Eq. (28) actually upper-bounding the real Hamiltonian uncertainties---the paper provides no procedure for obtaining them---and the argument assumes finite operator norms, which excludes bosonic baths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Once $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ is quantified for a device, the curve in Fig. 1 gives a certified maximum infidelity; for example, reaching $10^{-4}$ at 50 ns requires $\Omega_{\rm bnd}/2\pi \le 754$ kHz, while $10^{-5}$ requires 425 kHz.
  • The bound supplies an explicit robustness objective for pulse design: minimize the nominal infidelity and the time-averaged interaction terms simultaneously; the paper's five-pulse Hadamard example reaches nominal error $1.81\times10^{-7}$ with the average disturbance nearly nulled.
  • Because the bound aggregates 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns,' it quantifies safety margin when hidden errors inflate the uncertainty; a doubling of $T\Omega_{\rm unc}$ from 0.15 to 0.30 rad is predicted to raise the guaranteed infidelity from $1.59\times10^{-5}$ to $2.59\times10^{-4}$, still below $10^{-3}$.
  • When control can annihilate all time-averaged interaction terms, $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ reduces to the intrinsic uncertainty $T\Omega_{\rm unc}$, giving a minimum achievable error floor for the device.
  • Any measured fidelity below $F_{\rm lb}$ falsifies the assumed uncertainty model, making the bound a Popper-style experimental test of the device model rather than a merely theoretical statement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence the paper does not develop: $T\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ could be turned into an error budget for fault-tolerant architectures, since physical-to-logical qubit overhead depends on gate error rates; mapping measured $\Omega_{\rm bnd}$ to logical error rates would let architects trade error correction against control quality.
  • The bound is a worst-case guarantee, so typical noise realizations should do better; a natural testable extension is to measure the distribution of infidelities over random initial states and random Hamiltonian samples and compare the observed tail, not just the mean, with $F_{\rm lb}$.
  • The finite-operator-norm requirement excludes bosonic baths; replacing the $\Omega$ bounds with input-state-dependent correlation functions, as the paper suggests, could extend the result to cavity and oscillator modes, where one could test whether an analogous curve holds.
  • The connection to the control landscape suggests the two-objective optimization may be especially effective in high-dimensional systems, where more null-space directions could make $J_{\rm rbst}$ easier to nullify; this is an extrapolation, not a claim in the paper.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives a universal lower bound on worst-case and average gate fidelity for coherent quantum control in the presence of bounded Hamiltonian uncertainties. The central object is the dimensionless time-bandwidth product TΩ_bnd defined in Eq. (29), and the bound F_lb in Eq. (30). Under the assumption that the nominal unitary is achieved (F_nom = 1), Theorem 1 states that both worst-case and average gate fidelity are at least F_lb for arbitrary pure, possibly system-bath entangled input states, without assuming a completely positive map. The proof combines an interaction-picture averaging transformation with a Bellman-Gronwall inequality, and the paper also proposes a two-objective robust-control optimization and illustrates it on a single-qubit Hadamard gate with an unknown σ_z system-bath coupling. The numerical Monte Carlo results are consistent with the proven bound.

Significance. If the bound is valid, it is a significant contribution: it gives a single-parameter aggregate characterization of the effect of many types of bounded Hamiltonian uncertainty and applies to arbitrary initial system-bath entanglement, going beyond the usual CP-map framework. The proof chain in Appendix B is detailed and appears mathematically sound: the averaging transformation, the norm bounds on (I+K)^{-1}, and the Bellman-Gronwall integration all check out. The numerical example is a reasonable consistency check rather than a fit of the bound. The paper also makes concrete claims about device certification, unknown unknowns, and falsifiability; these claims are currently too strong relative to what is actually proven, because the theorem is conditional on uncertainty bounds that the paper does not provide a procedure to obtain. Once that gap is honestly framed, the result would be a useful analysis and synthesis target for robust quantum control.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.A, Eq. (28)] The first displayed inequality in Eq. (28) is false as written. It states Ω_unc ≥ max_t(‖H_coh^S(t)‖ + Σα ‖Sα‖‖Bα‖) ≥ max_t ‖H_unc(t)‖, but H_unc(t) in Eq. (6) includes the bath self-dynamics term I_S⊗H_B, whose norm is not bounded by the coherent-error and coupling norms. For any nonzero H_B, the rightmost inequality fails, so the hypotheses of Theorem 1 are literally unsatisfiable in the generic open-system setting. The proof in Appendix B only needs a bound on the interaction-picture Hamiltonian H̃(t), in which the bath self-energy cancels (see Eqs. (19)-(20) and (B20)). Please correct Eq. (28) to state that Ω_unc bounds max_t ‖H̃(t)‖, or equivalently the interaction-picture coherent and coupling terms, rather than ‖H_unc(t)‖.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5.D] The claims of device certification and inclusion of 'unknown unknowns' go beyond the theorem. Theorem 1 is a conditional statement: if Ω_unc, Ω_avg, and Ω_dev_avg are valid upper bounds on the relevant Hamiltonian norms, then F ≥ F_lb. The paper does not provide a procedure for obtaining these bounds; Section 5 states that a complementary data-driven uncertainty estimation procedure is required and defers it, and Section 8 again lists it as future work. Without such a procedure, the abstract's claim that the bound 'certifies whether a given hardware platform can, in principle, reach a specified fault-tolerance threshold' and Section 5.D's assertion that TΩ_bnd contains 'all uncertainties, both those known and unknown' are not supported. Unknown unknowns are included only if an independent upper bound on their norm is already available. Please reframe the certification and unknown-unknown statements as conditional on the existence of valid Eq. (28) bounds, and state explicitly that the estimation problem is an unresolved prerequisite.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.C] There is a typo: 'fidleities' should be 'fidelities'.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (32)] The phrase 'without the max' is unclear; please reformulate, e.g., 'If the max is omitted, the condition 0 ≤ F_lb ≤ 1 is equivalent to TΩ_bnd ≤ 2√ln(1+√2) = 1.8776 rad'.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption should explicitly state in both the left and middle panels that the red points correspond to ‖T B‖ = 0.3 and the blue points to ‖T B‖ = 0.15; the current legend can be misread.
  4. [Section 7.C, Eq. (45)] The objective J_rbst uses a discrete approximation of the time-average; please state clearly that this is an approximation used for synthesis, while the theorem's guarantee applies to the continuous-time Hamiltonian evolution.
  5. [Section 7.D and Section 8] The statement that the bound is tight to within one order of magnitude should be qualified as a statement about the specific numerical example, not a general tightness property of the bound.
  6. [Theorem 1 and Appendix B] The theorem's average-fidelity statement F_avg ≥ F_lb is inherited from F_avg ≥ F_wc and the worst-case bound; this is valid, but the main text should state this explicitly rather than leaving the reader to infer it from Appendix B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a self-contained conditional bound; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 1 is an implication: if Omega_unc, Omega_avg, and Omega_dev_avg satisfy the Eq. (28) bounds, then Appendix B proves the Bellman-Gronwall estimate ||U~(T)-I|| <= e^{c(T)}-1 with c(T)=T Omega_avg + (T Omega_unc)(T Omega_dev_avg)/4, and Eq. (29)-(30) merely algebraically repackage 2 sqrt(c(T)) as T Omega_bnd. No parameter is fitted to make the inequality hold, and F_lb is not used as an input to define the Omega bounds. The numerical example optimizes F_nom and J_rbst and then compares simulated infidelities to the proven bound; that is a consistency check of a theorem, not a prediction from a fitted quantity. The self-citations to [46] for the averaging transformation and [58] for the optional W_B extension are not load-bearing because the needed lemmas are proved in Appendix B and the main theorem does not depend on those papers' results being accepted. The genuine weakness is operational rather than circular: Section 5 explicitly says that determining T Omega_bnd requires a 'complementary data-driven uncertainty estimation procedure' and defers it, and Section 4.A acknowledges that finite-norm assumptions exclude bosonic baths. There is also a correctness slip in the first line of Eq. (28), where Omega_unc >= max_t ||H_unc(t)|| is stated even though H_unc(t) includes I_S tensor H_B, which cancels in the interaction picture; the proof only needs the norm of the interaction-picture Hamiltonian. None of these issues reduce the derivation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Theorem 1 introduces no free parameters fitted to data. The quantities Omega_unc, Omega_avg, and Omega_dev_avg are inputs: upper bounds the modeler must supply, and the proof is a chain of inequalities from the Schrodinger equation. The numerical hyperparameters (lambda = 0.1, v_max = 7.5, N_pwc = 5, N_avg = 25, N_mc = 100) and the sampled bath-norm ranges (Eq. 48) are illustrative choices, not fits that make the bound hold. The load-bearing domain assumptions are: the Eq. (28) bounds are valid for the actual interaction-picture terms, all Hamiltonian norms are finite, and the nominal model can realize the target exactly. All three are acknowledged in the text. No new physical entities are introduced; T Omega_bnd is a composite metric built from Hamiltonian norm quantities, not an extra degree of freedom.

free parameters (4)
  • Omega_unc, Omega_avg, Omega_dev_avg (uncertainty bounds) = must be supplied by user; example uses ||B|| in {0.15, 0.3} and ||T H_B|| in [0.05, 2] rad
    Inputs to Eqs. (28)-(29). The theorem does not derive them and no estimation protocol is given; if set too low, the bound is invalid.
  • lambda (robustness weight) = 0.1
    Weight in Eq. (44); it affects the pulse found, not the theorem, and is chosen by hand for the example.
  • v_max (control amplitude limit) = 7.5 normalized; 114 MHz at T = 50 ns
    Constraint in Eq. (44), chosen for the example; the returned pulses use at most 5.70.
  • N_pwc, N_avg, N_mc (discretization and sampling counts) = 5 pulses, 25 samples, 100 Monte Carlo realizations
    Discretization for the piecewise-constant control and sample counts for the performance evaluation in Sections 7.C and 7.D.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The total Hamiltonian has the bipartite structure of Eq. (3) with constant, bounded-norm uncertain terms H_B and H_SB; all operator norms are finite.
    Sections 2.C and 4.A. The paper notes that bosonic baths with diverging norms are excluded from the framework.
  • domain assumption The uncertainty bounds of Eq. (28) are valid upper bounds on the interaction-picture terms: ||eH(t)|| <= Omega_unc, ||avg(eH)|| <= Omega_avg, and ||eH(t) - avg(eH)|| <= Omega_dev_avg.
    Used in Eqs. (B20)-(B21). If any bound is underestimated, the guarantee F >= F_lb is not certified. Section 5 acknowledges this prerequisite.
  • domain assumption Nominal fidelity is maximized: F_nom = 1, i.e., U_S(T) = phi W_S for the target unitary.
    Theorem 1's premise, needed so the fidelity reduces to the interaction-picture overlap (Eq. 22). The design problem in Eq. (44) targets it.
  • standard math Evolution is unitary on the full system-bath Hilbert space with pure, possibly entangled, initial states, and hbar = 1.
    Eqs. (2)-(8). Mixed initial states are not covered by the fidelity definitions of Eqs. (13)-(15).
  • standard math The averaging transformation eU = (I+K)V is well defined because I+K is invertible (Lemma 3), with K(0) = K(T) = 0 so that V(T) = eU(T).
    Appendix B, Eqs. (B5)-(B10). Lemma 3 is proved in the appendix.
  • standard math The Bellman-Gronwall lemma from Coddington and Levinson (ref [14]) applies to the integral inequality (B8).
    Appendix B, Eq. (B28), converts the inequality into ||E(T)|| <= exp(c(T)) - 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Fundamental Bound for Robust Quantum Gate Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQGYQ6QL

@misc{pith2026250701215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Fundamental Bound for Robust Quantum Gate Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQGYQ6QL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01215}
}
abstract

We derive a universal performance limit for coherent quantum control in the presence of modeled and unmodeled uncertainties. For any target unitary $W$ that is implementable in the absence of error, we prove that the worst-case (and hence the average) gate fidelity obeys the lower bound $F \ge \Flb\bigl(\tf \Omeff\bigr)$, where $\tf$ is the gate duration and $\Omeff$ is a single frequency-like measure that aggregates \emph{all} bounded uncertainty sources, e.g., coherent control imperfections, unknown couplings, and residual environment interactions, without assuming an initially factorizable system-bath state or a completely positive map. The bound is obtained by combining an interaction-picture averaging method with a Bellman-Gronwall inequality and holds for any finite-norm Hamiltonian decomposition. Hence it applies equally to qubits, multi-level qudits, and ancilla-assisted operations. Because $\Flb$ depends only on the dimensionless product $\tf\Omeff$, it yields a device-independent metric that certifies whether a given hardware platform can, in principle, reach a specified fault-tolerance threshold, and also sets a quantitative target for robust-control synthesis and system identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plot of infidelity upper bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot of three performance limit bounds on log of fidelity error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Results obtained from solving Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The plots compute infidelity bounds comparing the limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fidelity-Based Robustness Margins for Finite-Time Quantum Control

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fidelity-threshold Lipschitz certificate and recentering algorithm certify a finite perturbation radius for scalar Hamiltonian uncertainty in piecewise-constant quantum control.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    may produce considerable havoc

    INTRODUCTION Quantum processors have progressed well beyond lab- oratory proofs of concept, yet they remain far from the fully fault-tolerant regime envisioned for large-scale computa- tion [1]. Current resource estimates indicate that the physical- to-logical qubit ratio required for fault tolerance is still pro- hibitive [2–4]. In most architectures the...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Errors Errors affecting performance can occur during state prepa- ration, state evolution, and measurement

    UNCERTAINTY MODELING A. Errors Errors affecting performance can occur during state prepa- ration, state evolution, and measurement. Errors in state preparation and measurement (referred to as SPAM) will cer- tainly corrupt any evaluation of the state evolution even if the latter is ideal. These three operations all require control with differing goals.We ...

  3. [3]

    FIDELITY A. Uhlmann fidelity The Uhlmann fidelity between two statesρandσis [54], F(ρ, σ) = Tr q√ρ σ√ρ(9) Whenσis a pure state|ψ⟩ ⟨ψ|this reduces toF(ρ, ψ) =p ⟨ψ|ρ|ψ⟩, and when alsoρis a pure state|ϕ⟩ ⟨ϕ|, we have F(ϕ, ψ) =|⟨ψ|ϕ⟩|. 1 For the bipartite system Eq. (1), as- suming a decoupled initial state|ψ in⟩=|ψ S⟩⊗|ψ B⟩, the map from theS-channel input d...

  4. [4]

    ROBUST PERFORMANCE LIMIT As Eq. (23) shows, ifF nom = 1and the final-time interaction-picture unitary eU(T)≈Ithen bothF wc, Favg ≈ 3 ∥·∥is also commonly known as the operator-norm [59]: for any matrix A,∥A∥is the maximum singular value, and ifAis Hermitian, then∥A∥ equals the maximum absolute value of the eigenvalues. The Frobenius norm is the square root...

  5. [5]

    A direct approach to maximizeF wc for any input state is to maximize the lower boundF low wc in Eq

    Our aim is to find a limit on how closely this goal can be achieved. A direct approach to maximizeF wc for any input state is to maximize the lower boundF low wc in Eq. (24). Equiv- alently posed as an optimization problem, minimizemax Hunc ∥ eU(T)−I∥ subject to eH(t)∈ Hunc, ⃗ v(t) ={vj(t)} ∈ V=RNc (26) with eU(t)and eH(t)from Eq. (18)-Eq. (20) and whereH...

  6. [6]

    = 1.8776radians (32) which defines a physical range of error bound values for which Flb provides a non-trivial bound. B. Sketch of proof The full proof in Section B is based on a modified version of the standard transformation of variables used in the clas- sicMethod of Averaging[13]. In this case, the variable to be transformed is the interaction-picture...

  7. [7]

    known unknowns

    INTERPRETATIONS As previously presented in the Introduction, Fig. 1 shows a plot on a logarithmic scale of the infidelity upper bound 1−F lb versus the effective time-bandwidth uncertainty bound TΩ bnd. To utilize the bounding curve to predict expected per- formance, the range of the effective uncertainty levelTΩ bnd needs to be determined from the device...

  8. [8]

    bumpy” with numerous sad- dles and seldom (topologically “almost never

    ROBUST OPTIMIZATION The main result on the limit of robust performance, Theo- rem 1, provides a means, and criteria, for bothanalysisand synthesisof a robust design for a controlled quantum gate. Specifically, to makeF nom = 1the final time nominal sys- tem unitaryU S(T)should be very close to the targetW S, and simultaneously, the terms in the time-bandw...

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    Single qubit system Consider a single qubit system with controls inσ x andσ y, no coherent errors, and known to be coupled viaσ z to an un- certain time-independent bath

    NUMERICAL EXAMPLE A. Single qubit system Consider a single qubit system with controls inσ x andσ y, no coherent errors, and known to be coupled viaσ z to an un- certain time-independent bath. The resulting model Hamilto- nian is, H(t) =H S(t)⊗I B +I B ⊗H B +H SB HS(t) =v x(t)σ...

  2. [10]

    With a magnitude constraint ofv max placed on the controls, a robust control candidate that makes both1−F nom andJ rbst be≈0is found by solving a single- stage optimization Eq. (36) for controls{v x(t), vy(t), t∈ [0, T]}from, minimize1−F nom +λJ rbst subject toF nom =|Tr(W S †...

  3. [11]

    either known or unknown but bounded

    CONCLUDING REMARKS AND OUTLOOK Theorem 1 settles a long-standing question in robust quan- tum control:How good can a quantum gate be if every error is “either known or unknown but bounded”?By expressing the worst-case infidelity solely as a function of the dimensionless time-b...

  4. [12]

    Set E≡U−I , z(ψ)≡⟨ψ|U|ψ⟩(A1) Lemma 1(Worst-case fidelity lower bound)

    Some basic inequalities LetUbe an arbitraryd×dunitary and|ψ⟩an arbitrary, normalized pure state. Set E≡U−I , z(ψ)≡⟨ψ|U|ψ⟩(A1) Lemma 1(Worst-case fidelity lower bound). F(ψ)≡ |⟨ψ|U|ψ⟩| ≥max 1− 1 2 ∥E∥2 ,0 (A2) where∥E∥ ≡sup∥x∥2=1 ∥Ex∥2 denotes the induced2-norm. Proof.We have|z...

  5. [13]

    (21) at the final-time, fidelity only depends on the interaction-picture unitary eU(T)

    Lower bound If the target unitaryW S is achieved by the nominal (uncertainty-free) system, then from Eq. (21) at the final-time, fidelity only depends on the interaction-picture unitary eU(T). Stated formally as,    Fnom = 1 equivalently US(T) =ϕW S,|ϕ|= 1    ⇒   ...

  6. [14]

    Calculating worst-case fidelity Following Eq. (21), the worst-case fidelityF wc = minψin |⟨ψin|A|ψin⟩|with thed×dunitaryA= WS †US(T)⊗I B) eU(T), can be found from the equivalent convex optimization, minimize|Tr(Aρ)| subject toρ≥0,Trρ= 1 (A14) whereρcan be an arbitrary mixed st...

  7. [15]

    When the interaction-picture Hamiltonian time-average Ωavg = eH = 0, thenΩ dev avg = Ω unc and the limit bound becomesTΩ bnd =TΩ unc

    Thus, in the worst-case setting 0≤TΩ bnd ≤2 r ln 1 + √ 2 = 1.8776radians (B35) For example, with a gate time ofT= 50nsec,Ω bnd ≤37.55 Mhz. When the interaction-picture Hamiltonian time-average Ωavg = eH = 0, thenΩ dev avg = Ω unc and the limit bound becomesTΩ bnd =TΩ unc. In t...

  8. [16]

    sys- tem

    Summary A few extensions are briefly discussed which fit the un- certainty model framework where each has a similar struc- ture and resulting robust performance limit bounds: (i) Lind- blad, (ii) ancilla, (iii) multilevel systems, and (iv) crosstalk. With some modifications, t...

  9. [17]

    vectorized

    Lindblad master equation As previously noted, the induced norm of bosonic bath Hamiltonians diverges with bath dimension,e.g., forB α(t) from Eq. (8),∥B α(t)∥ → ∞asdB → ∞. As argued,e.g., in [64], this requires a different measure of uncertainty,e.g., based on input-state-depe...

  10. [18]

    Ancilla The link to error correction requires ancilla qubits, result- ing in the following modification of the bipartite system block 15 diagram Eq. (1) to thetripartitesystem S, A− − − − − − → |ψ(0)⟩ B− − − − − − → U(t) − − − − − − →S, A |ψ(t)⟩ − − − − − − →B (C7) There are n...

  11. [19]

    Multilevel systems Extra levels that are excluded from the basic model are eas- ily accounted for,e.g., a qutrit as the system and then an extra level that is excluded. The first step is to express the total system Hamiltonian as, H(t) =H M(t)⊗I B +I M ⊗H B +H MB HM(t) = " HS(...

  12. [20]

    main” and “specta- tor

    Crosstalk Unwanted interactions can occur within the system, the lat- ter being nullified (ideally) by control; see,e.g., [87–89]. Con- ventionally, the system is divided into “main” and “specta- tor” qubits, with the former performing the computation in a dS-dimensional Hilbe...

  13. [21]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and be- yond,

    John Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and be- yond,” Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Opportunities and challenges in fault- tolerant quantum computation,

    Daniel Gottesman, “Opportunities and challenges in fault- tolerant quantum computation,” arXiv preprint 2210.15844 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Assessing requirements to scale to prac- tical quantum advantage,

    Michael E. Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M. Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo, “Assessing requirements to scale to prac- tical quantum advantage,” arXiv preprint 2211.07629 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine,

    John Preskill, “Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6(2025), 10.1145/3723153

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays,

    Qian Xu, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Christopher A. Pattison, Nithin Raveendran, Dolev Bluvstein, Jonathan Wurtz, Bane Vasi´c, Mikhail D. Lukin, Liang Jiang, and Hengyun Zhou, “Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays,” Nature Physics2...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Quantum error correction below the sur- face code threshold,

    Rajeev Acharyaet al., “Quantum error correction below the sur- face code threshold,” Nature638, 920–926 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Lidar and T.A

    D.A. Lidar and T.A. Brun, eds.,Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Quantum mechanical computers,

    Richard P. Feynman, “Quantum mechanical computers,”Optics News, Optics News11, 11–20 (1985)

    1985

  21. [29]

    On the input-output stability of time-varying nonlinear feedback systems–part ii: Conditions involving cir- cles in the frequency plane and sector nonlinearities,

    George Zames, “On the input-output stability of time-varying nonlinear feedback systems–part ii: Conditions involving cir- cles in the frequency plane and sector nonlinearities,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control11, 465–476 (1966)

    1966

  22. [30]

    C. A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar,Feedback Systems: Input- Output Properties(Academic Press, 1975)

    1975

  23. [31]

    S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V . Balakrishnan,Lin- ear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory(SIAM studies in applied mathematics: 15, 1994). 17

    1994

  24. [32]

    K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, and K. Glover,Robust and Optimal Con- trol(Prentice-Hall, 1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Hale,Ordinary Differential Equations, 2nd ed

    Jack K. Hale,Ordinary Differential Equations, 2nd ed. (Krieger, 1980)

    1980

  26. [34]

    E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson,Theory of ordinary differ- ential equations(McGraw-Hill, 1955)

    1955

  27. [35]

    Nielsen and I.L

    M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK, 2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Experimental repetitive quantum error cor- rection,

    Philipp Schindler, Julio T. Barreiro, Thomas Monz, V olckmar Nebendahl, Daniel Nigg, Michael Chwalla, Markus Hennrich, and Rainer Blatt, “Experimental repetitive quantum error cor- rection,” Science332, 1059–1061 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Dy- namics of initially entangled open quantum systems,

    Thomas F. Jordan, Anil Shaji, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Dy- namics of initially entangled open quantum systems,” Physical Review A70, 052110– (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Dynamics beyond completely positive maps: Some properties and applications,

    Hilary A. Carteret, Daniel R. Terno, and Karol ˙Zyczkowski, “Dynamics beyond completely positive maps: Some properties and applications,” Phys. Rev. A77, 042113 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Completely positive maps and classical correlations,

    C ´esar A Rodr ´ıguez-Rosario, Kavan Modi, Aik-Meng Kuah, Anil Shaji, and E C G Sudarshan, “Completely positive maps and classical correlations,” J. of Phys. A41, 205301 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Complete positivity, markovianity, and the quantum data-processing inequality, in the presence of ini- tial system-environment correlations,

    Francesco Buscemi, “Complete positivity, markovianity, and the quantum data-processing inequality, in the presence of ini- tial system-environment correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140502– (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    A general framework for complete positivity,

    Jason M. Dominy, Alireza Shabani, and Daniel A. Lidar, “A general framework for complete positivity,” Quant. Inf. Proc. 15, 1 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Beyond complete pos- itivity,

    Jason M. Dominy and Daniel A. Lidar, “Beyond complete pos- itivity,” Quant. Inf. Proc.15, 1349 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Erasure conversion for fault-tolerant quantum computing in alkaline earth rydberg atom arrays,

    Yue Wu, Shimon Kolkowitz, Shruti Puri, and Jeff D. Thomp- son, “Erasure conversion for fault-tolerant quantum computing in alkaline earth rydberg atom arrays,” Nature Communications 13, 4657 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Special issue on identification for robust control design,

    R.L. Kosut, G.C. Goodwin, and M. Polis, “Special issue on identification for robust control design,” IEEE Trans. Aut. Contr.37(1992)

    1992

  37. [45]

    Set-membership iden- tification of systems with parametric and nonparametric uncer- tainty,

    R.L. Kosut, M.K. Lau, and S.P. Boyd, “Set-membership iden- tification of systems with parametric and nonparametric uncer- tainty,” Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on37, 929–941 (1992)

    1992

  38. [46]

    An informal review of model validation,

    Roy Smith, “An informal review of model validation,” inThe Modeling of Uncertainty in Control Systems, edited by Roy S. Smith and Mohammed Dahleh (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994) pp. 51–59

    1994

  39. [47]

    Benchmark- ing quantum gates and circuits,

    Vinay Tripathi, Daria Kowsari, Kumar Saurav, Haimeng Zhang, Eli M. Levenson-Falk, and Daniel A. Lidar, “Benchmark- ing quantum gates and circuits,” Chemical Reviews (2025), 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00870

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Robust dynamical decou- pling of quantum systems with bounded controls,

    Lorenza Viola and Emanuel Knill, “Robust dynamical decou- pling of quantum systems with bounded controls,” Physical Re- view Letters90, 037901– (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    Enhanced convergence and robust performance of randomized dynamical decoupling,

    Lea F. Santos and Lorenza Viola, “Enhanced convergence and robust performance of randomized dynamical decoupling,” Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 150501 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    Optimized dynamical decoupling via genetic algorithms,

    Gregory Quiroz and Daniel A. Lidar, “Optimized dynamical decoupling via genetic algorithms,” Phys. Rev. A88, 052306– (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Robustness of composite pulses to time-dependent control noise,

    Chingiz Kabytayev, Todd J. Green, Kaveh Khodjasteh, Michael J. Biercuk, Lorenza Viola, and Kenneth R. Brown, “Robustness of composite pulses to time-dependent control noise,” Physical Review A90, 012316– (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Arbitrarily accurate pulse sequences for robust dynamical decoupling,

    Genko T. Genov, Daniel Schraft, Nikolay V . Vitanov, and Thomas Halfmann, “Arbitrarily accurate pulse sequences for robust dynamical decoupling,” Physical Review Letters118, 133202– (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Designing dynamically corrected gates robust to multiple noise sources using geometric space curves,

    Hunter T. Nelson, Evangelos Piliouras, Kyle Connelly, and Edwin Barnes, “Designing dynamically corrected gates robust to multiple noise sources using geometric space curves,” Phys. Rev. A108, 012407 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Implementing and benchmarking dy- namically corrected gates on superconducting devices using space curve quantum control,

    Hisham Amer, Evangelos Piliouras, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou, “Implementing and benchmarking dy- namically corrected gates on superconducting devices using space curve quantum control,” arXiv preprint 2504.09767 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    An automated geometric space curve approach for designing dy- namically corrected gates,

    Evangelos Piliouras, Dennis Lucarelli, and Edwin Barnes, “An automated geometric space curve approach for designing dy- namically corrected gates,” arXiv preprint 2503.11492 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise,

    Todd J Green, Jarrah Sastrawan, Hermann Uys, and Michael J Biercuk, “Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise,” New Journal of Physics15, 095004 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Ro- bust control of quantum gates via sequential convex program- ming,

    Robert L. Kosut, Matthew D. Grace, and Constantin Brif, “Ro- bust control of quantum gates via sequential convex program- ming,” Phys. Rev. A88, 052326 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Exper- imental noise filtering by quantum control,

    A. Soare, H. Ball, D. Hayes, J. Sastrawan, M. C. Jarratt, J. J. McLoughlin, X. Zhen, T. J. Green, and M. J. Biercuk, “Exper- imental noise filtering by quantum control,” Nature Physics10, 825–829 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Robustness of composite pulses to time-dependent control noise,

    Chingiz Kabytayev, Todd J. Green, Kaveh Khodjasteh, Michael J. Biercuk, Lorenza Viola, and Kenneth R. Brown, “Robustness of composite pulses to time-dependent control noise,” Phys. Rev. A90, 012316 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    General transfer- function approach to noise filtering in open-loop quantum con- trol,

    Gerardo A. Paz-Silva and Lorenza Viola, “General transfer- function approach to noise filtering in open-loop quantum con- trol,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 250501 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Struc- tured singular value analysis for spintronics network informa- tion transfer control,

    E. A. Jonckheere, S. G. Schirmer, and F. C. Langbein, “Struc- tured singular value analysis for spintronics network informa- tion transfer control,” ArXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1706.03247 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Software tools for quantum control: improving quantum computer performance through noise and error suppression,

    Harrison Ball, Michael J Biercuk, Andre R R Carvalho, Ji- ayin Chen, Michael Hush, Leonardo A De Castro, Li Li, Per J Liebermann, Harry J Slatyer, Claire Edmunds, Virginia Frey, Cornelius Hempel, and Alistair Milne, “Software tools for quantum control: improving quantum comput...

    2021

  55. [63]

    Engineering effective hamiltonians,

    Holger Haas, Daniel Puzzuoli, Feihao Zhang, and David G Cory, “Engineering effective hamiltonians,” New Journal of Physics21, 103011 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Frame-based filter-function formalism for quantum characterization and control,

    Teerawat Chalermpusitarak, Behnam Tonekaboni, Yuanlong Wang, Leigh M. Norris, Lorenza Viola, and Gerardo A. Paz-Silva, “Frame-based filter-function formalism for quantum characterization and control,” PRX Quantum2, 030315 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Filter functions for quantum processes under correlated noise,

    Pascal Cerfontaine, Tobias Hangleiter, and Hendrik Bluhm, “Filter functions for quantum processes under correlated noise,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 170403 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Robust quantum control: Analysis and synthesis via averaging,

    Robert L. Kosut, Gaurav Bhole, and Herschel Rabitz, “Robust quantum control: Analysis and synthesis via averaging,” arXiv preprint 2208.14193 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Bringing quantum systems under control: A tuto- rial invitation to quantum computing and its relation to bilinear control systems,

    Julian Berberich, Robert L. Kosut, and Thomas Schulte- Herbr¨uggen, “Bringing quantum systems under control: A tuto- rial invitation to quantum computing and its relation to bilinear control systems,” (2024), arXiv:2412.00736 [eess.SY]

    2024

  60. [68]

    Robust quan- tum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice,

    Carrie Ann Weidner, Emily A. Reed, Jonathan Monroe, Ben- jamin Sheller, Sean O’Neil, Eliav Maas, Edmond A. Jonck- heere, Frank C. Langbein, and Sophie Schirmer, “Robust quan- tum control in closed and open systems: Theory and practice,” 18 Automatica172, 111987 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Engineering precise and robust effective hamiltonians,

    Jiahui Chen and David Cory, “Engineering precise and robust effective hamiltonians,” (2025), arXiv:2506.20730 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Dis- tance bounds on quantum dynamics,

    Daniel A. Lidar, Paolo Zanardi, and Kaveh Khodjasteh, “Dis- tance bounds on quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. A78, 012308 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    Noiseless quantum codes,

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, “Noiseless quantum codes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 3306–3309 (1997)

    1997

  64. [72]

    Theory of quantum error correction for general noise,

    Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Lorenza Viola, “Theory of quantum error correction for general noise,” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2525–2528 (2000)

    2000

  65. [73]

    Theory of initialization- free decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems,

    Alireza Shabani and Daniel A. Lidar, “Theory of initialization- free decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems,” Physical Re- view A72, 042303– (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    The “transition probability

    A. Uhlmann, “The “transition probability”in the state space of a *-algebra,” Reports on Mathematical Physics9, 273–279 (1976)

    1976

  67. [75]

    Fidelity for mixed quantum states,

    Richard Jozsa, “Fidelity for mixed quantum states,” Journal of Modern Optics41, 2315–2323 (1994)

    1994

  68. [76]

    Distance measures to compare real and ideal quan- tum processes,

    Alexei Gilchrist, Nathan K. Langford, and Michael A. Nielsen, “Distance measures to compare real and ideal quan- tum processes,” Physical Review A71(2005), 10.1103/phys- reva.71.062310

    2005 doi

  69. [77]

    On the distance between unitary propagators of quantum systems of differing dimensions,

    R. L. Kosut, M. Grace, C. Brif, and H. Rabitz, “On the distance between unitary propagators of quantum systems of differing dimensions,” quant-ph/0606064 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Environment-invariant measure of distance between evolutions of an open quantum system,

    Matthew D Grace, Jason Dominy, Robert L Kosut, Constantin Brif, and Herschel Rabitz, “Environment-invariant measure of distance between evolutions of an open quantum system,” New Journal of Physics12, 015001 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    Bhatia,Matrix Analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics No

    R. Bhatia,Matrix Analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics No. 169 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997)

    1997

  72. [80]

    Dynamical suppression of de- coherence in two-state quantum systems,

    Lorenza Viola and Seth Lloyd, “Dynamical suppression of de- coherence in two-state quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A58, 2733–2744 (1998)

    1998

  73. [81]

    Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,

    Lorenza Viola, Emanuel Knill, and Seth Lloyd, “Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems,” Physical Review Letters 82, 2417–2421 (1999)

    1999

  74. [82]

    Keeping a quantum bit alive by optimizedπ- pulse sequences,

    G ¨otz S. Uhrig, “Keeping a quantum bit alive by optimizedπ- pulse sequences,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 100504– (2007)

    2007

  75. [83]

    Performance of de- terministic dynamical decoupling schemes: Concatenated and periodic pulse sequences,

    Kaveh Khodjasteh and Daniel A. Lidar, “Performance of de- terministic dynamical decoupling schemes: Concatenated and periodic pulse sequences,” Phys. Rev. A75, 062310– (2007)

    2007

  76. [84]

    Combin- ing dynamical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation,

    Hui Khoon Ng, Daniel A. Lidar, and John Preskill, “Combin- ing dynamical decoupling with fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation,” Phys. Rev. A84, 012305 (2011)

    2011

  77. [85]

    Rigorous performance bounds for quadratic and nested dynamical decou- pling,

    Yuhou Xia, G ¨otz S. Uhrig, and Daniel A. Lidar, “Rigorous performance bounds for quadratic and nested dynamical decou- pling,” Phys. Rev. A84, 062332 (2011)

    2011

  78. [86]

    Completely positive master equation for arbitrary driving and small level spacing,

    Evgeny Mozgunov and Daniel Lidar, “Completely positive master equation for arbitrary driving and small level spacing,” Quantum4, 227 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Optimal control of two qubits via a single cav- ity drive in circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    Joseph L. Allen, Robert Kosut, Jaewoo Joo, Peter Leek, and Eran Ginossar, “Optimal control of two qubits via a single cav- ity drive in circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. A95, 042325 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    A note on commutative bilinear optimal con- trol,

    A. Krener, “A note on commutative bilinear optimal con- trol,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control23, 1111–1111 (1978)

    1978

  81. [89]

    Quantum optimally controlled transition landscapes,

    Herschel A. Rabitz, Michael M. Hsieh, and Carey M. Rosen- thal, “Quantum optimally controlled transition landscapes,” Science303, 1998–2001 (2004)

    2004

  82. [90]

    Landscape of unitary transformations in controlled quantum dynamics,

    Tak-San Ho, Jason Dominy, and Herschel Rabitz, “Landscape of unitary transformations in controlled quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. A79, 013422 (2009)

    2009

  83. [91]

    Optimal control landscape for the generation of unitary trans- formations with constrained dynamics,

    Michael Hsieh, Rebing Wu, Herschel Rabitz, and Daniel Lidar, “Optimal control landscape for the generation of unitary trans- formations with constrained dynamics,” Physical Review A81, 062352– (2010)

    2010

  84. [92]

    Exploring the top and bottom of the quantum con- trol landscape,

    Vincent Beltrani, Jason Dominy, Tak-San Ho, and Herschel Rabitz, “Exploring the top and bottom of the quantum con- trol landscape,” The Journal of Chemical Physics134, 194106 (2011)

    2011

  85. [93]

    Exploring con- strained quantum control landscapes,

    Katharine W. Moore and Herschel Rabitz, “Exploring con- strained quantum control landscapes,” The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 134113 (2012)

    2012

  86. [94]

    Characterization of control noise effects in optimal quantum unitary dynamics,

    David Hocker, Constantin Brif, Matthew D. Grace, Ashley Donovan, Tak-San Ho, Katharine Moore Tibbetts, Rebing Wu, and Herschel Rabitz, “Characterization of control noise effects in optimal quantum unitary dynamics,” Physical Review A90 (2014)

    2014

  87. [95]

    Con- trol landscapes are almost always trap free: a geometric assess- ment,

    Benjamin Russell, Herschel Rabitz, and Re-Bing Wu, “Con- trol landscapes are almost always trap free: a geometric assess- ment,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 205302 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    Quan- tum control landscape of bipartite systems,

    Robert L Kosut, Christian Arenz, and Herschel Rabitz, “Quan- tum control landscape of bipartite systems,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical (2019)

    2019

  89. [97]

    On direct product matrices,

    W. E. Roth, “On direct product matrices,” Bulletin of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society40, 461–468 (1934)

    1934

  90. [98]

    Theory of nuclear-induced spec- tral diffusion: Spin decoherence of phosphorus donors in si and gaas quantum dots,

    R. de Sousa, S. Das Sarma, “Theory of nuclear-induced spec- tral diffusion: Spin decoherence of phosphorus donors in si and gaas quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B68, 115322 (2003)

    2003

  91. [99]

    Popper and K.R

    K.R. Popper and K.R. Popper,The Logic of Scientific Discov- ery, ISSR library (Routledge, 2002)

    2002

  92. [100]

    The unfalsified control concept and learning,

    M. G. Safonov and Tung-Ching Tsao, “The unfalsified control concept and learning,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol42, 843–847 (1997)

    1997

  93. [101]

    Uncertainty model unfalsi- fication,

    R.L. Kosut and B.D.O. Anderson, “Uncertainty model unfalsi- fication,” inProceedings of the 36th IEEE Conference on Deci- sion and Control, V ol. 1 (1997) pp. 163–168 vol.1

    1997

  94. [102]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  95. [103]

    Huelga,Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    Angel Rivas and Susana F. Huelga,Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  96. [104]

    Coarse graining can beat the rotating-wave approximation in quantum markovian master equations,

    Christian Majenz, Tameem Albash, Heinz-Peter Breuer, and Daniel A. Lidar, “Coarse graining can beat the rotating-wave approximation in quantum markovian master equations,” Phys. Rev. A88, 012103– (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    From completely positive maps to the quantum Markovian semigroup master equation,

    Daniel A. Lidar, Zsolt Bihary, and K.Birgitta Whaley, “From completely positive maps to the quantum Markovian semigroup master equation,” Chem. Phys.268, 35 (2001)

    2001

  98. [106]

    Quan- tum non-markovianity: characterization, quantification and de- tection,

    ´Angel Rivas, Susana F Huelga, and Martin B Plenio, “Quan- tum non-markovianity: characterization, quantification and de- tection,” Reports on Progress in Physics77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  99. [107]

    Suppression of crosstalk in superconducting qubits using dynamical decoupling,

    Vinay Tripathi, Huo Chen, Mostafa Khezri, Ka-Wa Yip, E. M. Levenson-Falk, and Daniel A. Lidar, “Suppression of crosstalk in superconducting qubits using dynamical decoupling,” Physi- cal Review Applied18, 024068– (2022)

    2022

  100. [108]

    Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control,

    Zeyuan Zhou, Ryan Sitler, Yasuo Oda, Kevin Schultz, and Gregory Quiroz, “Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control,” Physical Review Letters131, 210802– (2023)

    2023

  101. [109]

    Efficient chromatic- number-based multiqubit decoherence and crosstalk suppres- sion,

    Amy F. Brown and Daniel A. Lidar, “Efficient chromatic- number-based multiqubit decoherence and crosstalk suppres- sion,” PRX Quantum6, 020354– (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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