Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Analysis of lower bounds for quantum control times and their relation to the quantum speed limit

Analysis of lower bounds for quantum control times and their relation to the quantum speed limit Analysis of lower bounds for quantum control times and their relation to the quantum speed limit An alisis de cotas inferiores para tiempos de control y su relaci on con el l mite de velocidades cu antico 1, 2, Pablo M. Poggi Center for Quantum Information and Control (CQuIC), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA Departamento de F sica \J. J. Giambiagi" and IFIBA, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Dated: January 6, 2022) Limitations to the speed of evolution of quantum systems, typically referred to as quantum speed limits (QSLs), have important consequences for quantum control problems. However, in its standard formulation, is not straightforward to obtain meaningful QSL bounds for time-dependent Hamiltonians with unknown control parameters. In this paper we present a short introductory overview of quantum speed limit for unitary dynamics and its connection to quantum control. We then analyze potential methods for obtaining new bounds on control times inspired by the QSL. We nally extend the work in [Poggi, Lombardo and Wisniacki EPL 104 40005 (2013)] by studying the properties and limitations of these new bounds in the context of a driven two-level quantum system. Las restricciones a la velocidad de evoluci on de un estado cu antico, usualmente llamadas \l mite de velocidades cu antico" (QSL), es un concepto que presenta importantes consecuencias para problemas de control cu antico. Sin embargo, en su formulaci on usual, no es trivial obtener cotas inferiores tipo QSL para el tiempo de evoluci on en el caso de Hamiltonianos dependientes del tiempo con par ametros desconocidos. En este trabajo presentamos un introducci on a la formulaci on del l mite de velocidades cu antico para evoluci on unitaria y su conexi on con control cu antico. Luego, analizamos nuevos m etodos para obtener cotas inspiradas en el QSL para tiempos de evoluci on en problemas de control. Finalmente, extendemos el trabajo presentado en [Poggi, Lombardo and Wisniacki EPL 104 40005 (2013)] estudiando las propiedades y limitaciones de las cotas presentadas en un sistema de dos niveles. I. INTRODUCTION in the mid 20th century [7], and have since then been thoroughly studied and generalized to a variety of scenar- ios, such as open quantum system dynamics, evolution Precise control of the dynamics of microscopic systems of mixed states and time-dependent Hamiltonians [8{15]. is a cornerstone of the ongoing revolution in quantum technologies like quantum computation and simulation. Indeed, most physical implementations of quantum The connection between the QSL and practical quan- devices rely on accurate and robust manipulation of tum control problems received much attention since the the relevant degrees of freedom using time-dependent work of Caneva et al. [16], who showed that quantum electromagnetic elds [1{3]. Such advances where made optimal control methods [17] could be used to explore possible by substantial technological breakthroughs what is the minimal time needed to control a quantum but also by theoretical developments in the eld of system, and provided a link with the QSL [18] bounds quantum control [4, 5]. A crucial part of this theory is for some speci c systems. Since then, numerous studies related to implementing the desired transformations on have implemented this methodology [19{24]. However, a quantum system as fast as possible, in order to avoid apart from a handful of cases [25{27], the search for the undesirable environmental e ects which can destroy the minimum control time has to be performed numerically coherence properties of the system [6]. In this context, and, even in that case, one can only nd an upper during the past two decades there has been a renewed bound to it [23]. So, as has been pointed out in previous interest on understanding the fundamental limitations works [24, 28], it is important to develop lower bounds on the speed of evolution of quantum systems. These on control times which are as informative and tight as limitations, typically referred to as quantum speed limits possible, while at the same time being computable before (QSLs), were originally formulated via Heisenberg- solving the actual (optimal) control problem. In this like uncertainty relations by Mandelstam and Tamm paper we illustrate how the standard QSL formulation is not particularly suitable for this task, because of its dependence on the (a priori unknown) evolution on the system. To demonstrate this point, we present Corresponding author: ppoggi@unm.edu a self-contained introduction to the standard QSL arXiv:2002.11147v2 [quant-ph] 4 Jan 2022 2 formulation for unitary dynamics and its application to By taking the expectation value in the last expression we time-dependent Hamiltonians. We then show that the obtain presented framework, suitable extended and modi ed, dhAi i can indeed lead to meaningful lower bounds on the = h[A; H ]i: (3) dT ~ control time. We show three examples of such bounds which are taken or adapted from previous works, and We now identify operator B in eqn. (1) with the system explicitly work them out for the paradigmatic exam- Hamiltonian H and combine with eqn. (3) to obtain ple of state control on a driven two-level quantum system. ~ dhAi EA  ; (4) This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we 2 dt present an introductory overview on the topic of quantum speed limits for unitary evolution, going through its orig- where A = hAhAii , and E  H . We can inal formulation as derived from Robertson's uncertainty further de ne relation, and its geometrical interpretation due to Anan- dan and Aharonov. Then, in Sec. III we discuss QSLs t = ; (5) for time-dependent Hamiltonians and its corresponding dhAi dt natural connection with quantum control. Here we ar- gue that the QSL bounds derived in this formulation which has units of time. We then arrive at the cannot generally be used for bounding control times a Mandelstam-Tamm relation priori, i.e., before solving the optimal control problem, because of the presence of unknown control parameters. ~ t E  : (6) We then revisit scattered proposals in the literature of bounds which overcome this issue and discuss their con- In this formulation, t is interpreted as a character- nection with the standard QSL. Finally, in Sec. IV we istic time related to the time evolution of observable A. compare the aforementioned bounds in the context of a The link between this quantity and the physical evolution driven two-level system. In this way we extend the re- time was studied rst by Fleming [8] and then by Bhat- sults of Ref. [29], in which di erent bounds derived from tacharyya [9], in the following way. Consider expression the standard QSL where compared originally. At the end (6) under the speci c choice of A = j ih j, with j i 0 0 0 of the article, in Sec. V we present some ideas for future some arbitrary pure state. If we take the expectation val- work and nal remarks. ues in (6) with respect to the evolved state j i = U j i, t t 0 it is easy to see that II. QUANTUM SPEED LIMIT FORMULATION hAi = jh j ij = P ; (7) t 0 t FOR UNITARY EVOLUTION where we have introduced the short-hand notation for Here we present an introductory overview of the quan- P , the time-dependent survival probability. Eqn. (6) tum speed limit formulation for Hamiltonian evolution, can now be expressed as including derivations of the most relevant mathematical dP expressions. Note that we do not discuss extensions and t dt generalizations beyond unitary dynamics; the reader in-  2 : (8) P (1 P ) t t terested in a complete review on this topic is advised to consult Ref. [30]. 2 1=2 We can use the relation [arccos(x)] = (1x ) dx to write (8) in a more compact form A. Overview d E(t) arccos( P )  : (9) dt ~ In 1945, Mandelstamm and Tamm [7] derived a gener- alization of Heisenberg uncertainty relation between time This is the main result by Bhattacharyya. If the initial and energy, that could be applied to any quantum sys- state j i evolves subject to a time-independent Hamil- tem. We re-derive it here, starting from Robertson's in- tonian H , then the inequality above can be readily inte- equality [31] grated from t = 0 to t, obtaining 2 2 ~ MT h(A) ih(B) i  jh[A; B]ij ; (1) t  arccos (jh j ij)  t : (10) 0 t QSL where A = AhAi. For any operator A we can write This is the Mandelstam-Tamm bound. In the par- Heisenberg's equation ticular case where j i is orthogonal to j i, we obtain t 0 t = . This expression sets a bound on the mini- dA i QSL 2E = [A; H ] : (2) mum time required for a system to evolve from j i to an dt ~ 3 orthogonal state. For completeness we mention that, for this case, Margolus and Levitin [32] also derived a similar bound, but in terms of the mean energy of the state, ML t   t ; (11) QSL 2 E where E  hH " Ii, i.e. the expectation value of the Hamiltonian with respect to the ground state. Gio- vannetti et al. [10] later generalized this result to non- orthogonal states, and coined the term \quantum speed Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the time evolution of quan- limit time" for t . Finally, Levitin and To oli [33] tum states. Anandan-Aharonov relation (17) expresses the QSL showed that the uni ed bound fact that the length of the actual path of the evolution is nec- essarily larger or equal than the length of the geodesic path ~ ~ between the initial and evolved state. t  min ; ; (12) 2 E 2 E Note that expression (16) also tells us that energy vari- is tight, meaning that for every time-independent Hamil- ance E(t) can be seen as a measure of the Hilbert space tonian there is a choice of initial state for which the equal- velocity of the state j i. In particular, E measures the ity in (12) holds. t component of j i which is perpendicular to j i [34{36]. t t We can see this in the following way. If we write the time k ? B. Geometric quantum speed limits _ _ _ derivative of the quantum state as j i = j i + j i , t t t then we have that, by de nition, Bhattacharyya's result of eqn. (9) has an insightful ge- D E ometrical interpretation, which was rst noted by Anan- j i = j i  j = ihEij i ; (18) t t t t t dan and Aharonov [11] in the following way. Consider the Fubini-Study distance between two pure states, where we have used j i = iH j i and noted t t t h j H j i  hEi. This result tells us that the phase t t t s( ;  ) = 2 arccos(jh j ij); (13) 1 2 1 2 of the quantum state evolves at a rate given by hEi. The remaining perpendicular component of the velocity, and de ne ds = s ( ;  ) with t t+dt ? k _ _ _ j i = j ij i , is such that t t t H(t)dt j i = e j i (14) t+dt t D E D E D E D E k k k k _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ kj i k =  j +  j  j  j t t t t t t t t t for some state j i and a generally time-dependent 2 2 2 = hH ihHi = E : (19) Hamiltonian H (t). Since It can be readily seen that the Mandelstam-Tamm 2 2 4 jh j ij = 1 E(t) dt +O(dt ); (15) t t+dt bound is recovered from the Anandan-Aharonov relation when the dynamics is generated by a time-independent then the di erential length element is given by Hamiltonian, in which E is always time-independent itself. As such, the inequality (10) has a purely geomet- rical nature, and its saturated if and only if the motion ds = E(t)dt (16) of the system state is along a geodesic in Hilbert space. which is formally eqn. (9) rewritten with di erent nota- tion. Integration of eqn. (16) from t = 0 to t yields the length of the path traversed by the evolution going from C. Extensions and other studies the initial state j i to the evolved state j i. Clearly, 0 t such length must be greater or equal than s( ;  ), the 0 t Most of the extensions and generalizations of the length of the geodesic path joining both states. This can quantum speed limit formulation have been pursued be appreciated in the schematic drawing of Fig. 1. Thus, in this geometrical setting. In particular, bounds have we have derived the Anandan-Aharonov relation been derived for the maximum speed of evolution under non-unitary dynamics almost simultaneously by Taddei et al. [12], Del Campo et al. [14] and De ner and Lutz 0 0 s( ;  )  2 E(t ) dt ; (17) 0 t [13]. Special attention has been devoted to studying the predicted speed-up of the evolution in open systems where we have ( nally) set ~ = 1. undergoing non-Markovian dynamics [37{40]. Other important cases of study are QSLs for mixed states 4 [41{46], the geometric characterization of the QSL In the last expression, we can see that the lower T QSL [47{50] and its connection to parameter estimation depends on two geometrical quantities: the length of the theory [12, 51{53]. Extensive analysis of the current geodesic between j i and j i and the length of the 0 g state of knowledge on these topics have been published actual path. Moreover, the quantum speed limit time as reviews in Refs. [30, 54]. could go to zero if the s  s . It is then clear path geod that this quantity gives us information about distances in Hilbert space, but not about the speed at which those paths are traversed. We also point out that other III. CONNECTION TO QUANTUM CONTROL bounds on the evolution time can be extracted from the general Anandan - Aharonov relation (see [39] for A. QSL for time-dependent Hamiltonians an example). However, as discussed in Ref. [29], in all cases information about the evolution of the system is required to compute such bounds. Consider a quantum system initially prepared in state j i, which evolves according to a Hamiltonian H (~u(t)), where ~u(t) is a set of generally time-dependent parameters (the control elds). We wish to drive the B. Methods for bounding control times system to some target state j i at some nal time T by properly choosing ~u(t). It is natural to ask then, what In the previous subsection we showed that the usual does the quantum speed limit formulation tells us about quantum speed limit formulation is in general not the time T required to perform that process? Can it be suitable for obtaining bounds on the evolution time made arbitrarily fast? Can we establish a lower bound of a controlled quantum system a priori (i.e., without for T ? needing to solve the Schr odinger equation). Here, we analyze various methods to overcome this limitation. At rst glance, it is obvious that nor the Mandelstam- Tamm (8) nor the Margolus-Levitin (11) bounds can be We begin by explicitly formulating the problem of in- applied to this setting, since quantum control problems terest. Consider a quantum system which evolves unitar- deal generally with time-dependent Hamiltonians. We ily under the action of a parameter-dependent Hamilto- then go back to the Anandan - Aharonov relation (17) nian H (~u), with ~u = ~u(t) the (generally time-dependent) to obtain a bound on the evolution time. This can be control elds. Although the form of the time-dependence done in a number of ways: one of them was proposed by is unknown a priori, we consider that the control elds De ner and Lutz [15], and it simply consists on rewriting max may have constraints of the form ju (t)j  u . Let us eqn. (17) as x an initial state j i and a target state j i. We wish 0 g arccos (jh j (t)ij) to obtain a lower bound on the evolution time T , where t  ; (20) T is such that j (0)i = j i and j (T )i = j i. The 0 g bound should be computable with all given information, where we de ned the time-average of the energy variance i.e., it should be of the form simply as t max T  t (H;fu g;j i ;j i) : (24) 1 min 0 g 0 0 E = E(t ) dt : (21) Our rst approach to this problem is to manipulate the We can now evaluate (20) in t = T , such that if there Anandan - Aharonov relation (17) in order to drop any is a time T such that j (T )i = j i, then the following implicit or explicit dependence on j (t)i or ~u(t). This relation must hold can be done by using the following inequality p p arccos (jh j ij) 0 g T   T : (22) 2E(t)  2kH (t)k  2 tr(H (t) ); (25) QSL which was derived by Brody in [55]. Combining (17) and However, a closer look at expression (22) reveals that, (25) we can write in order to compute the bound, we need both an actual choice of u(t) and the complete time-evolved state j (t)i. p p This contradicts our initial purpose, which is to estimate 0 0 s( ; (T ))  2 kH (t )k dt  2kHk T: (26) 0 max the minimum evolution time without solving the dynam- ics, and moreover without knowing the actual control In the last step, we bounded kHk by its maximum eld which will be used to drive the system. Further in- max value, which will be a function of fu g in general. In sight can be obtained by casting the expression (22) into i this way we have successfully derived an inequality with- the form out using information about j (t)i nor ~u(t). Rearranging s( ; ) s 0 g geod the last expression, we obtain that if there is a time T T = T = T: (23) QSL 0 0 s path for which j (T )i = j i, then it holds that E(t ) dt 0 5 max where, again, we expect E to be an explicit function max of fu g. Rearranging the expression above we arrive s( ; ) 0 g at T   t : (27) min 2kHk max s( ; ) Note that the de nition of t is clearly of the form 0 g min T   t with  = or : (34) 0 g min max we initially proposed, c.f. eqn. (24). 2E Another approach to obtain a bound of the form (24) Again, t is also of the form (24) and thus allows us min can be derived from a result by Pfeifer in Refs. [56, 57], to obtain a lower bound on the minimum evolution time in which he proposes that general time-energy uncer- without knowing the actual shape of ~u(t). tainty relations for time-dependent Hamiltonians should be computable without solving Schr odinger's equation. We now explore an interesting property of Pfeifer's The main result reads as follows: given a quantum state bound (34). Assume the Hamiltonian of the system has j (t)i which evolves according to i j (t)i = H (t)j (t)i the form dt with j (0)i = j i, and an arbitrary reference state j'i, then the following relation holds H (u(t)) = H + u(t)H ; (35) 0 c jh'j (t)ij Q sin (  h(t)) ; (28) where we suppose that the control eld u(t) has dimen- sionless units. We can then explicitly write down the where  = arcsin(jh'j ij) = arccos(jh'j ij), sin is 0 0 2 variance of the Hamiltonian as the a modi ed sine function < 0 if x  0 2 2 2 2 E = H +u H +u(hfH ; H gi2hH ihH i) (36) 0 c 0 c 0 c sin (x) = sin(x) if 0 < x  1 (29) 1 if x > 1 Suppose now that our control problem is such that the initial and target states j i, j i are eigenstates of H . 0 g c and we de ned Then, we trivially obtain that H = 0, but also that Z Z t t the crossed term in (36) vanishes. Inserting this into 0 0 0 0 h(t) = min E (t ) dt ; E (t ) dt ; (30) expression (34) we get j i;j'i 0 0 where we used the notation E  hj H ji s( ; ) 0 g 2 B t = : (37) hj Hji . Pfeifer's relation (28) is appealing to the min minfH j ; H j g 0 0 0 g quantum control problem studied here, since it gives bounds for the probability of nding a driven system in What is interesting about this result is that it is an arbitrary state j'i [56]. More interestingly, we can completely independent of u(t); not only of its actual extract a bound on the evolution time itself, in the fol- temporal shape, but also of its maximum possible value. lowing way. If we consider the upper bound in (28) for This means that, even in an unconstrained control such probability, and consider the reference state to be max problem where u ! 1, there is still a fundamental our target state, j'i = j i, we get that, at time t = T limit for the speed in which we can control the system. That limit is set only by the initial and nal states, and jh j (T )ij  sin ( + h(T )) : (31) the free Hamiltonian H . Note than analogous bound can be found if j i, j i are eigenstates of H . 0 g 0 From this expression its clear that, in order to have a successful control process, we need the upper bound to Finally, we present a third method for obtaining a be as large as possible, i.e. 1. Looking at the de nition bound of the form (24). We begin by considering (29), it is then sucient to impose two arbitrary time-dependent Hamiltonians H and H , 1 2 1 and two respective states j (t)i and j (t)i such that 1 2 + h(T )  ) h(T )   = s( ; ): (32) 0 g d j i = iH (t)j (t)i with k = 1; 2 and j (0)i = k k k 1 2 2 2 dt j (0)i = j i. We can then write 2 0 Note that h(T ) depends on T via the control eld ~u(T ). In order to obtain a lower bound for the evolution time, d h j i = ih j (H H )j i ; (38) 1 2 1 1 2 2 we proceed as we did when deriving (26) and bound the dt integral in (30) by and then integrate the above expression from t = 0 to max h(T )  E T with  = ; ; (33) t = T , which yields 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 h (T )j (T )i 1 = i h (t )j (H (t ) H (t ))j (t )i dt 1 2 1 1 2 2 Z Z T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) jh (T )j (T )i 1j  jh (t )j (H (t ) H (t ))j (t )ij dt  kH (t ) H (t )k dt : (39) 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 We now take an approach proposed by Arenz et al. which di ers from the standard QSL. The goal was to [24]. We consider H to be of the form (35), i.e. H = obtain as much information as possible about the evolu- 1 1 H + u(t)H , and also x H = u(t)H . For a suc- tion time without needing to solve the dynamics of the 0 c 2 c cessful control protocol, we have that j (T )i = j i, system. In this section we will apply these results to 1 g and we can also integrate j (t)i up to t = T , which the example of a driven two-level system. For this we trivially yields j (T )i = exp (i (T )H )j i where consider the following Hamiltonian, 2 c 0 0 0 (T ) = u(t )dt . In this case, expression (39) can be casted as H (u) = = u  +  ; (44) z x i (T )H jh j e j ij  kH k T: (40) g 0 0 where  , i = x; y; z is a Pauli operator,  is a parameter that we consider xed and u is the control parameter. We can further bound this expression in order to get We de ne jg i to be the ground state of H ( ) (i.e. its rid of the dependence on the unknown function u(t). eigenstate with negative eigenvalue). We focus on the To do so, we use the spectral decomposition of H = P P P c c c following control problem: we start in the initial state " j ih j and the inequality j z 1j  1 jz j j j j j j j j j j i = jg i and we wish to drive the system to the (with jz j  1) to obtain target state j i = jg i (here > 0). Moreover, we g + wish to do so in the minimum possible time. The prob- c c 1 j j  j j  kH kT; (41) g 0 0 lem of nding the required control eld for this process j j was solved by Hegerfeldt [58], who proved that di er- ent protocols arise whether we place constraints on the which then gives us a new bound of the desired form (24) amplitude ju(t)j of the control eld or not. In the uncon- strained case, the optimal eld is c c 1 j j  j j 8 g 0 j j < +u for 0 < t < t C1 0 0 T   t : (42) min u(t) = 0 for t < t < t + T ; (45) kH k 0 0 u for t + T < t < 2t + T 0 0 0 A similar expression can be derived in an analogous fashion by choosing H = H . In that case we obtain where u  , u t = =4, and as ju(t)j has no restric- 2 0 0 0 0 tions, we can choose u ! 1 so as to have t ! 0. The 0 0 0 0 total evolution time is then given by 1 j j  j j g 0 j j C2 T   t ; (43) min 2 2  2 max (1) u kH k T = T + 2t ! T = arctan = ; (46) opt where now f  g are eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian where we have introduced the angle  as an alternative H . Expressions (42) and (43) provide di erent ways parametrization of the initial state, tan() = . In the to bound evolution times in quantum control problems. constrained case, where ju(t)j  u  , the optimal max An interesting feature of these is that they are explicit max solution is similar, functions of , , H and u , as opposed to the 0 g two previous results (27) and (34), where the actual + for 0 < t < T max dependence on H and u has to be worked out on u(t) = 0 for T < t < T + T (47) off each particular problem. This means that, for example, for T + T < t < 2T + T C1 max  off  off t will always give a result independent of u min regardless the initial and target states. The evolution time here is given by (2) T = T + 2T : (48) off opt IV. APPLICATION TO A TWO-LEVEL The optimal values of T and T di er whether the off SYSTEM maximum eld  is smaller or larger than  =(4 ). The corresponding expressions are a bit cumbersome and are In the previous section we analyzed an approach for given in the Appendix. bounding evolution times in driven quantum systems, 7 C2 Here we will be interested in comparing the actual We point out that t de ned in eqn. (43) turns out to min optimal control times of eqn. (46) and (48) with be 0 for this problem, for all values of . the bounds given in the previous section. Again we emphasize that, in order to evaluate the QSL time T , Up to this point we have computed three bounds for QSL c.f. eqn. (22), we would need to know how the system the evolution time in this control problem (51), (54) and (55) which are computed without knowledge of the solu- evolves under the optimal protocol. For each case (i.e. tion to the time-optimal control problem. We also have, constrained or unconstrained), T () can be worked QSL from [29], the corresponding QSL time for as a function out, as was done in [29]. We give the corresponding of , T () (see Appendix for the explicit expressions) expressions in the Appendix as well. QSL which is computed using such time-optimal solution. Let us rst compare all of these expressions with the opti- We now turn to computing the new bounds t with min mal time T for the case of full population transfer, i.e. opt X=A, B, C1 and C2, which are of the form ! 1 or  ! 0. In this case, T = , while opt T  t (H; u ;j i ;j i) : (49) min max 0 g B C1 T = t = > = t : (56) QSL min min We stress that, since these expressions are independent of the actual dynamics of the system, we will derive them Since these were the geometrical expressions, it is for the constrained and unconstrained protocols in the reasonable to have obtained a tight bound: when  = 0, same way. This is a key aspect of the approach we pro- the optimal evolution (which is generated by setting pose, since we should be able to obtain some information u = 0) is along a geodesic, which is precisely when about the minimum evolution time without any knowl- the Anandan-Aharanov relation is saturated. For the edge about the actual optimal protocol. Let us start with remaining expression, we obtain t = 0 due to the t of eqn (25), for which we calculate the norm of H min min dependence on u ! 1. It is interesting to see that max Pfeifer's bound t matches the optimal evolution time min 2 2 kHk = tr (H ) = 2 + u (50) also, although we didn't use any information about the optimal solution itself to compute it. This result gives us con dence about the usefulness of this method to We bound this expression to obtain bound evolution times in optimal control problems. t = q (51) Let us now analyze the general case of nite . For min + u max unconstrained control, we have that u ! 1. Note 4 max A B that this immediately gives t = t = 0 (recall min min C2 C1 For computing the bound (34) obtained via Pfeifer's also that t = 0), but t remains nonzero since it min min theorem, t , we need to evaluate the variance E of does not depend on the control eld constraints, as we min H in both the initial and nal states. This can be done pointed out in the previous section. In Fig. 2 we plot in a straightforward way, and we obtain this quantity along with the actual optimum time T opt as a function of angle , which de nes the initial and 2u target states. Note that for  = =2 ( = 0) both states Ej = cos ()j1 tan ()j; (52) 0 g C1 are the same, and thus T = 0. Note also that t , opt min which was computed without knowledge of the optimal which in turn gives evolution, is never tight (except for  = , which is trivial). However, its interesting to point out that it 2u(t) h(t) = cos () min j1 tan ()j (53) is nonzero in spite of the fact that the control eld is unconstrained (and is in nite in this case), and thus A B gives a meaningful bound as opposed to t and t . min min In this way we obtain We now compare the bounds for the case of constrained B 2 t = (54) min control, where ju(t)j  . As already mentioned, here cos () + u sin () max the optimal solution depends on the relation between C1 and . For   , we have the bang-o -bang We nally consider t , which was de ned in eqn. min protocol described by expressions (47) and (A1),while (42). We recall that here H =  is the free term of 0 x the Hamiltonian, and  refer to j0i and j1i, i.e. the for  < , the solution is the bang-bang protocol, j 4 eigenstates of the control operator  . Straightforward z c.f. eqn. (47) and (A2). In Fig. 3 (a) we show results calculation gives for the bang-o -bang case. All the bounds considered yield di erent curves in general. Moreover, there is 1 sin () C1 no bound tighter than another for all . Of all the t = p : (55) min bounds computed without the optimal protocol, t min 2 8 the others for all , and results in the tighter bound, albeit being computed without knowledge of the optimal protocol. This result provides further evidence about the usefulness of this particular expression for bounding minimal evolution times in quantum control problems. V. OUTLOOK AND FINAL REMARKS In this paper we have revisited the quantum speed limit (QSL) formulation for unitary dynamics driven by time- dependent Hamiltonians, focusing on its application to Figure 2. Optimal evolution time T , together with QSL opt C1 quantum control problems. We argued that the QSL time T and bound t obtained from eqn. (55) for the QSL min is not usually useful to obtain lower bounds on control composite-pulse protocol (with unconstrained u(t)) as a func- tion of parameter . times before solving the optimal control problem. The reason behind this is that the QSL time depends implic- itly on the actual evolution of the system, which is a priori unknown apart from the initial and nal (target) state. However, obtaining such bounds is interesting and could actually be helpful to tackle the optimization, since in principle it would allow one to rule out all possible con- trol times lower than the bound. With this in mind, here we have proposed a number of properties that a lower bound should have in order to be useful for control ap- plications, c.f. eqn. (24). The main such property is that the bound should be computable without knowing the full time-dependent state. Then we have put together (and in some cases adapted and further developed), pre- vious results related to optimal control and QSL that ac- tually have this properties. We studied these new lower bounds on control times for a two-level system, for which the time-optimal control problem has been analytically solved. We found that in all cases this new formula- tion gives meaningful bounds, and provides information which is comparable to the one obtained with the stan- dard QSL, albeit being calculated without knowing the optimal control solution. We point out that the ideas layed down here for new bounds on control times could in principle be extended to open quantum systems, using the approach in Pfeifer's theorem (28) applied to a metric like the relative purity between states. More generall,y Figure 3. Optimal evolution time T , together with QSL opt while these results are encouraging, it is expected that time T and its bounds obtained from the expressions dis- QSL the proposed bounds will not scale favorably with sys- cussed in the text for: (a)  > (in this calculations tem size [24], as happens with the geometric QSL itself 2 2 2 [59]. As a consequence, further work is needed to nd = 6 ) and (b)   (in this calculations  = 0:2 ). 4 4 4 new techniques to bound control times for quantum sys- Note that in this last case, T = t . QSL min tems, but we believe that such techniques could bene t from the results presented in this work. stands out as the better one. In Fig. 3 (b) we show ACKNOWLEDGMENTS results for the bang-bang case. Interestingly, in this case E is constant throughout the evolution, albeit the Hamiltonian being time-dependent itself. As a result, The author gratefully acknowledges Fernando Lom- t is equal to the Mandelstam-Tamm bound from bardo and Diego Wisniacki for their continued support as min C1 the time-independent case, and is tighter than t advisors. This work received supported by CONICET, min as before. We thus nd that the bound derived from UBACyT, ANPCyT (Argentina) and National Science Pfeifer's theorem t is bigger or equal than all of Foundation (NSF) grant no. PHY-1630114 (USA). min 9 [1] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb ene, Nature Physics [23] J. J. W. Srensen, M. K. Pedersen, M. Munch, P. Haikka, 8, 267 (2012). J. H. Jensen, T. Planke, M. G. Andreasen, M. Gajdacz, [2] J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, K. Mlmer, A. Lieberoth, et al., Nature 532, 210 (2016). P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and [24] C. Arenz, B. Russell, D. Burgarth, and H. Rabitz, New C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017). Journal of Physics 19, 103015 (2017). [3] H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- [25] N. Khaneja, S. J. Glaser, and R. Brockett, Physical Re- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, view A 65, 032301 (2002). M. Greiner, et al., Nature 551, 579 (2017). [26] A. Boozer, Physical Review A 85, 012317 (2012). [4] D. d'Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dy- [27] F. Albertini and D. D'Alessandro, Journal of Mathemat- namics (CRC press, New York, 2007). ical Physics 56, 012106 (2015). [5] S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, [28] P. M. Poggi, Physical Review A 99, 042116 (2019). W. K ockenberger, R. Koslo , I. Kuprov, B. Luy, [29] P. M. Poggi, F. C. Lombardo, and D. Wisniacki, EPL S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbruggen,  et al., The Euro- (Europhysics Letters) 104, 40005 (2013). pean Physical Journal D 69, 279 (2015). [30] S. De ner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Math- [6] M. A. Schlosshauer, Decoherence: and the quantum-to- ematical and Theoretical 50, 453001 (2017). classical transition (Springer Science & Business Media, [31] H. Robertson, Phys. Rev 35, 667 (1930). 2007). [32] N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- [7] L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, Journal of Physics USSR nomena 120, 188 (1998). 9 (1945). [33] L. B. Levitin and T. To oli, Physical review letters 103, [8] G. N. Fleming, Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 16, 232 160502 (2009). (1973). [34] A. K. Pati, Physics Letters A 202, 40 (1995). [9] K. Bhattacharyya, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical [35] A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Phys- and General 16, 2993 (1983). ical review letters 96, 060503 (2006). [10] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical Re- [36] M. Gajdacz, K. K. Das, J. Arlt, J. F. Sherson, and view A 67, 052109 (2003). T. Opatrny,  Physical Review A 92, 062106 (2015). [11] J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov, Physical review letters 65, [37] A. Cimmarusti, Z. Yan, B. Patterson, L. Corcos, 1697 (1990). L. Orozco, and S. De ner, Physical review letters 114, [12] M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. 233602 (2015). de Matos Filho, Physical review letters 110, 050402 [38] Z. Sun, J. Liu, J. Ma, and X. Wang, Scienti c reports 5 (2013). (2015). [13] S. De ner and E. Lutz, Physical review letters 111, [39] N. Mirkin, F. Toscano, and D. A. Wisniacki, Physical 010402 (2013). Review A 94, 052125 (2016). [14] A. Del Campo, I. Egusquiza, M. Plenio, and S. Huelga, [40] M. Cianciaruso, S. Maniscalco, and G. Adesso, arXiv Physical review letters 110, 050403 (2013). preprint arXiv:1704.08061 (2017). [15] S. De ner and E. Lutz, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- [41] O. Andersson and H. Heydari, Journal of Physics A: ical and Theoretical 46, 335302 (2013). Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 215301 (2014). [16] T. Caneva, M. Murphy, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, S. Mon- [42] Y.-J. Zhang, W. Han, Y.-J. Xia, J.-P. Cao, and H. Fan, tangero, V. Giovannetti, and G. E. Santoro, Physical Scienti c reports 4, 1 (2014). review letters 103, 240501 (2009). [43] D. Mondal, C. Datta, and S. Sazim, Physics Letters A [17] A. Konnov and V. F. Krotov, Automation and Remote 380, 689 (2016). Control 60, 77 (1999). [44] D. Mondal and A. K. Pati, Physics Letters A 380, 1395 [18] The nomenclature can be confusing since the quantum (2016). control literature typically refers to minimum control [45] I. Marvian, R. W. Spekkens, and P. Zanardi, Physical times as 'quantum speed limit times'. Such quantity Review A 93, 052331 (2016). is not directly related to the original quantum speed [46] F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, and K. Modi, limit results given by the Mandelstam-Tamm (and also Physical review letters 120, 060409 (2018). Margolus-Levitin). The main di erence is that the min- [47] B. Russell and S. Stepney, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012303 imum control time depends on a target state, while the (2014). QSL time does not. [48] D. P. Pires, M. Cianciaruso, L. C. C eleri, G. Adesso, and [19] T. Caneva, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, G. E. Santoro, and D. O. Soares-Pinto, Physical Review X 6, 021031 (2016). S. Montangero, Physical Review A 84, 012312 (2011). [49] S. De ner, New Journal of Physics 19, 103018 (2017). [20] K. W. M. Tibbetts, C. Brif, M. D. Grace, A. Donovan, [50] F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Quantum 3, D. L. Hocker, T.-S. Ho, R.-B. Wu, and H. Rabitz, Phys- 168 (2019). ical Review A 86, 062309 (2012). [51] S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022117 (2014). [21] I. Brouzos, A. I. Streltsov, A. Negretti, R. S. Said, [52] M. Gessner and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022109 T. Caneva, S. Montangero, and T. Calarco, Physical (2018). Review A 92, 062110 (2015). [53] J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, AVS Quantum Science 2, 014701 [22] P. Poggi, F. Lombardo, and D. Wisniacki, Journal of (2020). Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 35FT02 [54] M. R. Frey, Quantum Information Processing 15, 3919 (2015). (2016). 10 [55] D. C. Brody, G. W. Gibbons, and D. M. Meier, New which is called a 'bang-o -bang' protocol, while for  < Journal of Physics 17, 033048 (2015). , the result is [56] P. Pfeifer, Physical review letters 70, 3365 (1993). [57] P. Pfeifer and J. Fr ohlich, Reviews of Modern Physics 1  + 67, 759 (1995). 4 T = q arcsin [58] G. C. Hegerfeldt, Physical review letters 111, 260501 ( + ) + 2 (2013). [59] M. Bukov, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Physical Review T = 0 (A2) off X 9, 011034 (2019). which is typically termed 'bang-bang'. Also, we give expressions for the QSL time for both cases of interest. All of these results were obtained in [29] and so don't derive them again here. For the uncon- strained problem (u = 1), we have that max (1) s()T () opt Appendix A: Optimal control times for the T () = ; (A3) QSL s() +  sin() constrained problem where we de ned s() =  2. For the constrained problem (u < 1), for the bang-o -bang protocol we max Here we give the explicit form of the times T and T off have derived by Hegerfeldt in [58]. For   , we have (2) s()T () opt T () = QSL 4  sin() + cos() T () + T () off (A4) 0 1 while for the bang-bang protocol the QSL time is @ A T = q arcsin 2( + ) s() T () = : (A5) 0 1 QSL 2 2  sin() + cos() @ A T = arctan q ; (A1) off + 2 2 4 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quantum Physics arXiv (Cornell University)

Analysis of lower bounds for quantum control times and their relation to the quantum speed limit

Poggi, Pablo M.
Quantum Physics , Volume 2022 (2002) – Feb 25, 2020
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/analysis-of-lower-bounds-for-quantum-control-times-and-their-relation-bzS5qtm55r
ISSN
1850-1168
eISSN
ARCH-3342
DOI
10.31527/analesafa.2020.31.1.29
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Analysis of lower bounds for quantum control times and their relation to the quantum speed limit An alisis de cotas inferiores para tiempos de control y su relaci on con el l mite de velocidades cu antico 1, 2, Pablo M. Poggi Center for Quantum Information and Control (CQuIC), Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA Departamento de F sica \J. J. Giambiagi" and IFIBA, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina (Dated: January 6, 2022) Limitations to the speed of evolution of quantum systems, typically referred to as quantum speed limits (QSLs), have important consequences for quantum control problems. However, in its standard formulation, is not straightforward to obtain meaningful QSL bounds for time-dependent Hamiltonians with unknown control parameters. In this paper we present a short introductory overview of quantum speed limit for unitary dynamics and its connection to quantum control. We then analyze potential methods for obtaining new bounds on control times inspired by the QSL. We nally extend the work in [Poggi, Lombardo and Wisniacki EPL 104 40005 (2013)] by studying the properties and limitations of these new bounds in the context of a driven two-level quantum system. Las restricciones a la velocidad de evoluci on de un estado cu antico, usualmente llamadas \l mite de velocidades cu antico" (QSL), es un concepto que presenta importantes consecuencias para problemas de control cu antico. Sin embargo, en su formulaci on usual, no es trivial obtener cotas inferiores tipo QSL para el tiempo de evoluci on en el caso de Hamiltonianos dependientes del tiempo con par ametros desconocidos. En este trabajo presentamos un introducci on a la formulaci on del l mite de velocidades cu antico para evoluci on unitaria y su conexi on con control cu antico. Luego, analizamos nuevos m etodos para obtener cotas inspiradas en el QSL para tiempos de evoluci on en problemas de control. Finalmente, extendemos el trabajo presentado en [Poggi, Lombardo and Wisniacki EPL 104 40005 (2013)] estudiando las propiedades y limitaciones de las cotas presentadas en un sistema de dos niveles. I. INTRODUCTION in the mid 20th century [7], and have since then been thoroughly studied and generalized to a variety of scenar- ios, such as open quantum system dynamics, evolution Precise control of the dynamics of microscopic systems of mixed states and time-dependent Hamiltonians [8{15]. is a cornerstone of the ongoing revolution in quantum technologies like quantum computation and simulation. Indeed, most physical implementations of quantum The connection between the QSL and practical quan- devices rely on accurate and robust manipulation of tum control problems received much attention since the the relevant degrees of freedom using time-dependent work of Caneva et al. [16], who showed that quantum electromagnetic elds [1{3]. Such advances where made optimal control methods [17] could be used to explore possible by substantial technological breakthroughs what is the minimal time needed to control a quantum but also by theoretical developments in the eld of system, and provided a link with the QSL [18] bounds quantum control [4, 5]. A crucial part of this theory is for some speci c systems. Since then, numerous studies related to implementing the desired transformations on have implemented this methodology [19{24]. However, a quantum system as fast as possible, in order to avoid apart from a handful of cases [25{27], the search for the undesirable environmental e ects which can destroy the minimum control time has to be performed numerically coherence properties of the system [6]. In this context, and, even in that case, one can only nd an upper during the past two decades there has been a renewed bound to it [23]. So, as has been pointed out in previous interest on understanding the fundamental limitations works [24, 28], it is important to develop lower bounds on the speed of evolution of quantum systems. These on control times which are as informative and tight as limitations, typically referred to as quantum speed limits possible, while at the same time being computable before (QSLs), were originally formulated via Heisenberg- solving the actual (optimal) control problem. In this like uncertainty relations by Mandelstam and Tamm paper we illustrate how the standard QSL formulation is not particularly suitable for this task, because of its dependence on the (a priori unknown) evolution on the system. To demonstrate this point, we present Corresponding author: ppoggi@unm.edu a self-contained introduction to the standard QSL arXiv:2002.11147v2 [quant-ph] 4 Jan 2022 2 formulation for unitary dynamics and its application to By taking the expectation value in the last expression we time-dependent Hamiltonians. We then show that the obtain presented framework, suitable extended and modi ed, dhAi i can indeed lead to meaningful lower bounds on the = h[A; H ]i: (3) dT ~ control time. We show three examples of such bounds which are taken or adapted from previous works, and We now identify operator B in eqn. (1) with the system explicitly work them out for the paradigmatic exam- Hamiltonian H and combine with eqn. (3) to obtain ple of state control on a driven two-level quantum system. ~ dhAi EA  ; (4) This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we 2 dt present an introductory overview on the topic of quantum speed limits for unitary evolution, going through its orig- where A = hAhAii , and E  H . We can inal formulation as derived from Robertson's uncertainty further de ne relation, and its geometrical interpretation due to Anan- dan and Aharonov. Then, in Sec. III we discuss QSLs t = ; (5) for time-dependent Hamiltonians and its corresponding dhAi dt natural connection with quantum control. Here we ar- gue that the QSL bounds derived in this formulation which has units of time. We then arrive at the cannot generally be used for bounding control times a Mandelstam-Tamm relation priori, i.e., before solving the optimal control problem, because of the presence of unknown control parameters. ~ t E  : (6) We then revisit scattered proposals in the literature of bounds which overcome this issue and discuss their con- In this formulation, t is interpreted as a character- nection with the standard QSL. Finally, in Sec. IV we istic time related to the time evolution of observable A. compare the aforementioned bounds in the context of a The link between this quantity and the physical evolution driven two-level system. In this way we extend the re- time was studied rst by Fleming [8] and then by Bhat- sults of Ref. [29], in which di erent bounds derived from tacharyya [9], in the following way. Consider expression the standard QSL where compared originally. At the end (6) under the speci c choice of A = j ih j, with j i 0 0 0 of the article, in Sec. V we present some ideas for future some arbitrary pure state. If we take the expectation val- work and nal remarks. ues in (6) with respect to the evolved state j i = U j i, t t 0 it is easy to see that II. QUANTUM SPEED LIMIT FORMULATION hAi = jh j ij = P ; (7) t 0 t FOR UNITARY EVOLUTION where we have introduced the short-hand notation for Here we present an introductory overview of the quan- P , the time-dependent survival probability. Eqn. (6) tum speed limit formulation for Hamiltonian evolution, can now be expressed as including derivations of the most relevant mathematical dP expressions. Note that we do not discuss extensions and t dt generalizations beyond unitary dynamics; the reader in-  2 : (8) P (1 P ) t t terested in a complete review on this topic is advised to consult Ref. [30]. 2 1=2 We can use the relation [arccos(x)] = (1x ) dx to write (8) in a more compact form A. Overview d E(t) arccos( P )  : (9) dt ~ In 1945, Mandelstamm and Tamm [7] derived a gener- alization of Heisenberg uncertainty relation between time This is the main result by Bhattacharyya. If the initial and energy, that could be applied to any quantum sys- state j i evolves subject to a time-independent Hamil- tem. We re-derive it here, starting from Robertson's in- tonian H , then the inequality above can be readily inte- equality [31] grated from t = 0 to t, obtaining 2 2 ~ MT h(A) ih(B) i  jh[A; B]ij ; (1) t  arccos (jh j ij)  t : (10) 0 t QSL where A = AhAi. For any operator A we can write This is the Mandelstam-Tamm bound. In the par- Heisenberg's equation ticular case where j i is orthogonal to j i, we obtain t 0 t = . This expression sets a bound on the mini- dA i QSL 2E = [A; H ] : (2) mum time required for a system to evolve from j i to an dt ~ 3 orthogonal state. For completeness we mention that, for this case, Margolus and Levitin [32] also derived a similar bound, but in terms of the mean energy of the state, ML t   t ; (11) QSL 2 E where E  hH " Ii, i.e. the expectation value of the Hamiltonian with respect to the ground state. Gio- vannetti et al. [10] later generalized this result to non- orthogonal states, and coined the term \quantum speed Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the time evolution of quan- limit time" for t . Finally, Levitin and To oli [33] tum states. Anandan-Aharonov relation (17) expresses the QSL showed that the uni ed bound fact that the length of the actual path of the evolution is nec- essarily larger or equal than the length of the geodesic path ~ ~ between the initial and evolved state. t  min ; ; (12) 2 E 2 E Note that expression (16) also tells us that energy vari- is tight, meaning that for every time-independent Hamil- ance E(t) can be seen as a measure of the Hilbert space tonian there is a choice of initial state for which the equal- velocity of the state j i. In particular, E measures the ity in (12) holds. t component of j i which is perpendicular to j i [34{36]. t t We can see this in the following way. If we write the time k ? B. Geometric quantum speed limits _ _ _ derivative of the quantum state as j i = j i + j i , t t t then we have that, by de nition, Bhattacharyya's result of eqn. (9) has an insightful ge- D E ometrical interpretation, which was rst noted by Anan- j i = j i  j = ihEij i ; (18) t t t t t dan and Aharonov [11] in the following way. Consider the Fubini-Study distance between two pure states, where we have used j i = iH j i and noted t t t h j H j i  hEi. This result tells us that the phase t t t s( ;  ) = 2 arccos(jh j ij); (13) 1 2 1 2 of the quantum state evolves at a rate given by hEi. The remaining perpendicular component of the velocity, and de ne ds = s ( ;  ) with t t+dt ? k _ _ _ j i = j ij i , is such that t t t H(t)dt j i = e j i (14) t+dt t D E D E D E D E k k k k _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ kj i k =  j +  j  j  j t t t t t t t t t for some state j i and a generally time-dependent 2 2 2 = hH ihHi = E : (19) Hamiltonian H (t). Since It can be readily seen that the Mandelstam-Tamm 2 2 4 jh j ij = 1 E(t) dt +O(dt ); (15) t t+dt bound is recovered from the Anandan-Aharonov relation when the dynamics is generated by a time-independent then the di erential length element is given by Hamiltonian, in which E is always time-independent itself. As such, the inequality (10) has a purely geomet- rical nature, and its saturated if and only if the motion ds = E(t)dt (16) of the system state is along a geodesic in Hilbert space. which is formally eqn. (9) rewritten with di erent nota- tion. Integration of eqn. (16) from t = 0 to t yields the length of the path traversed by the evolution going from C. Extensions and other studies the initial state j i to the evolved state j i. Clearly, 0 t such length must be greater or equal than s( ;  ), the 0 t Most of the extensions and generalizations of the length of the geodesic path joining both states. This can quantum speed limit formulation have been pursued be appreciated in the schematic drawing of Fig. 1. Thus, in this geometrical setting. In particular, bounds have we have derived the Anandan-Aharonov relation been derived for the maximum speed of evolution under non-unitary dynamics almost simultaneously by Taddei et al. [12], Del Campo et al. [14] and De ner and Lutz 0 0 s( ;  )  2 E(t ) dt ; (17) 0 t [13]. Special attention has been devoted to studying the predicted speed-up of the evolution in open systems where we have ( nally) set ~ = 1. undergoing non-Markovian dynamics [37{40]. Other important cases of study are QSLs for mixed states 4 [41{46], the geometric characterization of the QSL In the last expression, we can see that the lower T QSL [47{50] and its connection to parameter estimation depends on two geometrical quantities: the length of the theory [12, 51{53]. Extensive analysis of the current geodesic between j i and j i and the length of the 0 g state of knowledge on these topics have been published actual path. Moreover, the quantum speed limit time as reviews in Refs. [30, 54]. could go to zero if the s  s . It is then clear path geod that this quantity gives us information about distances in Hilbert space, but not about the speed at which those paths are traversed. We also point out that other III. CONNECTION TO QUANTUM CONTROL bounds on the evolution time can be extracted from the general Anandan - Aharonov relation (see [39] for A. QSL for time-dependent Hamiltonians an example). However, as discussed in Ref. [29], in all cases information about the evolution of the system is required to compute such bounds. Consider a quantum system initially prepared in state j i, which evolves according to a Hamiltonian H (~u(t)), where ~u(t) is a set of generally time-dependent parameters (the control elds). We wish to drive the B. Methods for bounding control times system to some target state j i at some nal time T by properly choosing ~u(t). It is natural to ask then, what In the previous subsection we showed that the usual does the quantum speed limit formulation tells us about quantum speed limit formulation is in general not the time T required to perform that process? Can it be suitable for obtaining bounds on the evolution time made arbitrarily fast? Can we establish a lower bound of a controlled quantum system a priori (i.e., without for T ? needing to solve the Schr odinger equation). Here, we analyze various methods to overcome this limitation. At rst glance, it is obvious that nor the Mandelstam- Tamm (8) nor the Margolus-Levitin (11) bounds can be We begin by explicitly formulating the problem of in- applied to this setting, since quantum control problems terest. Consider a quantum system which evolves unitar- deal generally with time-dependent Hamiltonians. We ily under the action of a parameter-dependent Hamilto- then go back to the Anandan - Aharonov relation (17) nian H (~u), with ~u = ~u(t) the (generally time-dependent) to obtain a bound on the evolution time. This can be control elds. Although the form of the time-dependence done in a number of ways: one of them was proposed by is unknown a priori, we consider that the control elds De ner and Lutz [15], and it simply consists on rewriting max may have constraints of the form ju (t)j  u . Let us eqn. (17) as x an initial state j i and a target state j i. We wish 0 g arccos (jh j (t)ij) to obtain a lower bound on the evolution time T , where t  ; (20) T is such that j (0)i = j i and j (T )i = j i. The 0 g bound should be computable with all given information, where we de ned the time-average of the energy variance i.e., it should be of the form simply as t max T  t (H;fu g;j i ;j i) : (24) 1 min 0 g 0 0 E = E(t ) dt : (21) Our rst approach to this problem is to manipulate the We can now evaluate (20) in t = T , such that if there Anandan - Aharonov relation (17) in order to drop any is a time T such that j (T )i = j i, then the following implicit or explicit dependence on j (t)i or ~u(t). This relation must hold can be done by using the following inequality p p arccos (jh j ij) 0 g T   T : (22) 2E(t)  2kH (t)k  2 tr(H (t) ); (25) QSL which was derived by Brody in [55]. Combining (17) and However, a closer look at expression (22) reveals that, (25) we can write in order to compute the bound, we need both an actual choice of u(t) and the complete time-evolved state j (t)i. p p This contradicts our initial purpose, which is to estimate 0 0 s( ; (T ))  2 kH (t )k dt  2kHk T: (26) 0 max the minimum evolution time without solving the dynam- ics, and moreover without knowing the actual control In the last step, we bounded kHk by its maximum eld which will be used to drive the system. Further in- max value, which will be a function of fu g in general. In sight can be obtained by casting the expression (22) into i this way we have successfully derived an inequality with- the form out using information about j (t)i nor ~u(t). Rearranging s( ; ) s 0 g geod the last expression, we obtain that if there is a time T T = T = T: (23) QSL 0 0 s path for which j (T )i = j i, then it holds that E(t ) dt 0 5 max where, again, we expect E to be an explicit function max of fu g. Rearranging the expression above we arrive s( ; ) 0 g at T   t : (27) min 2kHk max s( ; ) Note that the de nition of t is clearly of the form 0 g min T   t with  = or : (34) 0 g min max we initially proposed, c.f. eqn. (24). 2E Another approach to obtain a bound of the form (24) Again, t is also of the form (24) and thus allows us min can be derived from a result by Pfeifer in Refs. [56, 57], to obtain a lower bound on the minimum evolution time in which he proposes that general time-energy uncer- without knowing the actual shape of ~u(t). tainty relations for time-dependent Hamiltonians should be computable without solving Schr odinger's equation. We now explore an interesting property of Pfeifer's The main result reads as follows: given a quantum state bound (34). Assume the Hamiltonian of the system has j (t)i which evolves according to i j (t)i = H (t)j (t)i the form dt with j (0)i = j i, and an arbitrary reference state j'i, then the following relation holds H (u(t)) = H + u(t)H ; (35) 0 c jh'j (t)ij Q sin (  h(t)) ; (28) where we suppose that the control eld u(t) has dimen- sionless units. We can then explicitly write down the where  = arcsin(jh'j ij) = arccos(jh'j ij), sin is 0 0 2 variance of the Hamiltonian as the a modi ed sine function < 0 if x  0 2 2 2 2 E = H +u H +u(hfH ; H gi2hH ihH i) (36) 0 c 0 c 0 c sin (x) = sin(x) if 0 < x  1 (29) 1 if x > 1 Suppose now that our control problem is such that the initial and target states j i, j i are eigenstates of H . 0 g c and we de ned Then, we trivially obtain that H = 0, but also that Z Z t t the crossed term in (36) vanishes. Inserting this into 0 0 0 0 h(t) = min E (t ) dt ; E (t ) dt ; (30) expression (34) we get j i;j'i 0 0 where we used the notation E  hj H ji s( ; ) 0 g 2 B t = : (37) hj Hji . Pfeifer's relation (28) is appealing to the min minfH j ; H j g 0 0 0 g quantum control problem studied here, since it gives bounds for the probability of nding a driven system in What is interesting about this result is that it is an arbitrary state j'i [56]. More interestingly, we can completely independent of u(t); not only of its actual extract a bound on the evolution time itself, in the fol- temporal shape, but also of its maximum possible value. lowing way. If we consider the upper bound in (28) for This means that, even in an unconstrained control such probability, and consider the reference state to be max problem where u ! 1, there is still a fundamental our target state, j'i = j i, we get that, at time t = T limit for the speed in which we can control the system. That limit is set only by the initial and nal states, and jh j (T )ij  sin ( + h(T )) : (31) the free Hamiltonian H . Note than analogous bound can be found if j i, j i are eigenstates of H . 0 g 0 From this expression its clear that, in order to have a successful control process, we need the upper bound to Finally, we present a third method for obtaining a be as large as possible, i.e. 1. Looking at the de nition bound of the form (24). We begin by considering (29), it is then sucient to impose two arbitrary time-dependent Hamiltonians H and H , 1 2 1 and two respective states j (t)i and j (t)i such that 1 2 + h(T )  ) h(T )   = s( ; ): (32) 0 g d j i = iH (t)j (t)i with k = 1; 2 and j (0)i = k k k 1 2 2 2 dt j (0)i = j i. We can then write 2 0 Note that h(T ) depends on T via the control eld ~u(T ). In order to obtain a lower bound for the evolution time, d h j i = ih j (H H )j i ; (38) 1 2 1 1 2 2 we proceed as we did when deriving (26) and bound the dt integral in (30) by and then integrate the above expression from t = 0 to max h(T )  E T with  = ; ; (33) t = T , which yields 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 h (T )j (T )i 1 = i h (t )j (H (t ) H (t ))j (t )i dt 1 2 1 1 2 2 Z Z T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) jh (T )j (T )i 1j  jh (t )j (H (t ) H (t ))j (t )ij dt  kH (t ) H (t )k dt : (39) 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 We now take an approach proposed by Arenz et al. which di ers from the standard QSL. The goal was to [24]. We consider H to be of the form (35), i.e. H = obtain as much information as possible about the evolu- 1 1 H + u(t)H , and also x H = u(t)H . For a suc- tion time without needing to solve the dynamics of the 0 c 2 c cessful control protocol, we have that j (T )i = j i, system. In this section we will apply these results to 1 g and we can also integrate j (t)i up to t = T , which the example of a driven two-level system. For this we trivially yields j (T )i = exp (i (T )H )j i where consider the following Hamiltonian, 2 c 0 0 0 (T ) = u(t )dt . In this case, expression (39) can be casted as H (u) = = u  +  ; (44) z x i (T )H jh j e j ij  kH k T: (40) g 0 0 where  , i = x; y; z is a Pauli operator,  is a parameter that we consider xed and u is the control parameter. We can further bound this expression in order to get We de ne jg i to be the ground state of H ( ) (i.e. its rid of the dependence on the unknown function u(t). eigenstate with negative eigenvalue). We focus on the To do so, we use the spectral decomposition of H = P P P c c c following control problem: we start in the initial state " j ih j and the inequality j z 1j  1 jz j j j j j j j j j j i = jg i and we wish to drive the system to the (with jz j  1) to obtain target state j i = jg i (here > 0). Moreover, we g + wish to do so in the minimum possible time. The prob- c c 1 j j  j j  kH kT; (41) g 0 0 lem of nding the required control eld for this process j j was solved by Hegerfeldt [58], who proved that di er- ent protocols arise whether we place constraints on the which then gives us a new bound of the desired form (24) amplitude ju(t)j of the control eld or not. In the uncon- strained case, the optimal eld is c c 1 j j  j j 8 g 0 j j < +u for 0 < t < t C1 0 0 T   t : (42) min u(t) = 0 for t < t < t + T ; (45) kH k 0 0 u for t + T < t < 2t + T 0 0 0 A similar expression can be derived in an analogous fashion by choosing H = H . In that case we obtain where u  , u t = =4, and as ju(t)j has no restric- 2 0 0 0 0 tions, we can choose u ! 1 so as to have t ! 0. The 0 0 0 0 total evolution time is then given by 1 j j  j j g 0 j j C2 T   t ; (43) min 2 2  2 max (1) u kH k T = T + 2t ! T = arctan = ; (46) opt where now f  g are eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian where we have introduced the angle  as an alternative H . Expressions (42) and (43) provide di erent ways parametrization of the initial state, tan() = . In the to bound evolution times in quantum control problems. constrained case, where ju(t)j  u  , the optimal max An interesting feature of these is that they are explicit max solution is similar, functions of , , H and u , as opposed to the 0 g two previous results (27) and (34), where the actual + for 0 < t < T max dependence on H and u has to be worked out on u(t) = 0 for T < t < T + T (47) off each particular problem. This means that, for example, for T + T < t < 2T + T C1 max  off  off t will always give a result independent of u min regardless the initial and target states. The evolution time here is given by (2) T = T + 2T : (48) off opt IV. APPLICATION TO A TWO-LEVEL The optimal values of T and T di er whether the off SYSTEM maximum eld  is smaller or larger than  =(4 ). The corresponding expressions are a bit cumbersome and are In the previous section we analyzed an approach for given in the Appendix. bounding evolution times in driven quantum systems, 7 C2 Here we will be interested in comparing the actual We point out that t de ned in eqn. (43) turns out to min optimal control times of eqn. (46) and (48) with be 0 for this problem, for all values of . the bounds given in the previous section. Again we emphasize that, in order to evaluate the QSL time T , Up to this point we have computed three bounds for QSL c.f. eqn. (22), we would need to know how the system the evolution time in this control problem (51), (54) and (55) which are computed without knowledge of the solu- evolves under the optimal protocol. For each case (i.e. tion to the time-optimal control problem. We also have, constrained or unconstrained), T () can be worked QSL from [29], the corresponding QSL time for as a function out, as was done in [29]. We give the corresponding of , T () (see Appendix for the explicit expressions) expressions in the Appendix as well. QSL which is computed using such time-optimal solution. Let us rst compare all of these expressions with the opti- We now turn to computing the new bounds t with min mal time T for the case of full population transfer, i.e. opt X=A, B, C1 and C2, which are of the form ! 1 or  ! 0. In this case, T = , while opt T  t (H; u ;j i ;j i) : (49) min max 0 g B C1 T = t = > = t : (56) QSL min min We stress that, since these expressions are independent of the actual dynamics of the system, we will derive them Since these were the geometrical expressions, it is for the constrained and unconstrained protocols in the reasonable to have obtained a tight bound: when  = 0, same way. This is a key aspect of the approach we pro- the optimal evolution (which is generated by setting pose, since we should be able to obtain some information u = 0) is along a geodesic, which is precisely when about the minimum evolution time without any knowl- the Anandan-Aharanov relation is saturated. For the edge about the actual optimal protocol. Let us start with remaining expression, we obtain t = 0 due to the t of eqn (25), for which we calculate the norm of H min min dependence on u ! 1. It is interesting to see that max Pfeifer's bound t matches the optimal evolution time min 2 2 kHk = tr (H ) = 2 + u (50) also, although we didn't use any information about the optimal solution itself to compute it. This result gives us con dence about the usefulness of this method to We bound this expression to obtain bound evolution times in optimal control problems. t = q (51) Let us now analyze the general case of nite . For min + u max unconstrained control, we have that u ! 1. Note 4 max A B that this immediately gives t = t = 0 (recall min min C2 C1 For computing the bound (34) obtained via Pfeifer's also that t = 0), but t remains nonzero since it min min theorem, t , we need to evaluate the variance E of does not depend on the control eld constraints, as we min H in both the initial and nal states. This can be done pointed out in the previous section. In Fig. 2 we plot in a straightforward way, and we obtain this quantity along with the actual optimum time T opt as a function of angle , which de nes the initial and 2u target states. Note that for  = =2 ( = 0) both states Ej = cos ()j1 tan ()j; (52) 0 g C1 are the same, and thus T = 0. Note also that t , opt min which was computed without knowledge of the optimal which in turn gives evolution, is never tight (except for  = , which is trivial). However, its interesting to point out that it 2u(t) h(t) = cos () min j1 tan ()j (53) is nonzero in spite of the fact that the control eld is unconstrained (and is in nite in this case), and thus A B gives a meaningful bound as opposed to t and t . min min In this way we obtain We now compare the bounds for the case of constrained B 2 t = (54) min control, where ju(t)j  . As already mentioned, here cos () + u sin () max the optimal solution depends on the relation between C1 and . For   , we have the bang-o -bang We nally consider t , which was de ned in eqn. min protocol described by expressions (47) and (A1),while (42). We recall that here H =  is the free term of 0 x the Hamiltonian, and  refer to j0i and j1i, i.e. the for  < , the solution is the bang-bang protocol, j 4 eigenstates of the control operator  . Straightforward z c.f. eqn. (47) and (A2). In Fig. 3 (a) we show results calculation gives for the bang-o -bang case. All the bounds considered yield di erent curves in general. Moreover, there is 1 sin () C1 no bound tighter than another for all . Of all the t = p : (55) min bounds computed without the optimal protocol, t min 2 8 the others for all , and results in the tighter bound, albeit being computed without knowledge of the optimal protocol. This result provides further evidence about the usefulness of this particular expression for bounding minimal evolution times in quantum control problems. V. OUTLOOK AND FINAL REMARKS In this paper we have revisited the quantum speed limit (QSL) formulation for unitary dynamics driven by time- dependent Hamiltonians, focusing on its application to Figure 2. Optimal evolution time T , together with QSL opt C1 quantum control problems. We argued that the QSL time T and bound t obtained from eqn. (55) for the QSL min is not usually useful to obtain lower bounds on control composite-pulse protocol (with unconstrained u(t)) as a func- tion of parameter . times before solving the optimal control problem. The reason behind this is that the QSL time depends implic- itly on the actual evolution of the system, which is a priori unknown apart from the initial and nal (target) state. However, obtaining such bounds is interesting and could actually be helpful to tackle the optimization, since in principle it would allow one to rule out all possible con- trol times lower than the bound. With this in mind, here we have proposed a number of properties that a lower bound should have in order to be useful for control ap- plications, c.f. eqn. (24). The main such property is that the bound should be computable without knowing the full time-dependent state. Then we have put together (and in some cases adapted and further developed), pre- vious results related to optimal control and QSL that ac- tually have this properties. We studied these new lower bounds on control times for a two-level system, for which the time-optimal control problem has been analytically solved. We found that in all cases this new formula- tion gives meaningful bounds, and provides information which is comparable to the one obtained with the stan- dard QSL, albeit being calculated without knowing the optimal control solution. We point out that the ideas layed down here for new bounds on control times could in principle be extended to open quantum systems, using the approach in Pfeifer's theorem (28) applied to a metric like the relative purity between states. More generall,y Figure 3. Optimal evolution time T , together with QSL opt while these results are encouraging, it is expected that time T and its bounds obtained from the expressions dis- QSL the proposed bounds will not scale favorably with sys- cussed in the text for: (a)  > (in this calculations tem size [24], as happens with the geometric QSL itself 2 2 2 [59]. As a consequence, further work is needed to nd = 6 ) and (b)   (in this calculations  = 0:2 ). 4 4 4 new techniques to bound control times for quantum sys- Note that in this last case, T = t . QSL min tems, but we believe that such techniques could bene t from the results presented in this work. stands out as the better one. In Fig. 3 (b) we show ACKNOWLEDGMENTS results for the bang-bang case. Interestingly, in this case E is constant throughout the evolution, albeit the Hamiltonian being time-dependent itself. As a result, The author gratefully acknowledges Fernando Lom- t is equal to the Mandelstam-Tamm bound from bardo and Diego Wisniacki for their continued support as min C1 the time-independent case, and is tighter than t advisors. This work received supported by CONICET, min as before. We thus nd that the bound derived from UBACyT, ANPCyT (Argentina) and National Science Pfeifer's theorem t is bigger or equal than all of Foundation (NSF) grant no. PHY-1630114 (USA). min 9 [1] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb ene, Nature Physics [23] J. J. W. Srensen, M. K. Pedersen, M. Munch, P. Haikka, 8, 267 (2012). J. H. Jensen, T. Planke, M. G. Andreasen, M. Gajdacz, [2] J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, K. Mlmer, A. Lieberoth, et al., Nature 532, 210 (2016). P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and [24] C. Arenz, B. Russell, D. Burgarth, and H. Rabitz, New C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017). Journal of Physics 19, 103015 (2017). [3] H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- [25] N. Khaneja, S. J. Glaser, and R. Brockett, Physical Re- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, view A 65, 032301 (2002). M. Greiner, et al., Nature 551, 579 (2017). [26] A. Boozer, Physical Review A 85, 012317 (2012). [4] D. d'Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dy- [27] F. Albertini and D. D'Alessandro, Journal of Mathemat- namics (CRC press, New York, 2007). ical Physics 56, 012106 (2015). [5] S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, [28] P. M. Poggi, Physical Review A 99, 042116 (2019). W. K ockenberger, R. Koslo , I. Kuprov, B. Luy, [29] P. M. Poggi, F. C. Lombardo, and D. Wisniacki, EPL S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbruggen,  et al., The Euro- (Europhysics Letters) 104, 40005 (2013). pean Physical Journal D 69, 279 (2015). [30] S. De ner and S. Campbell, Journal of Physics A: Math- [6] M. A. Schlosshauer, Decoherence: and the quantum-to- ematical and Theoretical 50, 453001 (2017). classical transition (Springer Science & Business Media, [31] H. Robertson, Phys. Rev 35, 667 (1930). 2007). [32] N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- [7] L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, Journal of Physics USSR nomena 120, 188 (1998). 9 (1945). [33] L. B. Levitin and T. To oli, Physical review letters 103, [8] G. N. Fleming, Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 16, 232 160502 (2009). (1973). [34] A. K. Pati, Physics Letters A 202, 40 (1995). [9] K. Bhattacharyya, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical [35] A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Phys- and General 16, 2993 (1983). ical review letters 96, 060503 (2006). [10] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Physical Re- [36] M. Gajdacz, K. K. Das, J. Arlt, J. F. Sherson, and view A 67, 052109 (2003). T. Opatrny,  Physical Review A 92, 062106 (2015). [11] J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov, Physical review letters 65, [37] A. Cimmarusti, Z. Yan, B. Patterson, L. Corcos, 1697 (1990). L. Orozco, and S. De ner, Physical review letters 114, [12] M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. 233602 (2015). de Matos Filho, Physical review letters 110, 050402 [38] Z. Sun, J. Liu, J. Ma, and X. Wang, Scienti c reports 5 (2013). (2015). [13] S. De ner and E. Lutz, Physical review letters 111, [39] N. Mirkin, F. Toscano, and D. A. Wisniacki, Physical 010402 (2013). Review A 94, 052125 (2016). [14] A. Del Campo, I. Egusquiza, M. Plenio, and S. Huelga, [40] M. Cianciaruso, S. Maniscalco, and G. Adesso, arXiv Physical review letters 110, 050403 (2013). preprint arXiv:1704.08061 (2017). [15] S. De ner and E. Lutz, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- [41] O. Andersson and H. Heydari, Journal of Physics A: ical and Theoretical 46, 335302 (2013). Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 215301 (2014). [16] T. Caneva, M. Murphy, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, S. Mon- [42] Y.-J. Zhang, W. Han, Y.-J. Xia, J.-P. Cao, and H. Fan, tangero, V. Giovannetti, and G. E. Santoro, Physical Scienti c reports 4, 1 (2014). review letters 103, 240501 (2009). [43] D. Mondal, C. Datta, and S. Sazim, Physics Letters A [17] A. Konnov and V. F. Krotov, Automation and Remote 380, 689 (2016). Control 60, 77 (1999). [44] D. Mondal and A. K. Pati, Physics Letters A 380, 1395 [18] The nomenclature can be confusing since the quantum (2016). control literature typically refers to minimum control [45] I. Marvian, R. W. Spekkens, and P. Zanardi, Physical times as 'quantum speed limit times'. Such quantity Review A 93, 052331 (2016). is not directly related to the original quantum speed [46] F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, and K. Modi, limit results given by the Mandelstam-Tamm (and also Physical review letters 120, 060409 (2018). Margolus-Levitin). The main di erence is that the min- [47] B. Russell and S. Stepney, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012303 imum control time depends on a target state, while the (2014). QSL time does not. [48] D. P. Pires, M. Cianciaruso, L. C. C eleri, G. Adesso, and [19] T. Caneva, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, G. E. Santoro, and D. O. Soares-Pinto, Physical Review X 6, 021031 (2016). S. Montangero, Physical Review A 84, 012312 (2011). [49] S. De ner, New Journal of Physics 19, 103018 (2017). [20] K. W. M. Tibbetts, C. Brif, M. D. Grace, A. Donovan, [50] F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, Quantum 3, D. L. Hocker, T.-S. Ho, R.-B. Wu, and H. Rabitz, Phys- 168 (2019). ical Review A 86, 062309 (2012). [51] S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022117 (2014). [21] I. Brouzos, A. I. Streltsov, A. Negretti, R. S. Said, [52] M. Gessner and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022109 T. Caneva, S. Montangero, and T. Calarco, Physical (2018). Review A 92, 062110 (2015). [53] J. S. Sidhu and P. Kok, AVS Quantum Science 2, 014701 [22] P. Poggi, F. Lombardo, and D. Wisniacki, Journal of (2020). Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 35FT02 [54] M. R. Frey, Quantum Information Processing 15, 3919 (2015). (2016). 10 [55] D. C. Brody, G. W. Gibbons, and D. M. Meier, New which is called a 'bang-o -bang' protocol, while for  < Journal of Physics 17, 033048 (2015). , the result is [56] P. Pfeifer, Physical review letters 70, 3365 (1993). [57] P. Pfeifer and J. Fr ohlich, Reviews of Modern Physics 1  + 67, 759 (1995). 4 T = q arcsin [58] G. C. Hegerfeldt, Physical review letters 111, 260501 ( + ) + 2 (2013). [59] M. Bukov, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Physical Review T = 0 (A2) off X 9, 011034 (2019). which is typically termed 'bang-bang'. Also, we give expressions for the QSL time for both cases of interest. All of these results were obtained in [29] and so don't derive them again here. For the uncon- strained problem (u = 1), we have that max (1) s()T () opt Appendix A: Optimal control times for the T () = ; (A3) QSL s() +  sin() constrained problem where we de ned s() =  2. For the constrained problem (u < 1), for the bang-o -bang protocol we max Here we give the explicit form of the times T and T off have derived by Hegerfeldt in [58]. For   , we have (2) s()T () opt T () = QSL 4  sin() + cos() T () + T () off (A4) 0 1 while for the bang-bang protocol the QSL time is @ A T = q arcsin 2( + ) s() T () = : (A5) 0 1 QSL 2 2  sin() + cos() @ A T = arctan q ; (A1) off + 2 2 4

Journal

Quantum Physics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Feb 25, 2020

There are no references for this article.