4.6 Article

Comparing, optimizing, and benchmarking quantum-control algorithms in a unifying programming framework

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.022305

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Tommaso Calarco through EU
  2. Bavarian Ph.D. Programme of Excellence QCCC
  3. EU
  4. QAP
  5. Q-ESSENCE
  6. COQUIT
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG [SFB 631]
  8. EPSRC ARF [EP/DO7192X/1]
  9. EPSRC
  10. Hitachi [CASE/CNA/07/47]
  11. Humboldt Foundation
  12. EPSRC [EP/D07195X/2, EP/D07195X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D07195X/2, EP/D07195X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For paving the way to novel applications in quantum simulation, computation, and technology, increasingly large quantum systems have to be steered with high precision. It is a typical task amenable to numerical optimal control to turn the time course of pulses, i.e., piecewise constant control amplitudes, iteratively into an optimized shape. Here, we present a comparative study of optimal-control algorithms for a wide range of finite-dimensional applications. We focus on the most commonly used algorithms: GRAPE methods which update all controls concurrently, and Krotov-type methods which do so sequentially. Guidelines for their use are given and open research questions are pointed out. Moreover, we introduce a unifying algorithmic framework, DYNAMO (dynamic optimization platform), designed to provide the quantum-technology community with a convenient MATLAB-based tool set for optimal control. In addition, it gives researchers in optimal-control techniques a framework for benchmarking and comparing newly proposed algorithms with the state of the art. It allows a mix-and-match approach with various types of gradients, update and step-size methods as well as subspace choices. Open-source code including examples is made available at http://qlib.info.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available