Upload
wendy-campbell
View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Quantum Control
Synthesizing Robust Gates
T. S. Mahesh
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune
1. DiVincenzo Criteria
2. Quantum Control
3. Single and Two-qubit control
4. Control via Time-dependent Hamiltonians
• Progressive Optimization
• Gradient Ascent
5. Practical Aspects
• Bounding within hardware limits
• Robustness
• Nonlinearity
6. Summary
Contents
Criteria for Physical Realization of QIP
1. Scalable physical system with mapping of qubits
2. A method to initialize the system
3. Big decoherence time to gate time
4. Sufficient control of the system via time-dependent Hamiltonians
(availability of a universal set of gates).
5. Efficient measurement of qubits
DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 1998
Given a quantum system,
how best can we control its dynamics?
Quantum Control
• Control can be a general unitary or a state to state transfer
(can also involve non-unitary processes: eg. changing purity)
• Control parameters must be within the hardware limits
• Control must be robust against the hardware errors
• Fast enough to minimize decoherence effects
or combined with dynamical decoupling to suppress decoherence
General unitary is state independent:
Example: NOT, CNOT, Hadamard, etc.
General Unitary
UTG
1
Hilbert Space
Fidelity = Tr{UEXP·UTG} / N 2
0UEXP obtained by
simulation orprocess tomography
A particular input state is transferred to a particular output state
Eg. 000 ( 000 + 111 ) /2
State to State Transfer
Initial
Target
Hilbert Space
Final
Fidelity = FinalTarget 2
obtained bytomography
Universal Gates
• Local gates (eg. Ry(), Rz()) and CNOT gates together form a universal set
Example: Error Correction CircuitChiaverini et al, Nature 2004
Degree of control
For fault tolerant computation: Fidelity ~ 0.999
- E. Knill et al, Science 1998.
Quantum gates need not be perfect
Error correction can take care of imperfections
Fault-tolerant computation
Single Qubit (spin-1/2) Control
)2/ˆexp()(ˆ niRn kji zyx
ˆˆˆ
niI ˆ
2sin
2cos
12
sin02
cos0)()(
eRR yz
(up to a global phase)
Bloch sphere
~
Sampleresonance at 0 =B0
RF coilPulse/Detect
Superconductingcoil
B0
B1cos(wrft)
NMR spectrometer
Control Parameters
~
1 = B1
rf
B0
B1cos(wrft)
RF duration
1 RF amplitude
RF phase
RF offset
RF offset =
= rf - ref
(kHz rad)
Chemical Shift
01 = 0 - ref
All frequencies are
measured w.r.t. ref
time
Single Qubit (spin-1/2) Control
2/)sin(2/)cos(2/),, 101101 yxz H(
12
sin02
cos0)()(
eRR yz
(up to a global phase)Bloch sphere
(in RF frame)
zz iiiU exp),,expexp),,,, 101101 H( (
(in REF frame)
2
)(2
)( xyxz RRRR
)/,,0,0,0)( 11 (URx
)/,,90,0,0)( 11 (URy
A general state:
90-x90x y
x
y
Single Qubit (spin-1/2) Control
)()(01
10:NOT yz RRX
)2/()(11
11
2
1:Hadamard yz RRH
2/)sin(2/)cos(2/),, 101101 yxz H( (in RF frame)
zz iiiU exp),,expexp),,,, 101101 H( (
(in REF frame)
2
)(2
)( xyxz RRRR
)/,,0,0,0)( 11 (URx
)/,,90,0,0)( 11 (URy
Single Qubit (spin-1/2) Control
x
y
w01
Turning OFF 0 : Refocusing
X
Refocus Chemical Shift
time
2/)sin(2/)cos(2/),, 101101 yxz H( (in RF frame)
zz iiiU exp),,expexp),,,, 101101 H( (
(in REF frame)
Two Qubit Control
)2/ˆexp()(1 1ˆ miR m
Local Gates
)2/ˆexp()(2 2ˆ niR n
)(2)(2:NOT2 2 yz RRX
)2/(1)(1:Hadamard 1 yz RRH
Qubit Selective Rotations - Homonuclear
Band-width 1/
1 2
1 2
dibromothiophene
= 1
non-selective
selective
= 1
Not a good method: ignores the time evolution
Qubit Selective Rotations - Heteronuclear
• Larmor frequencies are separated by MHz
• Usually irradiated by different coils in the probe
• No overlap in bandwidths at all
• Easy to rotate selectively
13CHCl3
1H (500 MHz @ 11T)
13C (125 MHz @ 11T)
~~
Two Qubit Control
)2/ˆexp()(1 1ˆ miR m
Local Gates
)2/ˆexp()(2 2ˆ niR n
221 1100NOTC X 1CNOT Gate
)(2)(2:NOT2 2 yz RRX
)2/(1)(1:Hadamard 1 yz RRH
0100
1000
0010
0001
Two Qubit Control
2/2/2/ 11202101 zzzz J intH
Chemical shift Coupling constantChemical shift
X
X
Refocus Chemical Shifts
1
2
Refocussing:
X
Refocus 0 & J-coupling
1
2
ZRz(90)
Rz(90)
Rz(0)
= 1/(4J)
time
time
Two Qubit Control
2/2/2/ 11202101 zzzz J intH
Chemical shift Coupling constantChemical shift
Z HH=
1/(4J) 1/(4J)
R-z(90)
R-z(90)
time
X X
X R-y(90)R-y(90)
=
Control via Time-dependent Hamiltonians
= H H ( a (t), b (t) , g (t) , )
dttHiTU )(exp
NOT EASY !! (exception: periodic dependence)
a (t)
t
Control via Piecewise Continuous Hamiltonians
11223344 expexpexpexp iHiHiHiHU
a3
b3
g3
H 3
a1
b1
g1
H 1
a2
b2
g2
H 2
a4
b4
g4
H 4Time
Gradient Ascent
Navin Khaneja et al, JMR 2005
Numerical Approaches for Control
Progressive Optimization
D. G. Cory & co-workers, JCP 2002
Mahesh & Suter, PRA 2006
1. Generate piecewise continuous Hamiltonians
2. Start from a random guess, iteratively proceed
3. Good solution not guaranteed
4. Multiple solutions may exist
5. No global optimization
Common features
(t1,w11,f1,w1)
(t2,w12,f2,w2)
(t3,w13,f3,w3)
…
Piecewise Continuous ControlD. G. Cory, JCP 2002
Strongly Modulated Pulse (SMP)
Progressive OptimizationD. G. Cory, JCP 2002
Random Guess
Maximize Fidelity
Split
Maximize Fidelity
Split
Maximize Fidelity
11,H
2, 11
H
11,H
2, 11
H
11,H22 ,H
2, 22
H
11,H2, 22
H
11,H22 ,H
33,H
simplex
simplex
simplex
Example
Fidelity : 0.99
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
SMPs arenot limited
by bandwidth
Initial stateIz1+Iz2
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
SMPs arenot limited
by bandwidth
Initial stateIz1+Iz2
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
1 2 3Time (ms)
Am
p (k
Hz)
Pha
(deg)
Am
p (k
Hz)
Pha
(deg)
Am
p (k
Hz)
Pha
(deg)
0.99
0.99
0.99
CH3
CC
NH3+
O
-O
H
312
13C Alanine
AB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AB -1423 134 6.6
1 -13874 52 35.2 4.1 2.0 1.8 5.3
2 1444 2.2 74 11.5 4.4 11.5 2.2 4.4
3 -9688 53.6 147 6.1
4 0 201 11.5 2.2 4.4
5 8233 5.3
6 998 3.6 4.3 6.7
7 -998
8 4421 16.2 5.3
9 4279 16.2 5.3
10 2455 221.8
11 1756
12 -3878
N
N
CC
C
CC
C
ND2
O
OHH
D
H H
H
H
1
A B
35
2
4
6
79
8
1011
12
N
N
CC
C
CC
C
ND2
O
OHH
D
H H
H
H
1
A B
35
2
4
6
79
8
1011
12
Shifts and J-couplings
Benchmarking circuit
AA’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Time
Qubits
AA’
12
34 5
6
79
8
10
11
Benchmarking 12-qubits
PRL, 2006Fidelity: 0.8
Quantum Algorithm for NGE (QNGE) :
PRA, 2006
in liquid crystal
Quantum Algorithm for NGE (QNGE) : Quantum Algorithm for NGE (QNGE) :
Crob: 0.98
PRA, 2006
Progressive OptimizationD. G. Cory, JCP 2002
1. Works well for small number of qubits ( < 5 )
2. Can be combined with other optimizations (genetic algorithm etc)
3. Solutions consist of small number of segments – easy to analyze
Advantages
Disadvantage
1. Maximization is usually via Simplex algorithms
Takes a long time
SMPs : Calculation Time
2 x 2Single ½ : Heff =
4 x 4Two spins : Heff =
210 x 210
~ Million10 spins : Heff =
.
.
.
During SMP calculation: U = exp(-iHeff t) calculated typically over 103 times
Qubits Calc. time
1 - 3 minutes
4 - 6 Hours
> 7 Days (estimation)
Matrix Exponentiationis a difficult job
- Several dubious ways !!
Gradient Ascent Navin Khaneja et al, JMR 2005
Control parameters
)](),([)( ttit H
Liouville von-Neuman eqn
Final density matrix:
])0([ 111
11111
NjjjjNF UUUUUUUUtr
Gradient Ascent Navin Khaneja et al, JMR 2005
)]([ Ttr FCorrelation:
])0([ 11111
111
jjjNFNj UUUUUUUUtr
])0([ 11111
111
jjjNFNj UUUUUUUUtr
][ jjtr
Backward propagated opeartor at t = jt
Forward propagated opeartor at t = jt
Gradient Ascent Navin Khaneja et al, JMR 2005
? = ’ t
’’ ’
(up to 1st order in t)
Gradient Ascent Navin Khaneja et al, JMR 2005
][ jjtr ])0([ 1111
jjj UUUUtr
])0()(
[ 11111
jj
k
jj UUUU
ju
Utr
])(
)0([1
11
111 ju
UUUUUtr
k
jjjj
Step-size
Gradient Ascent Navin Khaneja et al, JMR 2005
][
])0([
111
1
1111
jNFNjj
jjj
UUUUtr
UUUUtr
Guess uk
No
Yes
StopCorrelation > 0.99?
GRAPE Algorithm
Practical Aspects
1. Bounding within hardware limits
2. Robustness
3. Nonlinearity
Bounding the control parameters
Quality factor = Fidelity + Penalty function
Shoots-up if any control parameter exceeds the limit
To be maximized
Practical Aspects
1. Bounding within hardware limits
2. Robustness
3. Nonlinearity
Spatial inhomogeneities in RF / Static field
Initial
Final
Hilbert Space
Incoherent Processes
UEXPk(t)
Final
Final
Coherent control in the presence of incoherence:
Robust Control
Initial
Hilbert Space
Target
UEXPk(t)
Inhomogeneities
SFI Analysis of spectral line shapes
RFI Analysis of nutation decay
f f
Ideal SFI
x
y
z
x
y
z
Ideal RFI
RFI: Spatialnonuniformityin RF power RF Power
Desired RF Power
0
1
In practice
Ideal
Probabilityof
distribution
RF inhomogeneity
RF inhomogeneity
Bruker PAQXI probe (500 MHz)
Example
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
Initial stateIz1+Iz2
Shifts:
500 Hz, - 500 Hz
Coupling:
20 Hz
Target Operator :
(/2)y1
Initial stateIz1+Iz2
Robust Control
Eg. Two-qubit system
Shifts: 500 Hz, -500 HzJ = 50 HzFidelity = 0.99
Target Operator : ()y1
-
Initial stateIx1+Ix2
Robust Control
Eg. Two-qubit system
Shifts: 500 Hz, -500 HzJ = 50 HzFidelity = 0.99
-
Target Operator : ()y1
Initial stateIx1+Ix2
Practical Aspects
1. Bounding within hardware limits
2. Robustness
3. Nonlinearity
Spectrometer non-linearities
Computer:“This is what I sent”
Spectrometer non-linearities
Computer:“This is what I sent”
Spins: “This is what we got”
~
Multi-channel probes:
Target coil
Spy coil
- D. G. Cory et al, PRA 2003.
Spectrometer non-linearities
F
Feedback correction
F
F-1
F
- D. G. Cory et al, PRA 2003.
hardware
hardware
Feedback correction:
Spins: “This is what we got”Computer:“This is what I sent”
CompensatedShape
- D. G. Cory et al, PRA 2003.
Summary
1. DiVincenzo Criteria
2. Quantum Control
3. Single and Two-qubit control
4. Control via Time-dependent Hamiltonians
• Progressive Optimization
• Gradient Ascent
5. Practical Aspects
• Bounding within hardware limits
• Robustness
• Nonlinearity