Automated synthesis of dynamically corrected quantum gates

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 86, Issue 4, 2012, Pages

  Khodjasteh, Kaveh ^a   Bluhm, Hendrik ^b,c   Viola, Lorenza ^a  

^a Dartmouth College   (United States)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c Jülich Aachen Research Alliance Section Fundamentals of Future Information Technology JARA FIT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; AUTOMATED SYNTHESIS; COMPUTATIONAL FRAMEWORK; CONTROL CONSTRAINT; CONTROL ERRORS; CONTROL FIELDS; DEPHASING; GATE FIDELITY; LABORATORY DEVICES; LEADING ORDERS; NON-MARKOVIAN; NON-MARKOVIAN DECOHERENCE; NUMERICAL SEARCH; OPEN QUANTUM SYSTEMS; QUANTUM GATES; REALISTIC SYSTEMS; SINGLET-TRIPLET; SPIN QUBIT; VOLTAGE NOISE;

QUANTUM OPTICS; SPIN DYNAMICS;

QUANTUM ELECTRONICS;

EID: 84868031060     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.042329     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. E. Knill, Nature (London) NATUAS 0028-0836 10.1038/nature03350 434, 39 (2005). (Pubitemid 40349377)
2. N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, J. Magn. Reson. JMARF3 1090-7807 10.1016/j.jmr.2004.11.004 172, 296 (2005); (Pubitemid 40072534)
3. T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, A. Spörl, N. Khaneja, and S. J. Glaser, J. Phys. B 0953-4075 10.1088/0953-4075/44/15/154013 44, 154013 (2011).
4. M. Möttönen, R. deSousa, J. Zhang, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022332 73, 022332 (2006). (Pubitemid 43270287)
5. J. Clausen, G. Bensky, and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.040401 104, 040401 (2010).
6. B. Hwang and H.-S. Goan, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.032321 85, 032321 (2012).
7. K. Khodjasteh and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.080501 102, 080501 (2009);
8. K. Khodjasteh and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.80. 032314 80, 032314 (2009).
9. L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2417 82, 2417 (1999);
10. L. Viola and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90. 037901 90, 037901 (2003).
11. K. Khodjasteh, D. A. Lidar, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.090501 104, 090501 (2010).
12. D. Hayes, S. M. Clark, S. Debnath, D. Hucul, I. V. Inlek, K. W. Lee, Q. Quraishi, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 109.020503 109, 020503 (2012);
13. see also D. Hayes, K. Khodjasteh, L. Viola, and M. J. Biercuk, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.062323 84, 062323 (2011).
14. M. Levitt, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. PNMRAT 0079-6565 10.1016/0079-6565(86)80005-X 18, 61 (1986).
15. J. T. Merrill and K. R. Brown, arXiv: 1203.6392.
16. J. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.147902 89, 147902 (2002).
17. J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1116955 309, 2180 (2005); (Pubitemid 41396061)
18. H. Bluhm, S. Foletti, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.216803 105, 216803 (2010).
19. S. Foletti, H. Bluhm, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Nature Phys. 1745-2473 10.1038/nphys1424 5, 903 (2009).
20. M. D. Shulman, O. E. Dial, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1217692 336, 202 (2012).
21. O. E. Dial, M. D. Shulman, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, arXiv: 1208.2023.
22. Preliminary results were reported by L. Viola, "Towards optimal constructions of dynamically corrected gates," Invited talk at QEC 2011, qserver.usc.edu/qec11/slides/Viola-QEC11.pdf
23. M. D. Grace, J. M. Dominy, W. M. Witzel, and M. S. Carroll, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.052313 85, 052313 (2012).
24. X. Wang, L. S. Bishop, J. P. Kestner, E. Barnes, K. Sun, and S. Das Sarma, Nature Commun. 2041-1723 10.1038/ncomms2003 3, 997 (2012).
25. If universal control and sufficiently fast dynamical decoupling pulses are available, alternative strategies are possible for protecting quantum gates, most simply by embedding the desired gate into the initial and/or final free evolution of a decoupling cycle, following the ideas of L. Viola, S. Lloyd, and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4888 83, 4888 (1999).
26. A recent experimental implementation for a single solid-state qubit that also incorporates robustness against amplitude control errors was reported by A. M. Souza, G. A. Alvarez, and D. Suter, arXiv: 1206.2933.
27. D. A. Lidar, P. Zanardi, and K. Khodjasteh, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.012308 78, 012308 (2008).
28. K. W. Moore, C. Brif, M. D. Grace, A. Donovan, D. L. Hocker, T.-S. Ho, R. Wu, and H. Rabitz, arXiv: 1112.0333.
29. j. A so-called Hall basis can be used for expanding the latter in terms of algebraically free operator elements of a given perturbation order. See, e.g., C. Reutenauer, Free Lie Algebras (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993).
30. J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, A. Yacoby, C.M. Marcus, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 1098-0121 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.035315 76, 035315 (2007).
31. A. Cywiński, W. M. Witzel, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.057601 102, 057601 (2009).
32. M. J. Biercuk and H. Bluhm, Phys. Rev. B PRBMDO 1098-0121 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.235316 83, 235316 (2011).
33. This corresponds to T 2 * = 150 ns for δ B noise and about 11 coherent oscillations within T 2 * for δ J.
34. Changing the choice of the drift may change the solutions considerably; for instance, having B = 0 removes controllability altogether. Note also that instead of fixing B, we could in principle consider optimizing its value to be fixed across a set of desired gates.