Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Control Pulse Engineering
Comparing and correcting robustness metrics for quantum optimal control
arXiv
Authors: Andrew T. Kamen, Samuel Fine, Bikrant Bhattacharyya, Frederic T. Chong, Andy J. Goldschmidt
Year
2026
Paper ID
151
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
134
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Control pulses that nominally optimize fidelity are sensitive to routine hardware drift and modeling errors. Robust quantum optimal control seeks error-insensitive control pulses that maintain fidelity thresholds and obey hardware constraints. Distinct numerical approximations to the first-order error susceptibility include adjoint end-point and toggling-frame approaches. Although theoretically equivalent, we provide a novel, systematic study demonstrating important numerical differences between these two approaches. We also introduce a critical discretization correction to the widely-used toggling-frame robustness estimator, measurably improving its estimate of first-order error susceptibility. We accomplish our study by positioning robustness as a first-class objective within direct, constrained optimal control. Our approach uniquely handles control and fidelity constraints while cleanly isolating robustness for dedicated optimization. In both single- and two-qubit examples under realistic constraints, our approach provides an analytic edge for obtaining precise, physics-informed robustness.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Control & Pulse Engineering research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Control pulses that nominally optimize fidelity are sensitive to routine hardware drift and modeling errors.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.