Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Readout Calibration Error Analysis

Coherent control techniques for two-state quantum systems: A comparative study

arXiv
Authors: Boyan T. Torosov, Bruce W. Shore, Nikolay V. Vitanov

Year

2020

Paper ID

429

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

98

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We evaluate various sources of errors that occur when attempting to produce a specified coherent change of a two-state quantum system using six popular coherent control techniques: resonant excitation, adiabatic following, composite adiabatic passage, universal composite pulses, shortcut to adiabaticity, and single-shot shaped pulses. As error sources we consider spatial intensity distribution, transit time variation, inhomogeneous broadening, Doppler broadening, unwanted chirp and shape errors. For the various error types different techniques emerge as the best performers but overall, we find that universal composite pulses perform most consistently and are most resilient to errors compared to all other procedures.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Readout Calibration & Error Analysis research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We evaluate various sources of errors that occur when attempting to produce a specified coherent change of a two-state quantum system using six popular coherent control...

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #429

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.