The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 12 are not checked yet; none of the 6 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Optimal Control at the Quantum Speed Limit
Open accessAbstract
Optimal control theory is a promising candidate for a drastic improvement of the performance of quantum information tasks. We explore its ultimate limit in paradigmatic cases, and demonstrate that it coincides with the maximum speed limit allowed by quantum evolution.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 12 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper shows that Krotov quantum optimal control can reach the quantum speed limit: infidelity converges to zero only when the fixed total time \(T\) exceeds a critical \(T_{\mathrm{QSL}}\), and this threshold agrees with dynamical bounds in Landau-Zener and spin-chain state-transfer models. It suggests optimal control can operationally characterize quantum speed limits in complex systems.
Key findings
- In the Landau-Zener model, Krotov infidelity does not converge to zero for \(T < T_{\mathrm{QSL}} \approx 1.5688\) (units of \(\hbar/\omega\)), while for \(T\) above this value it decreases exponentially; the second-derivative criterion crosses zero near \(T \approx 1.58\), matching the time-independent Bhattacharyya estimate with no fitting parameters.
- For Heisenberg spin-chain state transfer, infidelity converges to zero only above a critical time; the numerical \(T^*_{\mathrm{QSL}}\) scales linearly with chain length \(N\) (intercept \(b \sim 1.53\)), and for \(N=101\), target infidelity \(I^* = 5 \times 10^{-5}\) at \(n=10^5\) iterations gives \(T=56.66 \approx T^*_{\mathrm{QSL}}\) versus \(T=68.97\).
- Spin-chain optimal control improves the transfer time over the adiabatic approach of Ref. [18] by up to two orders of magnitude and is faster than Ref. [19] for Ising coupling, using only single-site local pulses whereas Ref. [19] used global pulses.
- The numerical spin-chain \(T^*_{\mathrm{QSL}}\) exceeds the analytical QSL estimate by a factor \(\eta \approx 3\), attributed to difficulty in formulating the QSL for the many-body problem; both estimators scale linearly with \(N\).
Methods
- Uses the Krotov recursive optimal-control algorithm to minimize infidelity \(I = 1 - |\langle \psi(T)|\psi_G\rangle|^2\) for fixed duration \(T\), starting from initial guess control pulses and analyzing convergence as a function of iteration number \(n\) and \(T\).
- Applies the approach to two models: a Landau-Zener Hamiltonian with control \(\Gamma(t)\), preparing the instantaneous ground state and targeting the ground state with \(\Gamma(T)=-\Gamma(0)\); and a one-dimensional Heisenberg spin chain with parabolic magnetic potential controls \(C(t)\) and \(d(t)\), transferring \(|0\rangle\) to \(|N-1\rangle\) in the single-spin-up sector.
- Compares numerical \(T_{\mathrm{QSL}}\) estimates with dynamical bounds: the Bhattacharyya bound for the Landau-Zener case, and time-averaged energy-spread bounds \(\Delta E_1\), \(\Delta E_2\) for the spin chain, with \(T_{\mathrm{QSL}}/(N-1) \ge \max\{\pi/(2\Delta E_1); \pi/(2\Delta E_2)\}\).
Limitations
- The paper states that for the spin-chain model the sign of the second derivative of infidelity cannot be used as a reliable signature of \(T_{\mathrm{QSL}}\), so the numerical estimate uses the smallest \(T\) achieving a target infidelity threshold \(I^*\) in a fixed number of iterations; the result does not depend significantly on \(I^*\) and \(n\).
- The paper attributes the factor \(\eta \approx 3\) discrepancy between numerical and analytical spin-chain QSL estimates to the difficulty in formulating the quantum speed limit for the many-body problem.
- Evident from the text: the findings are demonstrated in two paradigmatic models with Krotov optimal control and fixed \(T\), not as a general proof for arbitrary systems or control constraints; the Landau-Zener analytical estimate also assumes the dynamics can be effectively described by a time-independent Hamiltonian for most of the evolution.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The energy spread is almost constant save near the final time, where large oscillations are present, corresponding to the deceleration of the spinwave.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average energy spreading ∆ E 2 ( t ) is larger for smaller time transfer T allowing for a higher average excitation velocity.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the contrary, by progressively increasing T towards and above T QSL , the curvature changes sign and the infidelity in the large iteration limit decreases exponentially , as confirmed by the fit in Fig. 1.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Remarkably, the peculiar feature of the initial guess Γ gs ( t ) of being almost constantly zero for most of the central part of the evolution is preserved by the recursive optimization of OC [2]”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] V. F. Krotov, Global Methods in Optimal Control Theory (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996).
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, as shown in Fig. 3 (left) the infidelity appears to converge to zero only for values of T that are above a certain critical time T QSL .”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The connection between OC and the QSL emerges at the time duration T < T QSL for which OC fails to converge.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIn the paper
“Indeed, we achieved an improvement of the transfer time with respect to Ref. [18] of up to two orders of magnitude.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] V. Balachandran and J. Gong, Phys. Rev. A 77 , 012303 (2008). source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, in Fig. 2 we show a comparison between the estimate T QSL through the second derivative of the infidelity and the theoretical time-independent estimate (2) for various Γ(0) /ω ratios. We stress that here we have no fitting parameters.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- The authors state this as an assumption: For the Landau-Zener model, the dynamics for most of the evolution can be approximated by the time-independent Hamiltonian H0 = H[Γ=0].
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, for the present model the sign of the second derivative cannot be used as a reliable signature of T QSL .”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“It is also worth mentioning that we achieved a transfer time faster than that obtained (for Ising coupling) in Ref. [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] N. Khaneja and S. J. Glaser, Phys. Rev. A 66 , 060301(R) (2002). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results are reported in Fig.4 (right) where the two quantities are compared: both estimators are linearly dependent on N , but the numerical results show an improvement over the theoretical prediction by a factor of η ≈ 3”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly enough, however, our method only uses single-site local pulses while in Ref. [19] this was achieved using global pulses that operate jointly on the whole chain.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] N. Khaneja and S. J. Glaser, Phys. Rev. A 66 , 060301(R) (2002). source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, a numerical estimate T ∗ QSL for such quantity can been obtained by considering the smallest time T which allows us to achieve the target infidelity threshold I ∗ in a fixed number of algorithm iterations n (the result does not depend significantly on the value of I ∗ and n ).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The picture that arises is that OC finds a solution x opt ( t ) that initially accelerates the spin excitation, and then transfers it with constant velocity up to the end of the chain, where deceleration occurs.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
For the Landau-Zener model, the dynamics for most of the evolution can be approximated by the time-independent Hamiltonian H0 = H[Γ=0].
“assuming H 0 = H [Γ = 0] as the Hamiltonian.”
“for most of the evolution time the dynamics can be effectively described by a time-independent Hamiltonian”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the shortest time-scale for quantum optimal control algorithms to converge [28]”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Therefore, Caneva et al showed that using the Krotov algorithm the minimal elapsed time one can consider corresponds exactly to τ QSL .”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Remarkably they found that there was a minimum value of τ given by Battacharyya's bound [51] (i.e. the Mandelstam-Tamm bound for arbitrary angles), below which the algorithm failed to converge, while for values above this they consistently found F → 1.”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“In a remarkable work, Caneva et al [28] showed explicitly the connection between the quantum speed limit and optimal control.”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“The relation and importance of this first became evident in the seminal work of Caneva et al [28] in the context of optimal control.”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“if we restrict |ψ 0 and |ψ T to be the respective ground states of the Landau-Zener Hamiltonian, equation ( 57), at the start and end of the protocol, Γ(0) = -γ and Γ(τ ) = γ , then τ min = τ QSL , precisely in line with [28,109].”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“the quantum speed limit time that emerged as the fundamental bound from Caneva et al [28], from equation (58), actually assumes that the system's Hamiltonian is time-independent.”
From Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, Čencov's theorem states that the Fisher information metric is the only Riemannian metric on the set of probability distributions that is contractive under stochastic maps [47]”
From Generalized Geometric Quantum Speed Limits (2016) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“They showed that the Krotov algorithm of quantum optimal control theory fails to converge when the duration of the process is chosen below the quantum speed limit time.”
From Energy–time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems (2013) · cites this paper as [28]
Citations
Cites
Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I., & Grover, L. K. (2002) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1463744 · Cited by 21,895
Quantum computation and quantum information
Law, J. (2001) · ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · doi:10.1145/505482.505499 · Cited by 20,450
Messiah, A. (1961) · Cited by 16,012
Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels
Zener, C. (1932) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character · doi:10.1098/rspa.1932.0165 · Cited by 4,572
A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S., Lapan, J., Lundgren, A., & Preda, D. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1057726 · Cited by 2,056
Khaneja, N., Reiss, T., Kehlet, C., Schulte-Herbrüggen, T., & Glaser, S. J. (2005) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance · doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2004.11.004 · Cited by 1,854
Optimal control of quantum-mechanical systems: Existence, numerical approximation, and applications
Peirce, A. P., Dahleh, M., & RABITZ, H. A. (1988) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.37.4950 · Cited by 897
The maximum speed of dynamical evolution
Margolus, N., & Levitin, L. B. (1998) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/s0167-2789(98)00054-2 · Cited by 887
Theory of Quantum Annealing of an Ising Spin Glass
Santoro, G. E., Martoňák, R., Tosatti, E., & Car, R. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1068774 · Cited by 734
Self-citationQuantum search by local adiabatic evolution
Roland, J., & Cerf, N. J. (2002) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.65.042308 · Cited by 629
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 508
Creating anomalous Floquet Chern insulators with magnetic quantum walks
Sajid, M., Asbóth, J. K., Meschede, D., Werner, R. F., & Alberti, A. (2019) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.214303 · Cited by 54
Resource speed limits: maximal rate of resource variation
Campaioli, F., Yu, C., Pollock, F. A., & Modi, K. K. (2022) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac7346 · Cited by 52
Bounds in nonequilibrium quantum dynamics
Gong, Z., & Hamazaki, R. (2022) · International Journal of Modern Physics B · doi:10.1142/s0217979222300079 · Cited by 59
Quantum speed limits under continuous quantum measurements
García-Pintos, L. P., & del Campo, A. (2019) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab099e · Cited by 46
Operational definition of a quantum speed limit
Shao, Y., Liu, B., Zhang, M., Yuan, H., & Liu, J. (2020) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023299 · Cited by 47
Quantum Speed Limit Quantified by the Changing Rate of Phase
Sun, S., Peng, Y., Hu, X., & Zheng, Y. (2021) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.100404 · Cited by 46
Oscillating fidelity susceptibility near a quantum multicritical point
Mukherjee, V., Polkovnikov, A., & Dutta, A. (2011) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.075118 · Cited by 46
Time-resolved measurement of Landau-Zener tunneling in different bases
Tayebirad, G., Zenesini, A., Ciampini, D., Mannella, R., Morsch, O., Arimondo, E., Lörch, N., & Wimberger, S. (2010) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.82.013633 · Cited by 45
Fundamental Speed Limits to the Generation of Quantumness
Jing, J., Wu, L.-A., & del Campo, A. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep38149 · Cited by 44
Deng, C., Shen, F., Ashhab, S., & Lupaşcu, A. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.032323 · Cited by 44
Quantum speed limits for observables
Mohan, B., & Pati, A. K. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.106.042436 · Cited by 45
Controlling quantum critical dynamics of isolated systems
del Campo, A., & Sengupta, K. (2015) · The European Physical Journal Special Topics · doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-02350-4 · Cited by 40
Dynamical Casimir effect in quantum-information processing
Benenti, G., D’Arrigo, A., Siccardi, S., & Strini, G. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.90.052313 · Cited by 42
Malossi, N., Bason, M. G., Viteau, M., Arimondo, E., Mannella, R., Morsch, O., & Ciampini, D. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.87.012116 · Cited by 45
Measurement-assisted Landau-Zener transitions
Pechen, A. N., & Trushechkin, A. S. (2015) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.91.052316 · Cited by 41
From quantum speed limits to energy-efficient quantum gates
Aifer, M., & Deffner, S. (2022) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac6821 · Cited by 48
Quantum speed limit and a signal of quantum criticality
Wei, Y.-B., Zou, J., Wang, Z.-M., & Shao, B. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep19308 · Cited by 42
Trap-free manipulation in the Landau-Zener system
Pechen, A. N., & Ilin, N. B. (2012) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.86.052117 · Cited by 42
Quantum speed limits on operator flows and correlation functions
Carabba, N., Hörnedal, N., & del Campo, A. (2022) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2022-12-22-884 · Cited by 43
Optimal Control for Unitary Preparation of Many-Body States: Application to Luttinger Liquids
Rahmani, A., & Chamon, C. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.016402 · Cited by 41
Decoherence speed limit in the spin-deformed boson model
Dehdashti, S., Harouni, M. B., Mirza, B., & Chen, H. (2015) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.91.022116 · Cited by 40
Resonator reset in circuit QED by optimal control for large open quantum systems
Boutin, S., Andersen, C. K., Venkatraman, J., Ferris, A. J., & Blais, A. (2017) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.96.042315 · Cited by 41
Vu, T. V., & Saito, K. (2023) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.010402 · Cited by 41
Hybrid optimization schemes for quantum control
Goerz, M. H., Whaley, K. B., & Koch, C. P. (2015) · EPJ Quantum Technology · doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-015-0034-0 · Cited by 38
The initial-state dependence of the quantum speed limit
Wu, S.-X., Zhang, Y., Yu, C.-S., & Song, H.-S. (2014) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/48/4/045301 · Cited by 43
Arbitrary-quantum-state preparation of a harmonic oscillator via optimal control
Rojan, K., Reich, D. M., Dotsenko, I., Raimond, J. M., Koch, C. P., & Morigi, G. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.90.023824 · Cited by 36
Quantum optimal control of ten-level nuclear spin qudits in Sr 87
Omanakuttan, S., Mitra, A., Martin, M. J., & Deutsch, I. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.104.l060401 · Cited by 37
Universally Robust Quantum Control
Poggi, P. M., Chiara, G. D., Campbell, S., & Kiely, A. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.193801 · Cited by 36
Geometric quantum speed limits and short-time accessibility to unitary operations
Poggi, P. M. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.042116 · Cited by 36
Quantum optimal control of the dissipative production of a maximally entangled state
Horn, K. P., Reiter, F., Lin, Y., Leibfried, D. G., & Koch, C. P. (2018) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aaf360 · Cited by 36
Genetic optimization of quantum annealing
Hegde, P. R., Passarelli, G., Scocco, A., & Lucignano, P. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.012612 · Cited by 36
Complexity of controlling quantum many-body dynamics
Caneva, T., Silva, A., Fazio, R., Lloyd, S., Calarco, T., & Montangero, S. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.89.042322 · Cited by 32
Self-citationExploring adiabatic quantum trajectories via optimal control
Brif, C., Grace, M. D., Sarovar, M., & Young, K. C. (2014) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065013 · Cited by 35
Optimal control of Rydberg lattice gases
Cui, J., van Bijnen, R., Pohl, T., Montangero, S., & Calarco, T. (2017) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aa7daf · Cited by 33
Self-citationQuantum speed limit and optimal evolution time in a two-level system
Poggi, P. M., Lombardo, F. C., & Wisniacky, D. A. (2013) · CONICET Digital (CONICET) · Cited by 35
The roles of drift and control field constraints upon quantum control speed limits
Arenz, C., Russell, B., Burgarth, D. K., & RABITZ, H. A. (2017) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa8242 · Cited by 34
Composite pulses for optimal robust control in two-level systems
Wu, H.-N., Zhang, C., Song, J., Xia, Y., & Shi, Z. (2023) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.107.023103 · Cited by 35
Noise-resistant optimal spin squeezing via quantum control
Pichler, T., Caneva, T., Montangero, S., Lukin, M. D., & Calarco, T. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.93.013851 · Cited by 34
Self-citationApproaching the adiabatic timescale with machine learning
Henson, B. M., Shin, D. K., Thomas, K. F., Ross, J. A., Hush, M., Hodgman, S. S., & Truscott, A. G. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1811501115 · Cited by 34
Quantum Optimal Control for Mixed State Squeezing in Cavity Optomechanics
Basilewitsch, D., Koch, C. P., & Reich, D. M. (2019) · Advanced Quantum Technologies · doi:10.1002/qute.201800110 · Cited by 30
Prospects for fast Rydberg gates on an atom chip
Müller, M. M., Haakh, H. R., Calarco, T., Koch, C. P., & Henkel, C. (2011) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-011-0296-0 · Cited by 33
Self-citationEfficiency of quantum controlled non-Markovian thermalization
Mukherjee, V., Giovannetti, V., Fazio, R., Huelga, S. F., Calarco, T., & Montangero, S. (2015) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/6/063031 · Cited by 39
Self-citationGeometric Operator Quantum Speed Limit, Wegner Hamiltonian Flow and Operator Growth
Hörnedal, N., Carabba, N., Takahashi, K., & del Campo, A. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-11-1055 · Cited by 37
Quantum dynamical speedup in correlated noisy channels
Xu, K. D., Zhang, G., & Liu, W. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.052305 · Cited by 33
Quantum Speed Limit of a Photon under Non-Markovian Dynamics
Xu, Z.-Y., & Zhu, S.-Q. (2014) · Chinese Physics Letters · doi:10.1088/0256-307x/31/2/020301 · Cited by 33
Speeding up thermalisation via open quantum system variational optimisation
Suri, N., Binder, F. C., Muralidharan, B., & Vinjanampathy, S. (2018) · The European Physical Journal Special Topics · doi:10.1140/epjst/e2018-00125-6 · Cited by 31
Quantum speed limits and optimal hamiltonians for driven systems in mixed statesPreprint
Sönnerborn, O., & Heydari, H. (2016) · Cited by 33
Hessian-based optimization of constrained quantum control
Dalgaard, M., Motzoi, F., Jensen, J. H. M., & Sherson, J. F. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.102.042612 · Cited by 33
Experimentally realizing efficient quantum control with reinforcement learning
Ai, M.-Z., Ding, Y., Ban, Y., Martín‐Guerrero, J. D., Casanova, J., Cui, J., Huang, Y., Chen, X., Li, C., & Guo, G. (2022) · Science China Physics Mechanics and Astronomy · doi:10.1007/s11433-021-1841-2 · Cited by 31
Quantum control landscape for ultrafast generation of single-qubit phase shift quantum gates
Volkov, B. O., Morzhin, O. V., & Pechen, A. N. (2021) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/abf45d · Cited by 31
Pulse based Variational Quantum Optimal Control for hybrid quantum computing
de Keijzer, R., Tse, O. T. C., & Kokkelmans, S. J. J. M. F. (2023) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2023-01-26-908 · Cited by 38
Fast and accurate circularization of a Rydberg atom
Patsch, S., Reich, D. M., Raimond, J. M., Brune, M., Gleyzes, S., & Koch, C. P. (2018) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.053418 · Cited by 30
Effects of coherence on quantum speed limits and shortcuts to adiabaticity in many-particle systems
Xu, T.-N., Li, J., Busch, T., Chen, X., & Fogarty, T. (2020) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023125 · Cited by 32
Quantum control based on machine learning in an open quantum system
Zeng, Y., Shen, J., Hou, S. C., Tesfahannes, T. G., & Li, C. (2020) · Physics Letters A · doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2020.126886 · Cited by 32
Fast, robust, and amplified transfer of topological edge modes on a time-varying mechanical chain
Brouzos, I., Kiorpelidis, I., Diakonos, F. Κ., & Theocharis, G. (2020) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.102.174312 · Cited by 32
Universal Symmetry of Optimal Control at the Microscale
Loos, S. A. M., Monter, S., Ginot, F., & Bechinger, C. (2024) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.021032 · Cited by 29
Predicting quantum dynamical cost landscapes with deep learning
Dalgaard, M., Motzoi, F., & Sherson, J. F. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.012402 · Cited by 26
Optimal quantum annealing: A variational shortcut-to-adiabaticity approach
Passarelli, G., Fazio, R., & Lucignano, P. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022618 · Cited by 29
Geometric quantum speed limits for Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems
Lan, K., Xie, S., & Cai, X.-J. (2022) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac696b · Cited by 29
Quantum speed limit for a relativistic electron in a uniform magnetic field
Villamizar, D. V., & Duzzioni, E. I. (2015) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.92.042106 · Cited by 29
Efficiency of quantum controlled non-Markovian thermalization
Mukherjee, V., Giovannetti, V., Rosario Fazio, B., Huelga, S. F., Calarco, T., & Montangero, S. (2015) · OPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University) · doi:10.18725/oparu-46268 · Cited by 29
Self-citationTime-optimal quantum control of nonlinear two-level systems
Chen, X., Ban, Y., & Hegerfeldt, G. C. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.94.023624 · Cited by 28
Excited-state quantum phase transition and the quantum-speed-limit time
Wang, Q., & Pérez-Bernal, F. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.022118 · Cited by 28
Optimally controlled quantum discrimination and estimation
Basilewitsch, D., Yuan, H., & Koch, C. P. (2020) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033396 · Cited by 35
Optimally controlled quantum discrimination and estimation
Basilewitsch, D., Yuan, H., & Koch, C. P. (2020) · Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) · doi:10.17169/refubium-29378 · Cited by 28
Diverging Quantum Speed Limits: A Herald of Classicality
Poggi, P. M., Campbell, S., & Deffner, S. (2021) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040349 · Cited by 27
Vibrational stabilization of ultracold KRb molecules: A comparative study
Ndong, M., & Koch, C. P. (2010) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.82.043437 · Cited by 28
QEngine: A C++ library for quantum optimal control of ultracold atoms
Sørensen, J. J., Jensen, J. H. M., Heinzel, T., & Sherson, J. F. (2019) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.04.020 · Cited by 28
Implementing Quantum Gates by Optimal Control with Doubly Exponential Convergence
de Fouquieres, P. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.110504 · Cited by 27
Muraleedharan, G., Miyake, A., & Deutsch, I. (2019) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab0610 · Cited by 28
An Optimal Control Framework for the Automated Design of Personalized Cancer Treatments
Angaroni, F., Graudenzi, A., Rossignolo, M., Maspero, D., Calarco, T., Piazza, R., Montangero, S., & Antoniotti, M. (2020) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00523 · Cited by 27
Self-citationOptimal suppression of defect generation during a passage across a quantum critical point
Wu, N., Nanduri, A., & Rabitz, H. (2015) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.041115 · Cited by 26
Optimal preparation of quantum states on an atom-chip device
Lovecchio, C., Schäfer, F., Cherukattil, S., Khan, M. A., Herrera, I., Cataliotti, F. S., Calarco, T., Montangero, S., & Caruso, F. (2016) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.93.010304 · Cited by 26
Self-citationIn search of lost time: attosecond physics, petahertz optoelectronics, and quantum speed limit
Zheltikov, A. M. (2020) · Physics-Uspekhi · doi:10.3367/ufne.2020.11.038884 · Cited by 26
Controlling qubit arrays with anisotropic XXZ Heisenberg interaction by acting on a single qubit
Heule, R., Bruder, C., Burgarth, D. K., & Stojanović, V. M. (2011) · The European Physical Journal D · doi:10.1140/epjd/e2010-10623-y · Cited by 26
Quantum coherence and speed limit in the mean-field Dicke model of superradiance
Rossatto, D. Z., Pires, D. P., de Paula, F. M., & Neto, O. P. D. S. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.102.053716 · Cited by 25
Digital Optimal Robust Control
Harutyunyan, M., Holweck, F., Sugny, D., & Guérin, S. (2023) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.200801 · Cited by 25
High-fidelity fast quantum driving in nonlinear systems
Dou, F.-Q., Fu, L., & Liu, J. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.89.012123 · Cited by 25
Optimal diabatic dynamics of Majorana-based quantum gates
Rahmani, A., Seradjeh, B., & Franz, M. (2017) · Physical review. B./Physical review. B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.96.075158 · Cited by 24
Preparation of ordered states in ultra-cold gases using Bayesian optimization
Mukherjee, R., Sauvage, F., Xie, H., Löw, R., & Mintert, F. (2020) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab8677 · Cited by 26
Optimal control of fast and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in spin-1/2 chains
Zhang, X.-P., Shao, B., Hu, S., Zou, J., & Wu, L.-A. (2016) · Annals of Physics · doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.10.020 · Cited by 24
Programmable superpositions of Ising configurations
Sieberer, L. M., & Lechner, W. (2018) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.97.052329 · Cited by 22
Landauer principle and thermodynamics of computation
Chattopadhyay, P., Misra, A., Pandit, T., & Paul, G. (2025) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6633/add6b3 · Cited by 33
Generation of photonic matrix product states with Rydberg atomic arrays
Wei, Z.-Y., Malz, D., González-Tudela, A., & Cirac, J. I. (2021) · Physical Review Research · doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.023021 · Cited by 26
Speed limits on correlations in bipartite quantum systems
Pandey, V., Shrimali, D., Mohan, B., Das, S., & Pati, A. K. (2023) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.107.052419 · Cited by 29
Speed limit of quantum metrology
Maleki, Y., Ahansaz, B., & Maleki, A. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39082-w · Cited by 23
Time-optimal unitary operations in Ising chains: unequal couplings and fixed fidelity
Carlini, A., & Koike, T. (2013) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/46/4/045307 · Cited by 23
Rahman, Q. R., Kladarić, I., Kern, M.-E., Lachman, L., Chu, Y., Filip, R., & Fadel, M. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.180801 · Cited by 22
Song, Y., Tan, Q.-S., & Kuang, L. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep43654 · Cited by 22
Quantum speed limit for thermal states
Il’in, N., & Lychkovskiy, O. V. (2021) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.103.062204 · Cited by 21
Huang, L., Tan, Z., Zhong, H., & Zhu, B. (2022) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.106.022419 · Cited by 22
Nava, A. K., & Egger, R. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/hhgj-89gj · Cited by 23
Algorithm for solving unconstrained unitary quantum brachistochrone problems
Campaioli, F., Sloan, W., Modi, K. K., & Pollock, F. A. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.062328 · Cited by 22
Reconstructing quantum entropy production to probe irreversibility and correlations
Gherardini, S., Müller, M. M., Trombettoni, A., Ruffo, S., & Caruso, F. (2018) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aac7e1 · Cited by 22
Speeding up adiabatic passage with an optimal modified Roland–Cerf protocol
Stefanatos, D., & Paspalakis, E. (2020) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab7423 · Cited by 21
Time-optimal control with finite bandwidth
Hirose, M., & Cappellaro, P. (2018) · Quantum Information Processing · doi:10.1007/s11128-018-1845-6 · Cited by 20
Simultaneous multiple-user quantum communication across a spin-chain channel
Yousefjani, R., & Bayat, A. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.102.012418 · Cited by 22
Quantum Speed Limit in Quantum Sensing
Herb, K., & Degen, C. L. (2024) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.210802 · Cited by 21
Duncan, C. W., Poggi, P. M., Bukov, M., Zinner, N. T., & Campbell, S. (2025) · PRX Quantum · doi:10.1103/j8c7-v2hd · Cited by 32
Damme, L. V., Zeier, R., Glaser, S. J., & Sugny, D. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.90.013409 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Caneva, T., Murphy, M., Calarco, T., Fazio, R., Montangero, S., Giovannetti, V., & Santoro, G. E.
- Affiliations
- Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (IT)
- Universität Ulm (DE)
- Scuola Normale Superiore (IT)
- The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) (IT)
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2009-12-07
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 240501-240501
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2160409148
- Semantic Scholar
- f1a2f8bcbbcd647e99b6a5a50dc08c24ff04e172
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 14.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SDL (submittedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- optimal control, quantum speed limit, quantum control, quantum information processing, quantum dynamics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
