Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Optimal control for preparing fractional quantum Hall states in optical lattices

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Optimized control ramps prepare a two-boson Laughlin-type fractional quantum Hall state in an optical lattice at 99% fidelity in 31 tunneling times, using only four experimental knobs.

desk verdict Solid numerical optimal control for FQH state preparation in the HHH model, with honest limitations: the headline fidelities are not validated in the actual Floquet-driven experiment, but the paper is transparent about this and the internal results hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10720 v3 pith:ANVRB4RN submitted 2025-01-18 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

Ling-Na Wu , Xikun Li , Nathan Goldman , Botao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords fractionalquantumHallstatesLaughlin-typeopticallatticesultracoldatomsoptimalcontrolCMA-ESHarper-Hofstadter-Hubbardmodelstatepreparation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that small Laughlin-type fractional quantum Hall states—topological phases realized by strongly interacting bosons in a magnetic field—can be prepared in optical lattices much faster than adiabatic protocols allow, by numerically optimizing just four experimental knobs: the two tunneling amplitudes and the two tilt gradients. Using cubic-spline parameterized ramps refined by the covariance-matrix-adaptation evolution strategy, the authors reach about 99% fidelity for the two-boson 4×4 Laughlin-type state in 31 tunneling times, while the original experiment reported about 43% fidelity at 100 tunneling times and the previous optimized protocol reached 94.5% at 100 tunneling times. The same two-step scheme prepares three-boson states in a 6×6 lattice at 96.4% fidelity in 65 tunneling times and four hard-core bosons in a 4×8 lattice at 98.1% in 86 tunneling times. If correct, this makes small Laughlin-type states practical to create with existing quantum-gas-microscope setups and opens a route toward larger strongly correlated topological states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ramp protocol itself: the time-dependent control fields $t_x(t)$, $t_y(t)$, $\Delta_x(t)$, $\Delta_y(t)$ of Hamiltonian (2), each represented by a cubic spline through evenly spaced interpolation points. CMA-ES, the covariance-matrix-adaptation evolution strategy, is a gradient-free optimizer that proposes candidate spline parameters, computes the fidelity $F = |\langle\psi_f|\psi_{\rm target}\rangle|^2$, and iteratively updates its search distribution to maximize $F$. The two-step protocol couples $t_y$ with $\Delta_y$ in the first stage and $t_x$ with $\Delta_x$ in the second, letting the particles delocalize along one axis and then the other. The mechanism that makes the preparation fast is that the optimizer is free to exploit excited states as intermediate stages rather than being constrained to the instantaneous ground state. Robustness is handled by adding white-noise control perturbations or static disorder to the dynamics and, in one variant, using the disorder-averaged fidelity as the cost function.

What would settle it

Run the two-step optimized ramp in the actual 4×4 two-atom experiment and measure the fraction of atoms that return to the initial state after reversing the ramp; a return probability well below 90% would show that the effective-model simulation misses heating or higher-band losses. A cheaper numerical check is to simulate the same ramp with the full Floquet Hamiltonian and compare the final fidelity with the effective-model value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that optimized smooth ramps of tunneling amplitudes and tilt gradients can prepare the target fractional Chern insulator ground state without following the adiabatic gap. All fidelities are computed within the effective Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard model, the tight-binding Hamiltonian with interactions, flux $\phi = 2\pi\times 0.26$, and on-site interaction $U = 8\hbar/\tau$ for the 4×4 case, whose ground state is the Laughlin-type state at filling $\nu = 1/2$. In the four-step scheme, where one control is varied at a time, fidelity reaches 99.0% in total time $T = 54\tau$; in the two-step scheme, where two controls are varied simultaneously, the same state is prepared at 99% fidelity in $T = 31\tau$. The scalability claims are that three bosons in a 6×6 lattice reach 96.4% fidelity in $T = 65\tau$ and four hard-core bosons in a 4×8 lattice reach 98.1% in $T = 86\tau$.

Load-bearing premise

All results are simulated in a simplified model that ignores the periodic shaking used in the real experiment; if that shaking heats the atoms or drives them into higher bands, the measured fidelity will be lower than the simulated 99%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 4×4 two-boson Laughlin-type state can be prepared at 99% fidelity in 31 tunneling times, more than three times faster than the previous 100-tunneling-time optimized protocol and at higher fidelity than the original experiment's 43%.
  • The same two-step scheme generalizes beyond the minimal system: 96.4% fidelity for three bosons in a 6×6 lattice and 98.1% for four hard-core bosons in a 4×8 lattice.
  • Because the optimized ramps tolerate control noise and static disorder, and can be made more robust by disorder-aware training, they are compatible with the site-resolved controls of current quantum gas microscopes.
  • Smooth spline controls are preferable to piecewise-constant numerical pulses, which oscillate rapidly and would be difficult to implement experimentally.
  • The protocols deliberately use excited states during the ramp, so preparation time is not controlled by the many-body gap alone; this is qualitatively different from standard adiabatic preparation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, a full periodic-drive simulation of the same ramps would test whether the effective-Hamiltonian fidelities survive Floquet heating and higher-band coupling.
  • Beyond the paper, the same few-knob spline-plus-evolutionary-strategy recipe could be transferred to other target states, such as different fillings or non-Abelian states, since the method does not rely on the specific Laughlin gap structure.
  • Beyond the paper, the reported robustness is average fidelity over noise realizations; a worst-case or certified fidelity would be a stricter and more useful guarantee for applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes optimal-control protocols for preparing bosonic Laughlin-type fractional Chern insulator states in finite optical lattices, motivated by the experiment of Léonard et al. [17]. The control fields are the tunneling amplitudes and linear gradients of the Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard Hamiltonian (2); they are parametrized by cubic splines and optimized with CMA-ES. For the 4x4 lattice with two bosons, a four-step and a two-step scheme reach fidelities of 99.0% at 54τ and 99% at 31τ, respectively; for 6x6 (N=3) and 4x8 (N=4) lattices the two-step scheme reaches 96.4% at 65τ and 98.1% at 86τ. The paper also reports robustness to control noise, time-correlated noise, and static disorder, and cross-checks the optimization with GRAPE.

Significance. The computational study is careful within its stated model: exact diagonalization is used, the cost function is a well-defined fidelity to externally fixed ground states, the robustness tests are extensive, and the GRAPE comparison strengthens confidence in the CMA-ES results. If the high fidelities survive a full simulation of the Floquet-engineered experiment, the protocols would be a meaningful step toward faster FQH preparation. At present, however, the central quantitative claim applies only to the effective HHH model; the experimental relevance, which is the paper's main selling point, remains to be established.

major comments (2)
  1. [III (opening paragraph)] The paper states "We directly simulate the effective Hamiltonian instead of modeling the Floquet sequence as performed in the experiment [17]." All reported fidelities (99.0% at 54τ, 99% at 31τ, 96.4% at 65τ, 98.1% at 86τ) are therefore results for the time-dependent Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard model, not for the periodically driven optical lattice. The optimized pulses are non-adiabatic and deliberately pass through excited states (Fig. 2), so there is no adiabatic protection against Floquet heating or interband transitions. The conclusion itself concedes that applying the protocols to the driven system "would be interesting" and that higher bands "beyond the tight-binding regime" remain to be studied. I ask the authors to provide a Floquet-level simulation for at least the 4x4 system with the same optimized envelopes, or, alternatively, to explicitly reframe the claims as effective-model control results and remove the direct comparison with the measured 43(6)% fidelity of Ref. [17].
  2. [III.B and Eq. (4)] Scheme II is initialized with Δx = 100ℏ/τ, which is far outside the parameter range -4ℏ/τ ≤ Δx,y ≤ 4ℏ/τ stated in Eq. (4) and used to define the "fair comparison" with Refs. [17,22]. The control field plotted in Fig. 3(d) does not appear to extend to such a value, so the text, figure, and parameter constraint are mutually inconsistent. Since the speed advantage of Scheme II relies on this initialization, the authors must clarify the actual initial tilt and justify that it is experimentally accessible within the quoted range, or correct the bound.
minor comments (7)
  1. [II (first paragraph)] There is a typo: "paradiagmatic" should be "paradigmatic".
  2. [III.A and IV] The boundary conditions of the lattices are never stated explicitly; the figures suggest open boundary conditions, but this should be confirmed because it affects the spectrum, degeneracies, and the definition of the target ground states.
  3. [III.C.1 and Appendix B] The white-noise amplitude σ in Sec. III.C.1 and the OU volatility σ in Appendix B are not directly comparable, because the stationary variance of the OU process is σ²/(2θ); the authors should state the convention used in Fig. 11.
  4. [Appendix A] The GRAPE appendix reports "the minimal duration is estimated T2 = 4τ" without describing how minimality was determined; please specify the discretization, stopping criterion, and search procedure.
  5. [IV (Figs. 8-9)] For the 6x6 and 4x8 systems, please specify the precise form of the initial product state (which column and which sites are occupied) and the boundary conditions used in the exact diagonalization.
  6. [General (reproducibility)] The number of spline knots, initial parameter values, population size, and number of CMA-ES generations are not reported; providing these details, together with a data/code availability statement, would make the optimization reproducible.
  7. [Fig. 4] Please clarify whether the Ref. [22] fidelity values at T=10τ and T=20τ are simulation results and whether they include the same disorder model as the present work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimized fidelities are objective values for fixed, externally defined target states, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claims. The target states are fixed ground states of the Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard Hamiltonian (2) at specified parameters: for the 4x4 system the target is the ground state with tx = ty = hbar/tau and zero tilts (Section III), and for larger systems the targets are ground states selected using independent many-body gap and Streda-marker diagnostics (Section IV). The control fields are then optimized with CMA-ES (or GRAPE in Appendix A) to maximize the fidelity F = |<psi_f|psi_target>|^2 defined in Eq. (3). Reporting the resulting high fidelity is reporting the optimization objective itself, which is the standard and legitimate content of an optimal-control study; it is not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction, because the target state is not defined by the optimization. The comparisons against the experimental value from Ref. [17] and the Bayesian-optimization values from Ref. [22] use external benchmarks, and the GRAPE cross-check provides an independent numerical verification of the smooth-control results. The explicitly acknowledged limitation in Section III and the Conclusion, namely that the protocols are simulated with the effective Hamiltonian rather than the full Floquet sequence, is a question of experimental realism and external validity, not of circularity. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [17,58]) are used for background identification of Laughlin-type states and diagnostics, but the optimization results do not logically depend on those citations; they would remain valid numerical statements about preparing the chosen ground states of the stated model. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical constants or ad hoc model parameters. The control-field spline knots are optimization variables, and one hand-chosen tilt value (Δx = 100) is used in Scheme II. The target states and phase identification rely on established FCI/Hofstadter physics.

free parameters (2)
  • Control-field cubic-spline knots (all schemes) = Not tabulated; shown in Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9
    CMA-ES optimization variables; the reported fidelities depend on these optimized values, which are not provided numerically, hurting reproducibility.
  • Initial tilt Δx for Scheme II = 100ℏ/τ
    Hand-chosen large value (Section III.B), outside the range in Eq. (4); experimental feasibility not addressed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Harper-Hofstadter-Hubbard model with flux α and interaction U hosts a bosonic fractional Chern insulator (Laughlin-type) at filling ν = 1/2.
    Used to define the target state; established in prior literature (Refs. [17,45,50-65]).
  • domain assumption The time-dependent effective Hamiltonian (2) with controlled parameters accurately approximates the Floquet-engineered experiment of Ref. [17].
    The paper simulates the effective Hamiltonian rather than the full Floquet sequence (Section III introduction); this is the key modeling assumption linking simulations to experiment.
  • standard math The Streda formula CStr = ∂nB/∂α identifies the FCI phase.
    Used in Section IV to select the target flux α = 0.22 for the 6x6 system; a known diagnostic (Refs. [58,83-86]).
  • domain assumption The ground state of the HHH Hamiltonian with chosen parameters is the appropriate target state for preparation.
    The fidelity is measured against this ground state; the state is assumed to be the FQH state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal control for preparing fractional quantum Hall states in optical lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANVRB4RN

@misc{pith2026250110720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal control for preparing fractional quantum Hall states in optical lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANVRB4RN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10720}
}
read the original abstract

Preparing fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states represents a key challenge for quantum simulators. While small Laughlin-type states have been realized by manipulating two atoms or two photons, scaling up these settings to larger ensembles stands as an impractical task using existing methods and protocols. In this work, we propose to use optimal-control methods to substantially accelerate the preparation of small Laughlin-type states, and demonstrate that the resulting protocols are also well suited to realize larger FQH states under realistic preparation times. Our schemes are specifically built on the recent optical-lattice experiment [Leonard et al., Nature (2023)], and consist in optimizing very few control parameters: the tunneling amplitudes and linear gradients along the two directions of the lattice. We demonstrate the robustness of our optimal-control schemes against control errors and disorder, and discuss their advantages over existing preparation methods. Our work paves the way to the efficient realization of strongly-correlated topological states in quantum-engineered systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a). The target state is chosen as the ground state of the Hamiltonian (2) with {tx = ℏ/τ, ty = ℏ/τ, ∆x = 0, ∆y = 0}. We set the tunneling amplitudes in the target state, ℏ/τ , as the unit of energy, and use the tunneling time τ as the unit of time. The flux is kept constant at ϕ = 2π × 0.26 and the on-site interaction U = 8ℏ/τ , so that the target state is the Laughlin-like state at fill￾ing ν = 1/2 [17]. For a fai… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Particle density distribution of the final state for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The fidelity as a function of the total evolution time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a,b) Example noisy control profiles at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The fidelity as a function of the disorder strength. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) The spatial density distribution of the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The on-site population for (a) the initial state, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The on-site population for (a) the initial state, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ). This makes such control protocols less favor￾able in experiments. Such an issue could be resolved by adding a penalty function which penalizes rapidly fluc￾tuating controls. However, it usually makes the opti￾mization more complicated, and the minimal duration to r…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Example noisy control profiles for Scheme II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dipolar optimal control of entangled current states

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dipolar quantum optimal control via time-dependent magnetic-field orientation prepares entangled current states in ring lattices, with fidelities matching symmetry-imposed upper bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [22]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  2. [17]

    Aidelsburger, S

    M. Aidelsburger, S. Nascimbene, and N. Goldman, Ar- tificial gauge fields in materials and engineered systems, Comptes Rendus Physique 19, 394 (2018)

    2018

  3. [1]

    The final state in this step is the initial state of next step

    Linearly ramp up ty from 0 to ℏ/τ over duration T1 = τ , and keep the other three parameters con- stant: tx = 0, ∆x = ℏ/τ , and ∆ y = 4ℏ/τ . The final state in this step is the initial state of next step

  4. [2]

    While keeping tx = 0, ty = ℏ/τ , ∆ x = ℏ/τ constant, optimize the ramp protocol of ∆ y(t) within time T2 to maximize the fidelity between the evolved state |ψ(T1 +T2)⟩ and the intermediate target state |ψ1,target⟩, which is the ground state of the Hamil- tonian (2) with no tilt in y-direction ∆y = 0

  5. [3]

    Linearly ramp up tx from 0 to ℏ/τ over duration T3 = 5τ , and keep the other three parameters con- stant: ty = ℏ/τ , ∆x = ℏ/τ , and ∆ y = 0

  6. [4]

    The resulting density distributions for each step are de- picted in Fig

    Keeping the other three constant: tx = ty = ℏ/τ , ∆y = 0, optimize the ramp protocol of ∆x(t) within T4 to maximize the fidelity between the final state and the target FCI state |ψ2,target⟩, which is the ground state of Hamiltonian (2) with tunneling strengths tx = ty = ℏ/τ and ∆x = ∆y = 0. The resulting density distributions for each step are de- picted ...

  7. [5]

    To evaluate the re- silience of our protocols against potential inaccuracies in the control fields, we subject the optimized control fields to random perturbations

    Control error In experiments, achieving the desired control field with perfect precision is often challenging. To evaluate the re- silience of our protocols against potential inaccuracies in the control fields, we subject the optimized control fields to random perturbations. Specifically, the control inaccu- racies are modeled as white noise that is added...

  8. [6]

    We simulate experimental con- ditions by including static on-site potential shifts in our simulations

    Disorder Considering that disorder is ubiquitous in experiments, here we also evaluate the robustness of the optimized pro- tocols against disorder. We simulate experimental con- ditions by including static on-site potential shifts in our simulations. Specifically, each lattice site is impacted by a random offset. The lattice edges experience an ad- ditio...

    2022

Show all 97 references
  1. [7]

    S. M. Girvin, The Quantum Hall Effect: Novel Excita- tions And Broken Symmetries (Springer, Berlin, 2002)

    2002

  2. [8]

    H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, and A. C. Gossard, The frac- tional quantum hall effect, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S298 (1999)

    1999

  3. [9]

    B. I. Halperin and J. K. Jain, Fractional Quantum Hall Effects (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  5. [11]

    D. E. Feldman and B. I. Halperin, Fractional charge and fractional statistics in the quantum hall effects, Reports on Progress in Physics 84, 076501 (2021)

    2021

  6. [12]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-abelian anyons and topological quan- tum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  7. [13]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  8. [14]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and P. ¨Ohberg, Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neutral atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523 (2011)

    2011

  9. [15]

    Goldman, G

    N. Goldman, G. Juzeli¯ unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and I. B. Spiel- man, Light-induced gauge fields for ultracold atoms, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 126401 (2014)

    2014

  10. [16]

    Zhang and Q

    S.-L. Zhang and Q. Zhou, Manipulating novel quan- tum phenomena using synthetic gauge fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 50, 222001 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. Budich, and P. Zoller, Topological quan- tum matter with ultracold gases in optical lattices, Nat. Phys. 12, 639 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Zhang, Y.-Q

    D.-W. Zhang, Y.-Q. Zhu, Y. X. Zhao, H. Yan, and S.- L. Zhu, Topological quantum matter with cold atoms, Advances in Physics 67, 253 (2018). 9

    2018

  13. [20]

    N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman, Topo- logical bands for ultracold atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015005 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Ozawa and H

    T. Ozawa and H. M. Price, Topological quantum matter in synthetic dimensions, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 349 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    L´ eonard, S

    J. L´ eonard, S. Kim, J. Kwan, P. Segura, F. Grusdt, C. Repellin, N. Goldman, and M. Greiner, Realization of a fractional quantum hall state with ultracold atoms, Nature 619, 495 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Gemelke, E

    N. Gemelke, E. Sarajlic, and S. Chu, Rotating few-body atomic systems in the fractional quantum hall regime (2010), arXiv:1007.2677 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. Lunt, P. Hill, J. Reiter, P. M. Preiss, M. Ga lka, and S. Jochim, Realization of a laughlin state of two rapidly rotating fermions, arXiv:2402.14814 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    L. W. Clark, N. Schine, C. Baum, N. Jia, and J. Simon, Observation of laughlin states made of light, Nature 582, 41 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Wang, F.-M

    C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, M.-C. Chen, H. Chen, X.-H. Zhao, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, J.-W. Wang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, et al., Realization of fractional quantum hall state with interacting photons, Science 384, 579 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Blatz, J

    T. Blatz, J. Kwan, J. L´ eonard, and A. Bohrdt, Bayesian optimization for robust state preparation in quantum many-body systems, Quantum 8, 1388 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    van Frank, M

    S. van Frank, M. Bonneau, J. Schmiedmayer, S. Hild, C. Gross, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, T. Pichler, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Optimal control of com- plex atomic quantum systems, Scientific Reports6, 34187 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    X. Li, D. Pecak, T. Sowi´ nski, J. Sherson, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Global optimization for quantum dynamics of few-fermion systems, Phys. Rev. A 97, 033602 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    S. E. Sklarz and D. J. Tannor, Loading a bose-einstein condensate onto an optical lattice: An application of op- timal control theory to the nonlinear schr¨ odinger equa- tion, Phys. Rev. A 66, 053619 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Optimal control technique for many-body quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    J. J. W. H. Sørensen, M. O. Aranburu, T. Heinzel, and J. F. Sherson, Quantum optimal control in a chopped ba- sis: Applications in control of bose-einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022119 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Machnes, E

    S. Machnes, E. Ass´ emat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm, Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150401 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Storn and K

    R. Storn and K. Price, Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over con- tinuous spaces, Journal of Global Optimization 11, 341 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    Hansen, The cma evolution strategy: A comparing review, in Towards a New Evolutionary Computation: Advances in the Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , edited by J

    N. Hansen, The cma evolution strategy: A comparing review, in Towards a New Evolutionary Computation: Advances in the Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , edited by J. A. Lozano, P. Larra˜ naga, I. Inza, and E. Ben- goetxea (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  30. [38]

    Lloyd and S

    S. Lloyd and S. Montangero, Information theoretical analysis of quantum optimal control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 010502 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    D’Alessandro and M

    D. D’Alessandro and M. Dahleh, Optimal control of two- level quantum systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 46, 866 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Boscain, G

    U. Boscain, G. Charlot, J.-P. Gauthier, S. Gu´ erin, and H.-R. Jauslin, Optimal control in laser-induced popu- lation transfer for two- and three-level quantum sys- tems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 2107 (2002), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1465516

    2002 doi

  33. [41]

    Khaneja, R

    N. Khaneja, R. Brockett, and S. J. Glaser, Time optimal control in spin systems, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032308 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Boscain and Y

    U. Boscain and Y. Chitour, Time-optimal synthe- sis for left-invariant control systems on so(3), SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 44, 111 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012904441532

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    Boscain and P

    U. Boscain and P. Mason, Time minimal trajecto- ries for a spin 1/2 particle in a magnetic field, Journal of Mathematical Physics 47, 062101 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2203236

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    Boscain, F

    U. Boscain, F. Gr¨ onberg, R. Long, and H. Rabitz, Mini- mal time trajectories for two-level quantum systems with two bounded controls, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, 062106 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4882158

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    G. C. Hegerfeldt, Driving at the quantum speed limit: Optimal control of a two-level system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 260501 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    G. C. Hegerfeldt, High-speed driving of a two-level sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032110 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    A. D. Boozer, Time-optimal synthesis of su(2) transfor- mations for a spin-1/2 system, Phys. Rev. A 85, 012317 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Jafarizadeh, F

    M. Jafarizadeh, F. Naghdi, and M. Bazrafkan, Time op- timal control of two-level quantum systems, Physics Let- ters A 384, 126743 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    P. G. Harper, General motion of conduction electrons in a uniform magnetic field, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A 68, 879 (1955)

    1955

  42. [50]

    D. R. Hofstadter, Energy levels and wave functions of bloch electrons in rational and irrational magnetic fields, Physical Review B 14, 2239 (1976)

    1976

  43. [51]

    A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Fractional quantum Hall states of atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086803 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Fractional quantum hall effect in the absence of landau levels, Nat. Commun. 2, 389 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Frac- tional quantum Hall states at zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236804 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Fractional Chern insu- lator, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Liu and E

    Z. Liu and E. J. Bergholtz, Recent developments in fractional chern insulators, in Encyclopedia of Con- densed Matter Physics (Second Edition) , edited by T. Chakraborty (Academic Press, Oxford, 2024) second edition ed., pp. 515–538

    2024

  48. [56]

    R. N. Palmer and D. Jaksch, High-field fractional quan- tum Hall effect in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 180407 (2006). 10

    2006

  49. [57]

    Hafezi, A

    M. Hafezi, A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Fractional quantum Hall effect in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 76, 023613 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    Gerster, M

    M. Gerster, M. Rizzi, P. Silvi, M. Dalmonte, and S. Mon- tangero, Fractional quantum Hall effect in the interacting Hofstadter model via tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 96, 195123 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Rosson, M

    P. Rosson, M. Lubasch, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Bosonic fractional quantum Hall states on a finite cylin- der, Phys. Rev. A 99, 033603 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    X.-Y. Dong, A. G. Grushin, J. Motruk, and F. Pollmann, Charge excitation dynamics in bosonic fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086401 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Raˇ ci¯ unas, F

    M. Raˇ ci¯ unas, F. N.¨Unal, E. Anisimovas, and A. Eckardt, Creating, probing, and manipulating fractionally charged excitations of fractional Chern insulators in optical lat- tices, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063621 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Macaluso, T

    E. Macaluso, T. Comparin, R. O. Umucal ılar, M. Ger- ster, S. Montangero, M. Rizzi, and I. Carusotto, Charge and statistics of lattice quasiholes from density measure- ments: A tree tensor network study, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013145 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Motruk and I

    J. Motruk and I. Na, Detecting fractional Chern insula- tors in optical lattices through quantized displacement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 236401 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Repellin, J

    C. Repellin, J. L´ eonard, and N. Goldman, Fractional Chern insulators of few bosons in a box: Hall plateaus from center-of-mass drifts and density profiles, Phys. Rev. A 102, 063316 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    J. A. Kj¨ all and J. E. Moore, Edge excitations of bosonic fractional quantum Hall phases in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. B 85, 235137 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Repellin and N

    C. Repellin and N. Goldman, Detecting fractional Chern insulators through circular dichroism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 166801 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    F. A. Palm, S. Mardazad, A. Bohrdt, U. Schollw¨ ock, and F. Grusdt, Snapshot-based detection of ν = 1 2 laughlin states: Coupled chains and central charge, Phys. Rev. B 106, L081108 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Dehghani, Z.-P

    H. Dehghani, Z.-P. Cian, M. Hafezi, and M. Barkeshli, Extraction of the many-body Chern number from a single wave function, Phys. Rev. B 103, 075102 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Z.-P. Cian, H. Dehghani, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, G. Zhu, M. Barkeshli, P. Zoller, and M. Hafezi, Many- body Chern number from statistical correlations of ran- domized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 050501 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Wang, X.-Y

    B. Wang, X.-Y. Dong, and A. Eckardt, Measurable sig- natures of bosonic fractional Chern insulator states and their fractional excitations in a quantum-gas microscope, SciPost Phys. 12, 095 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Boesl, R

    J. Boesl, R. Dilip, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, Character- izing fractional topological phases of lattice bosons near the first mott lobe, Phys. Rev. B 105, 075135 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Q. Niu, D. J. Thouless, and Y.-S. Wu, Quantized hall conductance as a topological invariant, Phys. Rev. B 31, 3372 (1985)

    1985

  65. [73]

    Tao and F

    R. Tao and F. D. M. Haldane, Impurity effect, degener- acy, and topological invariant in the quantum hall effect, Phys. Rev. B 33, 3844 (1986)

    1986

  66. [74]

    M. Popp, B. Paredes, and J. I. Cirac, Adiabatic path to fractional quantum Hall states of a few bosonic atoms, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053612 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    N. R. Cooper and J. Dalibard, Reaching fractional quan- tum Hall states with optical flux lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185301 (2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    N. Y. Yao, A. V. Gorshkov, C. R. Laumann, A. M. L¨ auchli, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Realizing fractional Chern insulators in dipolar spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185302 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    Kapit, M

    E. Kapit, M. Hafezi, and S. H. Simon, Induced self- stabilization in fractional quantum Hall states of light, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031039 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    Grusdt, F

    F. Grusdt, F. Letscher, M. Hafezi, and M. Fleischhauer, Topological growing of Laughlin states in synthetic gauge fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 155301 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    Barkeshli, N

    M. Barkeshli, N. Y. Yao, and C. R. Laumann, Continuous preparation of a fractional Chern insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 026802 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    Repellin, T

    C. Repellin, T. Yefsah, and A. Sterdyniak, Creating a bosonic fractional quantum Hall state by pairing fermions, Phys. Rev. B 96, 161111 (2017)

    2017

  73. [81]

    Motruk and F

    J. Motruk and F. Pollmann, Phase transitions and adi- abatic preparation of a fractional Chern insulator in a boson cold-atom model, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165107 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    Y.-C. He, F. Grusdt, A. Kaufman, M. Greiner, and A. Vishwanath, Realizing and adiabatically preparing bosonic integer and fractional quantum Hall states in op- tical lattices, Phys. Rev. B 96, 201103 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Hudomal, N

    A. Hudomal, N. Regnault, and I. Vasi´ c, Bosonic frac- tional quantum Hall states in driven optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053624 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Andrade, V

    B. Andrade, V. Kasper, M. Lewenstein, C. Weitenberg, and T. Graß, Preparation of the 1/2 Laughlin state with atoms in a rotating trap, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063325 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    F. A. Palm, J. Kwan, B. Bakkali-Hassani, M. Greiner, U. Schollw¨ ock, N. Goldman, and F. Grusdt, Growing extended laughlin states in a quantum gas microscope: A patchwork construction, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013198 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    B. Wang, M. Aidelsburger, J. Dalibard, A. Eckardt, and N. Goldman, Cold-atom elevator: From edge-state in- jection to the preparation of fractional chern insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 163402 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Hansen, Y

    N. Hansen, Y. Akimoto, and P. Baudis, CMA-ES/pycma on Github, Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.2559634 (2019)

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    Str¨ ater and A

    C. Str¨ ater and A. Eckardt, Interband heating processes in a periodically driven optical lattice, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Natur- forschung A 71, 909 (2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    Widom, Thermodynamic derivation of the hall effect current, Physics Letters A 90, 474 (1982)

    A. Widom, Thermodynamic derivation of the hall effect current, Physics Letters A 90, 474 (1982)

    1982

  82. [90]

    Streda, Theory of quantised hall conductivity in two dimensions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, L717 (1982)

    P. Streda, Theory of quantised hall conductivity in two dimensions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, L717 (1982)

    1982

  83. [91]

    Streda and L

    P. Streda and L. Smrcka, Thermodynamic derivation of the hall current and the thermopower in quantising mag- netic field, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 16, L895 (1983)

    1983

  84. [92]

    R. O. Umucalılar, H. Zhai, and M. O. Oktel, Trapped fermi gases in rotating optical lattices: Realization and detection of the topological hofstadter insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 070402 (2008)

    2008

  85. [93]

    Sun and A

    G. Sun and A. Eckardt, Optimal frequency window for floquet engineering in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013241 (2020). 11 0 1 2 3 40 1 2 0 20 40-1 0 1 2 FIG. 10. Control fields ∆ y(t) and ∆ x(t) optimized using GRAPE. Left: Optimized control field ∆ y(t) in step 2 in s...

    2020

  86. [94]

    C. W. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, Springer, 2009. Appendix A: GRAPE for Harvard experiment To benchmark the results obtained using smooth con- trol protocol, We employ GRadient Ascend Pulse En- gineering (GRAPE) [23] method to ...

    2009

  87. [95]

    An exponentially decaying initial condition X0e−θt,

  88. [96]

    A deterministic drift towards the mean µ(1 − e−θt),

  89. [97]

    The autocorrelation function of the OU process is de- rived as follows: Cov(Xt, Xt+τ ) = E[(Xt − µ)(Xt+τ − µ)] (B3) = σ2 2θ e−θτ

    A stochastic integral term representing accumu- lated noise. The autocorrelation function of the OU process is de- rived as follows: Cov(Xt, Xt+τ ) = E[(Xt − µ)(Xt+τ − µ)] (B3) = σ2 2θ e−θτ . (B4) The correlation time τc = 1 θ quantifies the decay rate: after τc, correlations ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.