pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.03647 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · quant-ph

Optimizing two-qubit gates for ultracold fermions in optical lattices

Jan A. P. Reuter , Juhi Singh , Tommaso Calarco , Felix Motzoi , Robert Zeier This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 02:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph
keywords ultracold fermionsoptical latticestwo-qubit gatesdouble-well potentialmomentum dependencecollision gatesquantum simulationFermi-Hubbard
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Laser amplitude control in double-well potentials yields high-fidelity gates for ultracold fermions via momentum-dependent interactions.

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

The authors optimize two-qubit collision gates for fermionic lithium atoms in an optical double-well setup by adjusting the laser amplitude while keeping the relative phase fixed. Using a one-dimensional simulation of the confinement, they capture a momentum dependence in the interaction energy that previous Fermi-Hubbard models missed. This dependence results in stronger interactions when the atoms start in separate subwells rather than the same one. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a path to higher-fidelity quantum operations in neutral-atom systems and opens possibilities for specialized applications in simulating quantum materials or chemistry.

Core claim

We optimize collision gates for fermionic Lithium atoms confined in a double-well potential, controlling the laser amplitude and keeping its relative phase constant. We obtain high-fidelity gates based on a one-dimensional confinement simulation. Our approach extends beyond earlier Fermi-Hubbard simulations by capturing a momentum dependence in the interaction energy. This leads to a higher interaction strength when atoms begin in separate subwells compared to the same subwell. This momentum dependence might limit the gate fidelity under realistic experimental conditions, but also enables tailored applications in quantum chemistry and quantum simulation by optimizing gates for each of these

What carries the argument

Momentum-dependent interaction energy captured in the one-dimensional confinement simulation of double-well potentials for optimizing collision gates

If this is right

  • High-fidelity two-qubit gates result from optimizing laser amplitude in the one-dimensional model.
  • Interaction strength is higher for atoms initialized in separate subwells due to the momentum effect.
  • The momentum dependence can constrain achievable fidelity when three-dimensional and thermal effects are present.
  • Tailored gate optimization becomes feasible for distinct quantum chemistry and simulation scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Testing the gates in actual three-dimensional lattices would show how much the one-dimensional approximation deviates from experiment.
  • The position-specific interaction could be used to implement position-dependent quantum operations in larger atom arrays.
  • Similar momentum effects might appear in other lattice-based gate schemes and warrant investigation for bosonic atoms as well.

Load-bearing premise

The one-dimensional confinement simulation accurately captures the full interaction dynamics and momentum dependence under realistic experimental conditions that include three-dimensional effects and thermal motion.

What would settle it

Directly measuring and comparing the interaction strengths or gate fidelities for atoms prepared in separate subwells versus the same subwell in an experiment would confirm or refute the predicted momentum dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.03647 by Felix Motzoi, Jan A. P. Reuter, Juhi Singh, Robert Zeier, Tommaso Calarco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (c) and too low if they start in the same subwell in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultracold neutral atoms in optical lattices are a promising platform for simulating the behavior of complex materials and implementing quantum gates. We optimize collision gates for fermionic Lithium atoms confined in a double-well potential, controlling the laser amplitude and keeping its relative phase constant. We obtain high-fidelity gates based on a one-dimensional confinement simulation. Our approach extends beyond earlier Fermi-Hubbard simulations by capturing a momentum dependence in the interaction energy. This leads to a higher interaction strength when atoms begin in separate subwells compared to the same subwell. This momentum dependence might limit the gate fidelity under realistic experimental conditions, but also enables tailored applications in quantum chemistry and quantum simulation by optimizing gates for each of these cases separately.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper optimizes collision-based two-qubit gates for fermionic lithium atoms in a double-well optical lattice by varying laser amplitude at fixed relative phase. Using a one-dimensional confinement simulation that incorporates momentum dependence in the interaction energy, the authors report high-fidelity gates with stronger effective interactions when atoms start in separate subwells compared to the same subwell. This extends beyond standard Fermi-Hubbard models, though the abstract notes that the momentum dependence might limit fidelity under realistic conditions.

Significance. If the one-dimensional model is shown to capture the dominant physics, the work offers a concrete route to tailored gate optimization for different initial configurations in ultracold-atom quantum simulators and quantum chemistry applications. The explicit inclusion of momentum-dependent interactions is a methodological strength that goes beyond conventional approximations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of high-fidelity gates and interaction-strength differences are derived exclusively from a one-dimensional confinement simulation, yet no error bars, convergence tests, or controlled comparison to three-dimensional models are reported. This omission directly affects in whether the reported fidelities survive transverse momentum components present in real optical lattices.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (momentum-dependence paragraph): The manuscript correctly identifies that momentum dependence 'might limit the gate fidelity under realistic experimental conditions,' but provides no quantitative estimate of transverse corrections or sensitivity analysis. Because the optimization and fidelity numbers rest on the 1D reduction, this gap is load-bearing for the practical applicability of the results.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise definition of the interaction energy functional and how the momentum dependence is numerically discretized in the simulation.
  2. [Results] Add a brief statement on the range of laser amplitudes explored and any constraints imposed by experimental realizability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We agree that the one-dimensional approximation requires further justification and quantitative assessment of transverse effects to strengthen the claims. We will revise the manuscript to address these points by adding convergence tests, error estimates, and a sensitivity analysis for transverse momenta. Our responses to the specific comments are as follows.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of high-fidelity gates and interaction-strength differences are derived exclusively from a one-dimensional confinement simulation, yet no error bars, convergence tests, or controlled comparison to three-dimensional models are reported. This omission directly affects in whether the reported fidelities survive transverse momentum components present in real optical lattices.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of validating the one-dimensional model. In the revised version, we will include numerical convergence tests with respect to the grid size and time step in our simulations, along with error bars on the reported fidelities derived from these tests. Regarding three-dimensional models, a full 3D treatment is computationally demanding; however, we will add a discussion justifying the 1D reduction by showing that the transverse confinement is sufficiently tight to suppress excitations, based on the lattice parameters used. This will provide a controlled comparison in terms of energy scales. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (momentum-dependence paragraph): The manuscript correctly identifies that momentum dependence 'might limit the gate fidelity under realistic experimental conditions,' but provides no quantitative estimate of transverse corrections or sensitivity analysis. Because the optimization and fidelity numbers rest on the 1D reduction, this gap is load-bearing for the practical applicability of the results.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative estimate is necessary. We will perform a sensitivity analysis by introducing small transverse momentum components in an effective way and estimate their impact on the interaction energy and gate fidelity. This will be added to the manuscript, providing bounds on the fidelity reduction due to transverse effects under realistic conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: optimization derives from independent 1D numerical simulation

full rationale

The paper's central result is obtained by numerically optimizing laser amplitude in a one-dimensional double-well confinement model that explicitly incorporates momentum dependence into the interaction energy. This simulation setup is defined independently of the final fidelity values; the reported higher interaction strength for separate subwells follows directly from the model's overlap integrals rather than from any fitted parameter or self-referential definition. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling are indicated in the provided text, and the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as the Fermi-Hubbard model it extends.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the 1D confinement model and standard quantum-mechanical treatment of ultracold fermions; no free parameters, invented entities, or additional ad-hoc axioms are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The one-dimensional confinement model accurately captures the interaction dynamics and momentum dependence of the atoms.
    Invoked when the authors state that the simulation extends beyond Fermi-Hubbard models and yields the reported interaction difference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5426 in / 1307 out tokens · 47146 ms · 2026-05-17T02:21:38.164592+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    leapfrog

    Alternative “leapfrog” method We will now introduce an approach for which the com- putation time grows approximately linearly withN. We use a Numerov-type ansatz [47] which is applied to the time instead of a spacial dimension and where we approx- imate the total differential of the wave function in time with ψ(t+ dt 2 )−ψ(t− dt 2 )≈ − idt ℏ H(t)ψ(t) (6) ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    leapfrog

    Benchmarking the simulation method We test our simulation method from Sec. III A 1 and compare it with other methods from prior work [31, 32]. Benchmark 1.In the first test, we will repeat the proce- dure of [29] and compare our simulation results, obtained with the “leapfrog” method, to their experimental data in Fig. 5. We consider an ensemble of non-in...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The three particle Hamil- tonian is similar to H({x j, sj}, t) = 3X j=1 − ℏ2 2m ∂2 xj+V(x j, t) +U 1D[δ(x1−x2)+δ(x1−x3)]

    Moreover, con- sidering three spins withs 2=s3=¯s1 (where ¯sj =↓for sj =↑and vice versa), we can then represent the spin states|D↑⟩and|D↓⟩, and by spatial symmetry also|↑D⟩ and|↓D⟩, in the position basis. The three particle Hamil- tonian is similar to H({x j, sj}, t) = 3X j=1 − ℏ2 2m ∂2 xj+V(x j, t) +U 1D[δ(x1−x2)+δ(x1−x3)]. According to the Hubbard model...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. B. Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. S. Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Gyger, M

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Sni- girev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033104 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A. L. Shaw, Z. Chen, J. Choi, D. K. Mark, P. Scholl, R. Finkelstein, A. Elben, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Bench- marking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator, Nature628, 71 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rza˙ zewski, and M. Wilkens, Two cold atoms in a harmonic trap, Found. Phys.28, 549 (1998)

    work page 1998

  9. [9]

    Calarco, E

    T. Calarco, E. A. Hinds, D. Jaksch, J. Schmiedmayer, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum gates with neu- tral atoms: Controlling collisional interactions in time- dependent traps, Phys. Rev. A61, 022304 (2000)

    work page 2000

  10. [10]

    Idziaszek and T

    Z. Idziaszek and T. Calarco, Two atoms in an anisotropic harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. A71, 050701 (2005)

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Liang and C

    J.-J. Liang and C. Zhang, Two ultracold atoms in a com- pletely anisotropic trap, Phys. Scr.77, 025302 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    Sakurai and J

    J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Mechan- ics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Jaksch, H.-J

    D. Jaksch, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Entanglement of atoms via cold controlled collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1975 (1999)

    work page 1975

  15. [15]

    Mandel, M

    O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Controlled collisions for multi- particle entanglement of optically trapped atoms, Nature 425, 937 (2003)

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    Calarco, U

    T. Calarco, U. Dorner, P. S. Julienne, C. J. Williams, and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with atoms in optical lattices: Marker qubits and molecular interactions, Phys. Rev. A70, 012306 (2004)

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    Anderlini, P

    M. Anderlini, P. J. Lee, B. L. Brown, J. Sebby-Strabley, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto, Controlled exchange in- teraction between pairs of neutral atoms in an optical lattice, Nature448, 452 (2007)

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Trotzky, P

    S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. F¨ olling, M. Feld, U. Schnor- rberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and I. Bloch, Time-resolved observation and con- trol of superexchange interactions with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science319, 295 (2008)

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, C.-J. Huang, H.-Y. Wang, Y. Deng, H.-N. Dai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Cooling and en- tangling ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science369, 550 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Impertro, S

    A. Impertro, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, S. Huh, C. Schweizer, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Local read- out and control of current and kinetic energy operators in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 063401 (2024). 12

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Z¨ ollner, G

    S. Z¨ ollner, G. M. Bruun, and C. J. Pethick, Polarons and molecules in a two-dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A 83, 021603 (2011)

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Murmann, A

    S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Two fermions in a double well: Exploring a fundamental building block of the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 080402 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Hartke, B

    T. Hartke, B. Oreg, N. Jia, and M. Zwierlein, Quantum register of fermion pairs, Nature601, 537 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Z. Zhu, Y. Kiefer, S. Jele, M. G¨ achter, G. Bis- son, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Splitting and con- necting singlets in atomic quantum circuits (2024), arXiv:2409.02984 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, A neutral-atom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryo- genic regime, Nature642, 909–915 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Tabares, C

    C. Tabares, C. Kokail, P. Zoller, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Programming optical-lattice Fermi-Hubbard quantum simulators, PRX Quantum6, 030356 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Hu, J. Kwan, C. Kokail, S. Choi, and S. F. Yelin, Efficiently measuringd-wave pairing and beyond in quantum gas microscopes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 123402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.120, e2304294120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Sanner, L

    C. Sanner, L. Sonderhouse, R. B. Hutson, L. Yan, W. R. Milner, and J. Ye, Pauli blocking of atom-light scattering, Science374, 979 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    S. H. Hauck and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Coherent atom trans- port via enhanced shortcuts to adiabaticity: Double-well optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 014016 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Cicali, M

    C. Cicali, M. Calzavara, E. Cuestas, T. Calarco, R. Zeier, and F. Motzoi, Fast neutral-atom transport and transfer between optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024070 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Chalopin, P

    T. Chalopin, P. Bojovi´ c, D. Bourgund, S. Wang, T. Franz, I. Bloch, and T. Hilker, Optical superlattice for engineering Hubbard couplings in quantum simula- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 053402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms

    P. Bojovi´ c, T. Hilker, S. Wang, J. Obermeyer, M. Baren- dregt, D. Tell, T. Chalopin, P. M. Preiss, I. Bloch, and T. Franz, High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms (2025), arXiv:2506.14711 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Nemirovsky and Y

    J. Nemirovsky and Y. Sagi, Fast universal two-qubit gate for neutral fermionic atoms in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013113 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Singh, J

    J. Singh, J. A. Reuter, T. Calarco, F. Motzoi, and R. Zeier, Optimizing two-qubit gates for ultracold atoms using Fermi-Hubbard models, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 034007 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Gkritsis, D

    F. Gkritsis, D. Dux, J. Zhang, N. Jain, C. Gogolin, and P. M. Preiss, Simulating chemistry with fermionic optical superlattices, PRX Quantum6, 010318 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Bojovi´ c, Experimental data provided by the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics

    P. Bojovi´ c, Experimental data provided by the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics

    work page

  38. [38]

    G. H. Wannier, The structure of electronic excitation lev- els in insulating crystals, Phys. Rev.52, 191 (1937)

    work page 1937

  39. [39]

    Kohn, Analytic properties of Bloch waves and Wan- nier functions, Phys

    W. Kohn, Analytic properties of Bloch waves and Wan- nier functions, Phys. Rev.115, 809 (1959)

    work page 1959

  40. [40]

    Kohn, Construction of Wannier functions and appli- cations to energy bands, Phys

    W. Kohn, Construction of Wannier functions and appli- cations to energy bands, Phys. Rev. B7, 4388 (1973)

    work page 1973

  41. [41]

    Hadzibabic and J

    Z. Hadzibabic and J. Dalibard, Two-dimensional Bose fluids: An atomic physics perspective, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 34, 389 (2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Haller, M

    E. Haller, M. J. Mark, R. Hart, J. G. Danzl, L. Reichs¨ ollner, V. Melezhik, P. Schmelcher, and H.- C. N¨ agerl, Confinement-induced resonances in low- dimensional quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 153203 (2010)

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Lorenzi, A

    F. Lorenzi, A. Bardin, and L. Salasnich, On-shell ap- proximation for thes-wave scattering theory, Phys. Rev. A107, 033325 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Bergeman, M

    T. Bergeman, M. G. Moore, and M. Olshanii, Atom-atom scattering under cylindrical harmonic confinement: Nu- merical and analytic studies of the confinement induced resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 163201 (2003)

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    D. S. Petrov and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Interatomic colli- sions in a tightly confined Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A64, 012706 (2001)

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    O. V. Sinkin, R. Holzl¨ ohner, J. Zweck, and C. R. Menyuk, Optimization of the split-step Fourier method in model- ing optical-fiber communications systems, J. Light. Tech- nol.21, 61 (2003)

    work page 2003

  47. [47]

    Montangero, E

    S. Montangero, E. Montangero, and Evenson,Introduc- tion to tensor network methods(Springer, Cham, 2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    W. Bao, S. Jin, and P. A. Markowich, On time-splitting spectral approximations for the schr¨ odinger equation in the semiclassical regime, J. Comp. Physics175, 487 (2002)

    work page 2002

  49. [49]

    R. L. Speth, W. H. Green, S. MacNamara, and G. Strang, Balanced splitting and rebalanced splitting, SIAM J. Nu- mer. Anal.51, 3084 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Numerov, Note on the numerical integration of d²x/dt²=f(x,t), Astron

    B. Numerov, Note on the numerical integration of d²x/dt²=f(x,t), Astron. Nachr.230, 359 (1927)

    work page 1927

  51. [51]

    R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood,Computer simula- tion using particles(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Kuprov and C

    I. Kuprov and C. T. Rodgers, Derivatives of spin dynam- ics simulations, J. Chem. Phys.131, 234108 (2009)

    work page 2009

  53. [53]

    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)

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Tang,Mathematical Methods for Engineers and Scientists, Vol

    K.-T. Tang,Mathematical Methods for Engineers and Scientists, Vol. 3 (Springer, Berlin, 2007)

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    Singh, R

    J. Singh, R. Zeier, T. Calarco, and F. Motzoi, Compen- sating for nonlinear distortions in controlled quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064067 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, S. T. Merkel, and F. K. Wil- helm, Optimal control methods for rapidly time-varying Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. A84, 022307 (2011)

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    S. Yang, G. Masella, V. Moeini, A. Bellahsene, C. Li, T. Bienaim´ e, and S. Whitlock, Compact arbitrary optical waveform modulator with digital feedback, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 054009 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    P. K. Mogensen and A. N. Riseth, Optim: A mathemati- cal optimization package for Julia, J. Open Source Softw. 3, 615 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynam- ics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson.172, 296 (2005)

    work page 2005

  60. [60]

    de Fouquieres, S

    P. de Fouquieres, S. Schirmer, S. Glaser, and I. Kuprov, 13 Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering, J. Magn. Reson.212, 412 (2011)

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    Dalgaard, F

    M. Dalgaard, F. Motzoi, J. H. M. Jensen, and J. Sher- son, Hessian-based optimization of constrained quantum control, Phys. Rev. A102, 042612 (2020)

    work page 2020