Also known as time-optimal control · quantum brachistochrone · singular arcs · sub-Riemannian geometry · bang-bang control
For small systems, optimal controls can often be found exactly. Their dynamics lives on a Lie group (unitaries)
or a sphere (states), the optimal-control conditions of Pontryagin's maximum principle become geometric
statements, and optimal trajectories turn out to be geodesics of an appropriate metric. Geometric control
provides these exact solutions, the minimal times they imply, and the qualitative structures — bang-bang, singular
and geodesic arcs — that numerical methods then rediscover in larger systems.
Time-optimal control
The most common geometric problem asks for the shortest time in which a target can be reached under constraints
on the controls. Two regimes are particularly clean.
Bounded controls on a single spin or qubit. With a drift and control amplitudes limited by \(u_{\max}\), the
maximum principle shows that optimal controls are concatenations of bang arcs (\(u = \pm u_{\max}\)), possibly
singular arcs, and off periods. The complete “optimal synthesis” — the optimal control from every initial
point — is known for spins on the rotation group [1]. Time-optimal single-qubit operations
[2], population transfer in two- and three-level systems [3] and the minimal time for a
driven two-level system have all been characterized. In the last case, for some initial states the optimal protocol
switches abruptly from bang–off–bang to bang–bang as the bound on the coupling decreases [4].
Fast local controls, slow couplings. In many platforms — coupled nuclear spins, superconducting qubits — local
operations on each qubit are fast, while entangling interactions come from a fixed, slower coupling in the drift.
If local operations are effectively instantaneous, the minimal time to build a unitary is set by the coupling alone.
The problem then reduces to a geometric one on a quotient of the unitary group, solved with a Cartan decomposition
(the familiar \(U = k_1\,a\,k_2\), local–entangling–local, decomposition of two-qubit gates) [5].
For three coupled spins, time-optimal sequences are geodesics of a sub-Riemannian metric, i.e. the shortest
paths when only some directions can be moved in freely. These sequences can be substantially faster than the usual
decoupling-based constructions [6].
The quantum brachistochrone
A complementary viewpoint fixes the Hamiltonian rather than the controls: which Hamiltonian, within a set of
allowed ones (for example with bounded energy spread), takes a given initial state to a given final state fastest?
A variational principle analogous to the classical brachistochrone gives an equation for the optimal Hamiltonian
[7]. For the simplest constraint, a fixed energy spread, the optimal evolution follows a
geodesic in the space of states. This connects the brachistochrone to the quantum speed limits of free evolution;
see Quantum speed limits.
Geometry of quantum computation
The same ideas apply to circuit complexity. Define a Riemannian metric on the unitary group that makes
many-body directions “expensive” and local directions “cheap”. The minimal number of gates needed to build a unitary
is then essentially the length of the shortest geodesic to it, which opens Riemannian-geometry tools to the analysis
of quantum algorithms [8]. See Control complexity & resources.
With dissipation
Relaxation makes time-optimality even more important, since every microsecond costs coherence. It also changes the
structure of solutions. For a dissipative spin-1/2, the time-optimal control contains singular arcs, and the
predicted protocol has been implemented in NMR [9]; see Control of open quantum systems.
Why it matters
Benchmarks for numerics. Exact minimal times and protocols are reference solutions for numerical methods such
as GRAPE, and for scanning control times numerically to locate the speed limit [10].
Structure. Bang-bang, singular and geodesic segments explain features of numerically optimized pulses, and
suggest compact parametrizations.
Navin Khaneja, Roger Brockett and Steffen J. GlaserTime optimal control in spin systemsPhys. Rev. A63, 032308 (2001)doi
Time-optimal control of coupled spins as a geometric problem on Lie groups — when local controls are fast, the minimal time is set by the coupling alone.
Navin Khaneja, Steffen J. Glaser and Roger BrockettSub-Riemannian geometry and time optimal control of three spin systems: Quantum gates and coherence transferPhys. Rev. A65, 032301 (2002)doi
Time-optimal pulse sequences for three coupled spins from sub-Riemannian geodesics, showing that avoiding decoupling saves time.
Alberto Carlini, Akio Hosoya, Tatsuhiko Koike and Yosuke OkudairaTime-Optimal Quantum EvolutionPhys. Rev. Lett.96, 060503 (2006)doi
The quantum brachistochrone — a variational principle for the time-optimal Hamiltonian under constraints.
Ugo Boscain and Yacine ChitourTime-Optimal Synthesis for Left-Invariant Control Systems on SO (3)SIAM J. Control Optim.44, 111-139 (2005)doi
The complete time-optimal synthesis for a spin with bounded control, on the rotation group.
Michael A. Nielsen, Mark R. Dowling, Mile Gu and Andrew C. DohertyQuantum Computation as GeometryScience311, 1133-1135 (2006)doi
Quantum circuit complexity reformulated as geodesic length in a Riemannian geometry on the unitary group.
References
Ugo Boscain and Yacine ChitourTime-Optimal Synthesis for Left-Invariant Control Systems on SO (3)SIAM J. Control Optim.44, 111-139 (2005)doi
A. Garon, S. J. Glaser and D. SugnyTime-optimal control of SU(2) quantum operationsPhys. Rev. A88, 043422 (2013)doi
Ugo Boscain, Grégoire Charlot, Jean-Paul Gauthier, Stéphane Guérin and Hans-Rudolf JauslinOptimal control in laser-induced population transfer for two- and three-level quantum systemsJournal of Mathematical Physics43, 2107-2132 (2002)doi
Gerhard C. HegerfeldtDriving at the Quantum Speed Limit: Optimal Control of a Two-Level SystemPhys. Rev. Lett.111, 260501 (2013)doi
Navin Khaneja, Roger Brockett and Steffen J. GlaserTime optimal control in spin systemsPhys. Rev. A63, 032308 (2001)doi
Navin Khaneja, Steffen J. Glaser and Roger BrockettSub-Riemannian geometry and time optimal control of three spin systems: Quantum gates and coherence transferPhys. Rev. A65, 032301 (2002)doi
Alberto Carlini, Akio Hosoya, Tatsuhiko Koike and Yosuke OkudairaTime-Optimal Quantum EvolutionPhys. Rev. Lett.96, 060503 (2006)doi
Michael A. Nielsen, Mark R. Dowling, Mile Gu and Andrew C. DohertyQuantum Computation as GeometryScience311, 1133-1135 (2006)doi
M. Lapert, Y. Zhang, M. Braun, S. J. Glaser and D. SugnySingular Extremals for the Time-Optimal Control of Dissipative Spin-1/2 ParticlesPhys. Rev. Lett.104, 083001 (2010)doi
T. Caneva, M. Murphy, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, S. Montangero, et al.Optimal Control at the Quantum Speed LimitPhys. Rev. Lett.103, 240501 (2009)doi
Robust quantum control usually assumes one of two extremes: the error is of a known form and only its strength is unknown, or nothing at all is known about it. In practice one often sits in between. The size of a static error is unknown, but its class is known, for example, it only shifts energy levels, or it acts on each subsystem separately. We ask how fast a control can cancel, to first order, every error in such a class. A time-independent Hamiltonian can do this if and only if all errors in the class have zero diagonal in a common basis. In that case an equally spaced energy ladder in this basis does it after one period. A lower bound that holds for any time-dependent control with bounded drive power shows that this simple constant control is optimal for several natural classes, including unknown level shifts and unknown local errors on two subsystems. Completely unknown errors need a time-dependent control, and there, knowing the error class shortens the minimum time by a factor $\sqrt{d^2+1}$. So partial knowledge of the error changes not only how long an optimal robust control takes, but also its form.
Superconducting qubits are often based on the first two energy levels of a physical anharmonic LC oscillator. Since the anharmonicity of such systems is usually much lower than the involved energy gaps, population can easily leak to higher energy states. This is what characterizes leakage errors, and it can have multiple sources: from coherent error induced by the control platform to incoherent thermal dissipation. In this work, we adapt an optimal control method based on sub-Riemannian geodesic search in the unitary group for a system consisting of two superconducting qubits with leakage levels. We use the $R_x(π/2)$ rotation for single-qubit operation analysis, and the $i$SWAP operation for two-qubit analysis. For the former, we find considerable performance improvement in average gate fidelity as well as in the reduction of leakage errors when comparing the obtained optimal pulses with Gaussian and DRAG pulses, especially for short duration pulses. For the $i$SWAP gate, although leakage error remains roughly the same, we manage to obtain considerably higher fidelities with the cost of requiring a slightly longer time evolution.
We clarify the relation between the time-optimal quantum evolution of Carlini et al. and the coherent two-boundary optimal-control formulation recently proposed for quantum algorithm design.
Optimal scheduling of combined chemo-immunotherapy is often formulated as a control-affine optimal control problem, which generically yields boundary-selected (bang-bang-type) protocols unless singular arcs occur. This structure, while convenient, neglects saturating pharmacodynamics at high dose rates. We incorporate Michaelis-Menten saturation directly into the therapy channels, making the dynamics non-control-affine and the Hamiltonian nonlinear in each control. With strictly positive exposure penalties, the Hamiltonian admits an explicit three-regime pointwise minimization law: each input is chosen at the lower bound, the upper bound, or as a unique interior minimizer. On interior intervals the strict Legendre condition holds, so continuously modulated dosing arises as a regular interior extremal rather than a singular-arc or smoothing artifact. The resulting transcription is nonconvex; we therefore use a hybrid Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization (QPSO)-Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) pipeline, where QPSO provides a constraint-aware warm start and SQP enforces feasibility and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) optimality on a collocation grid. Costate reconstruction corroborates the Pontryagin Minimum Principle (PMP) structure and the predicted boundary/interior regime transitions.
We determine the optimal quantum manipulation protocols for implementing high-fidelity, fast single-qubit gates. We demonstrate that the time-optimal pulse sequence is a ``bang-bang'' sequence: discrete pulses of either positive or negative maximum amplitude or zero. The non-adiabatic bang-bang pulse sequence minimizes gate duration providing a speedup for low-frequency architectures. We first derive the protocol for a transversally driven two-level system, extracting exact analytic expressions for minimum gate times. We then extend this framework to general multilevel architectures, identifying conditions that enable the coherent suppression of leakage errors. Using the fluxonium circuit as a representative case study, we optimize $X/2$ and $Y/2$ gates through a combination of discrete bang sequences and continuous waveform smoothing. This approach preserves near-optimal execution speeds while mitigating transitions outside the computational subspace. Open-system simulations demonstrate that these sequences outperform commensurate and resonant pulse schemes across different fluxonium regimes, achieving low-error manipulation significantly faster than standard resonant control, even in the presence of $1/f$ flux noise and dissipation.