Quantum feedback for rapid state preparation in the presence of control imperfections

Quantum feedback control protocols can improve the operation of quantum devices. Here we examine the performance of a purification protocol when there are imperfections in the controls. The ideal feedback protocol produces an x-eigenstate from a mixed state in the minimum time, and is known as rapid state preparation. The imperfections we examine include time delays in the feedback loop, finite strength feedback, calibration errors and inefficient detection. We analyse these imperfections using the Wiseman–Milburn feedback master equation and related formalism. We find that the protocol is most sensitive to time delays in the feedback loop. For systems with slow dynamics, however, our analysis suggests that inefficient detection would be the bigger problem. We also show how system imperfections, such as dephasing and damping, can be included in a model via the feedback master equation.

[1]  Howard M. Wiseman,et al.  Replacing quantum feedback with open-loop control and quantum filtering , 2009, 0908.0198.

[2]  G. J. Milburn,et al.  Non-Markovian homodyne-mediated feedback on a two-level atom: a quantum trajectory treatment , 2001 .

[3]  Kurt Jacobs,et al.  Stochastic Processes for Physicists: Stochastic Processes for Physicists , 2010 .

[4]  Wiseman,et al.  Quantum theory of continuous feedback. , 1994, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[5]  Kurt Jacobs,et al.  The equations of quantum feedback control in the regime of good control , 2009, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[6]  Kurt Jacobs.  Optimal feedback control for rapid preparation of a qubit , 2004, SPIE International Symposium on Fluctuations and Noise.

[7]  E H Huntington,et al.  Adaptive optical phase estimation using time-symmetric quantum smoothing. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[8]  Holger F. Hofmann,et al.  Quantum control of atomic systems by homodyne detection and feedback , 1998 .

[9]  M. R. James.  A quantum Langevin formulation of risk-sensitive optimal control , 2004 .

[10]  Stefano Mancini,et al.  Bayesian feedback versus Markovian feedback in a two-level atom , 2002 .

[11]  Graham,et al.  Linear stochastic wave equations for continuously measured quantum systems. , 1994, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[12]  B. Krauskopf,et al.  Proc of SPIE , 2003 .

[13]  W. Zurek.  Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse? , 1981 .

[14]  H. M. Wiseman,et al.  The effects of time delays in adaptive phase measurements , 2000 .

[15]  B. Baseia,et al.  Preparing highly excited Fock states of a cavity field using driven atoms , 2005 .

[16]  K. Jacobs,et al.  FEEDBACK CONTROL OF QUANTUM SYSTEMS USING CONTINUOUS STATE ESTIMATION , 1999 .

[17]  V. Belavkin,et al.  Dynamical programming of continuously observed quantum systems , 2008, 0805.4741.

[18]  M. R. James,et al.  Risk-sensitive optimal control of quantum systems , 2004 .

[19]  H. M. Wiseman.  Quantum trajectories and quantum measurement theory , 1996 .

[20]  Milburn,et al.  Quantum theory of optical feedback via homodyne detection. , 1993, Physical review letters.

[21]  Milburn,et al.  Quantum-mechanical model for continuous position measurements. , 1987, Physical review. A, General physics.

[22]  A. Peres.  When is a quantum measurement , 1986 .

[23]  Kurt Jacobs.  How to project qubits faster using quantum feedback , 2003 .

[24]  S. A. Dodds,et al.  Chemical Physics , 1877, Nature.

[25]  Howard M. Wiseman,et al.  Optimality of Feedback Control Strategies for Qubit Purification , 2008, Quantum Inf. Process..

[26]  Kurt Jacobs,et al.  A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum measurement , 2006, quant-ph/0611067.

[27]  K. Jacobs,et al.  LINEAR QUANTUM TRAJECTORIES : APPLICATIONS TO CONTINUOUS PROJECTION MEASUREMENTS , 1998 .

[28]  G. Milburn,et al.  Quantum Measurement and Control , 2009 .

[29]  Kurt Jacobs,et al.  Rapid-purification protocols for optical homodyning , 2008 .