Geometric Interpretation of Sensitivity to Structured Uncertainties in Spintronic Networks

Abstract

We present a geometric model of the differential sensitivity of the fidelity error for state transfer in a spintronic network based on the relationship between a set of matrix operators. We show an explicit dependence of the differential sensitivity on the fidelity (error), and we further demonstrate that this dependence does not require a trade-off between the fidelity and sensitivity. Rather, we prove that for closed systems, ideal performance in the sense of perfect state transfer is both necessary and sufficient for optimal robustness in terms of vanishing sensitivity. We demonstrate the utility of this geometric interpretation of the sensitivity by applying the model to explain the sensitivity versus fidelity error data in two examples.

I Introduction

Exploiting the unique properties of quantum systems has the potential to revolutionize applications in communications, sensing, and computing [1, 2]. However, harnessing any technological “quantum advantage” requires external controls that not only meet exacting performance criteria, but retain a high level of performance in the face of model uncertainty. While classical $H_{\infty}$ synthesis methods with guaranteed performance margins are applicable to a subset of open quantum systems undergoing weak continuous measurement [3, 4], such methods are ill-suited to the marginally stable dynamics of closed quantum systems such as idealized spintronic networks. As such, post-synthesis selection of acceptable controllers based on an assessment of the robustness or the sensitivity of the performance measure is common. Various methods for delivering such assessments can be found in the literature, ranging from stochastic [5, 6] to analytic [7, 8, 9].

Previous work has applied robustness assessments across a range of controllers to determine whether a trade-off between performance and robustness is a fundamental limitation in quantum control problems. Such a trade-off might be expected from the fundamental limitation of classical feedback control, encapsulated by the frequency domain identity $S+T=I$, where $S$ and $T$ represent the error and log-sensitivity, resp. In [9], we showed that there is a trade-off between performance and robustness in the time domain in the sense that the normalized logarithmic sensitivity of the fidelity error diverges as the error approaches zero. However, both [8] and [10] suggest that such a trade-off does not necessarily hold for suboptimal controllers for closed systems, in that the best-performing controllers (lowest fidelity error) are not necessarily those with the worst robustness (magnitude of the log-sensitivity). Furthermore, [11] provided examples of state transfer in spintronic networks where controllers with the best fidelity exhibited the smallest unnormalized differential sensitivity to parameter variations. Similarly, the results of [12] indicated a high concordance between the fidelity error and differential sensitivity for gate control problems, indicating that the best performing controllers are also the most robust.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate why such differing trends between error and sensitivity exist for state transfer problems. We develop a geometric interpretation of the differential sensitivity of the fidelity error to parametric uncertainty and use it to derive an explicit relationship between the magnitude of the sensitivity and the fidelity of transfer. The established relationship shows that there need not be a trade-off between the sensitivity and fidelity error and provides insight into the most important factors that determine the magnitude of the sensitivity. As part of the exposition, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for vanishing sensitivity. Finally, we analyze two case studies to demonstrate the utility of the derived sensitivity model.

II Preliminaries

II-A Physical Model and Control Problem

As in [10], we consider a coupled network of $N$ spin-$1/2$ particles with $2^{N}\times 2^{N}$ real Hamiltonian

$$H_{tot}:=\sum_{m\neq n}J_{nm}\left(X_{n}X_{m}+Y_{n}Y_{m}+\kappa Z_{n}Z_{m}\right).$$ (1)

$J_{mn}$ is the coupling strength between spin $m$ and $n$ and $\set{X_{n},Y_{n},Z_{n}}$ is the respective Pauli operator acting on spin $n$, formally the $N$-fold tensor product of $(n-1)$ copies of the $2\times 2$ identity matrix with a Pauli matrix $\set{\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y},\sigma_{z}}$ in the $n$th position. We consider the case of uniform coupling with $J_{mn}=J$ for all pairs $(m,n)$. We restrict the dynamics to the single excitation subspace (SES), the subspace of the Hilbert space isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^{2^{N}}$ corresponding to a single excited spin in the network. This is justified when the goal is to transfer the state of the system from that of a single excited ”input” spin to a single excited ”output” spin with all other spins in the ground state, tantamount to transfer of a single qubit of information. While control of quantum systems in an open-loop manner via optimally shaped time-varying fields is a mainstay in quantum control [1], we consider the alternative paradigm of shaping the energy landscape of a closed system to facilitate the desired evolution [13, 14]. In the interest of model simplicity, we introduce time-invariant external fields to maximize the probability of state transfer from a given pure input state $\ket{\psi_{0}}$ to a pure output state $\ket{\psi_{f}}$. As detailed in [15], these control fields enter the Hamiltonian as scalars $\Delta_{n}$ on the diagonal of the SES Hamiltonian. We also consider only XX coupling since in the SES any coupling terms generated by $\kappa Z_{n}Z_{m}$ are diagonal and can be absorbed into the $\Delta_{n}$ controls. In terms of the Schrodinger dynamics, we have the initial value problem

$$\ket{\dot{\psi}(t)}=-iH\ket{\psi(t)},\quad\ket{\psi(0)}=\ket{\psi_{0}},$$ (2)

where $H$ is the controlled Hamiltonian in the SES and units are chosen such that $\hbar=1$. The $\Delta_{n}$ are generated by maximizing the probability of transfer, or fidelity, at a read-out time $t_{f}$ given by $F=|\braket{\psi_{f}}{\psi(t_{f})}|^{2}$. See [10, 15] for details on the controller synthesis problem.

II-B Uncertainty Model

To analyze the robustness of the controlled system, we use an uncertainty model that enables evaluation of how the introduction of uncertainty or disturbances alters the performance metric. In line with previous work [8, 9, 16] we consider real parametric uncertainty to the Hamiltonian represented as

$$\tilde{H}=H+\delta_{n}f_{n}S_{n}.$$ (3)

$H$ is the nominal controlled Hamiltonian, and $\delta_{n}$ represents a small, real perturbation strength. $S_{n}$ is the structure associated with the uncertainty indexed by $n$. $f_{n}$ is a factor that accounts for scaling by the control field strength for those $n$ that index uncertainty in a control channel; otherwise (e.g., for uncertainty in the couplings) $f_{n}=1$.

II-C Bloch Formulation

To put the analysis in the framework of a real vector space, we use the Bloch formulation to describe the perturbed dynamics [17]. Consider the most general description of the Schrödinger dynamics where the density operator $\rho(t)$ for the pure state $\ket{\psi(t)}$ is given by $\ket{\psi(t)}\bra{\psi(t)}$. The perturbed dynamics generated by (3) are given by the von-Neumann equation

$$\dot{\tilde{\rho}}(t)=-i[\tilde{H},\tilde{\rho}(t)].$$ (4)

Taking the adjoint representation of this equation with respect to an orthonormal basis $\set{\sigma_{n}}_{n=1}^{N^{2}}$ of the $N\times N$ Hermitian matrices, such as the generalized Gell-Mann basis [18], yields the mapping $-i\tilde{H}\mapsto\mathrm{ad}_{-iH}:=\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}\times N^{2}}$ with elements

$$\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}}_{mn}=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(-i\tilde{H}[\sigma_{m},\sigma_{n}]\right),$$ (5)

where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ is the matrix commutator [17]. By linearity of the commutator and trace, $-iH\mapsto\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}\times N^{2}}$ and $-iS_{n}\mapsto\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}\times N^{2}}$ so that $\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}}=\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}+\delta_{n}f_{n}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}$. As $-iH$ and $-iS_{n}$ are skew-Hermitian, it follows from the expansion (5) that $\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}$ are skew-symmetric. The state $\rho$ maps to $\mathsf{r}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$ with elements $\mathsf{r}_{m}=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(\rho\sigma_{m}\right)$ so that $\rho_{0}\mapsto\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$, $\rho_{f}\rightarrow\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$, and the state equation is

$$\dot{\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{r}}}}(t)=\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}}\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{r}}}(t),\quad\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{r}}}(0)=\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0$$ (6)

with solution $\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{r}}}(t)=e^{\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}}t}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0$. The fidelity at the read-out time $t_{f}$ is $F=\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}^{T}e^{\tilde{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}}t_{f}}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0$. The fidelity error is $\mathsf{e}=1-F$. Finally, we define $\Phi:=e^{\mathsf{A}t_{f}}$ as the state transition matrix at $t_{f}$ and nominal $\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}$ and define its perturbed counterpart as $\tilde{\Phi}$.

II-D Differential Sensitivity

With this framework, the un-normalized differential sensitivity of $\mathsf{e}$ to a perturbation structured as $\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}$ is given by $\zeta_{n}:=\partial\mathsf{e}/\partial\delta_{n}$ [9, 19]. Given the spectral decomposition of $\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}$ (at its nominal value), $\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}=\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}\Lambda\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}$,

$$\begin{split}\zeta_{n}&=-t_{f}f_{n}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}^{T}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}\left(\int_{0}^{1}e^{t_{f}\Lambda(1-s)}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}e^{t_{f}\Lambda s}ds\right)\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0\\ &:=-t_{f}f_{n}u^{T}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{Z}_{n}}\odot\operatorname{\mathsf{X}}\right)v\end{split}$$ (7)

where $\operatorname{\mathsf{Z}_{n}}=\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}$, $u=\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}$, $v=\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0$, and $\odot$ denotes the Hadamard product. Denoting $i\lambda_{k}$ as the $k$th diagonal element of $\Lambda$, the entries of $\operatorname{\mathsf{X}}$ are

$$\operatorname{\mathsf{x}}_{k\ell}=\begin{cases}e^{i\lambda_{k}t_{f}},\quad&\lambda_{k}=\lambda_{\ell}\\ \frac{e^{i\lambda_{k}t_{f}}-e^{i\lambda_{\ell}t_{f}}}{it_{f}(\lambda_{k}-\lambda_{\ell})},&\lambda_{k}\neq\lambda_{\ell}\end{cases}.$$ (8)

Alternatively, we may define the operator $\mathsf{K}_{n}$ such that $\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}^{T}\left(\mathsf{K}_{n}\right)\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0:=u^{T}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{Z}_{n}}\odot\operatorname{\mathsf{X}}\right)v$ and

$$\zeta_{n}=-t_{f}f_{n}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}^{T}\left(\mathsf{K}_{n}\right)\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0.$$ (9)

III Geometric Interpretation of the Sensitivity

III-A Derivation of the Model

We now establish an analytic dependence of $\zeta_{n}$, the differential sensitivity to an uncertainty indexed by $n$, on the fidelity error $\mathsf{e}$, or equivalently, the fidelity $F$. We take a geometric approach and consider the operators $\Phi$ and $\mathsf{K}_{n}$ as elements of $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}})$, the space of bounded operators on $\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}}$ [20]. With the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product for $A,B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}})$, $\braket{A,B}=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}(A^{T}B)$ with compatible definition of the norm $\|A\|$. The orthognal projection of $A$ in the direction of $B$ is given by $\mathcal{P}_{B}(A)=\frac{1}{\|B\|^{2}}\braket{A,B}B$. Setting $\hat{B}=B/\|B\|$, we have $\mathcal{P}_{B}(A)=\braket{A,\hat{B}}\hat{B}$.

Let $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ be the two-dimensional subspace of $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}})$ spanned by $\Phi$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$.

Lemma 1

The operators $\Phi$ and $\mathsf{K}_{n}$ are orthogonal.

Proof:

By definition of the inner product and the differential sensitivity, we have

$$\braket{\Phi,\mathsf{K}_{n}} =\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{-t_{f}\mathsf{A}}\left(\int_{0}^{1}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}(1-s)}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}ds\right)\right)$$ (10)

$$=\int_{0}^{1}\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{-t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}\right)ds=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\right).$$ (11)

Now (5) implies $\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\in\mathfrak{so}(N^{2})$, being real and skew-symmetric, so $\mathrm{Tr}(\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}})=0$ for any allowed structure $S_{n}$ that retains unitary dynamics. ∎

Define the operator $\mathsf{R}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{N^{2}})$ as $\mathsf{R}=\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0^{T}$. With this $F=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}(\mathsf{R}^{T}\Phi)=\braket{\mathsf{R},\Phi}$ and $-\zeta_{n}/(f_{n}t_{f})=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}(\mathsf{R}^{T}\mathsf{K}_{n})=\braket{\mathsf{R},\mathsf{K}_{n}}$, and the projection of $\mathsf{R}$ on the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ can be written as

$$\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{S}}(\mathsf{R})=\mathcal{P}_{\Phi}(\operatorname{\mathsf{R}})+\mathcal{P}_{\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}):=\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}.$$ (12)

The projection given in (12) is orthogonal as $\mathcal{P}_{\mathsf{S}}^{2}=\mathcal{P}_{\mathsf{S}}$. Based on the projection definition, this is equivalent to

$$\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}=\frac{\braket{\operatorname{\mathsf{R}},\Phi}}{N^{2}}\Phi+\frac{\braket{\operatorname{\mathsf{R}},\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}}}{\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|^{2}}\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}=\frac{F}{N^{2}}\Phi+\frac{-\zeta_{n}}{f_{n}t_{f}\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|^{2}}\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}},$$ (13)

where $\|\Phi\|=N$ follows from $\Phi\in SO(N^{2})$. Defining $\phi_{n}$ as the angle subtending $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $\Phi$ and $\theta_{n}$ as the angle subtending $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$ gives

$$\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}=\left(\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\cos\phi_{n}\right)\hat{\Phi}+\left(\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\cos\theta_{n}\right)\hat{\mathsf{K}}_{n}.$$ (14)

Figure 1: Relation of operators in the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{n}$.

Figure 1 displays the relation of the operators in the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{n}$. It follows that $F=N\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\cos\phi_{n}$ and $\zeta_{n}=-t_{f}f_{n}\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|\cdot\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\cos\theta_{n}$. By Lemma 1, we have that $\Phi$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ are orthogonal so that either $\phi_{n}+\theta_{n}=\pi/2\mod\pi$ as in Case $1$ or $|\phi_{n}-\theta_{n}|=\pi/2$ as illustrated in Case $2$, and $\cos\theta_{n}=\pm\sin\phi_{n}$. Thus we have following relation between the magnitude of the differential sensitivity and the fidelity

$$|\zeta_{n}| =f_{n}t_{f}\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|\cdot\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\cdot|\sin\phi_{n}|$$ (15a)

$$=f_{n}t_{f}\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|\cdot\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{F}{N\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|}\right)^{2}}.$$ (15b)

Eqs. (12)-(13) appear to be the quantum equivalent of the classical relation $S+T=I$, expressed in terms of the fidelity $F$ rather than the error $\mathsf{e}=1-F$. At the less conceptual level of (15b), holding $\|K_{n}\|$ and $\|R_{s}\|$ constant, $|\zeta_{n}|$ and $\mathsf{e}$ decrease simultaneously, in disagreement with the classical limitations mandating a trade-off between error and sensitivity. What undermines the simplistic formulation that $|\zeta_{n}|$ and $\mathsf{e}$ are concordant is that $\|K_{n}\|$ and $\|R_{s}\|$ are not independent quantities; however, the first and crucial quantity can be bounded.

III-B The Relation between $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ and Eigenstructure

To determine how $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ depends on the eigenstructure of the controller $\Phi$, we employ (7), $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}=\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{Z}_{n}}\odot\operatorname{\mathsf{X}}\right)\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}:=\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}\operatorname{\mathsf{Q}_{n}}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}$. It follows immediately that $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|^{2}=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{Q}_{n}}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{Q}_{n}}\right)=\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N^{2}}|q_{k\ell}|^{2}$, and with (8)

$$q_{k\ell}=\begin{cases}z_{k\ell}e^{i\lambda_{k}t_{f}},&\lambda_{k}=\lambda_{\ell}\\ z_{k\ell}\frac{e^{i\lambda_{k}t_{f}}-e^{i\lambda_{\ell}t_{f}}}{it_{f}\left(\lambda_{k}-\lambda_{\ell}\right)},&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$$ (16)

so that

$$|q_{k\ell}|^{2}=\begin{cases}|z_{k\ell}|^{2},&\lambda_{k}=\lambda_{\ell}\\ |z_{k\ell}|^{2}\operatorname{\mathrm{sinc}}^{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\omega_{k\ell}t_{f}\right),&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$$ (17)

with the definition $\omega_{k\ell}:=\left(\lambda_{k}-\lambda_{\ell}\right)$. We now identify the maximum of $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ and establish strict positivity.

Lemma 2

$\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ is non-zero and bounded above by $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\|$.

Proof:

To see that $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ is not zero it suffices to show that $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}^{T}\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ is never the zero matrix. Consider the integral expression of $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ from (9). Pulling $e^{\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}t_{f}}=\Phi$ out of $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}^{T}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ and using $\Phi^{T}\Phi=I$, we are left with $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}^{T}\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}=\left(\int_{0}^{1}e^{-t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}ds\right)^{T}\left(\int_{0}^{1}e^{-t_{f}\mathsf{A}\tau}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}\tau}d\tau\right)$. Noting that $e^{\pm t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s}\in SO(N^{2})$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\in\mathfrak{so}(N^{2})$, shows that the integrand is the adjoint action of the special orthogonal group on its Lie algebra for any $s$ [21]. This Lie group conjugation is described by the mapping $\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}:\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\mapsto e^{-t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s}$. If the kernel of the integral of $\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}$ is empty, it follows that $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}^{T}\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ is not the zero matrix for non-trivial $\mathsf{S}_{n}$. The spectrum of $\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}$ given by $\set{i\lambda_{k}}_{k=1}^{N^{2}}$ determines the eigenvalues of $\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}$, which are $e^{-it_{f}(\lambda_{k}-\lambda_{\ell})s}$ for $k,\ell$ indexed from $1$ to $N^{2}$. The eigenvalues of $\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}$ retain the dependence of the integration variable $s$ (equivalently $\tau$), as can be verified by an explicit spectral decomposition of $\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}$. Integrating $s$ over the interval $[0,1]$ yields eigenvalues for $\int_{0}^{1}\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}ds$ of $1$ for $\lambda_{\ell}=\lambda_{k}$ and $i(1-e^{-i(\lambda_{k}-\lambda_{\ell})t_{f}}/\left(t_{f}(\lambda_{k}-\lambda_{\ell})\right)$ otherwise. As these eigenvalues are never zero, the kernel of the integral of $\mathrm{Ad}_{(e^{t_{f}\operatorname{\mathsf{A}}s})}$ is empty. It follows that, for a non-trivial uncertainty structure $\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}$, $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ is always non-zero. To establish the upper bound, note that when all $\operatorname{\mathrm{sinc}}$ terms in (17) assume the maximum of $1$, then $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|\leq\sqrt{\sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N^{2}}|z_{k\ell}|^{2}}=\sqrt{\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\mathsf{S}_{n}^{\dagger}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}^{\dagger}\mathsf{S}_{n}\operatorname{\mathsf{M}}\right)}=\|\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\|$. The upper bound of $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}\|$ is only achieved if $\lambda_{m}=\lambda_{n}=\lambda$ for all pairs $(m,n)$, in which case, $\Phi=Ie^{i\lambda t_{f}}$, which would provide a fidelity of zero for orthogonal states. ∎

Replacing $\|K_{n}\|$ by its upper bound in (15a) yields an upper bound on $|\zeta_{n}|$, which decreases as $\mathsf{e}$ decreases. But this behavior on the bound does not rule out an increase in $|\zeta_{n}|$ as $\mathsf{e}$ decreases [9]. This indicates that any quantum performance limitation is not as straightforward as in classical control and that $|\zeta_{n}|$ and $\mathsf{e}$ could be concordant [8, 10] or discordant [9].

III-C Sufficient Condition for Vanishing Sensitivity

Lemma 3

For unitary evolution, the differential sensitivity $\zeta_{n}$ vanishes for any physically allowable perturbation if the controller $\Phi$ induces perfect state transfer.

Proof:

As a physically realizable perturbation structure, $S_{n}$ is Hermitian, and its Bloch representation $\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}$ is skew-symmetric. For non-zero $t_{f}$ and $f_{n}$, $-\zeta_{n}/(f_{n}t_{f})$ is given by

$$\braket{\operatorname{\mathsf{R}},\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}^{T}\left(\int_{0}^{1}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}(1-s)}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}ds\right)\right)$$

$$=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}^{T}\Phi\left(\int_{0}^{1}e^{-t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}\operatorname{\mathsf{S}_{n}}e^{t_{f}\mathsf{A}s}ds\right)\right)=\operatorname{\mathrm{Tr}}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}^{T}\Phi\operatorname{\mathsf{W}}\right).$$

From Lemma 2, the term in the integral is the adjoint action of $SO(N^{2})$ on $\mathfrak{so}(N^{2})$ for any value of $s$. Thus $\operatorname{\mathsf{W}}\in\mathfrak{so}(N^{2})$, and $\braket{\operatorname{\mathsf{R}},\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}}=0$ is secured if the product $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}^{T}\Phi$ is symmetric. We thus require $\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0^{T}\right)^{T}\Phi=\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}^{T}\Phi=(\Phi^{T}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}})\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0^{T}$. Symmetry of this dyadic product requires $\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0=\lambda\Phi^{T}\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}$ for some real $\lambda$. Since $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}\|=\|\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0\|=1$ and $\Phi$ is orthogonal, it follows that $\lambda=\pm 1$. For $\lambda=1$, $\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}=\Phi\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0$, which is the condition for perfect state transfer from input state $\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0$ to $\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}$. Thus, for $\lambda=1$, a controller inducing perfect state transfer is sufficient for $|\zeta_{n}|=0$. For $\lambda=-1$, we would have $\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{f}}=\Phi(-\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0)$. Observing that $(\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0)_{m}=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_{0}\sigma_{m})$ with $\rho_{0}\geq 0$, it follows that $(-\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0)_{m}=\mathrm{Tr}(-\rho_{0}\sigma_{m})$, and $(-\operatorname{\mathsf{r}_{0}}0)$ would be associated with a nonpositive definite density, which is absurd. ∎

III-D Properties of $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$

The following observations demonstrate bounds on $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$.

Observation 1

At perfect state transfer $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|=1/N$ and $\cos\phi_{n}=1$. This follows from Eq. (13) and the orthogonality of $\hat{\Phi}$ and $\hat{\mathsf{K}}_{n}$, which implies $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|^{2}=(F/N)^{2}+(\zeta_{n}/f_{n}t_{f}\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|)^{2}$. Lemma 3 shows that $\zeta_{n}=0$ and thus $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|=(1/N)$ for $F=1$. The relation $F=N\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\cos\phi_{n}$ further implies that $\cos\phi_{n}=1$ for perfect state transfer.

Observation 2

For any fidelity, $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$ is bounded below by $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\geq F/N$. This follows directly from (15b), which requires $F/\left(N\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\right)<1$ for the sensitivity $\zeta_{n}$ to be real.

Though Observation 1 only provides the upper bound on $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$ in the exceptional case of perfect state transfer, we find that this holds as an upper bound in general. Fig. 2 for the case of a $5$-ring and coupling uncertainty shows that $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$ remains below $1/N$ for all controllers.

Figure 2: Plot of $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$ and $1/F$ for a $5$-ring and $\ket{1}\rightarrow\ket{3}$ transfer with coupling uncertainty indexed $n=10$. Note that as the fidelity decreases $F/N\leq\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\leq 1/N$.

In keeping with the geometric picture, we have $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|=\cos\eta_{n}$ where $\eta_{n}$ measures the minimum angle between $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}$ and any other elements of $\mathcal{S}_{n}$. We thus have $F=N\cos\eta_{n}\cos\phi_{n}$ and deduce that for a given uncertainty structure the magnitude of the sensitivity is given as $|\zeta_{n}|=t_{f}f_{n}\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\||\cos\eta_{n}|\cdot|\sin\phi_{n}|$.

IV Vanishing Differential Sensitivity

We now extend the result of [15, Th. 3] for sufficient conditions on vanishing sensitivity in spintronic networks. We use our geometric model to show that perfect state transfer is not only sufficient but necessary for vanishing sensitivity.

Theorem 1

For unitary evolution and controllers that yield non-zero fidelity, the differential sensitivity $\zeta_{n}$ vanishes for any physically allowable perturbation or uncertainty structure, if and only if the controller induces perfect state transfer.

Proof:

Sufficiency is established by Lemma 3. For necessity, we refer to (15a). For any physically realizable controller, both $f_{n}$ and $t_{f}$ are non-zero. A non-trivial sensitivity thus requires non-zero $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$, $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$, and $\sin\phi_{n}$. From Lemma 2 we have the $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ is always non-zero. From (13) it follows that the component of $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$ in the $\hat{\Phi}$ direction is only zero if the fidelity is zero. So $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|\neq 0$ unless the fidelity vanishes. Then $|\zeta_{n}|=0$ requires $\sin\phi_{n}=0$. But this is precisely the configuration of the operators in $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$ for perfect state transfer. We thus conclude that the differential sensitivity vanishes if and only if the controller yields perfect state transfer. ∎

V Examples

To demonstrate the utility of this model, we examine the fidelity error and sensitivity relationship for two state-transfer examples from taken from the data set in [10].

V-A Differing Fidelity Error-Sensitivity Profiles

Figure 3: Scatter plot of $|\zeta_{n}|$ versus $\mathsf{e}$ on a log-log scale for a $N=4$, $\ket{1}\rightarrow\ket{2}$ transfer. The solid line indicates a line of unity slope on a log-log scale between $\mathsf{e}$ and $|\zeta_{n}|$

We begin with the case of state-transfer from spin $1$ to spin $2$ in a $4$-ring with control mediated by static, time-invariant controls. We index the possible perturbations to the controls (i.e., perturbations to the diagonal elements of the SES Hamiltonian) by $n=1$ though $n=4$, and to the uncertainty in the couplings (i.e. uncertainty in the entries $((n-4),(n-3))$ and $((n-3),(n-4)))$ of the SES Hamiltonian) by $n=5$ though $n=7$. Uncertainty to the entries $(1,4)$ and $(4,1)$ is indexed by $n=8$. For all cases aside from $n=5$ and $n=7$, $\log{\mathsf{e}}$ and $\log|\zeta_{n}|$ display a strong linear correlation with a Pearson $r$ greater than $0.75$. For the remaining two cases the correlation coefficient is less than $0.14$. To investigate the origin of this differing behavior, we examine the differences between the $n=5$ and $n=6$ uncertainty cases as depicted in Figure 3. The strong linear relationship for the $n=6$ case is borne-out by a Pearson $r$ of $0.7503$, while the much flatter trend for the $n=5$ case can be verified by the Pearson $r$ of $0.1373$.

Figure 4: Plot of components of $|\zeta_{n}|$ as depicted in Figure 3. Note that while variation in $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ is minimal, $\sin\phi_{n}$ trends positively with the fidelity error for $n=6$ but shows a flat trend for $n=5$.

We explain these different trends with the geometric model of Section III and (15a). Consider the visualization of the components of $|\zeta_{n}|/t_{f}$ shown in Figure 4. Note that both cases correspond to coupling uncertainty, so $f_{n}=1$. For both cases, $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$ is nearly constant at $0.25$ across all controllers with a maximum deviation below this value on the order of $10^{-10}$. This data is not displayed in Fig. 4. $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ shows some deviation across the controllers, however these deviations are unlikely to induce the different trends observed in Figure 3. In particular for $n=5$, $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ has a mean of $3.650$ and variance of $0.0759$, while for $n=6$ the statistics for $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}\|$ are $1.527$ and $0.2752$. However, as seen from Figure 4, the behavior of $\sin\phi_{n}$ is markedly different for the controllers in the $n=5$ versus $n=6$ cases. The positive rank correlation between $\sin\phi_{6}$ and $\mathsf{e}$ is borne out by a Kendall $\tau$ of $0.8075$. Conversely, the lack of rank correlation between metrics for the $n=5$ case is evident in the weak Kendall $\tau$ of $-0.0275$.

This difference in behavior for $\sin\phi_{n}$ has the geometric interpretation that for the $n=5$ structure, the change in the fidelity (error) is more attributable to the increase in the angle $\eta_{5}$ defining the inclination of $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}}$ with the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{5}$ than to an increase of $\phi_{5}$ within the subspace. This minimal change of $\phi_{5}$ with the fidelity error manifests as the absence of a clear trend between $|\zeta_{5}|$ and $\mathsf{e}$ as the fidelity error increases. Conversely, for the $n=6$ case, an increase in the fidelity error is strongly correlated with, and nearly proportional to, an increase of the angle $\phi_{6}$ within the subspace $\mathcal{S}_{6}$. This suggests that those uncertainty structures that generate a subspace $\mathcal{S}_{n}$ spanned by $\Phi$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{K}_{n}}$ such that a change in the fidelity corresponds to an change in $\phi_{n}$, are more sensitive (less robust) to variations in the fidelity error. To account for the read-out time $t_{f}$ note that this the same for both uncertainty cases and thus may be ruled out as the cause of the differing trends observed in Figure 3.

V-B Large Variation in Sensitivity for Nearly Equal Error

We now study a case where there is no trend between $|\zeta_{n}|$ and $\mathsf{e}$ across controllers for the same uncertain parameter. We consider state transfer from spin $1$ to spin $2$ in a $5$-ring with perturbation structure $n=5$ (perturbation to the control addressing spin $5$).

Figure 5: Scatter plot of $|\zeta_{5}|$ versus $\mathsf{e}$ on a log-log scale for a $N=5$, $\ket{1}\rightarrow\ket{2}$ transfer. The data points circled in red display widely varying sensitivity for nearly equal error.

TABLE I: Physical and geometric factors contributing to $|\zeta_{5}|$

. Index $f_{5}$ $t_{f}$ $\|\mathsf{K}_{5}\|$ $\|\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}\|$ $\sin\phi_{5}$ $|\zeta_{5}|$ $1585$ $2.35$ $198$ $1.71$ $0.199$ $1.48\times 10^{-7}$ $2.33\times 10^{-5}$ $1586$ $330$ $108$ $2.74$ $0.199$ $1.37\times 10^{-6}$ $2.69\times 10^{-2}$ $1587$ $17.0$ $400$ $1.68$ $0.198$ $4.50\times 10^{-5}$ $1.01\times 10^{-1}$

Figure 5 depicts the sensitivity versus error profile, which does not reveal any visual trend between the two metrics. Rather, we see that the controllers with the lowest absolute value of sensitivity fall in the range of $10^{-4}<\mathsf{e}<10^{-2}$. We focus on the controller indices $1585$, $1586$, and $1587$ (the red circled data points in Figure 5) which have an error in the range $5.67\times 10^{-3}\pm 5\times 10^{-5}$, while the differential sensitivity for these controllers spans orders of magnitude from $2.33\times 10^{-5}$ for controller $1585$ up to $0.101$ for controller $1587$. We provide insight into this vast change in sensitivity by considering the geometric factors encoded in the size and orientation of the related matrix operators along with the physical parameters $t_{f}$ and $f_{n}$ as captured in (15a). Table I provides a summary of the relevant factors contributing to $|\zeta_{5}|$ for each controller. Referring to this data, we see that unlike in the previous example, the behavoir cannot be attributed simply to the effect of $\sin\phi_{5}$, but rather to a combination of the factors $\sin\phi_{5}$, $t_{f}$, and $f_{5}$. The extremely small sensitivity of controller $1585$ is most attributable to a small angle $\phi_{5}$ between $\Phi$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$ and small control amplitude. While controller $1586$ demonstrates a $\sin\phi_{5}$ only an order of magnitude larger than the previous controller and a shorter read-out time, the large value of the control field contributes to an increase of over two orders of magnitude in $|\zeta_{5}|$. Finally, while controller $1587$ admits a smaller control amplitude than its predecessor, the larger read-out time and $\sin\phi_{5}$, manifest as the largest sensitivity of the trio. This brief analysis justifies the premium placed on minimizing transfer times to increase robustness beyond the desire to minimize the impact of decoherence in open systems in general [22]. It also supports efforts to limit control amplitudes beyond energy considerations. Finally, while optimizing directly for small $\phi_{n}$ may not be possible, minimizing the fidelity error necessarily minimizes $\phi_{n}$ with a concomitant reduction in sensitivity.

VI Conclusion

We developed a geometric model of the fidelity versus sensitivity to parametric uncertainty embodied in Eq. (12) more descriptive than the analytical formula (15b). We employed this model to provide insight into results of previous work based on statistical analysis of the sensitivity versus fidelity error [8]. With this geometric model we expanded the scope of another previous work [15, Th. 3] by proving that perfect fidelity is not only sufficient, but necessary, for vanishing sensitivity. Future work should focus on relating $\operatorname{\mathsf{R}_{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $\phi_{n}$ to the eigenstructure of the controller in order to inform synthesis methods that account for these factors’ impact on sensitivity.