Arxiv:1809.09562V2 [Quant-Ph] 30 Apr 2019 Sian Academy of Sciences Within the Project No

KROTOV METHOD FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL IN CLOSED QUANTUM SYSTEMS

O. V. Morzhin1 and A. N. Pechen2 April 30, 2019

1 Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), Senior Re- searcher. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), Head of the Department of Mathematical Methods for Quantum Technologies; National University of Science and Technology “MISIS” (Moscow), Department of Mathematics, Leading Re- searcher. E-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)

Dedicated to the bright memory of Prof. Vadim F. Krotov

AMS 2010 Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcation. Primary 81Q93; Secondary 49Mxx, 35Q40, 93C15

UDC 517.958

Abstract Mathematical problems of optimal control in quantum systems attract high interest in connection with fundamental questions and existing and prospective applications. An important problem is the development of methods for constructing controls for quantum systems. One of the commonly used methods is the Krotov method initially proposed beyond quantum control in the articles by V.F. Krotov and I.N. Feldman (1978, 1983). The method was used to develop a novel approach for finding optimal controls for quantum systems in [D.J. Tannor, V. Kazakov, V. Orlov, In: Time-Dependent Quantum Molecular Dynamics, Boston, Springer, 347–360 (1992)] and [J. Somlói,V.A. Kaza- kov, D.J. Tannor, Chem. Phys., 172:1, 85–98 (1993)], and in many works of various scientists, as described in details in this review. The review discusses mathematical aspects of this method for optimal control of closed quantum systems. It outlines various modifications with respect to defining the improvement function (which in most cases is linear or linear-quadratic), constraints on control spectrum and on the states of a quantum system, regularizers, etc. The review describes applications of the Krotov method to control of molecular dynamics, manipulation of Bose-Einstein condensate, quantum gate generation. We also discuss comparison with GRAPE (GRadient As- cent Pulse Engineering), CRAB (Chopped Random-Basis), the ZhuRabitz and the MadayTurinici methods. Bibliography: 154 titles.

Key words: quantum control, coherent control, Krotov method, closed quantum systems, quantum technology. Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5 were preformed by both authors in Steklov Mathematical Institute of Rus- arXiv:1809.09562v2 [quant-ph] 30 Apr 2019 sian Academy of Sciences within the project No. 17-11-01388 of the Russian Science Foundation. Sub- sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 were performed by both authors within government project of Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences. Subsection 2.4 and Section 6 were performed by the ﬁrst author within government project of Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences and by the second author in MISiS within the Project No. 1.669.2016/FPM of the Ministry of Science and Higher Ed- ucation of the Russian Federation. Subsections 2.5 and 2.6 were performed by the second author in MISiS within the Project No. 1.669.2016/FPM of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

1 Contents

1 Introduction2

2 Classes of optimal control problems for closed quantum systems5 2.1 Schr¨odingerequation with controlled Hamiltonian and cost criteria ...... 5 2.2 Liouville–von Neumann equation with control and cost criteria ...... 7 2.3 Cost criteria for unitary transformations and for ensemble of solutions of the Schr¨odingerequation ...... 8 2.4 Gross–Pitaevskii equation and optimal control of Bose–Einstein condensate . 10 2.5 Controllability of closed quantum systems ...... 12 2.6 Landscapes of control problems for closed quantum systems ...... 13

3 Krotov method for systems with states in Rn 14 3.1 Optimal control problems and Krotov Lagrangian ...... 14 3.2 Krotov method in the general form ...... 16 3.3 Krotov method with linear-quadratic function ϕ ...... 18 3.4 Krotov method for bilinear systems ...... 20

4 Krotov method of the 1st order for controlling quantum systems governed by the Schrödingerand Liouville–von Neumann equations 21 4.1 Krotov method for the Schrödingerequation ...... 21 4.2 Krotov method for the Liouville–von Neumann equation ...... 23 4.3 Zhu–Rabitz and Maday–Turinici methods. The connection with the 1st order Krotov method ...... 24 4.4 Krotov method and other methods in numerical experiments for controlled Schrödingerand Liouville–von Neumann equations ...... 26

5 Krotov method for controlling unitary dynamics and ensembles of solutions of the Schr¨odingerequation 29 5.1 Krotov method of the 2nd order with constraints on quantum states . . . . . 29 5.2 Krotov method with constraints on spectrum of the control ...... 30 5.3 Maday–Turinici and Krotov methods with modiﬁed quality criteria and smoothing of control ...... 32 5.4 Applications in numerical experiments for controlling unitary dynamics . . . 33

6 Krotov method of the 2nd order for controlling Bose–Einstein condensate governed by the Gross–Pitaevskii equation 34 6.1 Nonlinear dynamics and the 2nd order Krotov method ...... 34 6.2 Krotov and GRAPE methods in numerical experiments for controlling Bose– Einstein condensate ...... 36

7 Conclusions 37

1 Introduction

Optimal control theory considers optimal control problems (OCP) for dynamical systems described by ordinary differential equations (ODE), partial differential equation (PDE), etc. Optimal control theory began to develop in the middle of the 20th century starting from such fundamental results as Pontryagin maximum principle developed by L.S. Pontryagin, V.G. Boltyansky, R.W. Gamkrelidze, and E.F. Mishchenko [1] and R. Bellman optimality principle [2]. Now optimal control theory is one of the leading areas of mathematics with numerous applications in flight dynamics, robotics, economics, quantum technologies, etc.

2 A branch of applications of optimal control theory is quantum control an advanced interdisciplinary direction devoted to studying control of quantum systems, i.e. of individual electrons, atoms, molecules, photons. Control is implemented by shaped laser pulses, modulating electromagnetic radiation, engineered environment, or other actions. Modern technology allows to make laser pulses of an ultra-small duration on the order of femtoseconds (10−15 sec) and attoseconds (10−18 sec). The high interest to mathematical problems of quantum control is motivated by progress in experiments on manipulation by quantum systems. In 1997, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to S. Chu, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, and W.D. Phillips “for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light”1. In 2001, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to E.A. Cornell, W. Ketterle, and C. Wieman, who in 1995 made Bose-Einstein condensate in the laboratories2. In 2012, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to S. Haroche and D.J. Wineland “for ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems”3. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2018 was awarded “for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics” to A. Ashkin “for the optical tweezers and their application to biological systems”, G. Mourou and D. Strickland “for their method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses”4. Mathematical problems of quantum control are actively studied since the 1980s. Quan- tum control is important for existing and prospective technologies, including control of atomic and molecular dynamics (for example, laser cooling of molecules); manipulation of Bose-Einstein condensate; implementation of quantum computing (e.g., for optimal generation of qubits and quantum gates), designing atomic chips, laser-assisted isotope separation, laser chemistry, nuclear magnetic resonance, dynamic nuclear polarization, and magnetic resonance imaging. The theoretical and experimental results on quantum control are sum- marized in the books and reviews by: A.G. Butkovskiy and Yu.I. Samoilenko (1984) [3]; I.V. Krasnov, N.Ya. Shaparev, and I.M. Shkedov (1989) [4]; S.A. Rice and M. Zhao (2000) [5]; A.D. Bandrauk, M.C. Delfour, and C. Le Bris as editors (2003) [6]; D. D’Alessandro (2003) [7]; P. Brumer and M. Shapiro (2003) [8]; D.J. Tannor (2007) [9]; V.S. Letokhov (2007) [10]; D. D’Alessandro (2007) [11]; A.L. Fradkov (2007) [12]; C. Brif, R. Chakrabarti, and H.A. Rabitz (2010) [13]; D. Dong and I.R. Petersen (2010) [14]; H.M. Wiseman and G.J. Milburn (2010) [15]; C. Altafini and F. Ticozzi (2012) [16]; B. Bonnard and D. Sugny (2012) [17]; J.E. Gough (2012) [18]; S. Cong (2014) [19]; W. Dong, R. Wu, X. Yuan, C. Li, T.-J. Tarn (2015) [20]; S.J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C.P. Koch, W. Köckenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen,D. Sugny, F.K. Wilhelm (2015) [21]; C.P. Koch (2016) [22]; A. Borz`ı,G. Ciaramella, and M. Sprengel (2017) [23]. As in optimal control theory, quantum optimal control considers program control, when control function depends on time and feedback control, when control function depends on time and on the system state. The article [24] considers quantum control for discrete-observable quantum systems which between observations evolve according to the Schrödingerequa- tion. The article [25] contains the theory of real-time feedback control for physical models of quantum optics. Methods used for program quantum control include genetic and evolu- tionary algorithms [26, 27], Pontryagin maximum principle and geometric control, e.g., for minimal-time quantum control [28–36], gradient flows [37], GRAPE (GRadient Ascent Pulse Engineering) [38,39], CRAB (Chopped Random-Basis) [40], ZhuRabitz [41] and Maday Turinici [42] methods, dynamic programming [43,44], time-parallelized algorithms [45], speed gradient method [46,47], HoRabitz TBQCP (Two-point Boundary-value Quantum Control Paradigm) method [48], gradient projection method [49], etc. Machine learning is also used in research on quantum systems and technologies: reinforcement learning is applied for constructing quantum controls [50,51]; auto-encoder is applied for reducing the dimensionality of data describing quantum dynamics [52]; the restricted Boltzmann machine is used for

1https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1997/summary/ 2https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2001/summary/ 3https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2012/summary/ 4https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2018/summary/

3 quantum tomography [53, 54]. Quantum machine learning is considered [55]. One of the commonly used methods for constructing program controls for quantum systems is the Krotov5 method. This method was initially proposed beyond quantum control by V.F. Krotov and I.N. Feldman [56,57] (1978, 1983) based on the Krotov optimality principle [58,59] and further developed by A.I. Konnov and V.F. Krotov [60] (1999). An example with control of an open (i.e. interacting with the environment) quantum system was analyzed by V.A. Kazakov and V.F. Krotov in 1987 in the article [61] (also in [62]). Crucial step in development to quantum systems was done in 1992–1993, when D.J. Tannor and coauthors used the 1st order Krotov method to develop a general approach for finding optimal controls for quantum systems [63,64]. In 2002, the 2nd order Krotov method [57,60] was adapted by S.E. Sklarz and D.J. Tannor for modeling of optimal control for Bose-Einstein condensate, whose dynamics is defined in terms of a controlled Gross–Pitaevskii equation [65]. In 2008, J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, and C.P. Koch developed the method to optimal control for the problem of obtaining an objective in a subspace of the Hilbert space while avoiding population transfer to other subspaces [70]. The Krotov method was applied with various modifications and taking into account specific details of quantum optimal control problems, for atomic and molecular dynamics [9,19,42,66–77]; qubits, quantum gates, quantum networks [78–94]; manipulation of Bose–Einstein condensate [39, 65, 95, 96]; nuclear magnetic resonance, dynamic nuclear polarization, and magnetic resonance imaging [97–99]. The program tools6 were developed in Fortran and Python languages by the research group of C.P. Koch and coauthors. They include the implementation of both first and second order Krotov methods, also including constraints on quantum states and on the control spectrum. There are regularly defended dissertations on quantum optimal control which use the iterative Krotov method. For example, dissertation [100] by M.D. Reich (2015) is devoted to foundations of quantum optimal control for open quantum systems, dissertation [78] by M.H. Goerz (2015) to optimization of robust quantum gates for open quantum systems, and dissertation [95] by G. Jäger(2015) to optimal control of Bose–Einstein condensate. This review outlines mathematical results and applications of the Krotov method for closed, i.e., not interacting with the environment, quantum systems evolved under coherent control entering in the perturbed part of the Hamiltonian. Open quantum systems will be considered elsewhere. The review does not intend to be a complete overview of all modifications of the method for quantum systems, only basic results are provided. We use the name “Krotov method” following the tradition established in quantum optimal control. At the same time, the publications [56,57] (V.F. Krotov, I.N. Feldman) and [60] (A.I. Konnov, V.F. Krotov) were in co-authorship that can be reflected in the name of the method. The structure of the review is the following. Section 2 provides formulation of various OCPs for closed quantum systems. It also includes a brief discussion of controllability and control landscapes for closed quantum systems. Section 3 is devoted to the Krotov method for OCPs with real-valued states. Section 4 discusses the first-order Krotov method, Zhu- Rabitz, and Madey-Turinici methods, for systems governed by Schrödingerand Liouville–von Neumann equations. Section 5 considers the generation of target unitary transformations and control of ensembles of quantum states. Section 6 discusses applications of Krotov and GRAPE methods for manipulation by Bose-Einstein condensate whose dynamics is governed by the controlled Gross–Pitaevski equation. The Conclusions section summarizes the review.

5Vadim F. Krotov (1932 – 2015) famous scientist, Honored worker of science of Russia, an author of the fundamental results in optimal control theory. In 1962 V.F. Krotov defended the candidate dissertation “A new method of variational calculus and some its applications” in Steklov Mathematical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and in 1963 he defended the doctoral dissertation “Some new methods of variational calculus and their application to the ﬂight dynamics” at Moscow Aviation Institute. He was the head of departments in Moscow Aviation Technological Institute and Moscow Institute of Economics and Statistics. In 1982 2015 he worked in the Institute of Control Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences (ICS RAS) as the head of the 45th laboratory, which now has his name. The website of ICS RAS has the page devoted to V.F. Krotov: http://www.ipu.ru/node/32378 (In Russian.) 6 https://www.qdyn-library.net/ and https://github.com/qucontrol/

4 2 Classes of optimal control problems for closed quantum systems

In this section we consider formulation of various optimal control problems for closed quantum systems. Formulation of an optimal control problem includes defining dynamical equation, space of controls, cost functional to be minimized, and constraints on controls and states. Each quantum system is associated with some Hilbert space H: for example, H = Cn for a system with n states; Hilbert space for a quantum particle moving in some domain Ω ∈ Rd is H = L2(Ω; C). Pure states of the system are unit norm vectors ψ ∈ H, kψk2 = 1. Some models consider the Hilbert space L2(Ω; CM ), Ω ⊆ Rq. Here the state is a vector function ψ = (ψ1, . . . , ψM ). Most general states of a quantum system are described by density matrices. A density matrix is a self-adjoint trace class operator ρ in the Hilbert space H which satisfies the conditions ρ ≥ 0, Trρ = 1. The dynamics of the system state in the absence of controls is determined by free system Hamiltonian H0(t), which is a self-adjoint operator in H. There is a dynamical invariant: 2 3 kψ(t)kH = 1. In the case of an electron in Ω ⊂ R this invariant means that the probability of detecting an electron in Ω at any time t is 1. In the case of a qubit, n = 2 and ψ(t) = α(t)|0i+ 1 0 β(t)|1i ∈ 2 (here |0i = and |1i = in the Dirac notation), |α(t)|2 + |β(t)|2 = 1, C 0 1 2 2 what provides kψ(t)k 2 = 1. The value of |α(t)| is the probability of finding the system C in the pure state |0i, and the value |β(t)|2 is the probability of obtaining |1i. We consider m controls, so that interaction with control ul (l = 1, m) is described by a self-adjoint interaction Hamiltonian Hl. An observable O of the system is a self-adjoint operator in H. If the system is in pure state ψ, then average observed value of O is hOi = hψ, Oψi. If the system is in the state with density matrix ρ, then hOi = Tr(ρO).

2.1 Schrödingerequation with controlled Hamiltonian and cost criteria Based on, in particular [3, 11, 23], we formulate the following definition. Definition 2.1. A system with Hilbert space H governed by the Schrödingerequation with a linearly controlled Hamiltonian H is a quantum system whose state ψ(t) ∈ H satisfies

dψ(t) i = − H[u(t)]ψ(t), ψ(0) = ψ0, (2.1) dt ~ where

m X H[u(t)] = H0 + Hlul(t), (2.2) l=1 m u ∈ U = PC([0,T ]; Q),Q ⊆ R . (2.3)

The initial state ψ0 ∈ H and the final time moment T are fixed; ~ is the Planck constant; u(t) = (ul(t))l=1,m, is a vector control function; U is the class of admissible controls; Q is a convex set; the Hamiltonian H is a self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space H; the operator H0 is the unperturbed part of H; the operator Hl characterizes the interaction of the quantum system with external control ul(t). As the class of admissible controls U, we consider the space of piecewise-continuous functions PC([0,T ]; Q). T can be orders of femtoseconds, picoseconds, etc. The following theorem is a corollary of the Caratheodory’s theorem on the existence and uniqueness of the solution of a differential equation with discontinuous right-hand side (r.h.s.).

5 Theorem 2.1. Let H = Cn. If u ∈ L1([0,T ]; Q), then the solution of the equation (2.1) exists in the class of absolutely continuous functions on the interval [0,T ] and is unique.

Since PC([0,T ]; Q) ⊂ L1([0,T ]; Q), then for H = Cn for each piecewise continuous control u the solution of (2.1) exists and is unique. Definition 2.2. The process v = (ψ(t), u(t) | t ∈ [0,T ]) is called admissible, if it satisfies the conditions (2.1) (2.3). Denote by D the set of all admissible processes. Remark 2.1. In the general case, control u can be a complex-valued function [9, 63, 101]. Further we will consider real-valued controls as specified in (2.3). In the general case, Hamil- tonian H can depend nonlinearly on the control u [102]. Further we will consider only the linear case commonly used. Definition 2.3. For the system (2.1) (2.3), the following OCP is called the problem of maximizing the mean hOi = hψ(T ), Oψ(T )i for a Hermitian operator O:

T Z ku(t)k2 J(v) = F (ψ(T )) + λ dt + O u S(t) 0 T Z +λψ hψ(t),D(t)ψ(t)idt → min,J : D → R, (2.4) v∈D 0 where the cost criterion has the terminant FO = − hOi, parameters λu ≥ 0, λψ ≤ 0; operator D(t) (t ∈ [0,T ]) is self-adjoint positive semi-defined; and S is some shape function. For the first term in the r.h.s. of (2.4), the condition O ≥ 0 can be considered, what is essential for sequential improvements of controls using the methods given in the articles [63] (D.J. Tannor, V.A. Kazakov, V.N. Orlov, 1992), [41] (W. Zhu, H.A. Rabitz, 1998), [42] (Y. Maday, G. Turinici, 2003) for OCPs of the type (2.1) (2.4) with S(t) ≡ 1 and λψ = 0. The second term in the r.h.s. of (2.4) can be understood as a condition of energy minimization, which is important for avoiding non-physical values of coherent control or as a possibility to simplify application of optimization methods. This term can significantly change the original OCP by affecting values of the terminant F(ψ(T )) (that is why adjusting λu > 0 is required). Along with S(t) ≡ 1 [41, 63, 64, 103, 104], non-constant function S can be used to make smooth start of a laser field from t = 0 and its smooth shutdown to the moment t = T . Examples include S(t) = sin2(πt/T ) [105] (K. Sundermann, R. de Vivie- Riedle, 1999), S(t) = exp −32(t/T − 1/2)2 [70, p. 5] (J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, C.P. Koch, 2008), etc. The third term with the operator D(t) allows to specify forbidden or allowed subspaces in H [70]. If the operator D(t) is positive semi-definite, then it describes an allowed subspace. The role of this term is discussed in details in [70]. The requirement λψ ≤ 0 is chosen to satisfy a special condition for non-decreasing of the cost functional using the 1st order Krotov method considered in Section 4. T Moreover, a constraint of the type R u2(t)dt{=, ≤}E (E is some fixed value) or, in the 0 T complex-valued case, of the type R u(t)u∗(t)dt{=, ≤}E [61, 101, 104] can be used. In this 0 review we do not consider such constraints. Along with FO one considers terminants with a given target state ψtarget ∈ H (e.g., [3, p. 20], [106, p. 4]):

2 Fψtarget = 1 − |hψ(T ), ψtargeti| , (2.5) 1 F = 1 − Re hψ(T ), ψ i = kψ(T ) − ψ k2 . (2.6) ψtarget target 2 target

6 Minimization of (2.5) means maximization of the probability that the ﬁnal state ψ(T ) ∈ H is the target state ψtarget. For the criterion (2.4), the terminant (2.5) represents a particular case, where O = Ptarget 3 is the projector onto the target state ψtarget. For M = 1, x ∈ R one considers as ψtarget, for example, a sum of Gaussian functions [73, с. 6]:

  3   3  X α 2 X β 2 ψtarget(x) = A exp − αj(xj − xj )  + exp − βj(xj − xj )  , j=1 j=1

αj, βj > 0. The following term [106, p. 4], which describes optimization of the entire trajectory, is sometimes considered in the cost functional J:

T T 1 Z Z F = kψ(t) − ψ (t)k2 dt = T − Re hψ (t), ψ(t)i dt. ψtarget(t) 2 target target 0 0 Definition 2.4. For OCP (2.1) (2.4), an admissible process v∗ is a solution if this process provides the global minimum J(v∗) = min J(v) of the cost functional J. v∈D An OCP for the Schrödinger equation in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space in some cases can be reduced to an approximate OCP for a finite-dimensional system, and for the last OCP one can consider the corresponding OCP with real-valued states. The articles [76,107] consider the equation ∂ψ(θ, t) ∂2 i = − + u(t) cos θ ψ(θ, t), ψ(0) = ψ , θ ∈ Ω ∂t ∂θ2 0 describing rotations of a planar molecule, and the following approximate OCP: dz(t) = (A + u(t)B) z(t), z(0) = z , z(t) ∈ n, (2.7) dt 0 C 2 J(z, u) = |z2(T )| → min . (2.8) Here θ is the angle between the polarization direction and the molecular axis; Ω is a one- dimensional torus; A and B are (n×n) matrices obtained with approximation by the Galerkin method; n = 22.

2.2 Liouville–von Neumann equation with control and cost criteria The evolution of the density matrix of a closed quantum system under the control is described by the Liouville–von Neumann equation with controlled Hamiltonian: dρ i h i = − H[u(t)], ρ , ρ(0) = ρ0, (2.9) dt ~ where [, ] is commutator ([A, B] = AB − BA); the initial density matrix ρ0 is given. If a quantum system is open, that is, interacting with the environment (reservoir), then the evolution of the density matrix ρ(t) under the inﬂuence of coherent control will not be unitary and can be described by the equation dρ i h i = − H[u(t)], ρ + L(ρ), ρ(0) = ρ0, (2.10) dt ~ P † where dissipator L(ρ) can have, for example, the Lindblad form L(ρ) = γk AkρAk − k 1n o A† A , ρ ; A are the Lindblad operators which model diﬀerent channels of dissipation; 2 k k k {, } anticommutator ({A, B} = AB + BA); parameters γk ≥ 0. If L(ρ) ≡ 0, then the equation (2.10) becomes the Liouville–von Neumann equation (2.9).

7 Definition 2.5. For the system (2.9), the problem of maximization of the mean hρtargeti = Tr (ρ(T )ρtarget) [3, 106] between the final density matrix ρ(T ) and the target density matrix ρtarget is defined with the following cost criterion:

T T Z ku(t)k2 Z J(v) = Fρ (ρ(T )) + λu dt + λρ Tr (ρ(t)D(t)) dt → min, (2.11) target S(t) v∈D 0 0 where the terminant Fρtarget = − hρtargeti; process v = (ρ, u), parameters λu ≥ 0, λρ ≤ 0; and operator D(t) is self-adjoint positive semi-deﬁnite.

2.3 Cost criteria for unitary transformations and for ensemble of solutions of the Schrödingerequation Potential applications of quantum technologies include quantum computation which could significantly increase the speed of solving complex problems such as factorization of a large number or search in an unsorted database [114–117]. Basic objects in quantum computation are qubit (quantum bit), which is a two-state quantum system, and quantum gate elementary operation which transforms input states of one or several qubits into some output states. Mathematically quantum gate is a unitary matrix W [117–119]. For example, the Hadamard gate is the following one-qubit (n = 2) unitary matrix: 1 1 1 WH = √ . 2 1 −1 Two-qibit gates (n = 22) include, for example, such gates as Controlled NOT (CNOT), Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT), Controlled Phase gate (CPHASE), and BGATE: 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1  0 1 0 0 1 1 i −1 −i WCNOT =   ,WQFT =   , 0 0 0 1 2 1 −1 1 −1 0 0 1 0 1 −i −1 i π π  cos 0 0 i sin    8 8 1 0 0 0  3π 3π   0 cos i sin 0  0 1 0 0   8 8  WCPHASE =   ,WBGATE =   . 0 0 1 0   3π 3π   0 i sin cos 0  0 0 0 −1  π 8 8 π  i sin 0 0 cos 8 8 Examples of three-qubit gates are Toffoli and Fredkin gates. Implementation of quantum gate W in a quantum processor means realization of a suitable controlled physical process (e.g., [79,80]) which produces the evolution of the system which equals to the unitary matrix W . Definition 2.6. The operator U(t) satisfying the Cauchy problem

m ! dU(t) i X = − H + H u (t) U(t),U(0) = , (2.12) dt 0 l l I ~ l=1 is called the unitary evolution operator of a quantum system with Hilbert space H and with control u(t) = (u1(t), . . . , um(t)), where Hl (l = 0, m) are Hermitian operators and I is the identity operator. Similarly to the Theorem 1 (see also Lemma 2.1 in [120] (1972)), the solution of the equation (2.12) exists, is absolutely continuous matrix function and unique for controls from the space L1([0,T ]; Q).

8 We have ψ(t) = U(t)ψ0. The evolution of the density matrix is given by † ρ(t) = U(t)ρ0U (t). (2.13) Density matrix ρ(t) satisﬁes Liouville–von Neumann equation (2.9). From (2.13) it follows that 1 kρ(T ) − ρ k2 = C − Tr (ρ ρ(T )) , 2 target target 1 1 where C = Tr ρ2 + Tr ρ2 . For trajectory optimization the following functional is 2 0 2 target used [106, p. 4]:

T T 1 Z Z kρ(t) − ρ (t)k2 dt = CT − Tr (ρ (t)ρ(t)) dt. 2 target target 0 0 Deﬁnition 2.7. The OCP for the unitary operator U(t) is the problem of minimizing the cost functional

T Z ku(t)k2 J (v) = F (U(T )) + λ dt, λ ≥ 0, v = (U, ρ) (2.14) X X u S(t) u 0 for the system (2.12), where the terminant FX , X ∈ {W, O, A}, is deﬁned by one of the following ways:

1 † 2 FW (U(T )) = − Tr(W U(T )) , (2.15) n2 † FO(U(T )) = −Tr(Oρ(T )) = −Tr(OU(T )ρ0U (T )), (2.16) † † † FA(U(T )) = −Re Tr(A ρ(T )) = −Re Tr(A U(T )ρ0U (T )) , (2.17) † 2 † † 2 FA(U(T )) = −|Tr(A ρ(T ))| = −|Tr(A U(T )ρ0U (T ))| ; (2.18) W is unitary, O is self-adjoint, A is non-self-adjoint given operator; S is some shape function. Problems of this kind are considered, for example, in connection with nuclear magnetic resonance, magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic nuclear polarization [97,98], quantum gate generation (e.g., [121, 122]). Following the articles [70, 75, 80, 85, 87–90, 100], consider the definition. Definition 2.8. The ensemble of solutions of the Schrödingerequation is a set of functions {ψj(t) | t ∈ [0,T ], j = 1, n} such that jth element of this set is the solution of the Schrödinger equation (2.1) with a controlled Hamiltonian (2.2), where ψ = ψj, ψ0 = ψj,0, the initial states {ψj,0 | j = 1, n} are given, and the control u is the same for all j = 1, n. Instead of a unitary transformation U(t) we can study the corresponding ensemble of solutions of the Schrödingerequation due to ψj(T ) = U(T )ψ0,j, ψtarget,j = W ψ0,j, j = 1, n, where W is a target unitary transformation. For the ensemble of solutions, one can consider the corresponding OCP for controlled simultaneous transitions of the system from the set of initial states ψ0,j to the set of target states ψtarget,j, j = 1, n. Definition 2.9. The following problem is called OCP for an ensemble of solutions of the Schrödingerequation:

dψj(t) i = − H[u(t)]ψj(t), ψj(0) = ψ0,j, j = 1, n, (2.19) dt ~ T Z n X J(v) = F {ψj(T ), j = 1, n} + λψ hψj(t), D(t)ψj(t)i dt → min, (2.20) 0 j=1

9 where v = {ψj}j=1,n, u is the control process; the terminant F is defined on the set of final states of the ensemble of solutions; parameter λψ ≤ 0. The specific details of an OCP (2.19), (2.20) can be different [70,75,80,87–90,100]. The articles [79, 80] (J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, 2002, 2003) consider control of lithium and sodium molecules with two electronic states (ground and excited). The first n = 2q levels of the ground state are considered as registers for q qubits, and the goal is to find such control u which provides the realization of the target gate W . The article [79] considers OCPs for implementing the quantum gates WH and WQFT by realizing simultaneous transitions between electronic surfaces for solutions ψj of the Schrödingerequation. The goal is expressed as minimization of the terminant n n 1 2 1 X X F(U(T )) = − Tr{W †U(T )P } = − hj|W †U(T )|jihj0|U(T )†W |j0i, n2 n n2 j=1 j0=1 where Pn is the projector on the subspace where a unitary transformation W is considered. The theory of quantum gates uses the Cartan decomposition on the SU(4) group, Weyl chamber, and local invariants related to the equivalence classes [78, 87, 92] (T. Calarco, C.P. Koch, M.M. Müller,D.M. Reich, J. Vala, and others). The Cartan decomposition for a two-qubit operator U ∈ SU(4) is [87] i U = k Ak , where A = exp c σ ⊗ σ + c σ ⊗ σ + c σ ⊗ σ . (2.21) 1 2 2 1 x x 2 y y 3 z z

Here σx, σy, σz are the Pauli matrices, k1, k2 ∈ SU(2) ⊗ SU(2) are some local operations, real numbers c1, c2, c3 are coordinates in the Weyl chamber. WCNOT can be represented by (2.21) as WCNOT = (I ⊗ WH) WCPHASE (I ⊗ WH), where I is the identity matrix [78]. WCNOT and WCPHASE diﬀer from each other only by local operations. Hence they are locally equivalent (WCNOT ∼ WCPHASE) and belong to the same equivalence class [WCNOT], which corresponds to the point (c1, c2, c3) = (π/2, 0, 0) in the Weyl chamber. The equivalence classes are related to local invariants that can be written using the following representation of U via the Bell basis: 1 1 1 g = Re{(Trm)2}, g = Im{(Trm)2}, g = (Trm)2 − Trm2 . 1 16 b 2 16 b 3 4 b b Here 1 0 0 i  † † 1 0 i 1 0  m = U UB,UB = BUB ,B =   . b B 2 0 i −1 0  1 0 0 −i The papers [78, 87, 92] consider OCPs where the cost functional is formulated in terms of distances in the space of coordinates (c1, c2, c3) or in the space of local invariants (g1, g2, g3) for a given target gate Wtarget. One can consider the terminant [87]

3 X 2 1 F = (∆g ) + 1 − Tr U (T )U †(T ) , ∆g = |g (W ) − g (U (T ))(2.22)| , LI i n n n i i target i n i=1 where Wtarget is the target gate, and Un(T ) = PnU(T )Pn is the result of projecting to a n subspace. The explicit form of (2.22) in terms of {ψj(T )}j=1 is a polynomial of 8th degree, and the corresponding optimization results [88] are described in Section 5.

2.4 Gross–Pitaevskii equation and optimal control of Bose– Einstein condensate The linear Schr¨odingerequation is often suitable for describing quantum systems, but in some situations nonlinear equations appear, such as the Gross–Pitaevskii equation suggested by E.P. Gross and L.P. Pitaevskii in 1961. This equation describes dynamics of

10 Bose–Einstein condensate, which is important both from a theoretical point of view and for creation of new technologies, e.g., atomic chips [109]. Modelling of controlled dynamics of a Bose-Einstein condensate is done using the Gross–Pitaevskii equation with control [23, 39, 65, 95, 96, 108–113]. Definition 2.10. The equation ∂ψ(x, t) i = − K + V (x, u(t)) + κ |ψ(x, t)|2 ψ(x, t), (2.23) ∂t ~ with initial condition ψ(x, 0) = ψ0(x) is called the Gross–Pitaevskii equation with control u ∈ 2 U in the potential (e.g., [23, p. 336]). Here x ∈ Ω ⊆ d, ψ(·, t) ∈ L2(Ω; ); K = − ~ ∇2 R C 2m is the kinetic energy operator; m is atomic mass; V (x, u(t)) is the controlled potential; κ is a coefficient (for example, κ = U0(Na − 1) [39] where Na is the number of atoms, and U0 is the strength of interaction between atoms under one-dimensional x); the class U is defined in (2.3). Meaning ψ(·, t), we will use ψ(t) for shortness. Potentials of various form are used [23, 39, 65, 95, 96, 108–113]. In the article [65] (S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor, 2002) the Gross–Pitaevskii equation (2.23) with the following potential for one-dimensional x is considered:

2 2 V (t, x, u(t)) = u(t)x + s(t)V0 cos (kx). (2.24)

Here control u characterizes the strength of the trap potential; V0 characterizes the lattice intensity; s(t) is the switching-on function of the ﬁeld; k is the laser ﬁeld wave number. These wave packets represent quantum bits for quantum information. Initially the Bose-Einstein condensate is located in the ground state of the potential. The OCP with the criterion

2 J(v) = ψ(T ), (cos θ(T ))2 ψ(T ) − ψ(T ), cos θ(T ) ψ(T ) → min (2.25) is considered, where θ(T ) = θ(·,T ) is the phase of the wave packet at the time T ; cos θ = 1 ψ + ψ∗ Reψ = ; v = (ψ, u). 2 |ψ| |ψ| In the article [108] the following potentials for one-dimensional x are considered: 1 V (x, u(t)) = (x − u(t)x )2 , (2.26) 2 0 ( (1/2) (|x| − u(t)d/2)2 , |x| > u(t)d/4, V (x, u(t)) = (2.27) (1/2) (u(t))2/8 − x2 , |x| ≤ u(t)d/4.

In the articles [96, 109, 110] the following polynomial potential for one-dimensional x is used:

2 4 6 V (t, x, u(t)) = p2 (x − u(t)) + p4 (x − u(t)) + p6 (x − u(t)) . (2.28)

Here control u defines moving along the axis Ox for shaking the condensate, numbers p2, p4, p6 are fitting parameters. The condensate is initially prepared in the ground state V (x, 0, u(0)) with interacting bosons, and ψtarget is set as the first excited state for V . The goal of control is often expressed as maximization of the probability 2 hψtarget, ψ(T )iL2 of transition to the target state ψtarget. This control goal is described by the terminants (2.5) and (2.6) for (2.23). Sometimes, together with the GRAPE method [38, 39], which will be described in Section 6, the following H1-regularizer is in- cluded in the cost functional for smoothing the control:

T Z 2 λdu (u(t)) dt, λdu > 0. (2.29) 0

11 The general cost criterion for (2.23) is:

T T Z ku(t)k2 Z J(v) = F(ψ(T )) + λ dt + λ (u ˙(t))2dt → min, (2.30) u S(t) du 0 0 where F is deﬁned, for example, using (2.5); λu, λdu ≥ 0; S is a shape function. The rigorous formulation of the optimal control problem for the Gross–Pitaevskii equation for the potential V (x, u) = U(x) + u(t)V˜ (x), where U and V˜ are given and u(t) is the control, is provided in [111]. In this formulation the potential V ∈ W 1,∞(Rd) (the space of Lipschitz functions), the potential U satisﬁes

∞ d k ∞ d U ∈ C (R ), ∂ U ∈ L (R ) for any multi-index k such that |k| > 2.

The initial state ψ0(x) belongs to the subspace

1 d 2 d Υ = {ψ ∈ H (R ): xψ ∈ L (R )}. The objective functional has the form

T   2  Z Z 2 2 J(ψ, u) = hψ(T, ·), Aψ(T, ·)i 2 d + (u ˙(t)) γ V˜ (x)|ψ(x, t)| dx + γ  dt, L (R )  1   2 d 0 R

2 d where T > 0, γ1 ≥ 0, γ2 > 0, and A :Υ → L (R ) is a (possibly unbounded) essentially self-adjoint on L2(Rd) operator. The integral terms in the objective are introduced to avoid highly oscillating control. For this control problem, well–posedness and existence of an optimal control were proved.

2.5 Controllability of closed quantum systems Creating quantum optimal control is closely related to the notions and criteria for controllability of quantum systems which are discussed, for example, in the articles [123–130] and monographs [11, 23]. Before starting search for an optimal control, it is desirable to know whether such a control exists at all. The answer to this question is given by the controllability criteria, which are well-known for closed quantum systems. We will give the basic concepts and results without details. For closed systems one of fundamental notions is the notion of projective state controllability or equivalent state controllability.

Definition 2.11. A quantum system (2.1) (2.3) with states ψ(t) ∈ Cn is called to be projective state controllable, if for any initial state ψ0 and final equivalence class [ψtarget] := iφ e ψtarget : φ ∈ [0, 2π) with some ψtarget there are T > 0 and control u ∈ U such that the system can be moved from ψ0 to [ψtarget] during time T . Also important is the definition of controllability on the special unitary group. Definition 2.12. A system (2.12) describing the evolution of a unitary operator U(t) ∈ Cn×n is called to be controllable on the group SU(n), if for any unitary operator W ∈ SU(n) there exist a time instant T > 0 and control u ∈ U such that W = eiφU(T ), where φ ∈ [0, 2π) is some phase. The analysis of controllability of quantum systems, including for systems (2.1) (2.3), is crucial for quantum control, since the presence or absence of controllability determines the solvability of an optimal control problem. For example, the terminant Fψtarget (2.5) determines the probability for a system state transfer on the sphere by the time T . Realization of this transfer between arbitrary initial and target states is impossible for uncontrollable systems.

12 The control criteria are based on the analysis of the Lie algebra L generated by all possible commutators of the operators H0, H1,..., Hm. Without loss of generality we can put TrHi = 0 for i = 0, m. Indeed, the dynamics of a system with operators having nonzero traces will diﬀer from the dynamics with operators Hi −TrHi/n on a physically nonessential phase factor. A consequence of the analysis in [120] is the following theorem [131, 132].

Theorem 2.2. Let H = Cn. The system (2.12) is projective state controllable if and only if the Lie algebra Lie {−iH0,..., −iHm}, generated by all commutators of operators −iH0,..., −iHm, is isomorphic to the Lie algebra sp(n/2) or su(n) for even n, or su(n) for odd n. Veriﬁcation of the controllability for a particular quantum system is one of the basic questions before search for optimal controls. Projective state controllability of the system

(2.1) (2.3) means that there exist time instant T and control u ∈ U such that Fψtarget = 0 (exact controllability). For some sets of Q and T , the system can be not controllable. On other hand, we can look for such Q and T , that Fψtarget (ψ(T )) = 0 and some additional condition is satisﬁed, for example, such that T takes the minimum possible value.

2.6 Landscapes of control problems for closed quantum systems The goal of application of a particular numerical method to quantum control is to find globally optimal (for the minimization problem) controls, those that deliver the global minimum of the cost functional. If all minima of the cost functional would be global, the most natural numerical methods for finding optimal controls would be gradient type. If the system is controllable, but the landscape is replete with traps (i.e., local but not global minima), then stochastic algorithms (e.g., genetic algorithms) would be the proper choice to step around or out of such traps. Therefore theoretical analysis of minima of the objective functionals is important for choosing a proper numerical strategy for finding optimal controls. Here we briefly outline some results on this topic. The problem of analysis of extrema of cost functionals for quantum systems was posed in [133] (H.A. Rabitz, M. Hsieh, C.M. Rosenthal, 2004), where the conjecture was made that all minima of target functionals are global (i.e., control landscapes are free of traps). Since then, gradient-based methods were found to frequently succeed in quantum control numerical simulations and experiments. Large number of simulations have shown that even if the landscapes for optimal control problems may contain singular critical points and traps, the conditions necessary to yield these points are sufficiently strict so that many control landscapes may lack traps [134, 135]. A considerable effort was made to understand the surprise ease of gradient-based optimal control simulations. However, despite this effort the trap-free assumption has been rigor- ously proven only for n = 2 – level quantum systems (Theorem 2.3)[121,122] (A.N. Pechen, N.B. Il’in, 2012, 2014) and for the problem of controlling transmission of a quantum particle through a one-dimensional potential barrier (Theorem 2.4)[136] (A.N. Pechen, D.J. Tan- nor, 2014). For dimensions more than two there were found systems with trapping proper- ties [137] (A.N. Pechen, D.J. Tannor, 2011), [138] (P. de Fouquieres, S.G. Schirmer, 2013). The numerical evidence of the trap-free behavior for various cases was emphasized in [139] (H. Rabitz, T.-S. Ho, R. Long, R. Wu, C. Brif, 2012). Let in (2.14) λu = 0. Then the cost functional JX (u) = FX (U(T )), where terminant FX : SU(n) → R is a function on the special unitary group and U(T ) is the solution of the Schrödingerequation at time T for control u. For example, for (2.15) one has FW (U) = 1 † 2 − Tr W U . n2

Deﬁnition 2.13. The graph of the functional JX (u) is called the control landscape of the control problem. The control u is called trap if it gives a local but not a global minimum for JX (u).

13 For single-qubit gates, the works [121,122,140,141] consider control landscapes for system 2×2 of the form (2.12) with U(t) ∈ C , scalar control (m = 1) and cost functionals JO and JW , which describe the mean value of an observable and implementation of single-qubit gates. The main result is the following theorem [122]. Theorem 2.3. Let for the system (2.12) with H = C2 and the scalar control (m = 1) the operators H0, H1 and the time instant T are such that [H0, H1] 6= 0 and π T ≥ , kH0 − TrH0/2 + u0(H1 − TrH1/2k where

−Tr(H0)Tr(H1) + 2Tr(H0H1) u0 := 2 2 . (Tr(H1)) − 2Tr(H1) † Then all the minima of the cost functionals JO(u) = hOiT = Tr{U(T )ρ0U (T )O} and 1 † 2 JW (u) = − Tr(W U(T )) are global minima for any Hermitian observable O, unitary 4 operator W and the density matrix ρ0. The problem of controlling the tunneling of a quantum particle through a potential barrier is described by the stationary Schrödingerequation d2 − + V (x) Ψ(x) = EΨ(x),E ∈ . dx2 R The potential V (x) is assumed to have compact support (V (x) = 0 if |x| > a for some a > 0). The solution that has the following asymptotic is considered: ( √ √ ei Ex + A e−i Ex, x < −a, Ψ(x) = √ E i Ex BEe , x > a. This solution describes a particle falling from the left on the potential barrier, which with 2 2 probability |AE| is reflected from the barrier, and with probability TE(V ) = |BE| passes to the right through the barrier. The potential is considered as control. Transmission coefficient is the cost functional that should be maximized. The main result is the following theorem [136]. 2 Theorem 2.4. All extrema of the transmission coefficient TE(V ) = |BE| are global maxima corresponding to the value TE(V ) = 1 (i.e. to the full tunneling). Thus, the absence of traps for quantum systems is proved for two-dimensional and infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. In the general case of an arbitrary dimension, the problem remains open. As a result, it is important to develop effective methods for obtaining optimal controls for quantum systems of any dimension.

3 Krotov method for systems with states in Rn 3.1 Optimal control problems and Krotov Lagrangian Consider the following class of OCPs with real-valued states. Definition 3.1. The following problem is called OCP with free final state for a dynamical system defined by ODE with control: dy(t) = f(t, y(t), u(t)), y(0) = y , (3.1) dt 0 m u ∈ U = PC([0,T ]; Q),Q ⊆ R , (3.2) T Z J(v) = F(y(T )) + f 0(t, y(t), u(t))dt → inf , v = (y, u) , (3.3) v∈D 0

14 where y is continuous, piecewise differentiable function; D is the set of admissible processes 0 v = (y, u). The state y0 and the moment T are fixed. For F, f , f there are the following traditional conditions: 0 1) vector function f(t, y, u) = (f1(t, y, u), . . . , fn(t, y, u)) and scalar function f (t, y, u) are defined and are continuous on the set of variables (t, y, u) ∈ [0,T ]×Rn ×Q together with their partial derivatives in y, u; f satisfies the Lipschitz condition with respect to y, i.e.

kf(t, y + ∆y, u)k ≤ Lk∆yk ∀u ∈ Q, t ∈ [0,T ];

2) function F(y) is continuously-differentiable in Rn. As is known (for example, [142]), the Cauchy problem (3.1) for any control u ∈ U has a unique solution y in the class of piecewise differentiable functions. Continuous differentiability of f 0 and f with respect to u is also necessary for the further consideration. Definition 3.2. The solution of the problem (3.1) (3.3) is understood as the minimizing (k) (k) sequence, i.e. a sequence of processes {v }k≥0 ⊂ D that satisfies lim J(v ) = inf J(v). k→∞ v∈D If there exists an element v ∈ D such that J(v) = min J(v), then the process v and control v∈D u are called (globally) optimal. Definition 3.3. For the problem (3.1) (3.3) consider a process v(k) ∈ D (k ≥ 0 is the iteration number). The problem of finding a process v(k+1) ∈ D for which J(v(k+1)) < (k) (k) (k) K J(v ) is called the problem of improvement of v . A sequence {v }k=0 ⊂ D such that J(v(k+1)) < J(v(k)), k = 0,K is called improving sequence. In the early 1960s V.F. Krotov formulated the generalized Lagrangian (Krotov La- grangian) and sufficient conditions for optimality [58, 59]. Definition 3.4. For the problem (3.1) (3.3), the Krotov Lagrangian is the following functional

T Z Lϕ(v) = Gϕ(y(T )) − Rϕ(t, y(t), u(t))dt, v ∈ E, (3.4)

0 where E is an extension of the set D,

Gϕ(y(T )) = F(y(T )) + ϕ(T, y(T )) − ϕ(0, y(0)), (3.5) ∂ϕ(t, y) ∂ϕ(t, y) Rϕ(t, y, u) = , f(t, y, u) − f 0(t, y, u) + . (3.6) ∂y ∂t

Here ϕ belongs to the set Φ of functions each of them has continuous partial derivatives for all t, y except, maybe, a ﬁnite number of values of t over [0,T ].

As is known [58, 59], Lϕ(v) ≡ J(v) on D for any ϕ ∈ Φ, and that is why L(v) can be considered as a special representation of J(v). Partial derivatives of ϕ(t, y) in y are Lagrange multipliers. The function R deﬁned in (3.6) can be written as

∂ϕ(t, y) ∂ϕ(t, y) Rϕ(t, y, u) = H t, , y, u + , ∂y ∂t where H(t, q, y, u) = hq, f(t, y, u)i − f 0(t, y, u) is the Pontryagin function, y ∈ Rn, u ∈ Q ⊆ Rm. In the frames of (2.1) (2.3) we consider

15 Deﬁnition 3.5. The following problem is called OCP for bilinear system with regularization on control (e.g., [143]):

 m  dy(t) X = A(t) + u (t)B (t) y(t), y(0) = y , (3.7) dt  j j  0 j=1 T Z m X 2 J(v) = F(y(T )) + λu uj (t)dt → inf , λu ≥ 0, (3.8) v∈D 0 j=1 where u belongs to the class U deﬁned in (3.2). The problem (2.1) (2.4) with states ψ(t) ∈ Cn can be described by the corresponding OCP with states y(t) ∈ R2n, if the vector y(t) represents both real and imaginary parts of complex-valued ψ(t): yj(t) = Reψj(t) and yn+j(t) = Imψj(t) for j = 1, n. For example, the problem (3.7), (3.8) with F(y(T )) = − hy(T ), My(T )i, M ≥ 0 can describe some quantum OCPs. The terminant F(y(T )) = − hy(T ), My(T )i is bounded below due to the invariant

2 2 ky(t)k 2n = kψ(t)k n = 1. R C 3.2 Krotov method in the general form For the problem (3.1) (3.3), consider the following iterative process, where v(k) = (y(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (y(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes correspondingly at kth iteration of the method. 1. Compute the function ϕ(k) ∈ Φ which satisﬁes the conditions7

(k) (k) Gϕ (y(k)(T )) = max Gϕ (y), (3.9) n y∈R (k) (k) Rϕ (t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) = min Rϕ (t, y, u(k)(t)), t ∈ [0,T ). (3.10) n y∈R

2. Find the solution y(k+1) of the Cauchy problem dy(k+1)(t) = f t, y(k+1)(t), u(k)(t, y(k+1)(t)) , y(k+1)(0) = y (3.11) dt e 0 and ﬁnd the control u(k+1) deﬁned by

(k+1) (k) (k+1) u (t) = ue (t, y (t)) (k) := arg max Rϕ t, y(k+1)(t), u , t ∈ [0,T ]. (3.12) u∈Q

Theorem 3.1. For the problem (3.1) (3.3), the method (3.9) (3.12) provides sequence of processes {v(k)} ⊂ D such that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). Moreover, if

T T Z (k) Z (k) max Rϕ (t, y(k)(t), u) dt 6= Rϕ (t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) dt, (3.13) u∈Q 0 0 then the sequence {v(k)} is improving.

(k) 7Here Rϕ (t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) = * + ∂ϕ(k)(t, y(k)(t)) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y(k)(t)) = , f(t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) − f 0(t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) + , ∂y ∂t ∂ϕ(k)(t, y(k)(t)) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y(k)(t)) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y) where = and = . In the review, ∂y ∂y y=y(k)(t) ∂t ∂t y=y(k)(t) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y(k)(t)) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y) for shortness we use notations like to instead of . ∂y ∂y y=y(k)(t)

16 Proof. Following [57], to prove the theorem, consider the increment J(v(k)) − J(v) for a given process v(k) ∈ D, arbitrary process v ∈ D and ϕ ∈ Φ:

J(v(k)) − J(v) = Lϕ(v(k)) − Lϕ(v) = Gϕ(y(k)(T )) − Gϕ(y(T )) + T Z + Rϕ(t, y(t), u(t)) − Rϕ(t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) dt. (3.14)

To satisfy the inequality J(v(k)) ≥ J(v) for a process v ∈ D it is enough to ﬁnd such a function ϕ = ϕ(k) ∈ Φ that its values ϕ(k)(t, y(k)(t)), ϕ(k)(t, y(t)) on [0,T ] allow to have

(k) (k) Gϕ (y(k)(T )) − Gϕ (y(T )) ≥ 0, (3.15) (k) (k) Rϕ (t, y(t), u(t)) − Rϕ (t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) ≥ 0 (3.16) and for J(v(k)) > J(v) it is suﬃcient to have strict inequality in (3.16) on some subset of positive measure in [0,T ]. Dividing the left-hand side of (3.16) to the sum of two particular increments, we obtain the following conditions:

(k) (k) Rϕ (t, y(t), u(t)) − Rϕ (t, y(t), u(k)(t)) ≥ 0, (3.17) (k) (k) Rϕ (t, y(t), u(k)(t)) − Rϕ (t, y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) ≥ 0. (3.18)

For computing ϕ(k), consider the conditions (3.9), (3.10) obtained from (3.15) and (3.18). According to the inequality (3.17), for each t we consider the condition

(k) (k) Rϕ (t, y(t), u(t)) = max Rϕ (t, y(t), u) u∈Q which leads to the formula (3.12), where the process v = (y, u), satisfied to the mentioned above conditions, is named v(k+1) = (y(k+1), u(k+1)). Thus, for finding the function y(k+1) (k) (k+1) we integrate the system (3.11) derived from (3.1) where u(t) = ue (t, y (t)). Because (k) of possible discontinuities of the function ue (t, y) in y, integration of the equation (3.11), in general, is done using the theory of ODEs with discontinuous r.h.s. [144]. We suppose that there exists a triple ϕ(k), y(k+1), u(k+1) satisfying (3.10) (3.11). Then the process v(k+1) provides either J(v(k+1)) < J(v(k)) (improvement) or J(v(k+1)) = J(v(k)). If (3.13) is not satisfied, then J(v(k+1)) = J(v(k)). This finishes the proof. Solving the sequence of improvement problems by solving (3.9) (3.12), we obtain the control sequence: u(0) → u(1) → · · · → u(k) → · · · → u(K). Consider the problem (3.7), (3.8). The Pontryagin function is

* m + m X X ∂ϕ H(t, q, y, u) = q, A(t) + u B (t) − λ u2, q = (t, y). j j u j ∂y j=1 j=1

Set m = 1, Q = [a, b], and λu = 0. In this case, the Pontryagin function is linear in u (k) and the function ue deﬁned in (3.12) is  a, g(k)(t, y) < 0,  (k) (k) (k) ue (t, y) = using(t, y) ∈ [a, b], g (t, y) = 0, (3.19) b, g(k)(t, y) > 0,

∂ϕ(k)(t, y) where g(k)(t, y) = ,B(t)y is called the switching function; index “sing” means ∂y “singular”. By substituting (3.19) in (3.7) we obtain the system of ODEs, in general, discontinuous in y. Therefore, the conditions for the existence and uniqueness of the solution of the Cauchy problem are violated [144].

17 (k) Further, consider m = 1, Q = [a, b], and λu > 0. The function ue is  (k) a, ust (t, y) < a, (k)  (k) (k) ue (t, y) = ust (t, y), ust (t, y) ∈ [a, b], (3.20)  (k) b, ust (t, y) > b, ∂H where u(k)(t, y) is a stationary point obtained from the condition = 0 for the Pontryagin st ∂u function; index “st” means “stationary point”. The function (3.20) is continuous in y.

3.3 Krotov method with linear-quadratic function ϕ Based on the articles [57,60], we describe the 2nd order (ϕ(t, y) is considered in the class of linear-quadratic functions) Krotov method for the problem (3.1) (3.3). Definition 3.6. The function ϕ(t, y) is called linear-quadratic, if it has the form: 1 D E ϕ(t, y) = hp(t), yi + y − y(k)(t), Σ(t)(y − y(k)(t)) (3.21) 2 with some continuous, piecewise-differentiable vector function p = (p1, . . . , pn) and matrix function Σ = (Σi,j)i,j=1,n. Based on [60] we have the following statements. Lemma 3.1. Let the following conditions be satisfied for the problem (3.1) (3.3): 1) functions F(y), f 0(t, y, u) satisfy the conditions ∃K, M < ∞ : ∀y ∈ Rn and kyk ≥ M ⇒ F(y) ≤ Kkyk2 and f 0(t, y, u) ≤ Kkyk2 ∀(t, u) ∈ [0,T ] × Q; 2) function f(t, y, u) satisfies the condition ∃K, M < ∞ : ∀(t, y, u) ∈ [0,T ] × Rn × Q and kyk ≥ M ⇒ f(t, y, u) ≤ Kkyk; 3) for the Jacobi matrix written for f = (f1, . . . , fn), the condition ∃A < ∞ ∀(t, y, u) ∈

∂fi(t, y, u) [0,T ] × Rn × Q : ≤ A is valid, where k · k is the matrix norm. ∂yj Then for the process v(k) = y(k), u(k) ∈ D there is the solution ϕ(k)(t, y) of the problem (3.9), (3.10) in the form (3.21), where the function p = p(k) is deﬁned as the solution of the Cauchy problem (the system is integrated “from right to left”)

dp(k)(t) ∂H ∂F = − (t, p(k)(t), y(k)(t), u(k)(t)), p(k)(T ) = − (y(k)(T )), (3.22) dt ∂y ∂y and the matrix function Σ = Σ(k) is deﬁned as

(k) γ(T −t) Σ (t) = α e − 1 + β In, (3.23) where the values α, β < 0, γ > 0 are given; and In is the identity matrix. For the problem (3.3) (3.2), consider the following iterative process, where v(k) = (y(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (y(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration of the method. 1. Consider a linear-quadratic function ϕ(k) with Σ(k) defined by (3.23) with some values of α, β < 0, γ > 0, and find p(k) as the solution of the Cauchy problem (3.22). 2. Find the solution y(k+1) of the Cauchy problem (3.11). Find the control u(k+1) defined by u(k+1)(t) = u(k)(t, y(k+1)(t)) := arg max H t, p(k)(t) + e u∈Q +Σ(k)(t)(y(k+1)(t) − y(k)(t)), y(k+1)(t), u . (3.24)

18 Theorem 3.2. Let for the problem (3.1) (3.3) the conditions 1) 3) from Lemma 3.1 are satisﬁed. The method (3.11), (3.21) (3.24) provides sequence of processes {v(k)} ⊂ D such that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). Moreover, if

T T Z Z max H(t, p(k)(t), y(k)(t), u) dt 6= H(t, p(k)(t), y(k)(t), u(k)(t)) dt, (3.25) u∈Q 0 0 then the sequence {v(k)} is improving. If for some selected values α, β < 0, γ > 0 there is no improvement, then one has to adjust these parameters by decreasing α, β and increasing γ (also it is possible to change only one of these parameters), and then, without changing the iteration index, calculate the output process v(k+1) with the updated values of these parameters [60]. If several re- selections do not give an improvement, then we stop iterations. In (3.9), (3.10) we use global min or max. Nevertheless, in order to simplify the general Krotov method, it was suggested to use the 1st and 2nd order necessary conditions for local ϕ(k) (k) (k) ϕ(k) (k) extrema in (3.9), (3.10)[57]. Consider Ry (t, y , u (t)) = 0, Gy (y (T )) = 0, which lead to the equation (3.22). Note that (3.22) is the conjugate system from the theory of Pontryagin maximum principle [1]. Thus, it shows how to obtain the function p(k) speciﬁed in (3.21). For obtaining the function Σ(k), consider

2 ϕ(k) (k) (k) ϕ(k) (k) (k) d R (t, y (t), u (t)) = h∆y, Ryy (t, y (t), u (t))∆yi ≥ 0, (3.26) 2 ϕ(k) (k) ϕ(k) (k) d G (y (T )) = h∆y(T ),Gyy (y (T ))i ≤ 0 (3.27)

ϕ(k) (k) (k) with the corresponding matrices Ryy (t, y (t), u (t)) = diag{δ1(t), δ2(t), . . . , δn(t)} and ϕ(k) (k) Gyy (y (T )) = diag{α1, α2, . . . , αn}, where δj(t) ≥ 0 and αj ≤ 0, j = 1, n. Based on (3.26), (3.27), there is the following Cauchy problem for the function Σ(k):

(k) 2 0 (k) (k) n (k) (k) dΣi,j (t) ∂ f (t, y (t), u (t)) X h (k) ∂fl(t, y (t), u (t)) = − Σl,i + dt ∂yi∂yj ∂yj l=1 (k) (k) 2 (k) (k) (k) ∂fl(t, y (t), u (t)) ∂ fl(t, y (t), u (t))i +Σl,j + pl(t) + ∂yi ∂yi∂yj ( 0, i 6= j, + (3.28) δi(t) > 0, i = j,

2 (k) ( (k) ∂ F (y (T )) 0, i 6= j, Σi,j (T ) = − − (3.29) ∂yi∂yj αi > 0, i = j, where i, j = 1, n. For the problem (3.1) (3.3), use the following iterative process, where v(k) = (y(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (y(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration. 1. Deﬁne the linear-quadratic function ϕ(k) by obtaining the functions p(k) and Σ(k) as the solutions of the Cauchy problems (3.22) and (3.28), (3.29) with ﬁxed δi(t), αi (i = 1, n), correspondingly.

2. Find the solution y(k+1) of the Cauchy problem (3.11). Find the control u(k+1) deﬁned by (3.24). Based on [57], consider the following theorem.

19 Theorem 3.3. Let for the problem (3.1) (3.3) the conditions 1) 3) from Lemma 3.1 are satisﬁed. The method (3.11), (3.21), (3.22), (3.24), (3.28), (3.29) provides sequence of processes {v(k)} ⊂ D such that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). Moreover, if (3.25) is satisﬁed, the the sequence {v(k)} is improving.

Remark 3.1. If the process v(k) satisﬁes the Pontryagin maximum principle, then the Krotov method does not improve [145, p. 64] this process, including the case, when v(k) is not optimal.

In (3.28), (3.29), the functions δi(t) and parameters αi (i = 1, n) are needed for regulation of improvement. The constructions (3.22), (3.28), (3.29) are obtained using the necessary conditions for local extrema, so the assignment δi(t), αi is done for compensation as much as possible for the lack of global search extrema. As noted in [57,60], if there is no improvement for the selected δi(t), αi (i = 1, n), then (without changing the index k) we need to increase (k+1) δi(t) > 0, reduce αi < 0 and ﬁnd the corresponding process v . Taking into account symmetry Σi,j(t) = Σj,i(t), it requires to consider n(n + 1)/2 equations in (3.28), (3.29).

3.4 Krotov method for bilinear systems Lemma 3.2. For the problem (3.7), (3.8) with F(y(T )) = − hy(T ), My(T )i, M ≥ 0, the conjugate system (3.22), considered at some process v(k) ∈ D, is

dp(k)(t) = − AT(t) + BT(t)u(k)(t) p(k)(t), p(k)(T ) = 2My(k)(T ). (3.30) dt

Lemma 3.3. Let in the problem (3.7), (3.8), λu > 0 and Q = [a1, b1]×· · ·×[am, bm]. Then for (3.12) with a linear-quadratic function ϕ(k)(t, y) (3.21) one has

 (k) a , u (t, y) < a ,  l l,st l u(k)(t, y) = (k) (k) el ul,st(t, y), ul,st(t, y) ∈ [al, bl],  (k) bl, ul,st(t, y) > bl, (k) (k) (k) p (t) + Σ (t)∆y, Bl(t)y ul,st(t, y) = , l = 1, m, 2λu where the function p(k) satisﬁes (3.30), and Σ(k) is deﬁned by (3.23) or (3.28), (3.29). Here uel(t, y) are continuous in y. Let the function ϕ(k) to be considered in the class of linear functions: ϕ(k)(t, y) = p(k)(t), y . This choice corresponds to the 1st order Krotov method. For the maximization problem (3.9), where

ϕ(k) (k) (k) G (y(T )) = −hy(T ), My(T )i + hp (T ),T i − hp (0), x0i, the condition M ≥ 0, which provides a concave function F(y(T )), is important. Consider two cases with respect to λu: λu = 0 and λu > 0. Following [143, 146, 147], there is

Lemma 3.4. Let in the problem (3.7), (3.8), m = 1, Q = [a, b]. Then for (3.12) with linear function ϕ(k)(t, y) = p(k)(t), y we have: (k) (k) a) if λu = 0, then the function ue (t, y) is deﬁned by (3.19), where the function using(t, y) is dB(t) hp(k)(t), A(t)B(t) − B(t)A(t) − y u(k) (t, y) = u(k)(t) + dt ; (3.31) sing hp(k)(t), (B(t))2yi

20 (k) (k) b) if λu > 0, then the function ue (t, y) is deﬁned by (3.20), where the function ust (t, y) is

(k) (k) hp (t), Byi ust (t, y) = . (3.32) 2λu

(k) In contrast to the case λu = 0, for λu > 0 the function ue (t, y) is continuous in y. The formula (3.31) is obtained by diﬀerentiating the switching function g(k)(t, y) = hp(k)(t), Byi. ∂H The function (3.32) is derived from the condition = 0. ∂u 4 Krotov method of the 1st order for controlling quantum systems governed by the Schr¨odingerand Liouville–von Neumann equations

After the articles [61] (V.F. Krotov, V.A. Kazakov, 1987) and [62] (V.F. Krotov, 1989), the next important contribution for adaptation of the Krotov method for optimal quantum control are the articles [63] (D.J. Tannor, V.A. Kazakov, V.N. Orlov, 1992), [64] (J. Somlói, V.A. Kazakov, D.J. Tannor, 1993) which contain the 1st order (with linear function ϕ) Kro- tov method applied for optimization of controls in the Schrödingerequation. Based on these and further publications, this section outlines theoretical and numerical results on applications of the 1st order Krotov method for quantum systems governed by the Schrödingerand Liouville–von Neumann equations.

4.1 Krotov method for the Schr¨odinger equation Сonsider OCP (2.1) (2.4). The Pontryagin function for this problem is

2 i λukuk H(t, q, ψ, u) = 2Re q, − H[u]ψ − λψhψ, D(t)ψiH − , (4.1) ~ H S(t) where ψ, q ∈ H, u ∈ Q ⊆ Rm. By analogy with (3.14), the Krotov Lagrangian for this problem with a linear function ϕ(t, ψ) = 2Rehχ(t), ψi is the functional

T Z Lϕ(v) = Gϕ(ψ(T )) − Rϕ(t, ψ(t), u(t))dt, v = (ψ, u), (4.2)

0 where

Gϕ = −hψ(T ), Oψ(T )i + 2Rehχ(T ), ψ(T )i − 2Rehχ(0), ψ(0)i, (4.3) ϕ i dχ(t) 2 R = 2Re χ(t), − H[u]ψ + , ψ − λψhψ, D(t)ψi − λukuk . (4.4) ~ dt Let operators O ≥ 0 and D(t) ≥ 0. By analogy with (3.4) (3.6) and relying on the work [63] we write the 1st order Krotov method. Consider the following iterative process, where v(k) = (ψ(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (ψ(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration of the method. 1. Compute the solution χ(k) of the Cauchy problem

(k) dχ (t) i h (k) i (k) (k) = − H u (t) χ (t) + λψD(t)ψ (t), dt ~ χ(k)(T ) = Oψ(k)(T ) (4.5)

(the system is integrated “from right to left”).

21 2. Find the solution ψ(k+1) of the Cauchy problem

(k+1) dψ (t) i h (k) (k+1) i (k+1) (k+1) = − H ue (t, ψ (t)) ψ (t), ψ (0) = ψ0. (4.6) dt ~ Find the control u(k+1) deﬁned by

u(k+1)(t) = u(k)(t, ψ(k+1)(t)) := arg max H(t, χ(k)(t), ψ(k+1)(t), u). (4.7) e u∈Q

By analogy with the proof of Theorem 3.1, one can prove the following theorem.

Theorem 4.1. For the problem (2.1) (2.4) with operators O ≥ 0 and D(t) ≥ 0, λψ ≤ 0 the method (4.5) (4.7) provides sequence of processes v(k) ∈ D such that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). Moreover, if

T T Z Z max H t, χ(k)(t), ψ(k)(t), u dt 6= H t, χ(k)(t), ψ(k)(t), u(k)(t) dt, u∈Q 0 0 then the sequence {v(k)} is improving. Remark 4.1. Realization of the Krotov method depends on whether there is a regularizer T 2 R ku(t)k λu dt (λu > 0) or not (i.e. λu = 0) in the cost criterion (2.4). For illustration let 0 S(t) in the problem (2.1) (2.4) the set Q = [a1, b1] × · · · × [am, bm]. (k) If λu = 0, then for (4.7) consider the function ue (t, ψ) deﬁned by  (k) a , g (t, ψ) < 0,  l l u(k)(t, ψ) = (k) (k) el ul,sing(t, ψ) ∈ [al, bl], gl (t, ψ) = 0,  (k) bl, gl (t, ψ) > 0, where (k) (k) i 2 D (k) E gl (t, ψ) = 2Re χ (t), − Hlψ = Im χ (t), Hlψ , l = 1, m ~ ~

(k) are the components of the switching function; functions ul,sing(t, ψ) can be obtained from the dg(k)(t, ψ(t)) condition l = 0. dt (k) If λu > 0, then for (4.7) the function ue (t, ψ) is deﬁned by  (k) a , u (t, ψ) < a ,  l l,st l u(k)(t, ψ) = (k) (k) (4.8) el ul,st(t, ψ), ul,st(t, ψ) ∈ [al, bl],  (k) bl, ul,st(t, ψ) > bl, where the functions

(k) S(t) D (k) E ul,st(t, ψ) = Im χ (t), Hlψ , l = 1, m (4.9) ~λu ∂H are obtained from the condition = 0. ∂u

In the beginning of 1990s, the 1st order Krotov method, related to the conditions λu > 0, S(t) ≡ 1 in the criterion (2.4), was considered in the articles [63] (D.J. Tannor, V.A. Kazakov, V.N. Orlov, 1992) and [64] (J. Soml´oi,V.A. Kazakov, D.J. Tannor, 1993), and further in the books [59, pp. 253–259] (V.F. Krotov, 1996) and [9, §16.2.2] (D.J. Tannor, 2007). In the

22 articles [103, 104] (V.F. Krotov, 2008, 2009) both cases λu = 0 and λu > 0 were analyzed. If λu > 0, then a trade-oﬀ between minimizing F and the regularizer is important. Another version of the Krotov method is obtained with the following regularizer. Con- sider the cost functional J(v) with λu = 0 in (2.4) and the following regularized cost criterion:

(k) (k) J˜(v, v ) = J(v) + Γ(γu, v, v ) → min, (4.10) T Z ku(t) − u(k)(t)k2 Γ(γ , v, v(k)) = γ dt, γ > 0. (4.11) u u S(t) u 0

The modiﬁed cost functional J˜(v, v(k)) is separate for each iteration of the Krotov method, because it depends on the current approximation v(k).

(k) Lemma 4.1. Suppose a process vb ∈ D improves a given process v ∈ D for the regularized ˜ (k) ˜ (k) (k) (k) functional (4.10), (4.11), i.e. J(v,b v ) < J(v , v ) = J(v ). Then the process vb (k) (k) improves v also for the initial functional J, i.e. J(vb) < J(v ). To prove this Lemma, we will argue from the opposite, that is, suppose that J(vb) ≥ (k) ˜ (k) ˜ (k) (k) (k) J(v ) simultaneously with J(v,b v ) < J(v , v ) = J(v ). Substituting vb in (4.10), ˜ (k) (k) ˜(k) (4.11), we have J(v,b v ) = J(vb) + bc, bc = Γ(γu, v,b v ), where J(vb) = J (vb) − bc. It is (k) (k) clear that bc > 0 if ub(t) 6≡ u (t). Based on the assumptions that J(vb) ≥ J(v ) and ˜ (k) ˜ (k) (k) (k) J(v,b v ) < J(v , v ) = J(v ) we obtain ˜ (k) (k) ˜ (k) J(vb) = J(v,b v ) − bc ≥ J(v ) > J(v,b v ). ˜ (k) ˜ (k) Thus, we obtain that J(v,b v ) − bc > J(v,b v ), i.e. bc < 0. The latter contradicts the fact (k) (k) (k) ˜ that bc > 0 if ub(t) 6≡ u (t). If ub(t) ≡ u (t), then there is no improvement for v for J. (k) Thus, it turns out that J(vb) < J(v ). This ﬁnishes the proof. Let in the problem (2.1) (2.4) Q = [a1, b1] × · · · × [am, bm] and λu = 0. Consider the problem of improving the process v(k) ∈ D. Using (4.10), (4.11), one obtains the corresponding version of the Krotov method, where the formula (4.8) is used, and the components of (k) the vector ust (t, ψ) are deﬁned not by (4.9), but as follows:

(k) (k) S(t) D (k) E ul,st(t, ψ) = ul (t) + Im χ (t), Hlψ , l = 1, m, γu > 0. (4.12) ~γu The formula (4.12) is obtained from the condition

(k) 2γu ul − u (t) ∂H (k) i l = 2Re χ (t), − Hlψ − = 0. ∂ul ~ S(t) The Krotov method with (4.10) is used for solving OCPs for Schr¨odinger equation long, e.g., in the article [69] (C.P. Koch, J.P. Palao, R. Kosloﬀ, F. Masnou-Seeuws, 2004). In the article [65] (S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor, 2002) the Krotov method combined with such regularizer was used for OCP with the Gross–Pitaevskii equation that will be discussed below in this review. The 1st and 2nd order versions of the Krotov method are used in combination with this regularization in a number of articles since 2002, including, for example, [22, 70, 72, 73, 77, 88, 93]. The functional (4.10), (4.11) is designed to regulate distance to the current approximation u(k). Such regularization is used in the theory of optimal control, e.g., [142, p. 61] (V.A. Srochko, 2000).

4.2 Krotov method for the Liouville–von Neumann equation The Krotov method was applied for solving in OCPs for open quantum systems, including for systems of the form (2.10)[22,68,78,91,92,94,100]. The Liouville–von Neumann equation (2.9) with a controlled Hamiltonian follows from (2.10) for the dissipator L(ρ) ≡ 0.

23 Consider the problem (2.3), (2.9), (2.11) for λu = 0 and λρ > 0. The conjugate system is the following:

(k) dσ (t) i h (k) (k) i (k) = − H[u (t)], σ (t) − λρD(t), σ (T ) = ρtarget. (4.13) dt ~ We brieﬂy describe the application of the 1st order Krotov method for this problem. Consider the following iterative process, where v(k) = (ρ(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (ρ(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration of the method. 1. Compute the solution σ(k) of the Cauchy problem (4.13). 2. Find the solution ρ(k+1) of the Cauchy problem

(k+1) dρ (t) i h (k) (k+1) (k+1) i (k+1) = − H[ue (t, ρ (t))], ρ (t) , ρ (0) = ρ0. (4.14) dt ~ Find the control u(k+1) deﬁned by

(k+1) (k) (k+1) ul (t) = uel (t, ρ (t)) =  (k) a , u (t, ρ(k+1)(t)) < a ,  l l,st l (k) (k+1) := bl, ul,st(t, ρ (t)) > bl, (4.15)  (k) (k+1) (k) (k+1) ul,st(t, ρ (t)), ul,st(t, ρ (t)) ∈ [al, bl], where

(k) (k+1) (k) S(t) n (k) (k+1) ul,st(t, ρ (t)) = ul (t) + Im Tr σ (t) Hlρ (t) − γu~ (k+1) o −ρ (t)Hl , (4.16)

l = 1, m, and γu > 0.

Theorem 4.2. For the problem (2.3), (2.9), (2.11), where λu = 0 and λρ > 0, the method (4.13) (4.16) provides sequence of processes {v(k)} ⊂ D such that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). Moreover, if

T T Z Z max H t, σ(k)(t), ρ(k)(t), u dt 6= H t, σ(k)(t), ρ(k)(t), u(k)(t) dt, u∈Q 0 0 then the sequence {v(k)} is improving.

4.3 Zhu–Rabitz and Maday–Turinici methods. The connection with the 1st order Krotov method

Сonsider OCP (2.1) (2.4) for O ≥ 0, m = 1, Q = R, λu > 0, S(t) ≡ 1, λψ = 0, and the Hamiltonian H = H0 − µu(t), where µ is the dipole moment operator. Taking into account the speciﬁcs of this OCP, in the article [41] (W. Zhu, H.A. Rabitz, 1998), a method for nonlocal improvements was proposed which we call the Zhu–Rabitz method. i 2 The Pontryagin function for this problem is H(t, χ, ψ, u) = 2Re χ, − H[u]ψ − λuu . ~ ∂H Because H is quadratic in u, the condition = 0 gives ∂u 1 ue(t, χ, ψ) = − Im hχ, µψi . (4.17) λu~ Consider the following iterative process, where v(k) = (ψ(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (ψ(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration.

24 1. Compute the function χ(k+1) solving the Cauchy problem

(k+1) dχ (t) i (k+1) (k) (k+1) = − H0 − µue(t, χ (t), ψ (t)) χ (t), (4.18) dt ~ χ(k+1)(T ) = Oψ(k)(T ), (4.19)

(k+1) (k) obtained by the substitution ue(t, χ (t), ψ (t)) to the conjugate system (4.5) in- (k) stead of u (t) for λψ = 0. 2. Find the function ψ(k+1) which satisﬁes the Cauchy problem

(k+1) dψ (t) i (k+1) (k+1) (k+1) = − H0 − µue(t, χ (t), ψ (t)) ψ (t), (4.20) dt ~ (k+1) ψ (0) = ψ0. (4.21) Find the control u(k+1) using the formula (4.17) as

(k+1) (k+1) (k+1) u (t) = ue t, χ (t), ψ (t) := 1 D E := − Im χ(k+1)(t), µψ(k+1)(t) . (4.22) λu~

Theorem 4.3. In the problem (2.1) (2.4), consider O ≥ 0, m = 1, Q = R, λu > 0, S(t) ≡ 1, λψ = 0, and the Hamiltonian H = H0 − µu(t). The Zhu–Rabitz method (4.17) (4.22) gives a process v(k+1) = (ψ(k+1), u(k+1)) ∈ D such that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). The Zhu–Rabitz method (4.18) (4.22) is provided in the article [41], where also numerical results are presented which show that this method gives successive improvements, and on the ﬁrst iterations J(v) is improved faster than in the subsequent iterations. In [105] (K. Sundermann, R. de Vivie-Riedle, 1999), the Zhu–Rabitz method was applied for the shape function S(t) = sin2(πt/T ). In the article [42] (I. Maday, G. Turinici, 2003) general method was proposed which includes as particular cases the 1st order Krotov method and the Zhu–Rabitz method. We call this method as the Maday–Turinici method. It works as follows. Fix two parameters: δ, η ∈ [0, 2]. 1. Find the solution ψ(k+1) of the Cauchy problem

(k+1) dψ (t) i (k+1) (k+1) (k+1) = − H[ue(t, ψ (t); δ)]ψ (t), ψ (0) = ψ0. (4.23) dt ~ Find the control u(k+1) deﬁned by

(k+1) (k+1) u (t) = ue(t, ψ (t); δ) = δ D E := (1 − δ)u(k)(t) − Im χ(k)(t), µψ(k+1)(t) , (4.24) λu~ where the functions u(k) and χ(k) are from the previous iteration. 2. Find the function χ(k+1) as the solution of the Cauchy problem

(k+1) dχ (t) i (k+1) (k+1) = − H[ue(t, χ (t); η)]χ (t), dt ~ χ(k+1)(T ) = Oψ(k+1)(T ) (4.25)

where

(k+1) (k+1) ue(t, χ ; η) := (1 − η)ue(t, ψ (t); δ) − η D E − Im χ(k+1), µψ(k+1)(t) . (4.26) λu~

25 Theorem 4.4. In the problem (2.1) (2.4), consider O ≥ 0, m = 1, Q = R, λu > 0, S(t) ≡ 1, λψ = 0, and the Hamiltonian H = H0 − µu(t). Then, for any η, δ ∈ [0, 2] the Maday–Turinici method (4.23) (4.26) provides J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). The parameters (δ, η) in the Maday–Turinici method (4.24) (4.25) should be cor- rectly chosen. The choice (δ, η) = (1, 0) determines a version of the 1st order Krotov method, and the choice (δ, η) = (1, 1) leads to the Zhu–Rabitz method. As noted in [42], the Maday–Turinici method can be better than the 1st order Krotov method or the Zhu– Rabitz method. The Maday–Turinici method was also developed for the density matrix evolution [148] (Y. Ohtsuki, G. Turinici, H.A. Rabitz, 2004). Both the Zhu–Rabitz and the Maday–Turinici methods exploit the regularizer T R 2 λu (u(t)) dt, λu > 0 in the cost functional. This regularizer implies that the Pontrya- 0 gin function is quadratic in u that is convenient for maximizing the Pontryagin function. T R 2 On other hand, if the original cost functional J has no term of the type λu (u(t)) dt, then 0 a trade-oﬀ between minimizing the terminal and integral parts of J is important.

4.4 Krotov method and other methods in numerical experiments for controlled Schrödingerand Liouville–von Neumann equations Based on a number of publications since the early 1990s, we outline the applications of the 1st order Krotov method and other methods in the problem (2.1) (2.4), where ψ(t) ∈ L2 or ψ(t) ∈ Cn. For the considered OCP, gradient methods in control space (the steepest descent method, conjugate gradient method) are used for a long time [66, 149]. Definition 4.1. The following iterative method is called the steepest descent method for the problem (2.1) (2.4): ∂H u(k)(t; β) = u(k)(t) + β t, χ(k)(t), ψ(k)(t), u(k)(t) , β > 0, (4.27) ∂u u(k+1)(t) = u(k)(t; β = βb), βb = arg min J ψ(k)(·; β), u(k)(·; β) , (4.28) β>0 where ψ(k), u(k) is a given process that should be improved; H(t, χ, ψ, u) is the Pontryagin function (4.1); ψ(k)(·; β) is the solution of the Cauchy problem (2.1) with control u(k)(·; β). In the steepest descent method, the complexity of one iteration is essentially determined by multiple integration of the Schrödinger equation for a family of controls (k) u (·; β), β > 0 , which is necessary to find the value βb which provides a variation of control with the highest possible decrease of J on this iteration. In addition to (2.1) (2.4) one can set spectral constraints on the control. For such problem a modified steepest descent method was developed [149] (P. Gross, D. Neuhauser, H.A. Rabitz, 1992), where, in contrast to (4.27), the following formula with Fourier transformations is used:

u(k+1)(t; β) = u(k)(t) + ∞  T  β Z Z ∂H + t, χ(k)(t), ψ(k)(t), u(k)(t) e−iωtdt g(ω)eiωtdω, 2π  ∂u  −∞ 0 where β > 0 and ( 1, ω ≤ |ω| ≤ ω , g(ω) = min max 0, |ω| < ωmin, |ω| > ωmax.

26 In the article [151] (2009), this modification of the steepest descent method was adapted for solving OCP for the Liouville–von Neumann equation (2.9). The article [64] (J. Somlói,V.A. Kazakov, D.J. Tannor, 1993) uses the 1st order Krotov method for OCPs (2.1) (2.4) with λu > 0, S(t) ≡ 1, and λψ = 0 for modelling controlled dissociation of an iodine molecule I2 by the Schrödingerequation (2.1) with M = 2 (two electronic states): dψ(t) i Hgr −µ u(t) = − ψ(t), ψ(0) = ψ0. dt ~ −µ u(t) Hex

The operators Hgr, Hex and functions ψgr, ψex describe the ground and excited electronic states; µ means equal dipole operators between two electronic states of iodine molecule (in the general case different dipole operators µgr,ex and µex,gr are considered); each electronic 2 state has Morse type potential Vj = De,j{1 − exp[−βj(r − re,j)]} with some values of the parameters. Here De,j is the dissociation energy; r is the nuclear distance between two atoms; re,j is the equilibrium nuclear distance; j ∈ {gr, ex}. It was shown [64], that the Krotov method: a) can provide macro-steps compared to local improvements produced by the steepest descent method; b) is free of expensive operation of finding variational parameter; c) can improve J with less computational cost compared to the steepest descent method. Fig. 4 and 6 in [64, p. 92] show the dependence of the maximized probability of dissociation on the number of solved Cauchy problems (graphs are plotted for up to 20 Cauchy problems) and demonstrate an advantage of the Krotov method over the gradient method. Few first iterations of the 1st order Krotov method give the main contribution and then the rate of changing the values of J decreases (the target population of 99 % at time T is obtained). The Husimi transform was applied for the analysis of the optimized control in the time-frequency domain. The paper [66] (T. Szakács,B. Amstrup, P. Gross, R. Kosloff, H.A. Rabitz, A. Lörincz, 1994) considers the Schrödingerequation for two electronic states for modelling controlled blocking of the molecular bond for iodide CsI. The 1st order Krotov method is used in combination with the method of conjugate gradient in the form of Fletcher–Reeves in the functional space: first the Krotov method, and then switching to the Fletcher–Reeves method, starting with the result of the Krotov method. In the article [41] (W. Zhu, H.A. Rabitz, 1998), the problem (2.1) (2.4) with the 2 √ −γ2(x−x0)2 Hilbert space H = L (R), the observable O(x) = (γ0 π)e 0 , S(t) ≡ 1, m = 1, 0 Q = R, λψ = 0 was considered. The goal is to localize the wave packet at a given location x (its value was taken equal to 2.5) according to the operator O that is related to the Morse 2 −β(x−x0) potential V (x) = D0 e − 1 − D0 of the O–H bond where D0, β, x0 have some values. The numerical results show that the Zhu–Rabitz method in the first few iterations converges to near 80 % of its converged value. The article [42] (I. Maday, G. Turinici, 2003) considers the same OCP for two values of x0 (2.5 and 1.821) and represents the comparative results computed with three cases of the Madey–Turinici method. The pairs (δ, η) = (1, 1) and (δ, η) = (1, 0) in the method represent the Zhu–Rabitz method and the 1st order Krotov method, correspondingly. The third case is (δ, η) = (2, 0). Fig. 2 and 3 in [42] show first ten iterations of the computations for both values of x0. According to these figures, the case (δ, η) = (1, 0) is slower or almost the same in comparison to the case (δ, η) = (2, 0), and these both cases are better than the case (δ, η) = (1, 1). In the paper [67] (I. Sola, I. Santamaria, D.J. Tannor, 1998), an OCP for the Schrödinger equation, related to the Morse potential with several energy levels, was considered, and multi-photon excitations were investigated. Fig. 1 in [67] shows the comparative results and better performance (first 40 iterations are considered) of the 1st order Krotov method vs three gradient methods, including the conjugate gradient method, in the problem for maximizing the probability to select the target state. In the article [48] (T.-S. Ho, H.A. Rabitz, 2010) the problem of maximizing the mean hOT i = hψ(T ),OT ψ(T )i with respect to the Schrödingerequation is considered and TBQCP method is presented. For the target observable OT , a time-dependent Hermitian operator

27 dO(t) O(t) such that O(t) ≥ 0, = 0 is considered. For some OCP related to the Morse dt potential, Fig. 2, 4 7 in [48] show that HoRabitz TBQCP method can be faster than the 1st order Krotov method. The paper [70] (J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, C.P. Koch, 2008) considers the problem (2.1) (2.4) with λψ ≥ 0 for a model of the vibrations in a rubidium molecule Rb2, where three electronic states are taken. The goal is to transfer population, which is initially in level v = 0 of the electronic ground state, to level v = 1 of the same electronic state at time T , 1 + using Raman-like transitions using levels in the Σu excited state, but without populating 1 levels in the upper electronic state Πg during all the time. Fig. 2 in [70] shows the values of the maximized normalized cost functional Jnorm and the average value of population in the allowed subspace, IP , as functions of the number of iterations both with and without state constraint. For both cases, the 1st order Krotov method, which uses the regularization (4.10), gives a population transfer larger than 99.9 %. However, as shown at Fig. 2 and 3 in [70], it is required to use the state constraint for avoiding populating the forbidden subspace, and the Krotov method successfully solves the problem with this constraint. The payment for the constraint’s usage is significant increase in the amount of required iterations of the Krotov method in comparison to the case without the constraint: 500 vs 17 iterations. The article [74] (P. Kumar, S.A. Malinovskaya, V.S. Malinovsky, 2011) considers the Schrödignerequation which describes a three-level Λ-system controlled by the pump and Stokes fields. The article shows the comparative results computed using the 1st order Krotov method, the Zhu–Rabits method, and the conjugate gradient method, which works in the functional space, for two OCPs: first, for a complete population transfer, and, second, for maximizing coherence between two given energy levels (1st and 3rd). The article shows that all three methods are able to find solutions of these OCPs, including the cases with λψ > 0 (states constraints). Further, consider the results for quantum control computed by solving OCPs with real- valued states which represent real and imaginary parts of complex-valued ψ(t).

Figure 1: Illustration of the Krotov method in the OCP for rotations of a molecule.

The works [107] (N. Boussa¨ıd, M. Caponigro, T. Chambrion, 2012) and [76] (E.A. Trushkova, 2013) consider the Schr¨odingerequation with states from L2(Ω; C) which describes rotations of a planar molecule, and an approximate system with states in Cn where n = 22. This leads to OCP (2.7), (2.8) with real-valued states y(t) ∈ R44, where yj(t) = Rezj(t) and y2j(t) = Imzj(t), j = 1, n. For this OCP the article [76] uses the Krotov method with ϕ(k)(t, y) obtained from the discrete analogue of the Cauchy problem

∂ϕ(k)(t, y) ∂ϕ(k)(t, y) H t, , y, u(k)(t) + = 0, ϕ(k)(T, y) = −F (y) ∂y ∂t

1 considered in the article [150] (E.A. Trushkova, 2011). Control is restricted by |u(t)| ≤ 3 according to the operation arg max in (3.12). Based on the data from [76] Fig. 1 shows the u

28 logarithmic dependence of J on the number of iterations. For the initial iteration J = 2, for 4th iteration J ≈ 1.6 · 10−5, for 10th iteration J ≈ 5.1 · 10−6. In the article [147] (V.F. Krotov, O.V. Morzhin, E.A. Trushkova, 2013), a method, which incorporates the 1st order Krotov method, was suggested for the problem (3.7), (3.8) with F(y(T )) = − hy(T ), My(T )i, M ≥ 0 (and for a more general class of OCPs). The idea is to consider a such generalized OCP which allows impulsive control and discontinues state function y(t). An impulsive control combines usual piecewise continuous control function u(t) and impulsive actions, which are used at some time instants. At each such time instant the system’s trajectory is described in the state space Rn using some special dynamic system. Due to coupling the solution y(t) of the initial system, which is integrated between the time instances of impulsive actions, and the solutions of the special system, which is considered at the mentioned time instances, we obtain the trajectory which is continuous in the state space. Sequential improvements of control are build for the generalized OCP. After solving this OCP, its solution can be approximated by processes which are admissible in the initial OCP. The numerical results are provided for an OCP for a quantum system deﬁned by the Schr¨odingerequation (2.1) with the Landau-Zener Hamiltonian and states ψ(t) ∈ C2. For this OCP, its equivalent with states y(t) ∈ R4 is considered. The Table 4 in [147] shows fast decreasing of the cost functional in the generalized OCP.

5 Krotov method for controlling unitary dynamics and ensembles of solutions of the Schrödingerequation 5.1 Krotov method of the 2nd order with constraints on quantum states In the articles [65] (S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor, 2002) and [88] (D.M. Reich, M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, 2012) the 2nd order Krotov method, which uses (3.23) for defining Σ(k), was developed for OCPs for quantum systems, including for modelling control of Bose-Einstein condensate dynamics. Consider the problem (2.19), (2.20), (2.3) (ensemble of solutions of the Schrödingerequa- tion) for λψ ≥ 0 without spectral constraints. The Pontryagin function for the regularized cost functional J˜(v, v(k)) (4.10), (4.11) is

n X D i E (k) 2 H (t, {qj}, {ψj}, u) = −2Re qj, H[u]ψj − γuku − u (t)k , j=1 ~ where ψj, qj ∈ H. Based on the publications [88] (D.M. Reich, M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, 2012), [89] (M.H. Goerz, G. Gualdi, D.M. Reich, C.P. Koch, F. Motzoi, K.B. Whaley, J. Vala, M.M. M¨uller,S. Montangero, T. Calarco, 2015), we describe the method. Consider the set of n conjugate systems:

(k) dχj (t) i (k) (k) (k) = − H[u (t)]χj (t) + λψD(t)ψj (t), (5.1) dt ~ (k) ∂ (k) χj (T ) = − F {ψj (T )}j=1,n , j = 1, n. (5.2) ∂ψj

For the problem (2.20), (2.19), (2.3), consider the following iterative process, where (k) (k) (k) (k+1) (k+1) (k+1) v = {ψj }, u and v = {ψj }, u are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration of the method.

(k) 1. Compute the solutions χj , j = 1, n of n Cauchy problems (5.1), (5.2).

29 (k+1) 2. Find the solutions ψj , j = 1, n of n Cauchy problems

dψ(k+1)(t) j i h (k) (k+1) i (k+1) = − H ue t, {ψj (t)}j=1,n ψj (t), dt ~ (k+1) ψj (0) = ψj,0. (5.3)

Find the control u(k+1) deﬁned by

(k+1) (k) (k+1) u (t) = ue t, {ψj (t)}j=1,n = (k) := arg max H t, χj (t) + u∈Q 1 (k) (k+1) (k) n (k+1) o + Σ (t) ψj (t) − ψj (t) , ψj (t) , u , (5.4) 2 j=1,n

where the function Σ(k) is deﬁned in (3.23) with some α, β < 0, γ > 0. Theorem 5.1. Consider for the OCP (2.20), (2.19), (2.3) the problem of improving the (k) (k) process v = {ψj }j=1,n, u ∈ D. Then the method (5.1) (5.4) provides such process v(k+1) that J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). The article [88] (D.M. Reich, M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, 2012) provides numerical results obtained with the 2nd order Krotov method for an OCP with the terminant F {ψj(T )}j=1,n (2.22) which is a polynomial of 8th degree with respect to ψj [87, pp. 7–8]. As shown in Fig. 1 in [88], the eﬃciency of the Krotov method depends substantially on γu.

5.2 Krotov method with constraints on spectrum of the control It can happen that spectrum of the control contains components which are not desirable for practical implementation. Following the article [75] (J.P. Palao, D.M. Reich, C.P. Koch, 2013), we describe the modiﬁcation of the Krotov method for problems (2.19), (2.20), (2.3) for λψ = 0, Q = R with spectral constraints on control. At kth iteration, consider the process v(k) ∈ D and the following functional which takes into account both the regularizer (4.10), (4.11) and frequencies ωm, m = 1,M, for which the ﬁltration is done:

T 2 Z h u(t) − u(k)(t) J (v; v(k)) = γ + spec u S(t) 0 T 1 Z i + u(t) − u(k)(t) K(t − t0) u(t0) − u(k)(t0) dt0 dt. (5.5) 2π 0 Here Gaussian kernel is

M X σ2(t − t0)2 K(t − t0) = λ p2πσ2 cos [ω (t − t0)] exp − l . (5.6) spec,m m m 2 m=1

The values of γu and λspec,m, σm (m = 1,M) are given, and S(t) is some shape function. M 0 P p 2 0 Setting t = t , we have K(0) = λspec,m 2πσm. The Fourier transform of K(t − t ) m=1 is

M 2 2 X λspec,m (ω − ωm) (ω + ωm) K(ω) = exp − + exp − . 2 2σ2 2σ2 m=1 m m

30 Let the Hamiltonian H be linear in u. Consider the following iterative formula8:

(k+1) (k) (k+1) u (t) = ue t, {ψj (t), j = 1, n} = " n S(t) X (k) ∂H (k+1) := u(k)(t) + Im χ (t), ψ + γ j ∂u j u~ j=1 n # 1 X (k+1) (k) ∂H (k+1) (k) + ψ (t) − ψ (t) , Σ(k)(t) ψ (t) − ψ (t) − 2 j j ∂u j j j=1 T M Z X λspec,mS(t)p 2 0 − 2πσm cos [ωm(t − t )] × 2πγu m=1 0 σ2 (t − t0)2 × exp − m u(t0) − u(k)(t0) dt0, k ≥ 0, (5.7) 2 where, at kth iteration, u(k) and u(k+1) are the current and the next approximations cor- (k+1) respondingly; ψj , 1, n are the solutions of the Cauchy problems (2.19) with control (k) (k+1) (k) u(t) = ue t, {ψj (t), 1, n} ; χj , 1, n are the solutions of the Cauchy problems (5.1), (5.2) with λψ = 0. Due to the linearity of H[u] in u, the formula (5.7) can be represented as an integral Fredholm equation for the increment ∆u = u(k+1) − u(k):

T Z ∆u(t) = I(t) + β K(t, t0)∆u(t0)dt0, (5.8)

0 where " n S(t) X (k) ∂H (k+1) I(t) = Im χ (t), ψ (t) + γ j ∂u j u~ j=1 n # 1 X (k+1) (k) ∂H (k+1) (k) + ψ (t) − ψ (t) , Σ(k)(t) ψ (t) − ψ (t) ,(5.9) 2 j j ∂u j j j=1 L q 2 0 2 0 X λspec,lS(t) 2 0 σl (t − t ) K(t, t ) = − 2πσl cos [ωl(t − t )] exp − . (5.10) 2πγu 2 l=1

(k+1) Formula (5.9) includes unknown functions ψj , j = 1, n corresponding to the desired control u(k+1) for which the spectral constraints are given. In [75] the following approach for solving the equation (5.8) (5.10) was suggested: 1) set the function Σ(k) ≡ 0; 2) ﬁnd (k+1) (k+1) n (k+1) (k) an improving process vb = {ψbj }j=1, ub for the current process v without spectral constraints on control (in (5.6) set all λspec,l = 0); 3) in (5.9) substitute the com- (k+1) (k+1) puted functions ψbj , j = 1, n instead of unknown functions ψj , j = 1, n for obtaining approximation Ib for I; 4) solve the equation

T Z ∆u(t) = Ib(t) + β K(t, t0)∆u(t0)dt0 (5.11) 0

In the formula (5.7), there is the minus sign before the last summand, in contrast to the corresponding formulas (8), (11) in [75]. At the same time, the kernel K(t − t0) in the formula (6b) in [75] contains the minus sign before the summation sign, which is absent in the formula (5.6). Thus, they compensate each other.

31 using the method of degenerate kernels known in the theory of integral equations [152] as described in [75, p. 3]. The need to solve the Fredholm equation (5.8) or its simpliﬁed form (5.11) complicates each iteration of the Krotov method.

5.3 Maday–Turinici and Krotov methods with modiﬁed quality criteria and smoothing of control In the articles [97,98] (I.I. Maximov, N.C. Nielsen, J. Salomon, Z. Toˇsner,G. Turinici, 2008, 2010), and also [106] (S.G. Schirmer, P. de Fouquieres, 2011), the Maday–Turinici method was applied for the OCP (2.3), (2.12), (2.14) considering the unitary operator. Not for every terminant (2.15) (2.18) it is correct to use the 1st order Krotov method or the Maday–Turinici method. Generalizing the regularized terminant, which was proposed in the paper [97], we consider the following regularized cost functional to be minimized:

T Z ku(t)k2 J˜ (U, u; M) = F (U(T )) − Tr{U †(T )MU(T )} + λ dt, (5.12) X X u S(t) 0 where M ≥ 0 is some symmetric matrix with real numbers. † m In (5.12), consider FO(U(T )) = −Tr{OU(T )ρ0U (T )} defined by (2.16), and Q = R . Based on [97], we describe the kth iteration of the Maday–Turinici method using (5.12). Set some δ, η ∈ [0, 2]. 1. Compute the solution U (k+1) of the Cauchy problem (k+1) dU (t) i (k) (k+1) (k+1) = − H[ue(t, B (t); δ)]U (t),U (0) = I. (5.13) dt ~ Find the control u(k+1) defined by (k+1) (k+1) ul (t) = uel(t, U (t); δ) = (k) δ D (k) (k+1) E := (1 − δ)ul (t) + Im B (t), HlU (t) , (5.14) λu~ (k) (k) where l = 1, m, the functions ul and B are from the previous iteration. 2. Find the function B(k+1) as the solution of the Cauchy problem (k+1) dB (t) i (k+1) (k+1) = − H[ue(t, B (t); η)]B (t), (5.15) dt ~ (k+1) (k+1) (k+1) B (T ) = OU (T )ρ0 + U (T )M, (5.16) where (k+1) (k+1) uel(t, B ; η) := (1 − η)uel(t, U (t); δ) + η D (k+1) (k+1) E = Im B , HlU (t) , l = 1, m. (5.17) λu~ In the article [98] only the case of (δ, η) = (1, 0) is considered and M = κI, κ > 0. This case means the 1st order Krotov method with regularizations with respect to u and U(T ). In addition, it was suggested to make smoothing for the computed improving control u(k+1). (k+1) The vector function usmooth(·; α) is constructed with the components (k+1) (k+1) (k+1) usmooth,l(·; α) = (1 − α)ul + αF ul , l = 1, m for some α ∈ [0, 1] ∀l, where F is a frequency filter, for example, with direct and inverse Fourier transformations. Suppose that u(k+1) for α = 0 provides an improvement. Then starting from α = 1 and decreasing α, one can search for such a smoothed control which also gives and improvement for (U (k), u(k)). This modification is called the smooth Krotov method. Search for a suitable α ∈ [0, 1] increases the complexity of each iteration.

32 5.4 Applications in numerical experiments for controlling unitary dynamics

The articles [70, 75, 79, 80, 87–90] consider OCPs for ensembles of the solutions {ψj(t), j = 1, n} of the Schrödinger equation using the 1st and 2nd order Krotov methods, including constraints on the states {ψj(t)} and on the spectrum of control. As noted in [80] (J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, 2003), there are important questions: a) on existence of the solution for the problem of the type (2.19), (2.20), (2.3) taking into account the feasibility of the computed controls in practice and scalability with increasing n; b) on complexity of computations for finding such control. In the article [88, pp. 7, 8] (D.M. Reich, M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, 2012), Fig. 1 illustrates the first 40 iterations of the 1st and 2nd order versions of the Krotov method, which were applied for an OCP with the terminant being a polynomial of 8th degree with respect to {ψj}. The iterative process is sensitive to γu in the regularization of the type (4.10), (4.11) (k) and also to setting Σ by (3.23). In particular, for γu = 0.133 the 1st order Krotov method computes fast improvements at the first two iterations, but after that the method gives the degraded values of F. For the same γu, 40 iterations of the 2nd order Krotov method give the terminant’s value equal only near to 0.01. For γu = 0.4, both 1st and 2nd order versions of the Krotov method show sufficiently good results: the terminant reaches near 10−5. It means the importance of the 2nd order Krotov method and usage of an appropriate γu for such nonlinear terminants. In [90] (M.H. Goerz, K.B. Whaley, C.P. Koch, 2015) a multistage optimization scheme is discussed where on the first stage a reduction of an OCP to the problem of minimizing the corresponding function Fe is performed, and after that the solution of the parameterized problem is taken as an initial approximation for the Krotov method. Consider control parametrization using trigonometric functions. The articles [89,90,92], along with using the Krotov method, use the approach based on, first, considering controls in some class of trigonometric functions parametrized by some amount of parameters and, second, reducing an OCP to minimizing the corresponding function Fe of these parameters. CRAB method [40] uses the following parameterization:

 N  X u(t) = uguess(t) 1 + S(t) aj sin(ωjt) + bj cos(ωjt)  , (5.18) j=1 where uguess(t) is some initial approximation. This formula uses the Fourier basis to reflect the physical nature of the control. The corresponding objective function is Fe(aj, bj, ωj | j = 1,N). To reduce the dimension of the problem it was suggested to consider ωj = 2πj(1 + rj)/T , where rj ∈ [−0.5, 0.5] is a random number chosen with the uniform distribution. In [89, 90, 92], the Nelder–Mead method was applied for minimizing the objective function. The Krotov method requires differentiability of F, but the approach with reducing an OCP to the problem of minimizing the corresponding Fe with the Nelder-Mead method does not require finding the gradient ∇Fe. Usage of (5.18) narrows the search space in an OCP. However, an appropriate parameterization can be useful for obtaining analytical formulas for the control, which can be then improved using the Krotov method. As noted in [90], in the case of a nonlinear terminant F it is possible to have the situation when the Krotov method, considered for some given initial approximation, stumbles upon “plateau” and is not efficient enough in the sense that several thousand iterations can give insufficient results. In this case, it is useful to have some pre-optimization with OCP reduction to the corresponding finite-dimensional optimization followed by application of the Nelder–Mead method. In the articles [70] (J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, C.P. Koch, 2008) and [75] (C.P. Palao, D.M. Reich, C.P. Koch, 2013) the Krotov method is used together with taking into account constraints on states {ψj(t)} and on the spectrum of u. The quantum Fourier transform (WQFT gate), which is based on the unitary transformation in the model with three electronic

33 states for a molecule Rb2, is considered. The constraint on states is used to specify that the 1 upper electronic state Πg) is forbidden. Optimization of control for a unitary transformation under states constraints is obtained successfully by the 1st order Krotov method. Fig. 6 in [70] shows that 50 iterations of the method are not sufficient for avoiding populating the forbidden subspace, and 500 iterations of the method provide almost zero population in the forbidden subspace during all the time. State constraints lead to inhomogeneous equations (5.1), with respect to which we note the article [153] (M. Ndong, H. Tal-Ezer, R. Kosloff, C.P. Koch, 2009) devoted to a Chebychev propagator for such equations. The effectiveness of the Krotov method (5.5) (5.11), which provides improvements of control with filtering its spectrum, is illustrated in the article [75]. A modification of the Krotov method was used to estimate time and gate complexity of generating multi-qubit unitary operators [84] (T. Koike, Y. Okudaira, 2010). As target operators, the unitary operator which realizes N-qubit quantum Fourier transform WQFT and a certain unitary operator Wf which does not have an apparent symmetry were considered. The operator WQFT has a polynomial gate complexity and Wf was constructed so that it is expected to have exponential complexity. The fidelity FW is defined by (2.15), where W = WQFT or W = Wf . The modified Krotov scheme was implemented to obtain solutions of the fidelity-optimal and time-optimal quantum computation theory. As a result, the time complexity for the WQFT was found to be linear in the number of qubits, while the time complexity for the Wf is found to be exponential. The article [97] (I.I. Maximov, Z. Toˇsner,N.C. Nielsen, 2008) describes the method incor- porating the Maday–Turinici method and regularization for U(T ) (see (5.12) (5.17) with M = κI and κ > 0) and applications of this method for OCPs related to nuclear magnetic resonance, dynamic nuclear polarization. Different values of the parameters δ, η ∈ [0, 2] were used. For a model of two-spin Hermitian coherence transfer, Fig. 4 in [97] illustrates the results of this method for the same initial approximation u(0) and for different δ, η ∈ [0, 2]. This figure shows how many iterations are needed to achieve a change of the cost functional below 10−4. Almost the same results can be achieved in 40 50 iterations for some pairs (δ, η), in 100 200 iterations for some other pairs, etc. For example, for (δ, η) = (1, 0), which corresponds to a version of the Krotov method, the amount of iterations is 60. For a model of coherence transfer, Fig. 13 in [97] shows that increasing number of spins gives faster growing of the processor time for GRAPE, in comparison to the Maday–Turinici method combined with the regularized terminant. In the case of five spins, the difference in complexity is 3.8 times. However, note the effectiveness of the Maday–Turinici method depends on the parameters λu, δ, η, and, in addition, on κ.

6 Krotov method of the 2nd order for controlling Bose– Einstein condensate governed by the Gross–Pitaevskii equation 6.1 Nonlinear dynamics and the 2nd order Krotov method In the problem (2.1) (2.4) the dynamic equation (Schrödingerequation) is linear with respect to ψ, and the terminant F is defined for a positive semi-defined operator O. As noted in Section 4, under these conditions, one can use the Krotov method with a linear function ϕ(t, ψ) = 2Re hχ(t), ψi, the Zhu–Rabitz method, and the Maday–Turinici method. In the problem (2.23), (2.3), (2.30) the dynamic equation (Gross–Pitaevskii equation) is non-linear in ψ. Therefore the 2nd order (linear-quadratic function ϕ) version of the Krotov method is needed. In [65] (S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor, 2002), an important step was done: the 2nd order Krotov method was extended to OCPs with controlled the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. The article [39] (G. Jäger,D.M. Reich, M.H. Goerz, C.P. Koch, U. Hohenester, 2014) also is devoted to applying the Krotov method for optimization of controls for Bose-Einstein con-

34 densate. Consider OCP for the Gross–Pitaevskii equation (2.23) together with the cost functional J(v) with λu = 0, λdu = 0 given in (2.30). For each iteration of the Krotov method, we consider the regularized cost functional J˜(v, v(k)) given in (4.10). The Pontryagin function is (k) 2 i 2 ku − u (t)k H(t, q, ψ, u) = 2Re q, − K + V (·, u) + κ|ψ| ψ − γu , (6.1) ~ S(t) where q, ψ ∈ H, u ∈ Q, λu > 0. Similar to Definition 3.6 (the formula (3.21)), consider the following definition. Definition 6.1. The function ϕ(t, ψ) is called linear-quadratic if it has the following form:

ϕ(t, ψ) = hχ(t), ψiL2 + hψ, χ(t)iL2 + 1 D E + ψ − ψ(k)(t), Σ(t)(ψ − ψ(k)(t)) , (6.2) 2 L2 where ψ(k) is the solution of the Cauchy problem (2.23) for u = u(k); χ and Σ are some continuous functions.

For the OCP (2.23), (2.3), (2.30) with Q = R, λu = 0, λdu = 0 consider the problem of improving the process v(k) = ψ(k), u(k) ∈ D according to the regularized cost functional J˜(v, v(k)) (4.10), (4.11). Based on [39,65], we formulate the following iterative process, where v(k) = (ψ(k), u(k)) and v(k+1) = (ψ(k+1), u(k+1)) are input and output admissible processes, correspondingly, at kth iteration of the method. 1. Compute the matrix function Σ(k)(t) according to the formula (3.21) with some values of α, β < 0, γ > 0, and ﬁnd the solution χ(k) of the Cauchy problem

dχ(k)(t) i 2 = − K + V [u(k)(t)] + 2κ ψ(k)(t) χ(k)(t) + dt ~ 2 +iκ ψ(k)(t) χ∗(k)(t), (6.3) ∂F χ(k)(T ) = − (ψ(k)(T )); (6.4) ∂ψ∗(T )

2. Find the control u(k+1) by "* + (k+1) (k) S(t) (k) ∂V (k+1) u (t) = u (t) + Im χ (t), ψ (t) + γu~ ∂u u(k+1)(t) * + # 1 (k+1) (k) (k) ∂V (k+1) + ψ (t) − ψ (t), Σ (t) ψ (t) , (6.5) 2 ∂u u(k+1)(t)

where the function ψ(k+1) is the solution of the Cauchy problem (2.23) with control u = u(k+1).

Theorem 6.1. For the OCP (2.23), (2.3), (2.30) with Q = R, λu = 0, λdu = 0 the method (6.2) (6.5), which uses the regularization (4.10), (4.11) with γu > 0, provides the property J(v(k+1)) ≤ J(v(k)). Remark 6.1. Formulas (2.24), (2.26) (2.28) describe substantially diﬀerent potentials in the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. The potential (2.24) is linear in u. Unlike (2.24), control in the potential (2.28) enters in a polynomial form. Formula (6.5) is obtained from the condition ∂ 1 H t, χ(k)(t) + Σ(k)(t)ψ(k+1)(t), ψ(k+1)(t), u = 0, ∂u 2

35 where H is defined by (6.1). If V depends linearly on u, then the r.h.s. of (6.5) does not contain u(k+1)(t), i.e. it is easy to compute u(k+1) by (6.5). If V depends nonlinearly on u(k+1), then the complexity of (6.5) is completely different in comparison to the linear case. In the article [65], it was noted that the function Σ(k) can either be computed from the solution of a special Cauchy problem (by analogy with [57]), or can be specified according to the formula (3.23). The computations were performed involving the Krotov method with the regularization (4.10), (4.11). In [39] the function Σ(k) is determined by (3.23). In the dissertation [95, p. 34] (G. Jäger,2015) it is noted that the Krotov method with linear- quadratic ϕ(k) drastically depends on the values of α, β, γ in (3.23). As discussed in [65, p. 5], one can start from Σ(0) ≡ 0 with subsequent decreasing α, β and increasing γ. If (6.5) does not provide improvement of the process v(k), then we have to adjust α, β, γ and repeat the computations. In [39] and other publications, an important tool is the regularization (4.10), (4.11) with parameter γu. In [95, p. 86], this parameter is called “step” in the context of the Krotov method. For the criterion (2.25), the transversality condition (6.4) is [65]:

(k) (k) (k) 1 (k) D (k) E ψ (T ) χ (T ) = −Re ψ (T ) + ψ (T ) cos(θ (T )) + 3 . 2 (ψ∗(k)(T ))

The transversality condition for the terminant Fψtarget (ψ(T )) (2.5) is

(k) D (k) E χ (T ) = ψtarget, ψ (T ) ψtarget. (6.6)

In the article [39] the terminant (2.5) is considered, and the conjugate system is written for the function p(t) = iχ(t). The condition (6.6) has the form p(k)(T ) = (k) i ψtarget, ψ (T ) ψtarget. For OCPs where V depends on u nonlinearly, in [39], the following simpliﬁcations for (6.5) were suggested: a) consider Σ(k) ≡ 0 (in [39, p. 8], for such variant of the Krotov method

∂V there is a description how to solve the equation derived from (6.5)); b) use instead ∂u u(k)(t)

∂V of . Taking into account both simpliﬁcations, consider ∂u u(k+1)(t)

* + (k+1) (k) S(t) (k) ∂V (k+1) u (t) ≈ u (t) + Im χ (t), ψ (t) (6.7) γu~ ∂u u(k)(t) instead of (6.5). Then this formula was applied, with the remark that for sufficiently small values of the parameter κ > 0 in the Gross–Pitaevskii equation the control u moderately varies from one iteration to another. Judging by the computational results described in [39], the Krotov method in the simplified version with (6.7) was successful. The difficulty due to nonlinearity of V in u complicates the application of the method for controlling Bose– Einstein condensate.

6.2 Krotov and GRAPE methods in numerical experiments for controlling Bose–Einstein condensate First, we explain the basics of the GRAPE method [38] (N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨uggen,S.J. Glaser, 2005) which is often used to solve OCPs for quantum systems. In this method: 1) control u : [0,T ] 7→ R is represented as a piecewise constant function

u(t) = cj, t ∈ [tj, tj+1), tj = jT/N, j = 0,N, (6.8)

36 where cj ∈ R, the control is c = [c0, . . . , cN ] and ∆t = T/N is the discretization step; 2) the OCP is reformulated as the problem of minimizing some function Fe(c). Then gradient optimization methods are used. GRAPE is also used [154], [39] with the BFGS (Broyden– Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno) method. Other finite-dimensional optimization methods are also used, including methods which do not require differentiation of the objective function: the Nelder–Mead method (downhill simplex method), particle swarm optimization, differential evolution methods. For the OCP with linear potential (2.24) and the criterion (2.25), the article [65] (S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor, 2002) shows the results of the 2nd order Krotov method, which uses (3.23) for computing the function Σ(k). As shown at Fig. 3 in [65], the solution was found in near 30 iterations with sequential improvements. Fig. 4 in [65] represents the phase θ(T ) related to the optimized control. In [39] (G. Jäger,D.M. Reich, M.H. Goerz, C.P. Koch, U. Hohenester, 2014) two OCPs were considered for the Gross–Pitaevskii equation of a Bose–Einstein condensate. The goal in the first OCP is to realize splitting of the Bose-Einstein condensate at time T , so that the wave function at time T should correspond to the ground state of the two-well potential. The second OCP is for shaking the condensate, where the goal for the anharmonic single-well potential V (x − u(t)) is to move the condensate from the ground state V , where the system is at the time t = 0, to the first excited state. For the OCP with splitting Bose-Einstein condensate, this OCP was solved independently by: a) using the Krotov method in its simplified version using (6.7); b) applying the GRAPE-BFGS method with H1-regularization (2.29). Fig. 1 (b,c) in [39] represents the density n(x, t) = |ψ(x, t)|2 on the space–time plane, and shows that splitting of the Bose-Einstein condensate into two parts is achieved. Fig. 2 in [39] shows that the Krotov method using (6.7) gives sequential improvements, the efficiency of which depends on the parameter κ in the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. For κ = π/2 the Krotov method using (6.7) is faster than GRAPE-BFGS-H1 in terms of the number of solved Cauchy problems: by the Krotov method the terminant F < 10−4, and the complexity equals to solving 100 Cauchy problems. For the OCP with shaking the Bose-Einstein condensate, as seen in Fig. 4 in [39]: a) solving this OCP turned out to be significantly more difficult (hundreds of Cauchy problems) in comparison with solving OCP for splitting the condensate; b) the Krotov method using (6.7) for the problem of shaking the Bose-Einstein condensate yields consistent improvements, and for κ = 2π it shows much better efficiency than GRAPE-BFGS-H1. Thus, the 1st order Krotov method using (6.7) in the described OCP can be successful for some values of the parameters κ and γu.

7 Conclusions

Starting its development in the late 1970s, quantum control has now become a large interdisciplinary direction of great importance for the science and technology of present and future. This field is related to diverse areas of mathematics (e.g., differential equations, optimal control, functional analysis, group theory, differential geometry, finite-dimensional optimization, algebra), physics and chemistry (control of molecular dynamics, nuclear magnetic resonance, laser chemistry, etc.), quantum computing and information [3–23]. Formulation of a quantum control problem includes defining a suitable mathematical model of the controlled system and cost functional subject to maximization or minimization. A mathematical model should effectively describe the controlled dynamics of the real quantum system. Modelling should involve description of space of quantum states of the system and their controlled evolution equation which can be Schrödingeror Liouville–von Neumann equation for a closed quantum system, Gross–Pitaevskiy equation for wave function of Bose–Einstein condensate, master equation with control for an open quantum system. A cost functional includes terminant F which represents the control goal, and additional integral terms used to impose constraints on control, admissible states, or to improve quality of optimization methods. Terminant for maximizing the expectation of target observable O of the quantum system at a finite moment T is F = hψ(T ), Oψ(T )i; for minimizing

37 2 distance to the target state F = kψ(T ) − ψtargetk , etc. The cost functional can include T 2 T R ku(t)k R integral terms λu dt and λψ hψ(t),D(t)ψ(t)i dt to restrict control and quantum 0 S(t) 0 states, correspondingly. Along with the integral constraint on u, the pointwise constraint T m R 2 u(t) ∈ Q ⊂ R can be used. Moreover, one can consider (in)equality ku(t)k dt{=, ≤}E. 0 The final time moment T is either fixed or free. Success in finding quantum optimal control depends on both the art of formulating the optimization model and the art of applying optimization methods. For OCPs for quantum systems the following optimization methods are used: a) methods which operate in the control functional space, in particular, methods based on Pontryagin maximum principle and Krotov method; b) methods based on reducing OCP to a finite-dimensional optimization problem via some parametrization of the control (for example, GRAPE uses piecewise- constant functions, CRAB uses trigonometric functions); c) hybrid methods (e.g., combination of reduction to a final-dimensional optimization problem and the Krotov method). The efficiency of solving an OCP depends, in particular, on the quality of numerical solving ODEs and PDEs. The Krotov method has been widely used for quantum control. This method was applied to control of molecular dynamics, realization of quantum gates, control of Bose-Einstein condensate, control of nuclear magnetic resonance, etc. The efficiency of the Krotov method depends on the specific of an OCP, the way for defining the improving function ϕ(k), regularizers, and adjusting the method’s parameters. For example, if the potential V depends nonlinearly on u(t) in the Gross–Pitaevskii equation (see Section 6), then usage of the Krotov method is more difficult in comparison to the linear case. The function ϕ(k) can be linear or linear-quadratic with respect to the quantum state. If the function Σ(k) is defined using the formula (3.23), then it is needed to adjust the parameters α, β < 0 and γ > 0 for providing the control improvement. The Krotov method is a nonlocal improvement method, which in contrast to the methods of local improvements (e.g., steepest descent, conditional gradient, etc.) are not limited to small control variations and do not contain a cost expensive procedure to find the best parametrized variation. In the articles [63, 64] (D.J. Tannor, V.A. Kazakov, V.N. Orlov, J. Somlói)from the early 1990s, the Krotov method with linear function ϕ(k) was applied for the OCP (2.1) (2.4) with λψ = 0, and was shown to give macrosteps for control improvements that can be faster than the steepest descent method. HoRabitz TBQCP method [48] can be faster than the 1st order Krotov method. In a number of publications, including [65,88,90], the Krotov method is used with a linear- quadratic function ϕ(k) where Σ(k) is defined by (3.23). At the same time, in the article [57] (V.F. Krotov, I.N. Feldman, 1983) the function Σ(k) is defined as the solution of some special Cauchy problem (3.28), (3.29). In the paper [65] (S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor), both methods for determining Σ(k) are mentioned, although the computations use the method with the formula (3.23). As it is mentioned in [60] for an OCP beyond quantum control, the method with (3.28), (3.29) is more cost expensive than the version with (3.23), but the last variant can be less effective. Thus, for quantum OCPs it is important to compare the efficiency of both methods. Closed quantum systems are approximations for real quantum systems, and in practice there is often unavoidable influence of the external environment. The Krotov method has been successfully applied also to OCPs for open quantum systems [22,61,68,78,91–94,100]. This area of research is of high practical interest and has to be considered elsewhere.

References

1. L.S. Pontryagin, V.G. Boltyanskii, R.V. Gamkrelidze, E.F. Mishchenko, The mathematical theory of optimal processes / Transl. from Russian, New York, London, John Wiley

38 & Sons, Inc., 1962, 360 p. 2. R. Bellman, Dynamic programming, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton Univ. Press, 1957. 3. A.G. Butkovskiy, Y.I. Samoilenko, Control of quantum-mechanical processes and systems. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1984. (In Russian.) (English translation was published in 1990, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.) 4. I.V. Krasnov, N.Ya. Shaparev, I.M. Shkedov, Optimal laser actions, Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1989, 93 p. (In Russian.) 5. S.A. Rice, M. Zhao, Optical control of molecular dynamics, New York, Wiley, 2000, 456 p.

6. Quantum control: Mathematical and numerical challenges: Proc. of CRM Workshop (Montr´eal,Canada, 2002) / Edt. by A.D. Bandrauk, M.C. Delfour, C. Le Bris, Provi- dence, American Mathematical Society, 2003, xii + 211 pp. https://doi.org/10.1090/ crmp/033 7. D. D’Alessandro, “Directions in the theory of quantum control”, In: Multidisciplinary Research in Control / Edt. by L. Giarr´e,B. Bamieh, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer (2003), 73–80. (Ser.: Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. Vol. 289.) https:// doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36589-3_6 8. P.W. Brumer, M. Shapiro, “Principles of the quantum control of molecular processes”. Wiley-Interscience, 2003, 250 p. (The 2nd edition was published in 2012.)

9. D. Tannor, Introduction to quantum mechanics: A time-dependent perspective, Sausilito, University Science Books, 2007, 662 p. https://www.uscibooks.com/tannor.htm 10. V.S. Letokhov, Laser control of atoms and molecules, New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 2007, 328 p.

11. D. D’Alessandro, Introduction to quantum control and dynamics, Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2007, 360 p. 12. A.L. Fradkov, Cybernetical physics. From control of chaos to quantum control, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2007, 236 p.

13. C. Brif, R. Chakrabarti, H. Rabitz, “Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future”, New J. Phys., 12:7 (2010), 075008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/12/ 7/075008 14. D. Dong, I.R. Petersen, “Quantum control theory and applications: a survey”, IET Control Theory & Applications, 4:12 (2010), 2651–2671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/ iet-cta.2009.0508 15. H.M. Wiseman, G.J. Milburn, Quantum measurement and control, Cambridge, Cam- bridge Univ. Press, 2010, 478 p. 16. C. Altaﬁni, F. Ticozzi, “Modeling and control of quantum systems: An Introduction”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57:8 (2012), 1898–1917. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TAC.2012.2195830 17. B. Bonnard, D. Sugny, Optimal control with applications in space and quantum dynamics, Springﬁeld, American Institute of Math. Sciences, 2012, 283 p. 18. J.E. Gough, “Principles and applications of quantum control engineering”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. A. Math., Phys., and Engineering Sciences, 370:1979 (2012), 5241–5258. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0370

39 19. S. Cong, Control of quantum systems: Theory and methods, Singapore, Wiley, 2014, 400 p. 20. W. Dong, R. Wu, X. Yuan, C. Li, T.-J. Tarn, “The modelling of quantum control systems”, Sci. Bull., 60 (2015), 1493–1508. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11434-015-0863-3 21. S.J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C.P. Koch, W. Köckenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, D. Sugny, F.K. Wilhelm, “Training Schrödinger’scat: quantum optimal control. Strategic report on current status, vi- sions and goals for research in Europe”, Eur. Phys. J. D, 69:12 (2015), 279. https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2015-60464-1 22. C.P. Koch, “Controlling open quantum systems: Tools, achievements, and limitations”, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 28:21 (2016), 213001. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-8984/28/21/213001 23. A. Borz`ı, G. Ciaramella, M. Sprengel, Formulation and numerical solution of quantum control problems, Philadelphia, SIAM, 2017, 390 p. https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/ formulation-and-numerical-solution-of-quantum-control-problems 24. V.P. Belavkin, “Theory of the control of observable quantum systems”, Automat. Remote Control, 44:2 (1983), 178–188. 25. H.M. Wiseman, G.J. Milburn, “Quantum theory of optical feedback via homodyne detec- tion”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:5 (1993), 548–551. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 70.548 26. R.S. Judson, H. Rabitz, “Teaching lasers to control molecules”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 68 (1992), 1500. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1500 27. A. Pechen, H. Rabitz, “Teaching the environment to control quantum systems”, Phys. Rev. A, 73 (2006), 062102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.062102 28. U. Boscain, G. Charlot, J.-P. Gauthier, S. Guérin, H.-R. Jauslin, “Optimal control in laser-induced population transfer for two- and three-level quantum systems”, J. Math. Phys., 43 (2002), 2107. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1465516 29. U. Boscain, T. Chambrion, G. Charlot, “Nonisotropic 3-level quantum systems: Com- plete solutions for minimum time and minimal energy”, Discrete and Continuous Dynam- ical Systems–B, 5:4 (2005), 957–990. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2005.5.957 30. U. Boscain, P. Mason, “Time minimal trajectories for a spin 1/2 particle in a magnetic field”, J. Math. Phys., 47:6 (2006), 062101. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2203236 31. A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, Y. Okudaira, “Time optimal quantum evolution”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:6 (2006), 060503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.060503 32. P. Salamon, K.H. Hoffmann, A.M. Tsirlin, “Optimal control in a quantum cooling problem”, Applied Math. Lett., 25:10 (2012), 1263–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml. 2011.11.020 33. E. Assémat,M. Lapert, D. Sugny, S.J. Glaser, “On the application of geometric optimal control theory to nuclear magnetic resonance”, Math. Control & Related Fields, 3 (2013), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.3934/mcrf.2013.3.375 34. U. Boscain, F. Grönberg, R. Long, H. Rabitz, “Minimal time trajectories for two-level quantum systems with two bounded controls”, J. Math. Phys., 55 (2014), 062106. https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.4882158

40 35. R. Romano, “Geometric analysis of minimum time trajectories for a two level quantum system”, Phys. Rev. A, 90:6 (2014), 062302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90. 062302 36. F. Albertini, D. D’Alessandro, “Time optimal simultaneous control of two level quantum systems”, Automatica, 74 (2016), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica. 2016.07.014 37. T. Schulte-Herbrüggen,S.J. Glaser, G. Dirr, U. Helmke, “Gradient flows for optimisation in quantum information and quantum dynamics: Foundations and applications”, Rev. Math. Phys., 22 (2010), 597–667. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X10004053 38. N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen,S.J. Glaser, “Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms”, J. Magn. Reson., 172:2 (2005), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2004.11. 004 39. G. Jäger,D.M. Reich, M.H. Goerz, C.P. Koch, U. Hohenester, “Optimal quantum control of Bose-Einstein condensates in magnetic microtraps: Comparison of GRAPE and Krotov optimization schemes”, Phys. Rev. A, 90:3 (2014), 033628. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.90.033628 40. T. Caneva, T. Calarco, S. Montangero, “Chopped random-basis quantum optimization”, Phys. Rev. A, 84:2 (2011), 022326. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.022326 41. W. Zhu, H. Rabitz, “A rapid monotonically convergent iteration algorithm for quantum optimal control over the expectation value of a positive definite operator”, J. Chem. Phys., 109:2 (1998), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.476575 42. Y. Maday, G. Turinici, “New formulations of monotonically convergent quantum control algorithms”, J. Chem. Phys., 118:18 (2003), 8191–8196. https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 1564043 43. J. Gough, V.P. Belavkin, O.G. Smolyanov, “Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equations for quantum optimal feedback control”, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt., 7:10 (2005), S237. https://doi.org/10.1088/1464-4266/7/10/006 44. A.N. Pechen, A.S. Trushechkin, “Measurement-assisted Landau-Zener transitions”, Phys. Rev. A, 91:5 (2015), 052316. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052316 45. K.M. Riahi, J. Salomon, S.J. Glaser, D. Sugny, “A fully efficient time-parallelized quantum optimal control algorithm”, Phys. Rev. A, 93 (2016), 043410. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.93.043410 46. M.S. Anan’evskii, A.L. Fradkov, “Control of the observables in the finite-level quantum systems”, Autom. Remote Control, 66:5 (2005), 734–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10513-005-0117-y 47. A.N. Pechen, “On the speed gradient method for generating unitary quantum operations for closed quantum systems”, Russian Math. Surveys, 71:3 (2016), 597–599. https:// doi.org/10.1070/RM9722 48. T.-S. Ho, H. Rabitz, “Accelerated monotonic convergence of optimal control over quantum dynamics”, Phys. Rev. E, 82:2 (2010), 026703. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevE.82.026703 49. O.V. Morzhin, A.N. Pechen, ”Minimal time generation of density matrices for a two-level quantum system driven by coherent and incoherent controls”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. (at press, 2019).

41 50. D.-Y. Dong, C.-L. Chen, T.-J. Tarn, A. Pechen, H. Rabitz, “Incoherent control of quantum systems with wavefunction controllable subspaces via quantum reinforcement learning”, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. Part B: Cybern., 38:4 (2008), 957–962. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2008.926603 51. M.Y. Niu, S. Boixo, V. Smelyanskiy, H. Neven, “Universal quantum control through deep reinforcement learning”, arXiv:1803.01857 (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01857 52. J.P.P. Zauleck, R. de Vivie-Riedle, “Constructing grids for molecular quantum dynamics using an autoencoder”, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 14:1 (2018), 55–62. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01045 53. P. Palittapongarnpim, B.C. Sanders, “Enter the machine”, Nature Physics, 14:5 (2018), 432–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0061-8 54. G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, G. Carleo, “Neural-network quantum state tomography”, Nature Physics, 14:5 (2018), 447–450. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41567-018-0048-5 55. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, S. Lloyd, “Quan- tum machine learning”, Nature, 549:7671 (2017), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature23474 56. V.F. Krotov, I.N. Feldman, “Iterative methods for solving extreme problems”, In the book: Modeling of technical and economic processes, Moscow, Moscow Economic and Statistical Institute (MESI) Publ. (1978), 54–65. (In Russian.) 57. V.F. Krotov, I.N. Feldman, “An iterative method for solving problems of optimal control”, Engineering Cybernetics, 21:2 (1983), 123–130. 58. V.F. Krotov, V.I. Gurman, Methods and problems of optimal control, Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1973, 448 p. (In Russian.) 59. V.F. Krotov, Global methods in optimal control theory, New York, Marcel Dekker, 1996, 408 p. 60. A.I. Konnov, V.F. Krotov, “On global methods for the successive improvement of control processes”, Automat. Remote Control, 60:10 (1999), 1427–1436. 61. V.A. Kazakov, V.F. Krotov, “Optimal control of resonant interaction between light and matter”, Automat. Remote Control, 4 (1987), 430434. 62. V.F. Krotov, “Global methods to improve control and optimal control of resonance interaction of light and matter”, In: Modeling and Control of Systems, Blaqui´ereA. (eds), Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer (1989), 267–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0041198 63. D.J. Tannor, V. Kazakov, V. Orlov, “Control of photochemical branching: Novel proce- dures for ﬁnding optimal pulses and global upper bounds”, In: Time-Dependent Quantum Molecular Dynamics, J. Broeckhove, L. Lathouwers (Eds.), Boston, Springer (1992), 347– 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2326-4_24

64. J. Soml´oi,V.A. Kazakov, D.J. Tannor, “Controlled dissociation of I2 via optical transitions between the X and B electronic states”, Chem. Phys., 172:1 (1993), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0104(93)80108-L 65. S.E. Sklarz, D.J. Tannor, “Loading a Bose-Einstein condensate onto an optical lattice: An application of optimal control theory to the nonlinear Schr¨odingerequation”, Phys. Rev. A, 66:5 (2002), 053619. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.053619

42 66. T. Szakács,B. Amstrup, P. Gross, R. Kosloff, H. Rabitz, A. Lörincz,“Locking a molecular bond: A case study of CsI”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 2540–2547 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.50.2540 67. I.R. Solá,J. Santamaria, D.J. Tannor, “Optimal control of multiphoton excitation: A black box or a flexible toolkit?” J. Phys. Chem. A, 102:23 (1998), 4301–4309. https: //doi.org/10.1021/jp980281l 68. A. Bartana, R. Kosloff, D.J. Tannor, “Laser cooling of moleculas by dynamically trapped states”, Chem. Phys., 267:1–3 (2001), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0301-0104(01)00266-X 69. C.P. Koch, J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, F. Masnou-Seeuws, “Stabilization of ultracold molecules using optimal control theory”, Phys. Rev. A, 70:1 (2004), 013402. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.013402 70. J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, C.P. Koch, “Protecting coherence in optimal control theory: state dependent constraint approach”, Phys. Rev. A, 77:6 (2008), 063412. https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.063412 71. T. Caneva, M. Murphy, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, S. Montangero, V. Giovannetti, G.E. San- toro, “Optimal control at the quantum speed limit”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:24 (2009), 240501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.240501 72. M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, “Vibrational stabilization of ultracold KRb molecules. A comparative study”, Phys. Rev. A, 83:4 (2010), 043437. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA. 82.043437 73. R. Eitan, M. Mundt, D.J. Tannor, “Optimal control with accelerated convergence: Combining the Krotov and quasi-Newton methods”, Phys. Rev. A, 83:5 (2011), 053426. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.053426 74. P. Kumar, S.A. Malinovskaya, V.S. Malinovsky, “Optimal control of population and coherence in three-level Λ systems”, J. Phys. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 44:15 (2011), 154010. https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/44/15/154010 75. J.P. Palao, D.M. Reich, C.P. Koch, “Steering the optimization pathway in the control landscape using constraints”, Phys. Rev. A, 88:5 (2013), 053409. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.88.053409 76. E.A. Trushkova, “Global improvement method for Hamiltonian systems with controllable coefficients”, Izv. Saratov Univ. Ser. Math. Mech. Inform., 13:1(2) (2013), 95–99. http: //mi.mathnet.ru/isu384 (In Russian). 77. M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, D. Sugny, “Time optimization and state-dependent constraints in the quantum optimal control of molecular orientation”, J. Modern Optics, 61:10 (2014), 857–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340.2013.860200 78. M. Goerz, Optimizing robust quantum gates in open quantum systems: Dissertation, Univ. Kassel (Supervisor: C.P. Koch), 2015. https://michaelgoerz.net/research/ diss_goerz_letter.pdf 79. J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, “Quantum computing by an optimal control algorithm for unitary transformations”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:18 (2002), 188301. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.89.188301 80. J.P. Palao, R. Kosloff, “Optimal control theory for unitary transformations”, Phys. Rev. A, 68:6 (2003), 062308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.062308

43 81. P. Treutlein, T.W. Hänsch, J. Reichel, A. Negretti, M.A. Cirone, T. Calarco, “Microwave potentials and optimal control for robust quantum gates on an atom chip”, Phys. Rev. A, 74:2 (2006), 022312. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022312 82. G. de Chiara, T. Calarco, M. Anderlini, S. Montangero, P.J. Lee, B.L. Brown, W.D. Phillips, J.V. Porto, “Optimal control of atom transport for quantum gates in optical lattices”, Phys. Rev. A, 77:5 (2008), 052333. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA. 77.052333 83. C. Gollub, M. Kowalewski, R. de Vivie-Riedle, “Monotonic convergent optimal control theory with strict limitations on the spectrum of optimized laser fields”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:7 (2008), 073002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.073002 84. T. Koike, Y. Okudaira, “Time complexity and gate complexity”, Phys. Rev. A, 82 (2010), 042305. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.042305 85. K. Singer, U. Poschinger, M. Murphy, P. Ivanov, F. Ziesel, T. Calarco, F. Schmidt-Kaler, “Сolloquium: Trapped ions as quantum bits: Essential numerical tools”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:3 (2010), 2609–2632. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2609 86. M.H. Goerz, T. Calarco, C.P. Koch, “The quantum speed limit of optimal controlled phasegates for trapped neutral atoms”, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 44:15 (2011), 154011. https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/44/15/154011 87. M.M. Müller,D.M. Reich, M. Murphy, H. Yuan, J. Vala, K.B. Whaley, T. Calarco, C.P. Koch, “Optimizing entangling quantum gates for physical systems”, Phys. Rev. A, 84:4 (2011), 042315. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.042315 88. D.M. Reich, M. Ndong, C.P. Koch, “Monotonically convergent optimization in quantum control using Krotov method”, J. Chem. Phys., 136:10 (2012), 104103. https://doi. org/10.1063/1.3691827 89. M.H. Goerz, G. Gualdi, D.M. Reich, C.P. Koch, F. Motzoi, K.B. Whaley, J. Vala, M.M. Müller,S. Montangero, T. Calarco, “Optimizing for an arbitrary perfect entan- gler. II. Application”, Phys. Rev. A, 91:6 (2015), 062307. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.91.062307 90. M.H. Goerz, K.B. Whaley, C.P. Koch, “Hybrid optimization schemes for quantum control”, EPJ Quantum Technology, 2:1 (2015), 21. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/ s40507-015-0034-0 91. D. Basilewitsch, R. Schmidt, D. Sugny, S. Maniscalco, C.P. Koch, “Beating the limits with initial correlations”, New J. Phys., 19 (2017), 113042. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/aa96f8 92. M.H. Goerz, F. Motzoi, K.B. Whaley, C.P. Koch, “Charting the circuit QED design landscape using optimal control theory”, npj Quantum Info., 3 (2017), 37. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41534-017-0036-0 93. D. Basilewitsch, L. Marder, C.P. Koch, “Dissipative quantum dynamics and optimal control using iterative time ordering: an application to superconducting qubits”, Eur. Phys. J. B, 91:7 (2018), 161. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2018-90224-4 94. M.H. Goerz, K. Jacobs, “Efficient optimization of state preparation in quantum networks using quantum trajectories”, Quantum Sci. Technol., 3:4 (2018), 045005. https://doi. org/10.1088/2058-9565/aace16 95. G. Jäger, Optimal quantum control of Bose-Einstein condensates: Doctoral thesis, Univ. Graz (Supervisor: U. Hohenester), 2015, 107 p.

44 96. J.J.W.H. Sørensen, M.O. Aranburu, T. Heinzel, J.F. Sherson, “Quantum optimal control in a chopped basis: Applications in control of Bose-Einstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. A, 98:2 (2018), 022119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022119 97. I.I. Maximov, Z. Toˇsner,N.C. Nielsen, “Optimal control design of NMR and dynamic nuclear polarization experiments using monotonically convergent algorithms”, J. Chem. Phys., 128:18 (2008), 184505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2903458 98. I.I. Maximov, J. Salomon, G. Turinici, N.C. Nielsen, “A smoothing monotonic convergent optimal control algorithm for nuclear magnetic resonance pulse sequence design”, J. Chem. Phys., 132:8 (2010), 084107. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3328783 99. M.S. Vinding, I.I. Maximov, Z. Toˇsner,N.C. Nielsen, “Fast numerical design of spatial- selective rf pulses in MRI using Krotov and quasi-Newton based optimal control methods”, J. Chem. Phys., 137:5 (2012), 054203. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4739755 100. D.M. Reich, Efficient characterisation and optimal control of open quantum systems – Mathematical foundations and physical applications: Dissertation, Univ. Kassel (Super- visor: C.P. Koch), 2015, 191 p. https://kobra.uni-kassel.de/handle/123456789/ 2015061948576 101. R. Kosloff, S.A. Rice, P. Gaspard, S. Tersigni, D.J. Tannor, “Wavepacket dancing: Achieving chemical selectivity by shaping light pulses”, Chem. Phys., 139:1 (1989), 201– 220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0104(89)90012-8 102. M. Lapert, R. Tehini, G. Turinici, D. Sugny, “Monotonically convergent optimal control theory of quantum systems under a nonlinear interaction with the control field”, Phys. Rev. A, 78:2 (2008), 023408. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.023408 103. V.F. Krotov, “Quantum system control optimization”, Doklady Mathematics, 78:3 (2008), 949–952. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064562408060380 104. V.F. Krotov, “Control of the quantum systems and some ideas of the optimal control theory”, Automat. Remote Control, 70:3 (2009), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1134/ S0005117909030035 105. K. Sundermann, R. de Vivie-Riedle, “Extensions to quantum optimal control algorithms and applications to special problems in state selective molecular dynamics”, J. Chem. Phys., 110:4 (1999), 1896–1904. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.477856 106. S.G. Schirmer, P. de Fouquieres, “Efficient algorithms for optimal control of quantum dynamics: The Krotov method unencumbered”, New J. Phys., 13 (2011), 073029. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/7/073029 107. N. Boussa¨ıd,M. Caponigro, T. Chambrion, “Periodic control laws for bilinear quantum systems with discrete spectrum”, Proc. American Control Conf. (ACC), (2012), 5819– 5824. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2012.6315436. 108. U. Hohenester, P.K. Rekdal, A. Borz`ı, “Optimal quantum control of Bose-Einstein condensates in magnetic microtraps”, Phys. Rev. A, 75:2 (2007), 023602. https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.023602 109. S. van Frank, M. Bonneau, J. Schmiedmayer, S. Hild, C. Gross, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, T. Pichler, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, S. Montangero, “Optimal control of complex atomic quantum systems”, Scientific Reports, 6 (2016), 34187. https://doi.org/10.1038/ srep34187 110. R. Bücker, T. Berrada, S. van Frank, J.-F. Schaff, T. Schumm, J. Schmiedmayer, G. Jäger,J. Grond, U. Hohenester, “Vibrational state inversion of a Bose-Einstein condensate: optimal control and state tomography”, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 46:10 (2013), 104012. https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/46/10/104012

45 111. M. Hintermüller,D. Marahrens, P.A. Markowich, C. Sparber, “Optimal bilinear control of Gross–Pitaevskii equations”, SIAM J. Control Optim., 51:3 (2013), 2509–2543. https: //doi.org/10.1137/120866233 112. S. van Frank, A. Negretti, T. Berrada, R. Bücker, S. Montangero, J.-F. Schaff, T. Schumm, T. Calarco, J. Schmiedmayer, “Interferometry with non-classical motional states of a Bose–Einstein condensate”, Nature Comm., 5 (2014), 4009. https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms5009 113. D. Hocker, Y. Yan, H. Rabitz, “Optimal nonlinear coherent mode transitions in Bose- Einstein condensates utilizing spatiotemporal controls”, Phys. Rev. A, 93:5, 053612 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.053612 114. A.Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction”, Russian Math. Surveys, 52:6 (1997), 1191–1249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1070/ RM1997v052n06ABEH002155 115. A.Yu. Kitaev, A.H. Shen, M.N. Vyalyi, Classical and quantum computation / Transl. from Russian, Providence, American Mathematical Society, 2002. (Ser.: Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Vol. 47). http://www.ams.org/books/gsm/047/ 116. K.A. Valiev, “Quantum computers and quantum computations”, Physics – Uspekhi, 48:1 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1070/PU2005v048n01ABEH002024 117. M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information solutions: 10th Anniversary Edition, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011, 702 p. 118. M. Ohya, I. Volovich, Mathematical foundations of quantum information and computation and its applications to nano- and bio-systems, Springer, 2011, xx & 760 p. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400701700 119. A.S. Holevo, Quantum Systems, Channels, Information, Berlin, Boston, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2012, xiii & 349 p. (Ser.: De Gruyter Studies in Mathematical Physics, 16). https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/180320 120. C. Jurdjevic, H. Sussmann, “Control systems on Lie groups”, J. Diff. Equations, 12 (1972), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0396(72)90035-6 121. A. Pechen, N. Il’in, “Trap-free manipulation in the Landau-Zener system”, Phys. Rev. A, 86:5 (2012), 052117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.052117 122. A.N. Pechen, N.B. Il’in, “Coherent control of a qubit is trap-free”, Proc. of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 285:1 (2014), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1134/ S0081543814040166 123. A.G. Butkovskiy, Yu.I. Samoilenko, “Controllability of quantum processes and systems”, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 250:1 (1980), 51–55. (In Russian.) 124. G.M. Huang, T.J. Tarn, J.W. Clark, “On the controllability of quantum-mechanical systems”, J. Math. Phys., 24:11 (1983), 2608–2618. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.525634 125. C. Altafini, “Controllability of quantum mechanical systems by root space decomposition of su(n)”, J. Math. Phys., 43:5 (2002), 2051–2062. https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 1467611 126. G. Turinici, H. Rabitz, “Wavefunction controllability for finite-dimensional bilinear quantum systems”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 36:10 (2003), 2565–2576. https://doi. org/10.1088/0305-4470/36/10/316

46 127. I. Kurniawan, G. Dirr, U. Helmke, “Controllability aspects of quantum dynamics: A unified approach for closed and open systems”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 57:8 (2012), 1984–1996. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2012.2195870 128. D. D’Alessandro, F. Albertini, R. Romano, “Exact algebraic conditions for indirect controllability of quantum systems”, SIAM J. Control and Optimization, 53:3 (2015), 1509–1542. https://doi.org/10.1137/130949816 129. U. Boscain, J.P. Gauthier, F. Rossi, M. Sigalotti, “Approximate controllability, exact controllability, and conical eigenvalue intersections for quantum mechanical systems”, Comm. Math. Phys., 333:3 (2015), 1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00220-014-2195-6 130. A. Agrachev, U. Boscain, J.-P. Gauthier, M. Sigalotti, “A note on time-zero controllability and density of orbits for quantum systems”, IEEE 56th Annual Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC) (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2017.8264480 131. H. Fu, S.G. Schirmer, A.I. Solomon, “Complete controllability of finite-level quantum systems”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 34:8 (2001), 1679–1690. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0305-4470/34/8/313 132. F. Albertini, D. D’Alessandro, “Notions of controllability for bilinear multilevel quantum systems”, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 48:8 (2003), 1399–1403. https://doi. org/10.1109/TAC.2003.815027 133. H.A. Rabitz, M.M. Hsieh, C.M. Rosenthal, “Quantum optimally controlled transition landscapes”, Science, 303:5666 (2004), 1998–2001. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1093649 134. K.W. Moore, H. Rabitz, Exploring constrained quantum control landscapes J. Chem. Phys. 137 (2012), 134113. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4757133 135. G. Riviello, C. Brif, R. Long, R.-B. Wu, K. Moore Tibbetts, T.-S. Ho, and Herschel Rabitz, “Searching for quantum optimal control fields in the presence of singular critical points”, Phys. Rev. A 90 (2014), 013404. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90. 013404 136. A.N. Pechen, D.J. Tannor, “Control of quantum transmission is trap-free”, Canadian J. Chem., 92:2 (2014), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjc-2013-0301 137. A.N. Pechen, D.J. Tannor, “Are there traps in quantum control landscapes?” Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:12 (2011), 120402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.120402 138. P. de Fouquieres, S.G. Schirmer, “A closer look at quantum control landscapes and their implication for control optimization”, Infinite dimensional analysis, quantum probability and related topics, 16:3 (2013), 1350021. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0219025713500215 139. H. Rabitz, T.-S. Ho, R. Long, R. Wu, and C. Brif, “Comment on “Are there traps in quantum control landscapes?”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012), 198901. https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.198901 140. A.N. Pechen, N.B. Il’in, “On critical points of the objective functional for maximization of qubit observables”, Russian Math. Surveys, 70:4 (2015), 782–784. https://doi.org/ 10.1070/RM2015v070n04ABEH004962 141. N.B. Il’in, A.N. Pechen, “Conditions for the absence of local extrema in problems of quantum coherent control”, Proc. of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 301:1 (2018), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0081543818040090

47 142. V.A. Srochko, Iterative methods for solving optimal control problems. Moscow, Fiz- matlit, 2000, 160 p. (In Russian). https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01000686861 143. V.F. Krotov, A.V. Bulatov, O.V. Baturina, “Optimization of linear systems with controllable coefficients”, Automat. Remote Control, 72:6 (2011), 1199–1212. https: //doi.org/10.1134/S0005117911060063 144. A.F. Filippov, Differential equations with discontinuous righthand sides, Dordrecht, Boston, London, Kluwer Academic Publ., 1988, 304 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-015-7793-9 145. New methods for improvement of control processes / V.I. Gurman, V.A. Baturin, E.V. Danilina, et al. (Irkutsk Computing Center, Siberian Branch, Academy of Sciences of USSR), Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1987, 184 p. (In Russian.) 146. O.V. Baturina, O.V. Morzhin, “Optimal control of the spin system on a basis of the global improvement method”, Autom. Remote Control, 72:6 (2011), 1213–1220. https: //doi.org/10.1134/S0005117911060075 147. V.F. Krotov, O.V. Morzhin, E.A. Trushkova, “Discontinuous solutions of the optimal control problems. Iterative optimization method”, Automat. Remote Control, 74:12 (2013), 1948–1968. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0005117913120035 148. Y. Ohtsuki, G. Turinici, H. Rabitz, “Generalized monotonically convergent algorithms for solving quantum optimal control problems”, J. Chem. Phys., 120:12 (2004), 5509– 5517. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1650297 149. P. Gross, D. Neuhauser, H. Rabitz, “Optimal control of curve-crossing systems”, J. Chem. Phys., 96:4 (1992), 2834–2845. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.461980 150. E.A. Trushkova, “Global control improvement algorithms”, Automat. Remote Control, 72:6 (2011), 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0005117911060166 151. H. Jirari, F.W.J. Hekking, O. Buisson, “Optimal control of superconducting N-level quantum systems”, EPL (Europhysics Letters), 87:2 (2009), 28004. https://doi.org/ 10.1209/0295-5075/87/28004 152. K.E. Atkinson, The numerical solution of integral equations of the second kind, Cam- bridge Univ. Press, 1997, 572 p. 153. M. Ndong, H. Tal-Ezer, R. Kosloff, C.P. Koch, “A Chebychev propagator for inhomogeneous Schrödingerequations”, J. Chem. Phys., 130:12 (2009), 124108. https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.3098940 154. P. de Fouquieres, S.G. Schirmer, S.J. Glaser, I. Kuprov, “Second order gradient ascent pulse engineering”, J. Magnetic Resonance, 212:2 (2011), 412–417. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jmr.2011.07.023