abstract: We discuss how to prepare an Ising chain in a GHZ state using a single global control field only. This model does not require the spins to be individually addressable and is applicable to quantum systems such as cold atoms in optical lattices, some liquid- or solid-state NMR experiments, and many nano-scale quantum structures. We show that GHZ states can always be reached asymptotically from certain easy-to-prepare initial states using adiabatic passage, and under certain conditions finite-time reachability can be ensured. To provide a reference useful for future experimental implementations three different control strategies to achieve the objective, adiabatic passage, Lyapunov control and optimal control are compared, and their advantages and disadvantages discussed, in particular in the presence of realistic imperfections such as imperfect initial state preparation, system inhomogeneity and dephasing.
author: Xiaoting Wang; Abolfazl Bayat; Sougato Bose; Sophie G. Schirmer
date: 2024-09-30
title: Global Control Methods for GHZ State Generation on 1-D Ising Chain

# Introduction

Spin chains are an important theoretical model to understand properties of many-body systems such as quantum phase transitions , and have become popular as a possible model for quantum computation (QC) and communication . Various types of spin-spin interactions including the Heisenberg, XY and Ising model have been discussed both analytically and numerically. Among these, the Ising model is one of the most ubiquitous, arising in many different settings from atoms in optical lattices , to NMR systems  to ion traps  and polar molecules . For many of these systems addressing individual spins selectively is extremely difficult, limiting the type of control we can implement. For instance, for cold atoms in an optical lattice, addressing individual atoms with an external laser is very difficult as the waist of the controlling laser is on the scale of many lattice sites. One way to circumvent this problem is by eliminating the need for local addressing, i.e., by using only control fields that act globally on all the spins at once.

One type of global control was first proposed in , where it was demonstrated that universal QC can be achieved by controlling the qubits collectively, and since then extensive work has been done on this approach . However, in all of these proposals, the spin-spin interaction Hamiltonian and the globally controlled Hamiltonian are not sufficient to realize universal QC, and additional resources are necessary. For example, in , the spin chain consists of two types of qubits, $A$ and $B$, arranged in an alternating, repeating pattern: $ABABAB\cdots$, and it is assumed that the two types of spin-spin interactions $H_{AB}$ and $H_{BA}$ can be switched on and off as needed, which is a demanding experimental requirement. In an improved scheme , the coupling Hamiltonian can be kept unchanged but the transition frequencies of each qubit must be tuned individually, which is still too difficult to implement for cold atoms in optical lattices at this time. In another scheme , the need for such "individual tuning ability" is avoided but at the expense of requiring a chain with a repeating pattern of four types of qubits, raising a high demand for the preparation process. If the goal is universal quantum computation then such extra requirements are necessary as a controllability argument shows that the system Hamiltonian together with only a global control Hamiltonian do not generate the full Lie algebra $\mathbf{su}(2^N)$ but only a proper subalgebra, rendering the system uncontrollable. One interesting question therefore is what further assumptions are necessary for universal QC, a question that has been addressed in various recent papers . However, there are many tasks that do not require controllability, and we can ask what interesting tasks we can perform using global control only, without additional resources. This is the focus of this article.

In particular we demonstrate that global control alone is sufficient to steer an Ising chain from a certain initial product state to a GHZ state . Such GHZ states (or multi-qubit Cat states or NOON states, as they are variously called) are of utmost importance for improving frequency standards beyond the classical realm , and could result in highly sensitive magnetometers . This is why recently there has been extensive interest in their experimental realization, for example, in ion traps and with multiple nuclear spins in a molecule . However, a fast/ non-adiabatic (so as to be robust to decoherence) method of generating these systems with minimal control, such as global fields on an Ising chain, is still an open problem, and will be a very important milestone for realizing quantum enhanced sensing and standards. We again emphasize that all control schemes relying purely on global control are useful for experiments on the systems where individual addressability is not available. We show that with global control, certain GHZ states can be reached in finite time from a given, easy-to-prepare product state, i.e., that there always exists a control that achieves the task, and consider and compare three different methods to design suitable controls: adiabatic passage, Lyapunov control design and optimal control. One of the most interesting issue of our proposal is that in all three methods the initial and final states are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian and hence the output state does not evolve anymore. This makes it convenient since no fine-tuning of the control time is necessary and the output state can be saved for further tasks.

The article is organized as follows: In Sec. II the model and control problems are defined. In Sec. III, controllability of the system, or rather lack of it, and reachability are discussed. In Sec. IV three methods for GHZ state generation are considered in detail, namely, adiabatic passage, Lyapunov control and optimal control. Finally, the effect of various procedural imperfections such as imperfect initialization, inhomogeneity and decoherence are studied in Sec. V, followed by a brief summary and discussion of the results in Sec VI.

# Ising model and Control Problem

In the following we consider a 1-D spin chain of length $N$ with the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:Hf}
 H_f(t)= J[H_0+f(t)H_1], %J\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} Z_n Z_{n+1}
\end{aligned}$$ where, $H_0$ models the fixed interaction between neighboring spins with a fixed strength $J$, and $H_1$ the control interaction, corresponding to an applied external field $f(t)$. We choose $H_0$ and $H_1$ such that the total Hamiltonian () is a uniform nearest-neighbor Ising interaction in a transverse time-dependent magnetic field $$\label{eqn:H}
  H_0=\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} Z_n Z_{n+1}, \quad
  H_1=\sum_{n=1}^{N} X_n,$$ where $X,Y,Z$ are the Pauli matrices. Practically, one can think of $f(t)$ as a time-dependent global magnetic field in the $x$-direction that causes all spins to rotate simultaneously, while all spins are constantly coupled via Ising interaction. The field $f(t)$ is varied with respect to time $t$ and at time $t=0$ takes $f_0=f(0)$. The associated controlled dynamical evolution is given by the Schrodinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{control-dynamics}
 \frac{d}{dt}| \psi(t) \rangle =-i H_f(t)| \psi(t) \rangle
\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed units such that $\hbar=1$.

Our main objective is to prepare an Ising chain of length $N$ with Hamiltonian () in one of the following GHZ states $$\label{eqn:ghz-state}
\begin{align}
 | \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle
  &= \textstyle
     \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| 0\cdots 0 \rangle+| 1\cdots 1 \rangle)\\
 | \psi_d^{(2)} \rangle
  &= \textstyle
     \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| 0\cdots 0 \rangle-| 1\cdots 1 \rangle)\\
 | \psi_d^{(3)} \rangle
  &= \textstyle
      \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| 0101\cdots \rangle+| 1010\cdots \rangle)\\
 | \psi_d^{(4)} \rangle
  &= \textstyle
      \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| 0101\cdots \rangle-| 1010\cdots \rangle),
\end{align}$$ starting in the ground state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ of the Hamiltonian $H_{f}(0)$, i.e., our aim is to find a magnetic field $f(t)$ such that the system states evolves into one of the entangled GHZ states given in Eq. () under the action of the resulting Hamiltonian, starting from the initial state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$.

In the absence of the magnetic field, $f_0=0$, the ground state of the $H_f(0)$ is two-fold degenerate, spanned by $\{| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle,| \psi_d^{(2)} \rangle\}$ for $J<0$, and $\{| \psi_d^{(3)} \rangle,| \psi_d^{(4)} \rangle\}$ for $J>0$. Although the target states are ground states of the Hamiltonian $H_0$, due to the degeneracy cooling alone does not suffice to prepare the system in any of the states (). Rather, simple cooling will result in the system being left in a mixture of different ground states, which is not useful. On the other hand, in the presence of the magnetic field the ground state of the total Hamiltonian $H_f(0)$ with $f_0\ne 0$ is non-degenerate, and if the system is cooled in the presence of a global field $f_0$ along the $x$-axis, it will be initialized in the ground state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ of $H_f(0)$. As $|f_0|\to\infty$ we have $$\begin{align}
  \lim_{Jf_0\to-\infty} | \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle = | +\ldots+ \rangle,\\
  \lim_{Jf_0\to+\infty} | \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle = | -\ldots- \rangle,
\end{align}$$ where $| \pm \rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| 0 \rangle\pm| 1 \rangle)$, and $| 0 \rangle$ and $| 1 \rangle$ are the eigenstates of $Z$, i.e., for sufficiently large $|f_0|$ we can assume $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ to be approximately equal to $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle=| +\ldots+ \rangle$ or $| \psi_0^{-} \rangle=| -\ldots- \rangle$. Choosing $|f_0|$ large also ensures a sufficiently large energy gap for efficient cooling.

# Symmetries, Non-Controllability, Reachability

The dynamics () can be expressed in terms of the unitary process $U(t)$ satisfying $$\label{eqn:SEU}
  \dot U(t)  = -i H_f(t)U(t)$$ with $U(0)=I$. Denoting the solution of () for a given control $f(t)$ by $U(t,f(t))$, the reachable set of unitary operators $\mathcal{R}$ is defined as the set of unitary matrices $U(t,f)$ that can be generated by the dynamics () in a finite time $t_f$ for some admissible control $f\in \mathcal{F}$, i.e., $\bar{U}\in \mathcal{R}$ if and only if there exists an admissible control $f(t)$ such that $U(t_f,f(t))=\bar{U}$. From control theory, we have :

**Theorem 1**.  * Let $\mathfrak{L}$ be the Lie algebra generated by $\operatorname{span}_{f\in\mathcal{F}}\{J[H_0+f(t)H_1]\}=\operatorname{span}\{H_0,H_1\}$, called the dynamical Lie algebra. Then $\mathcal{R}=e^{\mathfrak{L}}$.*

Hence, if $\mathfrak{L}=\mathbf{su}(N)$ or $\mathfrak{L}=\mathbf{u}(N)$ then we have $\mathcal{R}=\mathbf{SU}(N)$ or $\mathcal{R}=\mathbf{U}(N)$ , the system is controllable in that we can implement any unitary operator $U$ up to at most a global phase $e^{i\phi}$. In this case any pure state is reachable from any other pure state, and more generally, any two density operators with the same spectrum can be interconverted. Since the spectrum of any operator is preserved under unitary evolution, this is the most we can hope for. In this sense, controllability is a sufficient condition for reachability. On the other hand, any system that possess symmetries will not be fully controllable. For the Hamitonian $H_f(t)$, if there exists a Hermitian operator $M$ such $[M,H_m]=0$ for $m=0,1$, then the Hamiltonians $H_0$ and $H_1$ are simultaneously block-diagonalizable. In this case the Hilbert space can be decomposed into orthogonal invariant subspaces $\mathcal{H}_k$ such that any initial state $| \psi(0) \rangle \in \mathcal{H}_k$ remains in $\mathcal{H}_k$ under the evolution, regardless of what control $f(t)$ we apply. Since no states outside $\mathcal{H}_1$ can be reached from an initial state in $\mathcal{H}_1$, decomposability immediately implies non-controllability. However, a target state $| \psi_d \rangle$ may still be reachable from an initial state $| \psi(0) \rangle$ if both belong to the same subspace. In particular, this is the case if the system is controllable on the relevant invariant subspace.

Applying these results to our Ising chain subject to global control we see immediately that the system () possesses symmetries as both Hamiltonians $H_0$ and $H_1$ commute with the "$X$-parity" operator $M=\prod_{n=1}^N X_n$. Hence, $H_0$ and $H_1$ are simultaneously block-diagonalizable. In our case $M$ has two eigenspaces with eigenvalues $\pm 1$, spanned by $$\mathcal{H}_\pm = \operatorname{span}
  \left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\bm e}_{_k}\pm {\bm e}_{2^{N-k+1}})\right\},
 \quad \forall k=1,\ldots,2^{N},$$ where ${\bm e}_k$ is the basis vector with $1$ in the $k$th position and all other entries $0$; changing from the basis $\{{\bm e}_k\}$ to an eigenbasis of $M$ simultaneously block-diagonalizes $H_0$ and $H_1$. This shows that the Ising chain with global control is not controllable and explains why additional resources are required to obtain universal QC . However, there are many useful tasks that can be performed under the evolution ().

For $N>2$ there are further symmetries and both blocks are further decomposable. There are various approaches to decompose the Hilbert space into invariant subspaces that are not further decomposable. One approach is to proceed as before and find the symmetry operators $M$ on each subspace. If $V$ is an eigenbasis of $M$ then $\tilde{H}_m=V^\dag
H_m V$ will be block-diagonal. This can be done recursively until no further symmetries are found for any of the blocks, leaving us with indecomposable blocks. This approach becomes tedious, however, when there are many symmetries. Alternatively, we can calculate the eigenvectors of a linear combination of the Hamiltonians, $H=\alpha
H_0+\beta H_1$. Letting $V$ be a unitary matrix whose columns are the normalized eigenvectors of $H$, we define an adjacency matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ with $a_{ij}=1$ if the absolute value of the $(i,j)$th element of the matrix $V^\dag H_0 V$ is greater than some threshold value $\delta$, and $0$ otherwise, and find the connected components of $A$, which define the respective invariant subspaces. The accuracy of this approach depends on suitable choice of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\delta$. Choosing $\delta=10^{-8}$ and $\alpha=2$, $\beta=3$, we calculated the subspace decomposition for Ising chains up to $N=14$.

Having found a decomposition of the system into indecomposable subspaces the next step is to verify if the initial and target states both belong to the same invariant subspace. For $J<0$ we verified numerically that both $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ and the GHZ state $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ belong to the same invariant subspace for $N=2,\ldots,14$. To establish reachability the next step is usually to try to show that the system is controllable on this invariant subspace. For $N=2$, this is easy. Changing the basis from $\{| 0 \rangle,| 1 \rangle\}$ to $\{| + \rangle,| - \rangle\}$ the Hamiltonians become $$H_0 %= X_1X_2
     =\begin{bmatrix}
       0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
       0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
       0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
       1 & 0 & 0 & 0
      \end{bmatrix}, \quad
 H_1 %= Z_1+Z_2
     =\begin{bmatrix}
       -2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
       0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
       0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
       0 & 0 & 0 & 2
      \end{bmatrix}$$ and similarly $$\begin{aligned}
 | \psi_0^+ \rangle &=[1,0,0,0]^T, \quad
 | \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle &=[1,0,0,1]^T/\sqrt{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ This clearly shows that $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$ and $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ belong to a two-dimensional subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ spanned by the basis vectors ${\bm e}_1$ and ${\bm e}_4$, on which we have $H_0^{(s)}=X$ and $H_1^{(s)}=-2Z$, showing that the dynamical Lie algebra generated is $\mathbf{SU}(2)$. Hence, the system is controllable on this subspace and $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ is reachable from $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$.

A similar approach allows us to establish reachability of the target state from the initial state for $N=3$. One might therefore hope that the the system is controllable on the relevant invariant subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ for all $N$. Unfortunately, this is not true for higher dimensions. For $N=4$, for instance, the smallest subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ that contains both $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$ and $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ and is invariant under the Hamiltonian has dimension $6$, while the dynamical Lie algebra $\mathfrak{L}$ generated by $H_0$ and $H_1$ on the entire space has only dimension $\operatorname{dim}{\mathfrak{L}}=16$. This is strictly smaller than the dimension needed for controllability on the subspace, which is $35=\operatorname{dim}\mathbf{su}(6)$ for full controllability and $21=\operatorname{dim}\mathbf{sp}(3)$ for pure-state controllability for a six-dimensional subspace[^1]. Hence, the system cannot be controllable on $\mathcal{H}_s$. Explicit calculations for various $N$ suggest that dynamical Lie algebra on the entire Hilbert space is a $2^N$-dimensional reducible representation of $\mathbf{u}(N)$, and that the dynamical Lie algebra on the smallest invariant subspace that contains both $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$ and $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ is an irreducible representation of $\mathbf{su}(N)$ or $\mathbf{u}(N)$. As for $N>3$ the dimension of the subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ is greater than $N$, this implies non-controllability on $\mathcal{H}_s$ for $N>3$. Therefore, in general a different approach is needed to show that $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ is reachable from $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$. Similar problems arise when trying to assess the reachability or non-reachability of the other GHZ states $| \psi_d^{(k)} \rangle$ from $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$ or $| \psi_0^{-} \rangle$.

# Control Methods for GHZ Generation

We now discuss three different methods for generating GHZ states () from the separable states $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$ or $| \psi_0^{-} \rangle$: (i) adiabatic passage; (ii) Lyapunov control and (iii) the optimal control theory. We shall see that adiabatic passage demonstrates asymptotic reachability of certain GHZ states from certain product states. It is also has many benefits in that a simple field can achieve high fidelity and rather robust population transfer for spin chains of varying length. A general drawback of adiabatic schemes, however, is that the target state is exactly reachable only in the limit $t\to +\infty$, and the time required to prepare the target state with sufficiently high fidelity can be long. This prompts the question whether we could do better using some form of optimal control design either Lyapunov control or global optimal control.

## Adiabatic Passage

Assume we initialize the system in the ground state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ of $H_{f}(0)=J[H_0+f_0H_1]$ for some $f(0)=f_0$. If we can show that a particular GHZ state in () is the limit of the ground state of $H_f(t_f)$ as $f(t_f)\to 0$, then it is possible to adiabatically transfer the system to one of the GHZ states (). Indeed, such a result has been implicitly shown for an Ising "chain" with periodic boundary conditions  using the Jordan-Wigner transformation, and we can easily show directly that this result is true for proper chains using the fact that $H_0$ and $H_1$ simultaneously commute with the $X$-parity operator $M$, and thus that $[H_f(t),M]=0$ regardless of the choice of $J$ and $f(t)$. We clearly have $$\begin{align}
 M| \psi_0^{+} \rangle = (+1)^N| \psi_0^{+} \rangle, \\
 M| \psi_0^{-} \rangle = (-1)^N| \psi_0^{-} \rangle.
\end{align}$$ This shows that $| \psi_0^{+} \rangle$ always has positive parity, while $| \psi_0^{-} \rangle$ has positive parity for $N$ even, and negative parity for $N$ odd. The same must hold for the finite values of $f_0$, i.e., the eigenstate $| \psi_{0}^{(f_0)} \rangle$ has positive parity if $f_0<0$, or $f_0>0$ and $N$ even, and negative parity if $f_0>0$ and $N$ odd. As the parity is a conserved quantity, the adiabatic limit state $| \psi(t_f) \rangle$ must have the same parity as $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$.

It is easy to see that the intersection of the two-fold degenerate ground state manifold of $JH_0$ with the $+1$ ($-1$) eigenspace of $M$ is unique. For $J<0$ the ground state manifold of $JH_0$ is spanned by the GHZ states $\{| \psi_d^{(k)} \rangle:k=1,2\}$, and it is easy to see that $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ has positive, and $| \psi_d^{(2)} \rangle$ negative parity. For $J>0$ the ground state manifold of $JH_0$ is spanned by the GHZ states $\{| \psi_d^{(k)} \rangle:k=3,4\}$, and it is easy to see that $| \psi_d^{(3)} \rangle$ has positive, and $| \psi_d^{(4)} \rangle$ negative parity. Thus we have $$\begin{align}
  | \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle &\in \operatorname{Reach}\{| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle: J<0, Jf_0<0, \mbox{
or}\nonumber\\
                     & \hspace{1.05in} J<0, Jf_0>0, N \mbox{ even}\},\\
  | \psi_d^{(2)} \rangle &\in \operatorname{Reach}\{| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle: J<0, Jf_0>0, N
 \mbox{ odd}\},\\
  | \psi_d^{(3)} \rangle &\in \operatorname{Reach}\{| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle: J>0, Jf_0<0,
 \mbox{ or}\nonumber \\
                     & \hspace{1.05in} J>0, Jf_0>0, N \mbox{ even}\},\\
  | \psi_d^{(4)} \rangle &\in \operatorname{Reach}\{| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle: J>0,
  Jf_0>0, N \mbox{ odd}\}.
\end{align}$$

Although adiabatic passage provides a way to drive the system to a certain GHZ state $| \psi_d \rangle$ in (), strictly speaking it only implies asymptotic reachability of $| \psi_d \rangle$ from the given initial state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ as the Adiabatic Theorem provides that the error between the exact final state $| \psi(t_f) \rangle$ and $| \psi_d \rangle$ will go to zero only as $t_f\to+\infty$, i.e., that the fidelity $$F(t) = |\langle \psi_d | \psi(t) \rangle|^2 \to 1 \mbox{ as } t\to +\infty,$$ if the field $f(t)$ changes sufficiently slowly so that the rate of the change of the ground state energy $\epsilon_1$, is small compared to the energy gap between the ground state and the first excited state, i.e., $\Delta\epsilon=\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1$. This is not really a problem in practice as we are likely to be satisfied if we can get sufficiently close to the target state in a finite time, and similar adiabatic schemes have indeed been proposed, e.g., for strings of neutral atoms in . Moreover, under certain conditions asymptotic reachability implies finite-time reachability.

**Proposition 1**.  * If $e^\mathfrak{L}$, where $\mathfrak{L}$ is the dynamical Lie algebra, is compact then asymptotic reachability of $| \psi_d \rangle$ from an initial state $| \psi(0) \rangle$ implies that $| \psi_d \rangle$ is reachable from $| \psi(0) \rangle$ in finite time.*

*Proof.* If $| \psi_d \rangle$ is asymptotically reachable from $| \psi(0) \rangle$ then there exists a path $| \psi(t) \rangle$ such that $\lim_{t\to+\infty}| \psi(t) \rangle=| \psi_d \rangle$. We can choose a time sequence $\{t_n\}$ with $t_n\to +\infty$ such that $| \psi(t_n) \rangle=U_n| \psi(0) \rangle\to | \psi_d \rangle$, where $U_n\in
e^\mathfrak{L}$ is a unitary process. Since $\{U_n\}$ is a sequence in the compact group $e^\mathfrak{L}$, there exists a converging subsequence $\{U_{n_k}\}$ such that $U_{n_k}\to\bar U\in e^\mathfrak{L}$, satisfying $U| \psi(0) \rangle=| \psi_d \rangle$. From Theorem , $\bar U\in e^\mathfrak{L}$, i.e., there exists a dynamical trajectory during $[0,T]$ for some finite $T$ such that $| \psi(T) \rangle=| \psi_d \rangle$. ◻

According to  the dynamical Lie group is the direct product of an Abelian Lie group and a semi-simple compact Lie group. Numerical computations of the generators of the Abelian Lie group for various $N$ suggest that in our case, the Abelian group is compact, and thus that $e^\mathfrak{L}$ generated by $H_f(t)$ is compact, and hence we have finite-time reachability.

To assess the performance of adiabatic passage we turn to simulations. Although the choice of $f(t)$ does not matter in theory, provided it varies sufficiently slowly and vanishes as $t\to+\infty$, in practice we are usually interested in preparing a sufficiently close approximation to the target state in as little time as possible, and in this case the choice of $f(t)$ does matter as a comparison of two simple controls, a linearly decreasing field $f(t)=f_0(1-t/t_f)$ for $t\in [0,t_f]$, and a decaying exponential, $f(t)=f_0 e^{-\mu t}$, in Fig.  shows. The results of these simulations suggest that the latter choice is preferable in terms of speed and robustness. This can partly be explained by comparing $E(t)=\dot{\epsilon}_1/\Delta\epsilon$. For the linear field $E(t)$ is negligible for most of the pulse duration and spikes towards the end of the pulse, mirroring the sharp increase in the population of the target state near the target time (Fig. , left). For the exponentially decaying field $f(t)$ drops to $f\approx 1$ much faster and spends more time in the region $0<f<1$, where most of the interesting evolution takes place. Also, for the exponential field we have $\dot{f}(t)/f(t)=\mu$, i.e., $E(t)\approx -2.5\mu$ is approximately constant until the field has dropped to $f\approx 1$, while for the linear field $\dot{f}(t)/f(t)=\mu/f(t)$, where $\mu$ is the slope, and thus $E(t)\approx -2.5\mu/f(t)$ will be negligibly small for $f(t)$ large.

In both cases the choice of $f_0$ is dictated by practical concerns. Fig.  shows the ground state energy $\epsilon_1$ and the energy gap $\Delta\epsilon$ for $H_f(t)$ with $J<0$, as a function of field strength $f$. It shows that for $f>1$ the energy gap increases with $f$. Assuming the rate of cooling to be proportional to the energy gap, this compels us to choose $f_0$ as large as possible to ensure efficient cooling and initial state preparation. It also ensures that the initial state is close to the desired initial state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ as the error $1-|\langle \psi_0^+ | \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle|^2$ decreases quadratically in $f_0$. At the same time, to maintain adiabaticity, the field must decrease slowly, and thus the time required for the field to decay to a certain value close to zero increases proportionally. For fixed $f_0$ the asymptotic value of the fidelity depends on the decay rate $\mu$. In general it decreases as $\mu$ increases. At the same time, the time required to reach a certain target fidelity (below the asymptotic value) decreases with increasing $\mu$. Thus, if we are only interested in achieving a certain target fidelity of say 99%, there will be an optimal value of the decay rate $\mu$ that achieves 99% transfer the shortest amount of time. Fig. shows the log-error $\log_{10}(1-F)$ for chains for different length $N$ for an exponentially decaying field with $\mu=0.1$. We note that the time when the fidelity crosses the 99% threshold remains in a narrow range of $[44,49]$ for a significant range of $N$. The onset of oscillations in the evolution of the fidelity (population of the target state) for larger $N$ suggests that non-adiabatic effects arise for this $\mu$, resulting in population transfer from the (instantaneous) ground state $| \psi_1(t) \rangle$ of $H(t)$ to excited states. This is confirmed by the population plot $1-p_1(t)$ for $N=11$ (Fig. , inset), and shows that we must reduce the decay rate $\mu$ for longer chains to maintain adiabatic evolution.

## Lyapunov control

A simple way to solve certain optimal control problems is construct a Lyapunov function for the dynamics (). A natural candidate for a Lyapunov function is a monotonic function of the Hilbert-Schmidt distance for density operators such as $$\textstyle
 V(\rho,\rho_d) = \frac{1}{2}\| \rho-\rho_d \|^2
                = \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}[(\rho-\rho_d)^2].$$ satisfying $V\ge 0$ which equality holds if and only if $\rho_d=\rho$. The essential idea of Lyapunov control is to design appropriate control dynamics such that $V$ becomes a Lyapunov function, i.e., $V$ keeps decreasing along every trajectory of $\rho(t)$. This can be realized by choosing $$\label{eqn:Lya-control}
  f(t) = f(\rho(t),\rho_d) = \kappa \operatorname{Tr}([iH_1,\rho_d]\rho(t)).$$ Then for $V(t)=V(\rho(t),\rho_d)$, we have $$\dot V(t) = -f(t)\operatorname{Tr}([iH_1,\rho_d]\rho(t)) = -\kappa f(t)^2\le 0,$$ i.e., $\rho(t)$ evolves towards $\rho_d$. Ideally, if $V(t)\to 0$ as $t\to+\infty$, we have $\rho(t)\to\rho_d$, but this does not always hold in general. However, the LaSalle invariance principle  ensures that every solution $\rho(t)$ under () converges to a set, often known as the LaSalle invariant set, and it has been shown that the control design above renders the target state $\rho_d$ almost globally attractive if (i) $H_0$ is strongly regular and (ii) $H_1$ is fully connected . Condition (i) requires $H_0$ has distinct transition frequencies between any pair of energy levels in the smallest invariant subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ containing $\rho_0$ and $\rho_d$.

For $N=2$ spins, with the initial and the target states chosen as before, it can be verified that the two conditions above hold for the dynamics restricted to $\mathcal{H}_s$, and the GHZ state $\rho_d$ is almost globally attractive on $\mathcal{H}_s$. Hence the Lyapunov control pulse () will steer the system from $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ to $\rho_d$. Moreover, as demonstrated in , the Lyapunov control design ensures that $\rho(t)$ converges "exponentially" to $\rho_d$, and is insensitive to timing errors—unlike geometric control schemes that require precise on-off switching of the control fields and amplitude control, for instance. Unfortunately, for longer Ising chains, convergence of $\rho(t)$ to $\rho_d$ is no longer assured, as the energy levels of $H_0$ on $\mathcal{H}_s$ are equally spaced, i.e., condition (i) does not hold, and for $N\ge 4$ full connectivity is lost. Theoretical analysis  shows that in this case the invariant set is large, and most solutions converge to "limit cycles" a finite distance from the target state $\rho_d$. Nonetheless, simulations suggest that we can ensure $\rho(t)$ with $\rho(0)=| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle\langle \psi_0^{(f_0)} |$ converges to a point very close to $\rho_d$ by carefully tuning the so-called feedback strength $\kappa$ in (), as illustrated in Fig. . We find that (i) for a given $N$ the final fidelity achieved usually increases with $\kappa$; (ii) for a given $\kappa$ the final fidelity decreases with increasing $N$. This can be explained by the fact that the dimension of the center manifold surrounding $\rho_d$ increases rapidly with $N$. Moreover, to achieve higher fidelities for larger $\kappa$, the control time increases rapidly as well. Therefore, considering the transfer time required to achieve a certain target fidelity close to $1$, Lyapunov control has a significant edge for small $N$, but the advantage disappears for longer chains (see Fig. ). Thus, the Lyapunov control design is only effective for short Ising chains.

## Optimal Control

Lyapunov control can be considered as a kind of optimal control in that the distance from the target state is monotonically decreasing with time. This form of optimal control is sometimes referred to as local optimal control because at each point in time the control design is based only on information about the current state of the system and the target state. From a computational point its main advantage is that the control pulses can be calculated directly in a non-iterative fashion, but as the last section shows, for more complex problems such as longer chains this approach is not sufficiently powerful. An alternative method is to take a global approach, specify a target time $t_f$, and attempt to maximize the fidelity $F(t_f)$ by globally varying the control pulse $f(t)$ in the allowed control function space. In practice, optimal control problems over function spaces can generally be solved only numerically, by parameterizing or discretizing the control $f(t)$. The simplest and most common approach is to subdivide the time interval $[0,t_f]$ and approximate the control $f(t)$ by a constant on each subinterval $I_k$. This results in an optimization problem over $\mathbb{R}^K$, where $K$ is the number of time intervals, which can be solved, e.g., by starting with an initial trial field $f^{(0)}(t)$ and iteratively refining $f^{(n)}(t)$ such that the fidelity at the target time $F^{(n)}(t_f)$ monotonically increases as a function of the iteration $n$. The crucial part of this procedure is the way $f^{(n)}(t)$ is updated in each iteration. We adopted here a quasi-Newton method developed by Boyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb, and Shanno . A more detailed discussion of the optimization process can be found in .

The adiabatic and the Lyapunov control pulses found earlier provide upper bounds on $t_f$ to reach a certain final fidelity $F<1$, and our previous reachability considerations for Ising chains with Hamiltonian $H_f(t)$ suggest that there exists a solution $f(t)$ with $F(t_f))=1$ for a finite time $t_f$, although the proof does not give any hint as to the best driving field $f(t)$ or how to discretize the control pulse. Although it can be shown, roughly, that if the target state is reachable by some admissible control field then there also exists a piecewise constant control that achieves the same task, the theorem again does not tell us how many time steps are needed. If the resolution is too low, i.e., $\Delta t=t_f/K$ is too large, the target fidelity may not be achievable. An interesting question for optimal control therefore is how fast we can hope to achieve transfer to the target state, and what time resolution of the field is required. Can we do better than adiabatic control?

Before we address these questions a final issue that needs to be considered is constraints. For example, the amplitude of the control pulses will usually be limited by what can be achieved experimentally. Whether to impose constraints and what kind depend on the details about the system and the implementation. For typical values in NMR experiments $J$ is usually a few hundred Hz, while we can easily achieve fields up to 50kHz for liquid-state NMR and is a few hundred kHz for solid-state NMR , which would suggest a reasonable upper bound on the field amplitudes of perhaps $10^3|J|$. Simulations for this problem suggest that bounds of this magnitude can usually be neglected as the unconstrained optimization solutions almost always satisfy these constraints, and unconstrained optimization is computationally more efficient than constrained optimization.

Using an unconstrained optimization based on the above-mentioned quasi-Newton method, we calculated the optimal pulses for Ising chains of length $N=2$ to $12$. Assuming $J<0$ and starting with the initial state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$, we calculated optimal controls for different values of the target time $t_f$ and time steps $K$, choosing the GHZ state $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ as a target state. For chains up to $N=12$ we were able to find controls that achieve at least $99$% fidelity for $t_f(N)=0.65N$ and $K=3N$, and in general only one or two runs with either $f^{(0)}_k=1$ or a random number in $[0,1]$ for $k=1,\ldots,K$ were needed for the optimization to succeed in finding a suitable control. This shows that the transfer times for the optimal controls are much shorter than those for the adiabatic pulses – by about one order of magnitude – and the transfer time appears to be increase linearly with the chain length $N$, at least up to $N=12$ as shown in Fig. . This is quite surprising when one considers that the dimension of the smallest invariant subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ that contains the GHZ state $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ increases exponentially in $N$. A possible explanation for this linear dependence lies in the dimension of the reachable set. The dynamical Lie algebra on the subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ appears to be a high-dimensional representation of $\mathbf{su}(N)$ or $\mathbf{u}(N)$, suggesting that the reachable set starting with a pure initial state is the homogeneous space $\mathbf{U}(N)/[\mathbf{U}(1)\otimes\mathbf{U}(N-1)]$, which has dimension $N^2-1-(N-1)^2=2N-2$ . This suggests that the reachable set is a ($2N-2$)-dimensional manifold, which may explain the apparently linear dependence in the observed bounds on the transfer times despite the exponential increase in the dimension of the subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ it is embedded in (Fig. ).

Fig.  shows an example of a typical optimal control field $f(t)$ for a chain of length $N=10$ and the corresponding evolution of the system. The pulse appears well-behaved and quite feasible both in time and frequency domain. The corresponding evolution of the system shows that the fidelity does not increase monotonically, as is the case for an ideal adiabatic or Lyapunov control pulse. The figure also shows the evolution of the population of the eigenspace of $H_0$. For $N=10$, $H_0$, restricted to the relevant subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ of dimension 252, has $10$ distinct eigenvalues with corresponding eigenspaces $S_{n}$ of varying dimensions. The population of the 1D ground state manifold $S_1$ corresponds to the fidelity $F(t)$. Analysis of the population evolution shows that the increase in the fidelity $F(t)$, or the ground state population $S_1$, is preceded by an increase in the populations of the first and second excited state manifold, and these increases are in turn preceded by peaks of the populations of the eigenspaces $S_4$, $S_5$ and $S_6$, in this order. This behavior can be explained in terms of the subspace coupling induced by the interaction Hamiltonian $H_1$. For the dynamics restricted to the subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$, $H_1$ couples each eigenspace of $H_0$ only with its first and second neighbor, i.e., the ground state manifold is directly coupled only to the first and second excited state manifold, and so forth. Therefore population cannot be directly transferred from e.g., $S_{10}$ to $S_{1}$, but must pass through several intermediate levels. Note that the maximum number of intermediate levels to be traversed is linear in $N$ as the restriction of $H_0$ to the subspace $\mathcal{H}_s$ containing the GHZ state $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ for a chain of length $N$ has $N$ distinct eigenvalues. If the system starts in the state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ or a state close to it, all of these eigenspaces are initially populated. This does not fully explain the behavior of the optimized dynamics as there are many different excitation pathways and optimal control attempts to maximize constructive interference between all different paths leading to the desired outcome, but it suggests an alternative explanation for the apparently linear dependence of the minimum transfer time on $N$, at least for chains up to length $N=12$, despite the exponential increase in the dimension of $\mathcal{H}_s$ from $2$ for $N=2$ to $924$ for $N=12$.

# Effect of Imperfections

So far it was assumed that we have an ideal chain with uniform couplings and can perfectly initialize the system in a pure separable state such as $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ or the ground state of $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ for a fixed large value of $f_0$ by cooling, and system inhomogeneity and the effect of interactions with an environment were neglected. To assess the robustness of various control strategies with regard to such imperfections in the context of this problem we shall consider how the effectiveness of the control fields they produce for ideal systems is diminished by various imperfections.

## Imperfect Initialization

Preparing the system in the ideal state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ is not always an easy task since we need to achieve $Jf_0\to-\infty$. We have already discussed using a finite $f_0$ for adiabatic passage and it was shown that provided $f_0$ is sufficiently large, we always can realize one of the GHZ states (). For Lyapunov and optimal control strategies we may have been told that the system is initialized in the state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$, while it was really initialized in the ground state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ for some finite value of $f_0$. In this case $f(t)$ is optimal for the initial state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ and using this field for the real initial state $| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$ does not give us the maximal fidelity. The effect of such errors is easy to analyze. Assume we have an ideal (optimal, adiabatic) control $f(t)$ that gives rise to an evolution $U(t)$ such that $U(t_f)| \psi_0^+ \rangle=| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ for some finite $t_f$ or $t_f\to +\infty$. Let $\Pi_0=| \psi_0^+ \rangle\langle \psi_0^+ |$ be the projector onto $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
  | \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle
  = \Pi_0| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle+\Pi_0^\perp| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle
  = c_0 | \psi_0^+ \rangle+\Pi_0^\perp| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle
\end{aligned}$$ with $c_0=\langle \psi_0^+ | \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle$. Furthermore $$\begin{aligned}
  \langle \psi_d^{(1)} | U(t_f)|\psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle
=& c_0\langle \psi_d^{(1)} | U(t_f)|\psi_0^+ \rangle \\
 & +\langle \psi_d^{(1)} | U(t_f)\Pi_0^\perp|\psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle = c_0
\end{aligned}$$ as we have $U(t_f)| \psi_0^+ \rangle=| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$, and $U(t_f)$ is unitary. So, the maximum transfer fidelity is simply given by $|c_0|^2$, the overlap of the actual initial state with the assumed initial state, as illustrated in Fig. . For adiabatic control any deviation of the initial state from the ground of the Hamiltonian at time $t=0$ will limit the maximum transfer fidelity with the bound given by $1-|c_0|^2$. For optimal control the error can be decreased by determining the initial state more accurately, e.g., using system identification techniques such as state tomography, and incorporating this information in the optimization.

## Thermal Effects

Assuming the system is initialized by cooling in the presence of a strong field in the $x$-direction, another source of error are thermal effects, in particular the fact that zero temperature is not practically achievable. In general finite temperature effects result in an initial state that is a thermal mixed state $$\label{rho-thermal}
  \rho(0) = \frac{e^{-H_f(0)/k_BT}}{\operatorname{Tr}[e^{-H_f(0)/k_BT}]},$$ where $T$ is temperature and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. As the populations of the eigenstates cannot change under adiabatic passage, we see immediately that the maximum projection onto the target GHZ state we can achieve is given by the ground state population $$\label{eqn:wn}
  w_1=\langle \psi_0^{(f_0)} |\rho(0)| \psi_0^{(f_0)} \rangle.$$ The initial population of the ground state depends both on the temperature $T$ and the energy gap between the ground state and the excited states of $H_f(0)$. As the energy gap $\Delta \epsilon$ increases roughly linearly with the field strength $f_0$, as we have seen earlier, this explains why it is desirable to cool in the presence of a strong field.

Based on the results in  we might assume that the transfer fidelity for optimal control could be improved by starting with thermal initial state rather than the ground state. Unfortunately, this is not the case here because unlike in  the observable we are optimizing is a rank-1 projector onto a pure state, $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle\langle \psi_d^{(1)} |$, i.e., it has a single eigenvalue of $1$ and all other eigenvalues are zero. Therefore, the transfer fidelity is bounded above by  $$F(t_f)=\langle \psi_d^{(1)} |\rho(t_f)| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle \le w_1.$$

Fig.  shows the actual fidelities achieved by optimal control for Ising chains of length $N=6,7,8$ with $J<0$ as a function of temperature $T$, assuming the system is initialized in a thermal ensemble of $H_f(0)$ with $f_0=10$. The results are in line with the expected decrease of the ground state population $w_1$ as a function of the initial temperature $T$, and the fact that $w_1$ decreases faster for longer chains. In Fig. , for Ising chain with $N=6$ and $J<0$, assuming initialized in the thermal mixed state, we have plotted how the final fidelity changes with respect to temperature for the three different methods. The relative flatness of the curve for low temperatures suggests that all of these control methods can achieve high-fidelity state transfer for reasonably long chains and sufficiently low temperatures however, but the optimal control pulses appear more robust with regard to thermal fluctuations than the two other methods.

## Disordered Chains

In reality it is impossible to make an absolutely uniform chain. There are always fluctuations in the spin coupling which make the chain disordered. To assess the effect of such inhomogeneity we consider the case where the couplings between neighboring sites are randomly perturbed around the average value $J$ $$\label{Ham_rand}
  H_f'(t)=\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}J(1+\delta_n) Z_nZ_{n+1}+f(t)\sum_{n=1}^{N}X_n,$$ where $\delta_n\in [-\sigma,+\sigma]$ is a random variable with uniform distribution around zero. Since the random couplings are not known we can only study their average effect over entanglement generation. Thus, we consider the evolution of the initial state $| \psi_0^+ \rangle$ under action on the perturbed $H_f'(t)$ for a pulse $f(t)$ optimized assuming the Hamiltonian $H_f(t)$. We repeat the experiment over 100 random perturbations and then take the average value of the final fidelity over all results. Fig.  shows the average fidelity as a function of the parameter $\sigma$ of the fluctuations in the coupling strength for different methodologies. The figure shows that adiabatic passage is very robust against disorder in the chain. This is to be expected as the ground state of the Hamiltonian $H_f'(t)$ is very similar to $H_f(t)$ for all times when the fluctuations are small, and therefore adiabatic passage is always able to steer the Ising chain from $| \psi^+ \rangle$ to the final GHZ state $| \psi_d^{(1)} \rangle$ independent of the exact choice of the pulse $f(t)$. Lyapunov and optimal control pulses on the other hand rely on dynamic and interference effects to achieve faster transfer, and the temporal shape of the optimal pulse is thus more strongly dependent on the form of the Hamiltonian including the coupling strength. Thus, the optimal control pulses are more susceptible to disorder although the optimal control pulses appear to outperform adiabatic control for fluctuations up to $\sigma\approx
0.03$. It is also interesting to note that the more efficient control pulses obtained from global optimization techniques are more susceptible than their less effective Lyapunov control cousins. Again, the performance of optimal control schemes can be significantly improved if the actual couplings can be estimated more accurately using system identification techniques  or closed-loop adaptive strategies . Alternatively, when accurate estimation of the couplings is infeasible or impossible, e.g., because we wish to control an ensemble of systems with slightly different couplings, the performance of optimal pulses can (sometimes) be improved by optimizing ensemble averages for a collection of systems as in , although this may not be feasible for systems with more than a few spins as optimizing over a collection of systems is computationally expensive, with each function evaluation requiring the numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation for many systems.

## Decoherence Effect

Another major problem in practice is that it is impossible to isolate the system from its environment. Any interaction with environment tends to disturb the evolution of the system. The precise effect of the environment clearly depends on the type of interaction. We shall assume that the system-environment interaction is weak and Markovian and modelled by a Lindblad equation $$\label{Lindblad}
 \dot{\rho(t)}=-i[H_f(t),\rho(t)]+ \mathcal{L}(\rho(t)),$$ where $\mathcal{L}(\rho)$ corresponds to dissipative effects and $\rho(t)$ is the density matrix of the system. We shall focus here on dephasing, which destroys the coherence of the system, as it is common for many physical systems and the typical dephasing times for most physical systems are much shorter than other relaxation rates.

To assess the effect of decoherence we solve the Lindblad equation using the appropriate adiabatic or optimized pulse $f(t)$ obtained for the noiseless system. For a dephasing noise we consider the specific model $$\label{Leinblad2}
    \mathcal{L}(\rho(t))=-\gamma
    \sum_{n=1}^N\{\rho(t)-Z_n\rho(t) Z_n\},$$ which corresponds to localized dephasing of individual spins. Fig.  shows the fidelity achieved as a function of noise strength $\gamma$ for all methods. As expected, the fidelity decays as the noise strength increases for all strategies but adiabatic passage is substantially more susceptible to the dephasing noise of the form considered. This is mainly due to the times involved: the transfer times for the adiabatic pulses tend to be about one order of magnitude greater than those for the optimal pulses, giving dephasing more time to act and destroy the coherence. Optimal control is more robust, and theoretically, it may be possible to improve the performance of optimal control by taking decoherence effects into account in the optimization progress, although this is computationally demanding as it require full density matrix optimzation for a density matrix of Hilbert space of dimension $2^N$, as opposed to pure-state optimization on a subspace, which can be done far more efficiently.

# Concluding discussion

We have studied Ising chains subject to a single a global control such as a magnetic field in the $x$-direction with regard to preparing them in an entangled GHZ state. Due to the existence of multiple symmetries the system is not controllable, and the Hilbert space decomposes into subspaces of varying dimensions that are invariant under the dynamics. Our analysis further shows that even on the invariant subspaces the dynamics is not controllable for all but the smallest subspaces for $N>3$, and that the GHZ state of interest always lies in one of the largest invariant subspaces on which the dynamics is not controllable except for $N=2,3$. Nonetheless the GHZ state is (asymptotically) reachable from an easy-to-prepare initial state by adiabatic passage, and under certain conditions finite-time reachability from a product state such as $| +\ldots+ \rangle$ can be inferred for chains of arbitrary length $N$. Motivated by this positive reachability result, three different control strategies—adiabatic control, Lyapunov control and optimal control—were considered to prepare a GHZ state, and their advantages and disadvantages discussed, serving as a reference for future experimental implementations.

Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Broadly speaking Lyapunov control is a simple form of optimal control design, which produces pulses that are simple and quite effective for short chains but the method struggles for longer chains, and for $N>4$ both adiabatic and global optimal control seem to be generally superior. In terms of the total time required to prepare a GHZ state with high fidelity for a given chain of length $N$, the control pulses found by global optimal control proved the most efficient, with the time required being up to an order of magnitude less than the time-scale for adiabatic transfer. The short pulse durations also confer greater robustness in the presence of local spin dephasing compared to the adiabatic transfer scheme, and the optimal control pulses appear slightly more robust with regard to finite temperature effects. The adiabatic transfer scheme, on the other hand, is more robust with regard to system inhomogeneity such as unknown fluctuations in the $J$-coupling between spins. This is to be expected considering that small system perturbations do not change the ground state of the system appreciably, while such perturbations can alter the interference between different excitation pathways that optimal control designs aim to exploit. The performance of the latter can be improved by system identification or closed-loop adaptive strategies, and in some cases by explicitly taking inhomogeneity or decoherence into account in the optimization.

Both the adiabatic pulse and the Lyapunov pulse have analytic expressions, and especially for the adiabatic control, we can choose the form of the slowly varying pulse without solving the dynamical equation. It is interesting in this regard to note that although a linearly decreasing field would appear to be the simplest choice for adiabatic control, simulations and analysis suggest that a field of the form $f_0
e^{-\mu t}$ is generally preferable, resulting in both faster transfer and increased robustness. While the pulse shapes of the optimal pulses are rather random and more complex than the corresponding adiabatic control fields, the amplitude range and spectral bandwidth of the pulses are quite narrow, and certainly appear to be within experimentally accessible limits. One major drawback of optimal control is that, unlike for the adiabatic and Lyapunov control designs, there are no explicit expressions for the optimal pulse. Instead the pulse must be computed by numerically, and the complexity and computational overhead of calculating the optimal pulses increases rapidly with the length of the chain. Although the dynamics can be restricted to a subspace, unfortunately, the GHZ state of interest belongs to one of the largest invariant subspaces $\mathcal{H}_s$, whose dimension increases exponentially in $N$ with $\operatorname{dim}\mathcal{H}_s \approx 2^N/4$ for large $N$, which substantially increases the computational complexity. Surprisingly, despite this exponential increase of the subspace dimension, the minimum time required to prepare a GHZ state given an initial product state such as $| +\ldots+ \rangle$ using optimal control appears to be actually linear in $N$. Such fast production of a multi-spin GHZ (or Cat or NOON) state using a minimal global field on an Ising chain will be highly valuable in the fields of enhanced sensing and quantum information technology.

*Acknowledgments:* SGS acknowledges funding from EPSRC ARF Grant EP/D07192X/1, the QIPIRC and Hitachi. XW thanks the Cambridge Overseas Trust, Hughes Hall and the Cambridge Philosophical Society for support. SB is supported by EPSRC ARF grant EP/D073421/1, through which AB is also supported. SB also acknowledges the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation.

[^1]: Density operator controllability on a subspace of dimension $N$ requires that we can generate the full Lie algebra of (trace-zero) Hermitian matrices $\mathbf{u}(N)$ ($\mathbf{su}(N)$); if we are only interested in pure-state controllability it suffices if we can generate symplectic Lie algebra $\mathbf{sp}(N/2)$. See


abstract: We present an outline of an extensive study of the effects of collective couplings and nuclear deformations on integrated cross sections as well as on angular distributions in a consistent manner for neutron-induced reactions on nuclei in the rare-earth region. This specific subset of the nuclide chart was chosen precisely because of a clear static deformation pattern. We analyze the convergence of the coupled-channel calculations regarding the number of states being explicitly coupled. A model for deforming the spherical Koning-Delaroche optical potential as function of quadrupole and hexadecupole deformations is also proposed, inspired by previous works. We demonstrate that the obtained results of calculations for total, elastic, inelastic, and capture cross sections, as well as elastic and inelastic angular distributions are in remarkably good agreement with experimental data for scattering energies around a few MeV.
author: G. P. A. Nobre; A. Palumbo; D. Brown; M. Herman; S. Hoblit; F. S. Dietrich
date: 2024-10-01
title:

  Towards a coupled-channel optical potential for rare-earth nuclei

# INTRODUCTION

Optical potentials (OP) have been widely used to describe nuclear reaction data by implicitly accounting for the effects of excitation of internal degrees of freedom and other nonelastic processes. Such optical potentials are normally obtained through proper parametrization and parameter fitting in order to reproduce specific data sets. An OP is called global when this fitting process is consistently done for a variety of nuclides.

Even though existing phenomenological OP's might achieve very good agreement with experimental data under certain conditions, as they were specifically designed to do so, they are not reliable at regions without any measurements, for deformed nuclei, or for the ones away from the stability line. In such circumstances, a more fundamental approach becomes necessary.

The coupled-channel theory is a natural way of explicitly treating nonelastic channels, in particular those arising from collective excitations, defined by nuclear deformations. Proper treatment of such excitations is often essential to the accurate description of reaction experimental data. Previous works have applied different models to specific nuclei with the purpose of determining angular-integrated cross sections.

There are global spherical OP's that have been fit to nuclei below and above the region of statically deformed rare-earth nuclei, but these potentials have been viewed as inappropriate for use in coupled-channels calculations, since they do not account for the loss of flux through the explicitly included inelastic channels. On the other hand, a recent paper shows that scattering from rare earth and actinide nuclei is very near the adiabatic (frozen nucleus) limit, which suggests that the loss of flux to rotational excitations might be unimportant. In this paper we test this idea by performing coupled channel calculations with a global spherical optical potential by deforming the nuclear radii but making no further adjustments. We note an alternative approach (Kuneida *et al.* ), which has attempted to unify scattering from spherical and deformed nuclei by considering all nuclei as statically deformed, regardless of their actual deformation.

# Proposed model for rare-earths

To test our proposed model, we deform the widely-used spherical Koning-Delaroche optical potential and perform coupled-channel calculations for 34 deformed nuclei, namely, $^{152,154}$Sm, $^{153}$Eu, $^{155,156,157,158,160}$Gd, $^{159}$Tb, $^{162,163,164}$Dy, $^{165}$Ho, $^{166,167,168,170}$Er, $^{169}$Tm, $^{171,172,173,174,176}$Yb, $^{175,176}$Lu, $^{177,178,179,180}$Hf, $^{181}$Ta, and $^{182,183,184,186}$W. For such calculations we used the reaction model code Empire, which has the direct reaction process calculated by the code Ecis. We then compared the agreement to experimental data of direct-reaction observables.

Even though the Koning-Delaroche potential is well known to agree very well with existing experimental data for spherical and stable nuclei, it was not designed to describe the ones in the rare-earth region, due to the high deformation of such isotopes. Nevertheless, after deforming this potential in the approach of coupled channels, a good agreement with experimental data for total cross sections is observed, as can be seen in the examples shown in Fig. .

## Volume Conservation

When an originally spherical configuration assumes a deformed shape, defined by quadrupole and hexadecupole deformation parameters $\beta_2$ and $\beta_4$, respectively, the volume and densities are not conserved. In order to ensure volume conservation we apply a correction to the reduced radius $R_0$, as defined in Ref. , which is $$R'_{0}=R_0\left(  1-\sum^{}_{\lambda}{\beta_{\lambda}^{2}/4\pi}\right) ,
\label{Eq:radius}$$ where terms of the order of $\beta_{\lambda}^{3}$ and higher have been discarded. The effect of such correction is not negligible and seems to bring the calculation to a slightly better agreement with the experimental data, as can be seen in Figs. and . This behavior is observed even though the relatively high deformation of $\beta_2=0.236$ in the case of $^{184}$W, shown in Figs.  and , correspond to a correction in the radius lower than one half percent. As a matter of fact, of the nuclei studied in this work, the one with highest deformation ($\beta_2=0.353$ for $^{160}$Gd) has a radius correction of less than 1%.

## Sensitivity to deformation

As part of our study we varied the deformation parameters up and down 10%, 20%, and 30%, in relation to the central adopted value, and we observed the corresponding effect in the direct-reaction observables. As an example, we show in Fig.  the total cross-section results for $^{162}$Dy obtained from coupled-channel calculations using three different values of $\beta_2$: the standard value taken from the compilation of Raman *et al.* multiplied by 0.70, 1.00 and 1.30. For comparison purposes we also plot the result from the spherical model. As can be seen in Fig. , for values of incident energy $E_{\mathrm{i}}$ around $E_{\mathrm{i}} \sim$ 40 keV, 2 MeV, and 5 MeV, the calculated cross sections are insensitive to variations in the deformation. In the other regions, however, large deformation uncertainties lead to large cross-section uncertainties. This means that, in order to assess accurately the value of $\beta_2$, it would be more reasonable to obtain cross-section measurements in energy regions where this sensitivity is higher. Similar behavior was observed in total elastic cross sections.

# Angular distributions

We also assessed the quality of our model in describing angular distributions. Fig. shows, as an example, elastic angular distributions for neutrons scattered by $^{184}$W at different incident energies. As can be seen in Fig. , the predictions of our model are in a much better agreement with experimental data than spherical-model calculations. The interesting point to note is that, by deforming the spherical Koning-Delaroche potential, the data description is not only better than the spherical model, as expected, but also generally very good. This serves as an indication that the adiabatic limit is a good approach towards an optical potential for the rare-earths.

The same good description of experimental data is observed for inelastic angular distributions. As an example of our results, we show in Fig. angular distributions for the first 2$^{+}$ state (111.2 keV) of $^{184}$W for different incident energies. In this case, attempts of comparing to spherical model clearly do not make sense. Therefore we plot only the predictions of our model. It can be seen in Fig. that, although the agreement with experimental data is not perfect, the fact that deforming the Koning-Delaroche optical potential allows to describe inelastic angular distributions reasonably well is very encouraging and supportive of the model. Subsequent minor adjustments and modifications may be able to account for the existing disagreements.

# Compound-nucleus observables

The successful results of our approach in describing direct-reaction cross sections served as motivation to test the effect of our model assumptions on compound-nucleus quantities. We analyzed the results for total elastic, which includes contributions from shape and compound elastic, total inelastic and capture cross sections. In all cases a significant improvement in data description was obtained by our coupled-channel model, in comparison to spherical model calculations. To illustrate such results we plot in Fig. the $^{184}$W(n,$\gamma$) cross sections for both spherical and coupled-channel models. It is seen that, while the spherical model fails to accurately describe the shape of observed capture, the cross sections calculated through our coupled-channel approach is in impressive agreement with experimental data.

# Conclusion

In this work we have demonstrated that deforming the spherical Koning-Delaroche optical potential and using it in coupled channels calculations without further modification provides encouraging results in the description of neutron-induced reactions on the rare-earths, despite the fact this potential was not designed to describe such deformed nuclei. We assessed the effect of a correction in the reduced radius to ensure volume conservation when deforming an originally spherical configuration. This correction was found to produce small but significant effects in the direction of improving the agreement with experimental data, at least for the cases where tested. We achieved a good description of experimental data not only for optical-model observables (such as total cross sections, elastic and inelastic angular distributions), but also for those obtained through compound-nucleus formation (such as total elastic and inelastic, capture cross sections). These good results are consistent with the insight gained from Ref. that the scattering is very close to the adiabatic limit. Although the presented results are not perfect, this simple method corresponds to a good, consistent and general first step towards an optical potential capable of fully describing the rare-earth region, filling the current lack of optical model potentials in this important region.

# Acknowledgement

The work at Brookhaven National Laboratory was sponsored by the Office of NuclearPhysics, Office of Science of the U.S. Department ofEnergy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 withBrookhaven Science Associates, LLC.