arXiv:1709.00652v1 [quant-ph] 3 Sep 2017

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via
spectral phase optimization
Yu Guo1,2 , Daoyi Dong1 , and Chuan-Cun Shu1
1

School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2600, Australia
2
School of Physics and Electronic Science, Changsha University of Science and Technology,
Changsha 410114, China
E-mail: c.shu@unsw.edu.au; chuancunshu@gmail.com
Abstract. Achieving high-fidelity control of quantum systems is of fundamental importance
in physics, chemistry and quantum information sciences.
However, the successful
implementation of a high-fidelity quantum control scheme also requires robustness against
control field fluctuations. Here, we demonstrate a robust optimization method for control
of quantum systems by optimizing the spectral phase of an ultrafast laser pulse, which is
accomplished in the framework of frequency domain quantum optimal control theory. By
incorporating a filtering function of frequency into the optimization algorithm, our numerical
simulations in an abstract two-level quantum system as well as in a three-level atomic rubidium
show that the optimization procedure can be enforced to search optimal solutions while
achieving remarkable robustness against the control field fluctuations, providing an efficient
approach to optimize the spectral phase of the ultrafast laser pulse to achieve a desired final
quantum state of the system.
Keywords: quantum optimal control theory, quantum state transfer, ultrafast laser pulse,
adiabatic pulses

1. Introduction
In spite of rapid progress in quantum technology [1], it remains a challenge to achieve highfidelity quantum control while tolerating uncertainty and quantum decoherence effects [2, 3].
In regard to the latter, the advanced ultrafast (pico-, femto- and attosecond) laser technique
provides an alternative approach to control quantum dynamical processes on extremely short
time scales before quantum decoherence effect plays roles, leading to a variety of applications
from science to industry [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Mathematical description of an ultrafast laser pulse
can be written as
#
"Z ∞
E(ω) exp(−iωt)dω ,
(1)
E(t) = Re
0

in terms of a complex function E(ω) in the frequency domain, where E(ω) = A(ω) exp(iφ(ω))
is a product of a spectral amplitude A(ω) and a spectral phase φ(ω). To achieve highfidelity of quantum control with optimal ultrafast laser pulses, quantum optimal control
experiment (QOCE) relying on the computational intelligence of an evolutionary algorithm

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

2

is often employed to find the “best” combination of A(ω) and φ(ω) in the frequency domain
[9, 10, 11, 12], whereas many quantum optimal control theory (QOCT) methods used for
simulations are accomplished in the time domain by directly shaping the temporal field E(t)
[3, 13, 14]. It is clear that there is a big mismatch between theory and experiment. Recently,
a general frequency domain quantum optimal control theory (FDQOCT) was established
[15, 16], which can be utilized in a monotonic convergence fashion to optimize the spectral
field E(ω) while incorporating multiple internal limitations as well as external constraints
into the optimization algorithm. Provided that the involved limitations and constraints are
sufferable, the broad successes of QOCT and QOCE applications have shown that there
usually exist many solutions capable of achieving the same observable value [17, 18, 19, 20].
A question of particular interest is how to search optimal robust solutions against various
uncertainties. Many efforts have been put forth to address this question even for the
simplest quantum system of two states [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33].
Optimization approaches usually are accomplished in the time domain by solving a robust
optimization problem [34, 35, 36, 37, 38], which have intuitive applications with state-of-theart technologies for microsecond radio-frequency pulses.
In this paper, we present a theoretical investigation in the framework of FDQOCT for
optimal robust control of quantum systems without taking the uncertainty into account. To
highlight quantum coherence effects while reducing the “search space” [39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44],
the FDQOCT is specifically employed to shape the spectral phase φ(ω) of an ultrafast
nonadiabatic pulse by keeping the spectral amplitude A(ω) unchanged, which leads to
the spectral-phase-only optimization (SPOO) algorithm. To illustrate this method without
complexities from the dimension of systems, we first employ the SPOO algorithm to obtain
a complete population inversion between two levels, for which previous theoretical and
experimental studies have demonstrated that a quadratic spectral phase function of φ(ω) =
β0 /2(ω − ω0 )2 with a large enough chirp rate β0 can lead to robust control [45, 46, 47, 48].
By incorporating a smooth filtering function of frequency into the optimization algorithm,
our numerical simulations show that optimal solutions towards remarkable robustness also
turn out to be a quadratic spectral phase function, whereas optimal solutions found by
the algorithm in the absence of this filtering function are far from being robust. From
quantum optimal control point of view, our results provide a new approach to search
optimal robust solutions, yielding the high-fidelity value of a cost functional while resisting
the control field fluctuations. We further examine the SPOO algorithm in a three-level
atomic rubidium, for which optimal robust solutions are unknown before performing the
optimization. Two different schemes of quantum state transfer are discussed for achieving
optimal robust population inversion between levels with either allowed or forbidden electric
dipole transitions.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we describe the details of
the SPOO algorithm in the frame of FDQOCT. Numerical simulations and discussion are
demonstrated in Sec. 3 for the two-level quantum system and three-level atomic rubidium.
Our results are briefly summarized in Sec. 4.

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

3

2. Theoretical Methods
Consider a general system consisting of N quantum states |ni with eigenenergies |E n i (n =
1 · · · , N). The total Hamiltonian operator Ĥ(t) of the quantum system in interaction with
N
the temporal field E(t) can be described by Ĥ(t) = Ĥ0 − µ̂E(t), where Ĥ0 = Σn=1
E n |nihn|
is the field-free Hamiltonian operator and µ̂ denotes the dipole operator. The time-dependent
evolution of the quantum system initially in state |ii at time ti is described by the wave function
|Ψ(t)i = Û(t, ti )|ii. The corresponding unitary evolution operator Û(t, ti ) is governed by the
time-dependent Schrödinger equation,
∂Û(t, ti)
= Ĥ(t)Û(t, ti), Û(ti , ti ) ≡ I.
(2)
∂t
To find an optimal control field E(t) in the ultrafast time scales, the FDOQCT has been
formulated previously in Ref. [15] for optimizing the complex function E(ω) subject to
multiple equality constraints, which was further developed in Ref. [16] leading to a multiobjective frequency domain optimization algorithm. In the following, we will describe the
details of how employ the FDQOCT to optimize the real spectral phase function φ(ω) of an
ultrafast control field subject to multiple equality constraints. As a result, a multiple-equalityconstraint SPOO algorithm is used for maximizing a cost functional Pi→ f (t f ) = |h f |Ψ(t f )i|2 ,
i.e., the probability of quantum state transfer from the initial state |ii to the final state | f i at
the final time t f .
As demonstrated in the FDOQCT [15], a dummy variable s ≥ 0 is employed to record
the changes of the spectral phase φ(ω) and the cost functional Pi→ f (t f ) with φ(s, ω) and
Pi→ f (s, t f ). Note that the parameter s introduced in the FDQOCT is not a physical variable
of the laser field, which is used for formulating the optimization algorithm by first-order
differential equations [49, 50]. As s increases, updating the spectral phase from φ(s, ω) to
φ(s + δs, ω) that increases the value of Pi→ f (t f ) (i.e., Pi→ f (s + δs, t f ) − Pi→ f (s, t f ) ≥ 0) can be
written using the chain rule as
Z ∞
dPi→ f (s, t f )
δPi→ f (s, t f ) ∂φ(s, ω)
g0 (s) ≡
=
dω ≥ 0.
(3)
ds
δφ(s, ω)
∂s
0
If there are no any constraints on the optimal control fields, Eq. (3) can be satisfied by
integrating the following equation
∂φ(s, ω) δPi→ f (s, t f )
=
.
(4)
∂s
δφ(s, ω)
In this work, we further impose two equality external constraints
Z ∞
δE(s, ti ) ∂φ(s, ω)
dE(s, ti)
=
dω = 0,
(5)
g1 (s) ≡
ds
∂s
0 δφ(s, ω)
and
Z ∞
dE(s, t f )
δE(s, t f ) ∂φ(s, ω)
g2 (s) ≡
=
dω = 0,
(6)
ds
δφ(s, ω) ∂s
0
on the control fields during the whole optimization, which are often considered in quantum
optimal control simulations for practical implementation [13, 28, 38, 51, 52]. Optimal
i~

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

4

solutions of ∂φ(s, ω)/∂s that simultaneously satisfy Eqs. (3), (5) and (6) can be expressed
as
Z ∞
2 h
X
i
δQℓ
∂φ(s, ω)
′
= g0 (s)
dω′ ,
S (ω − ω)
Γ−1
0ℓ
∂s
δφ(s, ω)
0
ℓ=0
(7)

where Q0 = Pi→ f (s, t f ), Q1 = E(s, ti ) and Q2 = E(s, t f ). A frequency domain convolution
filtering function S (ω′ − ω) in Eq. (7) is introduced to locally average the inputs δQℓ /δφ(s, ω).
In our simulations, we take a normalized Gaussian function of frequency as the convolution
filtering
"
#
4 ln 2(ω′ − ω)2
′
S (ω − ω) = exp −
,
(8)
σ2
where σ is the bandwidth. Although such a convolution filtering has been involved in the
FDQOCT [15, 16], we did not highlight its virtue for obtaining robust solutions. Γ is a 3 × 3
symmetric matrix composed of the elements
Z ∞
Z ∞
Γℓℓ′ =
δQℓ /δφ(s, ω)
S (ω′ − ω)δQℓ′ /δφ(s, ω′)dω′ dω.
(9)
0

0

By inserting Eq. (7) into Eqs. (3), (5) and (6), we can verify that
Z ∞
Z ∞
2 h
X
i
′
S (ω − ω)
Γ−1
δQℓ′ /δφ(s, ω)
gℓ′ (s) = g0 (s)
0

0

M h
X
i
Γ−1 Γℓℓ′
= g0 (s)

0ℓ

ℓ=0

δQℓ
dω′dω
δφ(s, ω)

0ℓ

ℓ=0

= g0 (s)δ0ℓ′ ℓ′ = 0, 1, 2.

(10)

That is, all requirements from Eqs. (3), (5) and (6) are satisfied during the optimization
simultaneously if the spectral phase is updated with the algorithm Eq. (7).
The SPOO algorithm in Eq. (7) is independent of the dimension of Hamiltonian, ensuring
its applicability to complex multi-level quantum systems. To perform this SPOO algorithm,
the gradients δQ1 /δφ(s, ω) and δQ2 /δφ(s, ω) can be analytically given by
∂E(s, t)
= A(ω) sin[ωt − φ(s, ω)]
(11)
∂φ(s, ω)
with t = ti and t f . The gradient δQ0 /δφ(s, ω) is computed by
Z ∞
δQ0 ∂E(s, t)
δQ0
=
dt,
(12)
δφ(s, ω)
−∞ δE(s, t) ∂φ(s, ω)
in which ∂E(s, t)/∂φ(s, ω) has been derived in Eq. (11), and the gradient δQ0 /δE(s, t) is
calculated by [53]
n
o
δQ0
= − 2Im hi|Û † (t f , ti )| f ih f |Û(t f , ti )Û † (t, ti )µ̂Û(t, ti)|ii .
(13)
δE(s, t)
In our simulations, the spectral amplitude A(ω) is fixed with a Gaussian frequency

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization
(a)

(b)

2

5 P3/2
2

|2
δ

>

|2

E2

|3

E3

5 P1/2
E2

5

>

>

12816.55cm-1
12578.95cm

-1

ω0
2

E1

|1

>

E1

5 S1/2

|1

>

Figure 1. Schematic energy level structures of a two-level quantum system (a) and a threelevel atomic rubidium (b). For two-level simulations, the energies of the two states |1i and
|2i in (a) are fixed at E1 = 0 and E2 = 12500 cm−1 , and δ denotes a single-photon detuning
between the center frequency ω0 and the transition frequency ω12 = (E2 − E1 )/~. For threelevel simulations, the three states |1i, |2i and |3i correspond to the energy levels 52 S 1/2 , 52 P1/2
and 52 P3/2 in atomic rubidium with the energies E1 = 0, E2 = 12578.95 and E3 = 12816.55
cm−1 , respectively.

distribution centered at the frequency ω0 ,
r
"
#
1
(ω − ω0 )2
A(ω) = E0
exp −
,
2π∆ω2
2∆ω2

(14)

where ∆ω is the frequency bandwidth, and E0 is the peak field strength. Equation (2) is
firstly solved by using a temporal field E(s0 , t) with an initial guess of the spectral phase
φ(s0 , ω), and then the generated wavefunction |Ψ(t)i is used to calculate δQ0 /δφ(s0 , ω). The
first-order differential equation (7) is solved (e.g., by using the Euler method) to obtain the
first updated spectral phase φ(s1 = s0 + δs, ω) = φ(s0 , ω) + δs(∂φ(s0 , ω)/∂s), which combined
with the fixed spectral amplitude A(ω) is used to calculate the first updated control field
E(s1 , t). Equation (2) is further solved by using the updated field E(s1 , t), which will increase
the cost functional of Q0 (i.e., Pi→ f (t f )) as compared with that by the initial field E(s0 , t). By
repeating the step s0 to the step s1 , the spectral phase is iteratively updated from φ(s1 , ω) to
φ(s2 = x1 + δs, ω), · · · , φ(sn , ω) until Q0 , i.e., Pi→ f (t f ), converges to the desired precision.

3. Results and Discussion
In the following, we will perform the SPOO algorithm in an abstract two-level quantum
system and in a three-level atomic rubidium, respectively. For two-level simulations, the
energies of the two states |1i and |2i in Fig. 1 (a) are fixed at E 1 = 0 and E 2 = 12500 cm−1 ,
and δ denotes a single-photon detuning between the center frequency ω0 and the transition
frequency ω12 = (E 2 − E 1 )/~. The transition dipole moments between the states |1i and |2i
are chosen to be µ12 = µ21 = 1.0 a.u. without loss of generality. For three-level simulations,
the three states |1i, |2i and |3i in Fig. 1 (b) correspond to the energy levels 52 S 1/2 , 52 P1/2

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

6

Cost Functional

1.0
Unoptimzied

0.8

Optimized

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0

0.4

0.8

ε0 (x10

1.2

-2

a.u.)

Figure 2. Two-level simulations: The cost functional P1→2 (t f ) as a function of the field
strength E0 by using the transform limited (dashed lines) and spectral phase optimized (solid
line) pulses. The optimized calculations are accomplished by optimizing the spectral phase
without involving the filtering function S (ω′ −ω) in Eq. (7) while fixing the spectral amplitude
A(ω) as the corresponding transform limited pulse.

and 52 P3/2 for atomic rubidium-87 with E 1 = 0, E 2 = 12578.95 and E 3 = 12816.55 cm−1 ,
respectively. The transition dipole moments between states are taken as µ12 = µ21 = 2.9931
and µ13 = µ31 = 4.2275 a.u., and µ23 = µ32 are set to be zero for describing the electric dipole
forbidden atomic transitions between the states |2i and |3i.
3.1. Application to an abstract two-level quantum system
We first perform the two-level simulations by using a zero spectral phase and fixing the center
frequency ω0 in resonance with the transition frequency ω12 , for which the temporal control
field in Eq. (1) corresponds to a transform limited pulse, E(t) = E0 exp(−t2 /2τ20 ) cos ω0 t
with a duration of τ0 = 1/∆ω. In our simulations, the total propagation time is taken
as T = t f − ti = 100τ0 = 1000 fs, which is discretized with 3.2 × 105 uniform time
steps. The quantum system is initially in the state |1i, and finally is expected to be in the
state |2i. We scan the field strength E0 with different values to solve the time-dependent
Schrödinger equation (2), and the corresponding P1→2 (t f ) as a function of E0 is plotted in Fig.
2 (dashed lines). Since the exact resonant condition (i.e., δ = 0) is satisfied, the transition
2
probability P1→2
R t f (t f ) can be analytically expressed as [54] P1→2 (t f ) = sin (A(t f )/2) with
A(t f ) = E0 µ12 t exp(−t2 /2τ20 )/2dt ∝ E0 , which as shown in Fig. 2 oscillates between 0 and 1
i
depending on the value of E0 . Complete population transfer occurs for A(t f ) = (2q + 1)π (i.e.,
odd-π pulse) and complete population return takes place for A(t f ) = 2qπ (i.e., even-π pulse),
where q is an integer. This phenomenon is either called Rabi oscillation or Rabi flopping.
The odd-π pulse provides an approach for achieving complete population transfer, whereas as
demonstrated in Fig. 2 the obtained population of P1→2 (t f ) is not robust with respect to the
fluctuation of E0 . To explore whether there are optimal robust solutions, the SPOO algorithm
is first employed without using the filtering function S (ω′ − ω). Optimal spectral phases with
different values of E0 are obtained, and the corresponding P1→2 (t f ) as a function of E0 is
plotted in Fig. 2 (solid line). It is clear that P1→2 (t f ) with a high-fidelity is possible in a large

1.0

1.0

(a)

Cost Functional

0.5

0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0

2.0

0.0

0.05

(c)

1.0

1.5

2.0

-0.1

(d)

0

-0.05

-0.2
0.84

1.0

1.16

-0.1
0.84

0

1.0

0

S(t,ω) (Arb. Units)

0.84

0.84

ω (units of ω0)

(e)
1

1.16
-50

0

Time (fs)

1.0

1.16

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

ω (units of ω0)

0.5

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)
φ(ω) (units of Ū)

φ(ω) (units of Ū)

0

(b)

0.5

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)
0.05

7

50

S(t,ω) (Arb. Units)

1.0

Cost Functional

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

(f)

1

1.16
-50

0

50

Time (fs)

Figure 3. Two-level simulations: Robustness with respect to the field strength variations for
two different optimal spectral phases. (a) and (b) The cost functional P1→2 (t f ) as a function
of E0 , (c) and (d) the corresponding spectral phases, and (e) and (f) the time and frequency
resolved distributions of the control fields. The two optimized spectral phases are obtained
from the unfiltered optimizations at E0 = 0.6 × 10−2 (left panels) and 1.0 × 10−2 a.u. (right
panels).

range of E0 (i.e. A(t f ) ≥ π). That is, there exist many optimal spectral phases φ(E0 , ω), which
are able to obtain the observable value of P1→2 (t f ) > 0.9999 with an admissible error < 10−4 .
To see whether the optimized spectral phases are robust, two different optimized spectral
phases obtained with E0 = 0.6 × 10−2 and 1.0 × 10−2 a.u. that lead to P1→2 (t f ) > 0.9999
in Fig. 2 are examined, respectively. The corresponding robustness of P1→2 (t f ) against
the fluctuation of E0 is plotted in Figs. 3 (a) and (b). As can be seen from Figs. 3 (c)
and (d), the optimized spectral phases are mainly modulated in a small region around the
center frequency ω0 , showing strong oscillations in the values. Figures 3 (e) and (f) plot
the corresponding time and frequency resolved distributions of the control fields, which are
almost unchanged as compared with the corresponding transform limited pulses. That is, the
optimized spectral phases only lead to a small modulation on the initial temporal field, but
such a slight modification of the initial guess (i.e., a transform limited pulse) is capable of
maximizing P1→2 (E(·)). We also examine other optimized spectral phases (not shown here),
showing similar behaviours as Fig. 3. Thus, the SPOO algorithm in the absence of the filtering
function can be used to find optimal solutions, but they are far from being robust.
We apply the SPOO algorithm with the filtering function to the above problem. To show

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization
2

φ(ω) (units of Ū)

φ(ω) (units of Ū)

2
(a)
-5
-12
-19
0.84

1.0

-12
-19
0.84

1.16

1.16

0
(c)

_

-2

-4
-6

(d)

-4
-6
-8

-8
-10
0.0

lg(F)

_

1.0

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

0

lg(F)

σ=2000cm-1
σ=5000cm -1
σ=10000cm-1

(b)
-5

Frequency (units of ω 0 )
-2

8

0.5

1.0

ε0 (x10

1.5

-2

a.u.)

2.0

-10
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)

Figure 4. Two-level simulations: The effect of the parameter σ on the optimal spectral phases
and infidelity F̄ = 1 − P1→2 (t f ). The optimal spectral phases for three different values of
σ = 2.0 × 103 , 5.0 × 103 and 1.0 × 104 cm−1 are calculated with (a) E0 = 0.6 × 10−2 and (b)
1.0 × 10−2 a.u., and the corresponding infidelity F̄ = 1 − P1→2 (t f ) in decimal logarithmic scale
as a function of E0 is plotted in (c) and (d). The dashed horizontal lines correspond to the
infidelity F̄ = 1.0 × 10−4 .

the role of the parameter σ in the filtering function, we examine the optimization algorithm
at the two different field strengths E0 = 0.6 × 10−2 and 1.0 × 10−2 a.u. as used in the above
simulations with different values of σ = 2.0 × 103 , 5.0 × 103 and 1.0 × 104 cm−1 , and the
corresponding optimal spectral phases are plotted in Figs. 4 (a) and (b). We can find that
the optimal spectral phases are very sensitive to the parameter σ, indicating that there are
still many optimal solutions with the same spectral amplitude A(ω). To clearly view the
dependance of the robustness on the parameter σ with these optimal spectral phases, Figs. 4
(c) and (d) show the corresponding infidelity F̄ = 1 − P1→2 (t f ) in decimal logarithmic scale
as a function of E0 , which usually is used to assess a quantum state transformation error in
quantum information science. We find that the infidelity is dramatically decreased to the
admissible error below 10−4 with the value of σ ≥ 5.0 × 103 cm−1 , where the corresponding
optimal spectral phases in Figs. 4 (a) and (b) show a smooth change in ω without strong
oscillations.
Figure 5 displays the same simulations as Fig. 3 by involving the filtering function with
the parameter of σ = 2.0 × 104 cm−1 . The robustness against E0 is examined in Figs. 5 (a)
and (b) with the two optimized spectral phases in Figs. 5 (c) and (d), showing remarkable
robustness to large changes in the field strength E0 . It is interesting to note that optimized
spectral phases with a constant shift can be fitted very well using a quadratic spectral phase
β0 /2(ω − ω0 )2 with a chirp rate β0 , which clearly introduces a time-dependent frequency
distribution of the field, as shown in Figs. 5 (e) and (f) and prolongs the durations τ of
the optimized pulses much longer than τ0 = 10 fs. As a result, shaping the spectral phase
will reduce the peak intensity of the optimized temporal electric fields as compared with
the transform-limited pulse (see also details in Appendix). The underlying mechanism of
generating robust control of a two-level quantum system with such a linear frequency-chirped

1.0

(a)

0.5

0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0

2.0

φ(ω) (units of Ū)

φ(ω) (units of Ū)

0

(c)
Optimized phase
Quadratic fitting

-16

1.0

1.16

Optimized phase
Quadratic fitting

-21
0.84

1.0

0

ω (units of ω0)

1

Time (fs)

2.0

-14

0.84

0

1.5

1.16

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

(e)
(e)

1.16
-500

1.0

(d)

1.0

0

ω (units of ω0)

S(t,ω) (Arb. Units)

0.5

-7

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

0.84

0.0

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)

0

-24
0.84

(b)

0.5

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)
-8

9

500

S(t,ω) (Arb. Units)

1.0

1.0

Cost Functional

Cost Functional

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

(f)
(f)

1

1.16
-500

0

500

Time (fs)

Figure 5. Two-level simulations: Robustness with respect to the field strength variations for
two different optimal spectral phases. (a) and (b) The cost functional P1→2 (t f ) as a function
of E0 , (c) and (d) the corresponding spectral phases, and (e) and (f) the time and frequency
resolved distributions of the control fields. The two optimized spectral phases (blue solid lines)
are obtained from the filtered optimizations at E0 = 0.6 × 10−2 (left panels) and 1.0 × 10−2 a.u.
(right panels), which with a constant shift can be fitted (red dashed lines) by using a quadratic
function of β0 /2(ω − ω0 )2 with a chirp rate β0 = 898 fs2 in (c) and 1044 fs2 in (d).

pulse can be understood well in terms of the noncrossing adiabatic representation (see details
in Appendix). As demonstrated in Figs. 6 (a) and (b), the evolution of quantum systems is
almost completely in the adiabatic ground state |−i during the whole quantum control process.
As a result, the quantum system in the diabatic representation smoothly evolves from the
initial state |1i to the final state |2i, as shown in Figs. 6 (c) and (d). That is, an adiabatic pulse
is designed by optimizing the spectral phase of the initial nonadiabatic ultrafast pulse, which
leads to a remarkable robustness against the variations of the field strength.
Optimal control theory combined with adiabatic theorem has been applied previously
for the time-domain design of adiabatic microsecond radio-frequency pulses by explicitly
incorporating an adiabaticity term into the cost functional [35]. The present method is
performed in the frequency domain for the design of ultrafast pulses without using such an
adiabaticity term as the part of control objective, whereas as demonstrated in the two-level
simulations the spectral filtering function with a large enough value of σ “implicitly” enforces
optimal solutions towards adiabatic pulses, providing a new approach to search for optimal
robust solutions.

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

10

Figure 6. Two-level simulations: Time evolution of the qubit control in (a) and (b) adiabatic
and (c) and (d) diabatic states for the two filtered spectral phase-optimized pulses. The spectral
amplitude A(ω) is fixed at (left panels) E0 = 0.6 × 10−2 and (right panels) 1.0 × 10−2 a.u.

3.2. Application to a three-level atomic rubidium
3.2.1. On-resonance case We apply the SPOO algorithm with the filtering function to the
three-level atomic rubidium, as shown in Fig. 1 (b). We first examine two different onresonance excitation schemes from state |1i by fixing the center frequency ω0 in resonance
with the transition frequency ω12 = (E 2 − E 1 )/~ or ω13 = (E 3 − E 1 )/~, and the corresponding
final state is |2i or |3i, respectively. Figure 7 shows the corresponding simulations with
E0 = 0.8 ×10−2 a.u. and σ = 1.8 ×104 cm−1 . The optimal spectral phase in Fig. 7 (a) or in Fig.
7 (d) with a constant shift in the value can be fitted very well by using a quadratic function
β0 /2(ω − ωc )2 centered at the frequency ωc . Figure 7 (c) or (e) shows the corresponding
infidelity F̄ = 1 − P1→2 (t f ) or F̄ = 1 − P1→3 (t f ) in decimal logarithmic scale as a function of
E0 . A high fidelity with the admissible error of F̄ < 10−4 is observed in a large range of E0 .
We also examine this on-resonance case with other values of E0 , and the similar behaviours
are observed with a large value of σ. We can see that the frequency distribution of the optimal
spectral phase is not symmetric to the center frequency ω0 , and therefore a frequency detuned
quadratic spectral phase function is found as an optimal robust solution. As can be seen from
Fig. 7 (b) or from Fig. 7 (e), the state |3i or |2i is clearly involved in the population transfer
process, whereas the final population in this state is efficiently suppressed to a very low value
of < 10−4 . Furthermore, we can find in Fig. 7 (c) or in Fig. 7 (f) that increasing the laser
pulse strength causes a rising trend of infidelity. This can also be attributed to the existence of
the state |3i or |2i, as the frequency bandwidth of the pulse is broad enough to excite both the
excited states |2i and |3i with an energy separation of E 3 − E 2 ≈ 238 cm−1 . Based on these
considerations, the optimal robust pulse does not construct an adiabatic passage between the
initial state and the final state, whereas it is able to achieve a high-fidelity of P1→2 (t f ) > 0.9999
or P1→3 (t f ) > 0.9999 against the fluctuation of E0 .

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization
φ(ω) (units of Ū)

φ(ω) (units of Ū)

on-resonance
-375

(a)
Optimized phase

-408

Quadratic fiting
-441
-474
0.85

1.15

1.0

(d)
35
Optimized phase
15

Quadratic fiting

-5
0.85

1.0

Population

(b)
0.5

0
-1400 -700

0

700

(e)
0.5

0
-800

1400

-400

Time (fs)

0

400

800

Time (fs)

0

0

(f)

(c)
-2

_

lg(F)

_

1.15

1.0

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

1.0

Population

on-resonance

55

Frequency (units of ω 0 )

lg(F)

11

-4
-6
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)

2.0

-4

-8
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

ε0 (x10 -2a.u.)

Figure 7. Three-level simulations for on-resonance excitations: The center frequency ω0
is fixed in resonance with the transition frequency ω12 = (E2 − E1 )/~ in (left panels) and
ω13 = (E3 − E1 )/~ (right panels). (a) and (d): The optimal spectral phases (blue solid lines)
are obtained with E0 = 0.8 × 10−2 a.u. and σ = 1.8 × 104 cm−1 , which with a constant shift are
fitted (red dashed lines) by using a quadratic function β0 /2(ω − ωc )2 (a) with ωc = 12727.39
cm−1 and β0 = 4161 fs2 and (d) with ωc = 12644.675 cm−1 and β0 = −2235 fs2 . (b) and
(e): The time-dependent population transfer among the three states. (c) and (f): The infidelity
F̄ = 1 − P1→2 (t f ) and F̄ = 1 − P1→3 (t f ) in decimal logarithmic scale as a function of E0 . The
dashed horizontal lines correspond to the infidelity F̄ = 1.0 × 10−4 .

For such a three-level atomic rubidium, we have noticed that the three levels involved
can also be approximated to form a two-level system with the states |1i and |2i by choosing
a set of optimal parameters (∆ω, δ, β0 ) [47], so that the effect of the state |3i on quantum
state transfer can be sufficiently suppressed. That is, we may also form a two-level system
by setting the spectral amplitude A(ω) with the frequency bandwidth ∆ω small enough to
overlap significantly only the final state of interest [45]. As a result, optimal robust solutions
will turn out to be the two-level case with adiabatic pulses. That is, the dynamics of a multilevel quantum system is reduced to an effective two-level model.

3.2.2. Off-resonance case Figure 8 shows the off-resonance case in the three-level atomic
rubidium with E0 = 0.8 × 10−2 a.u. and σ = 1.8 × 104 cm−1 . For this off-resonance excitation,
we assume that the initial state is |2i, and fix the center frequency ω0 in resonance with the
transition frequency ω12 = (E 2 − E 1 )/~. An optimal spectral phase, as shown in Fig. 8 (a),

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

12

off-resonance
φ(ω) (units of Ū)

-370

(a)
Optimized phase

-402

Quadratic fiting
-434

-466
0.85

1.15

1.0

Frequency (units of ω 0 )
1.0

Population

(b)

0.5

0
-1400

-700

0

700

1400

1.5

2.0

Time (fs)
0

_

lg(F)

(c)
-2

-4

-6
0.0

0.5

1.0

ε0 (x10

-2

a.u.)

Figure 8. Three-level simulations for off-resonance excitations: The system is initially in the
sate |2i with the state |3i as the target, and the center frequency ω0 is fixed in resonance with
the transition frequency ω12 = (E2 − E1 )/~. (a): The optimal spectral phase (blue solid line)
is obtained with E0 = 0.8 × 10−2 a.u. and σ = 1.8 × 104 cm−1 , which with a constant shift is
fitted (red dashed lines) by using a quadratic function β0 /2(ω − ωc )2 with ωc = 12735.2 cm−1
and β0 = 3884 fs2 . (b): The time-dependent population transfer among the three states. (c):
The corresponding infidelity F̄ = 1 − P2→3 (t f ) in decimal logarithmic scale as a function of
E0 . The dashed horizontal lines correspond to the infidelity F̄ = 1.0 × 10−4 .

is found, which leads to the evolution of the system from the initial state |2i to the final state
|3i. The optimal spectral phase with a constant shift in the value can also be fitted very well
by using a quadratic function β0 /2(ω − ωc )2 . Although the direct transition between the states
|2i and |3i is forbidden, the intermediate state |1i due to the broad bandwidth of the pulse can
be involved to construct two (multi)-photon transition pathways. As can be seen from Fig. 8

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

13

(b), the population is transferred to this intermediate state. Note that the population transfer
processes involved in this three-level system are different from that by using the stimulated
adiabatic Raman passage (STIRAP) scheme within a V-type configuration system, where the
intermediate state is never populated during the whole population transfer process [55, 56].
Thus, this is not a completely adiabatic quantum state transfer from the initial state to the final
state by using the optimized pulse, whereas we can see that the population in the intermediate
state |1i is not noticeable during the population transfer process. As a result, it is still able to
lead to a very low error in a large range of E0 .
Finally, we have an analysis for the center frequency detuning ωc − ω0 involved in the
both on- and off-resonance simulations. We can expand the optimal spectral phase around the
center frequency ω0 by using the second-order Taylor expansion φ(ω) = Σ2n=0 (φn /n!)(ω−ω0 )n ,
where the first-order term is involved to lead to a shift of the spectral phase shape in the
frequency domain. According to the Fourier transform shift theorem, a linear term in the
spectral phase leaves the control field envelope unchanged, and only shifts the pulse in the
time domain. As a result, the optimal solutions can also be understood as the chirped pulses,
which transform an initial quantum state into a desired final state through an intermediate
state by sweeping instantaneous frequency of laser pulse.
4. Conclusion
In summary, we have demonstrated a theoretical study to show how the spectral phase of
an ultrafast laser pulse can be shaped to achieve optimal robust control of quantum systems
without shaping the spectral amplitude of the laser pulse. A SPOO algorithm was established
in the framework of FDQOCT, and was successfully applied for quantum state transfer in
the abstract two-level quantum system as well as in the three-level atomic rubidium. By
incorporating the filtering function into the optimization algorithm, the optimal spectral
phases that lead to robust and high-fidelity quantum state transfer are found, and therefore
we have shown an efficient approach to enforce optimal control algorithm in the frequency
domain to extract optimal robust solutions.
As this frequency domain optimization approach is in line with the current ultrafast
pulse shaping technique commonly used in QOCEs, this work together with optimization
algorithms may open a new access to achieve optimal robust feedback control of quantum
systems, for which both the spectral phase and amplitude of the ultrafast laser pulses can
be used as the control variables. This method in principle can be potentially applied to
more complex quantum control problems by either increasing the dimensionality of quantum
systems or considering interactions of quantum systems with its environments, e.g., electron
spins in diamond [61], single molecules in polymer hosts polymers [62], and therefore we
expect that it can be used in a robust way to optimize specific pathways in chemical reactions
and energy transfer channels in light-harvesting complexes, to achieve various quantum gates
for quantum computing.

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

14

5. Acknowledgment
Y.G. is partially supported by the scholarship of Hunan Provincial Department of Education
of China under grant No. 2015210, and by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of
China under grant No. 2017JJ2272. C.C.S acknowledges the financial support by the ViceChancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellowship of University of New South Wales (UNSW),
Australia. D.D. acknowledges partial supports by the Australian Research Council under
Grant No. DP130101658. Y.G. also acknowledges the support and hospitality provided by
UNSW Canberra during his visit.
Appendix
The time-dependent electric field of a chirped pulse with a quadratic spectral phase takes the
form [57]
s

" 2

β
 #




τ20
t


E (t) = E0 Re 
exp
−
−
i
t
+
ω
t
,
(A.1)


0

2
2


2τ
2
 τ0 − iβ0

q
where β = β0 /(τ40 + β20 ) and τ = τ0 1 + β20 /τ40 . By substituting the complex-valued
q
τ20 /(τ20 − iβ0 ) = f e−iϕ into Eq. (A.1), the time-dependent electric field E (t) can be written as
(
!
 β

)
t2
′
E (t) = E0 exp − 2 cos
t + ω0 t + ϕ
(A.2)
2τ
2

with an updated field strength E′0 = E0 f .
Within the rotating wave approximation, the diabatic interaction Hamiltonian can be
described by
!
~
−∆(t)
Ω(t) exp(iϕ)
,
(A.3)
Ĥdia =
∆(t)
2 Ω(t) exp(−iϕ)

where ∆(t) = δ−βt is the instantaneous detuning and Ω(t) = −µ12 E′0 exp(−t2 /2τ2 )/~ is the Rabi
frequency. This leads to a modified Landau-Zener model with a constant variation rate β of
the energy difference [58, 59], whereas the time-dependent diabatic coupling Ω(t) is involved.
Clearly, the diabatic energy levels in the absence of Ω(t) will take place an exact crossing
when the energy
p level is swept. In the presence of Ω(t), however, the adiabatic energy levels
E ± (t) = ±~ Ω2 (t) + ∆2 (t)/2 obtained by diagonalizing Ĥdia will form an avoided crossing
by slowly chirping the instantaneous frequency of the control field with a large enough chirp
rate β0 combined
with a large enough Rabi frequency Ω(t), i.e., the adiabatic condition of
p
2
|ϑ̇(t)| ≪ ∆ (t) + Ω2 (t) is maintained [29, 46, 60]. The corresponding adiabatic eigenstates
can be given by |+i = sin ϑ(t)|1ieiϕ + cos ϑ(t)|2i and |−i = cos ϑ(t)|1ieiϕ − sin ϑ(t)|2i with a
mixing angle ϑ(t) = tan−1 (Ω(t)/∆(t))/2.

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

15

References
[1] Castelvecchi D 2017 Quantum computers ready to leap out of the lab in 2017 Nature 541 9
[2] Gottesman D 2016 Efficient fault tolerance, Nature 540 9
[3] Glaser S J, Boscain U, Calarco T, Koch C P, Köckenberger W, Kosloff R, Kuprov I, Luy B, Schirmer
S, Schulte-Herbrüggen T, Sugny D and Wilhelm F K Training 2015 Schröinger cat: quantum optimal
control Eur. Phys. J. D 69 279
[4] Silberberg Y 2009 Quantum coherent Control for nonlinear spectroscopy and microscopy Annu. Rev. Phys.
Chem. 60 277
[5] Fisher K, England D G, Philippe J W, Maclean W, Bustard P J, Resch K J and Sussman B J 2016 Frequency
and bandwidth conversion of single photons in a room-temperature diamond quantum memory Nat.
Commun. 7 11200
[6] Kahra S, Leschhorn G, Kowalewski M, Schiffrin A, Bothschafter E, Fuß W, de Vivie-Riedle R, Ernstorfer
R, Krausz F, Kienberger R and Schaetz T 2012 A molecular conveyor belt by controlled delivery of
single molecules into ultrashort laser pulses Nat. Phys. 8 238
[7] Shu C -C, Yuan K -J Dong D Petersen I R and Bandrauk A D 2017 Identifying strong-field effects in
indirect photofragmentation reactions J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8 1
[8] Yuan K -J, Shu C -C, Dong D and Bandrauk A D 2017 Attosecond dynamics of molecular electronic ring
currents J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8 2229
[9] Assion A, Baumert T, Bergt M, Brixner T, Kiefer B, Seyfried V, Strehle M and Gerber G 1998 Control of
chemical reactions by feedback-optimized phase-shaped femtosecond laser pulses Science 282 919
[10] Daniel C, Full J, González L, Lupulescu C, Manz J, Merli A, Vajda S and Wöste L 2003 Deciphering the
reaction dynamics underlying optimal control laser fields Science 299 536
[11] Nuernberger P, Vogt G, Brixner T and Gerber G 2007 Femtosecond quantum control of molecular dynamics
in the condensed phase Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 9 2470
[12] Roslund J and Rabitz H 2014 Dynamic dimensionality identification for quantum control Phys. Rev. Lett.
112 143001
[13] Werschnik J and Gross E K U 2007 Quantum optimal control theory J. Phys. B 40 R175
[14] Brif C, Chakrabarti R and Rabitz H 2010 Control of quantum phenomena: past, present and future New J.
Phys. 12 075008
[15] Shu C -C, Ho T -S, Xing X and Rabitz H 2016 Frequency domain quantum optimal control under multiple
constraints Phys. Rev. A. 93 033417
[16] Shu C -C, Dong D, Petersen I R and Henriksen N E 2017 Complete elimination of nonlinear light-matter
interactions with broadband ultrafast laser pulses Phys. Rev. A 95 033809
[17] Beltrani V, Dominy J, Ho T -S and Rabitz H 2011 Exploring the top and bottom of the quantum control
landscape J. Chem. Phys. 134 194106
[18] Moore K W and Rabitz H 2012 Exploring constrained quantum control landscapes J. Chem. Phys. 137
134113
[19] Riviello G, Tibbetts K M, Brif C, Long R, Wu R -B, Ho T -S and Rabitz H 2015 Searching for quantum
optimal controls under severe constraints Phys. Rev. A 91 043401
[20] Riviello G, Wu R -B, Sun Q Y and Rabitz H 2017 Searching for an optimal control in the presence of
saddles on the quantum-mechanical observable landscape Phys. Rev. A 95 063418
[21] James M R, Nurdin H I and Petersen I R 2008 H ∞ Control of Linear Quantum Stochastic Systems IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 53 1787
[22] Xiang C, Petersen I R and Dong D 2017 Coherent robust H ∞ control of linear quantum systems with
uncertainties in the Hamiltonian and coupling operators, Automatica 81 8
[23] Viola L, Knill E and Lloyd S 1999 Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems Phys. Rev. Lett. 82
2417
[24] Dong D and Petersen I R 2009 Sliding mode control of quantum systems New J. Phys. 11 105033
[25] Dong D and Petersen I R 2012 Sliding mode control of two-level quantum systems Automatica 48 725
[26] Soare A, Ball H, Hayes D, Sastrawan J, Jarratt M C, McLoughlin J J, Zhen X, Green T J and Biercuk M J

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]

[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]

16

2014 Experimental noise filtering by quantum control Nat. Phys. 10 825
Chen C, Dong D, Long R, Petersen I R and Rabitz H A 2014 Sampling-based learning control of
inhomogeneous quantum ensembles Phys. Rev. A 89 023402
Daems D, Ruschhaupt A, Sugny D and Guérin S 2013 Robust quantum control by a single-shot shaped
pulse Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 050404
Zhdanovich S, Shapiro E A, Shapiro M, Hepburn J W and Milner V 2008 Population transfer between two
quantum states by piecewise chirping of femtosecond pulses: Theory and experiment Phys. Rev. Lett.
100 103004
Torosov B T, Guérin S and Vitanov N V 2011 High-fidelity adiabatic passage by composite sequences of
chirped pulses Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 233001
Dou F -Q, Cao H, Liu J and Fu L -B 2016 High-fidelity composite adiabatic passage in nonlinear two-level
systems Phys. Rev. A 93 043419
Huang C -H and H -S Goan 2017 Robust quantum gates for stochastic time-varying noise Phys. Rev. A 95
062325
Damme L V, Leiner D, Mardešić P, Glaser S J and Sugny D 2017 Linking the rotation of a rigid body to
the Schröodinger equation: The quantum tennis racket effect and beyond Sci. Rep. 7 3998
Zhang H and Rabitz H 1994 Robust optimal control of quantum molecular systems in the presence of
disturbances and uncertainties, Phys. Rev. A 49 2241
Rosenfeld D and Zur Y 1996 Design of adiabatic selective pulses using optimal control theory Magn.
Reson. Med. 36 401
Kosut R L, Grace M D and Brif C 2013 Robust control of quantum gates via sequential convex
programming Phys. Rev. A 88 052326
Van Damme L, Ansel Q, Glaser S J and Sugny D 2017 Robust optimal control of two-level quantum
systems Phys. Rev. A 95 063403
Van-Damme L, Schraft D, Genov G T, Sugny D, Halfmann T and Guérin S 2017 Robust NOT gate by
single-shot-shaped pulses: Demonstration of the efficiency of the pulses in rephasing atomic coherences
Phys. Rev. A 96 022309
Weigel A, Sebesta A and Kukura P Shaped and feedback-controlled excitation of single molecules in the
weak-field limit J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6 4032
Garcı́a-Vela A 2016 Communication: Control of the fragment state distributions produced upon decay of
an isolated resonance state J. Chem. Phys. 144 141102.
Garcı́a-Vela A and Henriksen N E 2015 Coherent control of photofragment distributions using laser phase
modulation in the weak-field limit J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6 824
Dudovich N, Dayan B, Gallagher Faeder S. M and Silberberg Y 2001 Transform-limited pulses are not
optimal for resonant multiphoton transitions Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 47
Konar A, Lozovoy V V and Dantus M 2012 Solvation stokes-shift dynamics studied by chirped
femtosecond laser pulses J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 3 2458
Shu C -C and Henriksen N E 2012 Phase-only shaped laser pulses in optimal control theory: Application
to indirect photofragmentation dynamics in the weak-field limit J. Chem. Phys. 136 044303
Malinovsky V S and Krause J L 2001 General theory of population transfer by adiabatic rapid passage with
intense, chirped laser pulses Eur. Phys. J. D 14 147
Dou F -Q, Liu J and Fu L -B 2016 High-fidelity superadiabatic population transfer of a two-level system
with a linearly chirped Gaussian pulse Eur. Phys. Lett. 116 60014
Jo H, Lee H -G, Guérin S and Ahn J 2017 Robust control of coherent superpositions by ultrafast
nonadiabatic chirped pulse (arXiv:1701.03541v3)
J. Baum, R. Tycko, and A. Pines, Broadband and adiabtic inversion of a two-level system by phasemodulated pulses, Phys. Rev. A 32, 3435 (1985).
Rothman A, Ho T.-S and Rabitz H 2005 Quantum observable homotopy tracking control J. Chem. Phys.
123 134104
Rothman A, Ho T -S and Rabitz H 2005 Observable-preserving control of quantum dynamics over a family
of related systems Phys. Rev. A 72 023416

Achieving robust and high-fidelity quantum control via spectral phase optimization

17

[51] Elliott P, Krieger K, Dewhurst J K, Sharma S and Gross E K U 2016 Optimal control of laser-induced
spinorbit mediated ultrafast demagnetization New J. Phys. 18 013014
[52] Gollub C, Kowalewski M and Vivie-Riedle R de 2008 Monotonic convergent optimal control theory with
strict limitations on the spectrum of optimized laser fields Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 073002
[53] Shu C -C, Ho T -S and Rabitz H 2016 Monotonic convergent quantum optimal control method with exact
equality constraints on the optimized control fields Phys. Rev. A. 93, 053418
[54] Scully M O and Zubiary M S 1997 Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
[55] Vitanov N V, Rangelov A A, Shore B W and Bergmann K 2017 Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in
physics, chemistry, and beyond Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 015006
[56] Shu C -C, Yu J, Yuan K -J, Hu W -H, Yang J and Cong S -L 2009 Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in
molecular electronic states Phys. Rev. A 79 023418
[57] Shu C -C and Henriksen N E 2011 Coherent control of indirect photofragmentation in the weak-field limit:
Control of transient fragment distributions J. Chem. Phys. 134 164308
[58] Landau L D 1932 On the theory of transfer of energy at collisions II, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 2 46
[59] Zener C 1932 Nonadiabatic crossing of energy levels Proc. R. Soc. A 137 696
[60] Lee H -G, Song Y, Kim H, Jo H and Ahn J 2016 Quantum dynamics of a two-state system induced by a
chirped zero-area pulse Phys. Rev. A 93 023423
[61] Hirose M and Cappellaro P 2016 Coherent feedback control of a single qubit in diamond Nature 532 77
[62] Hildner R, Brinks D and van Hulst N F 2011 Femtosecond coherence and quantum control of single
molecules at room temperature Nat. Phys. 7 172

