INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBUST AND NONLINEAR CONTROL
Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control 2016; 00:1–14
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/rnc

Robust H∞ Estimation of Uncertain Linear Quantum Systems

arXiv:1506.02005v3 [cs.SY] 11 Apr 2017

Shibdas Roy1∗ and Ian R. Petersen2
1 Department
2 School

of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia.

SUMMARY
We consider classical estimators for a class of physically realizable linear quantum systems. Optimal
estimation using a complex Kalman filter for this problem has been previously explored. Here, we study
robust H∞ estimation for uncertain linear quantum systems. The estimation problem is solved by converting
it to a suitably scaled H∞ control problem. The solution is obtained in the form of two algebraic Riccati
equations. Relevant examples involving dynamic squeezers are presented to illustrate the efficacy of our
method. Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received . . .

KEY WORDS: Complex Kalman filter; linear quantum systems; H∞ estimation; uncertain systems;
Riccati equations

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been significant interest in studying estimation and control problems for
quantum systems [1–13]. Linear quantum systems are an important class of quantum systems and
have been of particular interest in this context [1, 4–7, 12, 14–20]. Such linear quantum systems
have been useful in describing quantum optical devices such as linear quantum amplifiers [15],
finite bandwidth squeezers [15] and optical cavities [14, 21]. Coherent feedback control has also
been studied a lot recently for linear quantum systems [5, 6, 8, 9, 18, 20, 22–24]. The authors have
previously explored a related coherent-classical estimation problem [25, 26], where the estimator
consists of a classical part, that produces the desired final estimate and a quantum part, which may
also involve coherent feedback. In this work, the authors have studied optimal classical estimation
for linear quantum systems using a complex Kalman filter.
Ref. [27] considered a quantum observer, that is a purely quantum system, which produces a
quantum estimate of a variable for the quantum plant. By contrast, we here consider classical
estimation for linear quantum systems, where the estimator is a classical system that yields a
classical estimate of a variable for the quantum plant. A robust quantum observer for uncertain
quantum systems was constructed in Ref. [4]. On the other hand, here we build a robust complex
classical estimator for uncertain linear quantum systems. A robust classical H∞ estimator for
uncertain linear systems was presented in Ref. [28]. Here, we develop a more general and complex

∗ Correspondence

to: E-mail: roy shibdas@yahoo.co.in

Contract/grant sponsor: Australian Research Council
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls [Version: 2010/03/27 v2.00]

2

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN

H∞ filter for robust classical estimation of uncertain linear quantum systems. The solution to the
H∞ estimation problem is obtained by means of two algebraic Riccati equations, upon converting
the estimation problem to a scaled H∞ control problem.
The paper is structured as follows. We introduce the class of linear quantum systems considered
in this paper in Section 2. The complex Kalman filter is discussed in Section 3 for optimal classical
estimation of linear quantum systems. Section 4 then considers the robust H∞ estimation problem
for uncertain linear quantum systems and presents our main result. Illustrative examples of our
robust estimator for two different scenarios are provided in Sections 5 and 6. Finally, Section 7
concludes the paper with relevant remarks and possible future work.

2. LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS
The class of linear quantum systems we consider here are described by the quantum stochastic
differential equations (QSDEs) [25]:






dA(t)
a(t)
da(t)
,
dt + B
=A
dA(t)#
a(t)#
da(t)#






(1)
dA(t)
a(t)
dY(t)
,
dt + D
=C
dA(t)#
a(t)#
dY(t)#
where
A = ∆(A1 , A2 ),

B = ∆(B1 , B2 ),

C = ∆(C1 , C2 ),

D = ∆(D1 , D2 ).

(2)

Here, a(t) = [a1 (t) . . . an (t)]T is a vector of annihilation operators. The adjoint of the operator
ai is called a creation operator, denoted by a∗i . The vector A(t) = [A1 (t) . . . Am (t)]T represents
a collection of external independent quantum field operators and the vector Y represents the
corresponding

 vector of output field operators. Also, the notation ∆(A1 , A2 ) denotes the matrix
A1 A2
. Here, A1 , A2 ∈ Cn×n , B1 , B2 ∈ Cn×m , C1 , C2 ∈ Cm×n , and D1 , D2 ∈ Cm×m .
A#
A#
2
1
Moreover, # denotes the adjoint of a vector of operators or the complex conjugate of a complex
matrix. Furthermore, † denotes the adjoint transpose of a vector of operators or the complex
conjugate transpose of a complex matrix.
Definition 2.1. [25] A complex linear quantum system of the form (1), (2) is said to be physically
realizable if there exists a complex commutation matrix Θ = Θ† , a complex Hamiltonian matrix
M = M † , and a coupling matrix N such that
Θ = T JT † ,

where J =



I
0

0
−I

(3)


, T = ∆(T1 , T2 ) is non-singular, M and N are of the form
M = ∆(M1 , M2 ),

N = ∆(N1 , N2 ),

(4)

and
1
A = −ιΘM − ΘN † JN,
2
B = −ΘN † J,

(5)

C = N,
D = I.
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

ROBUST H∞ ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAIN LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS

3

√
Here, ι = −1 is the imaginary unit, and the commutation matrix Θ satisfies the following
commutation relation:
"
† #
 
a
a
,
a#
a#
†

T !T

# 

(6)
a
a
a
a
=
−
#
#
#
#
a
a
a
a
= Θ.

One can verify that Θ is a 2n × 2n matrix, the elements of which are as follows, given
i, j = 1 . . . n:
Θij = [ai , a∗j ],
Θ(n+i)(n+j) = [a∗i , aj ],
Θi(n+j) = [ai , aj ],
Θ(n+i)j = [a∗i , a∗j ],
Θii = 1,
Θ(n+i)(n+i) = −1,

Θi(n+i) = Θ(n+i)i = 0.

The annihilation and creation operators can be used to construct the number operator N = a† a,
the eigenstates of which form the orthonormal number (or Fock) states [21]:
N |qi = a† a|qi = q|qi,

q = 0, 1, 2, . . .

In particular, the state |0i is called the vacuum state [21]:
a|0i = 0.

The annihilation and creation operators have the properties of lowering and raising the number
of a state respectively [21]:
√
a|qi = q|q − 1i,
p
a† |qi = q + 1|q + 1i.

Theorem 2.1
[25] The linear quantum system (1), (2) is physically realizable if and only if there exists a complex
matrix Θ = Θ† such that Θ is of the form in (3), and
AΘ + ΘA† + BJB † = 0,
B = −ΘC † J,

(7)

D = I.

If the system (1) is physically realizable, then the matrices M and N define a complex open
harmonic oscillator with a Hamiltonian operator



1 †
a
T
H=
,
a a
M
a#
2
and a coupling operator

L=
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls



N1

N2





a
a#



.
Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

4

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of classical estimation for a quantum plant.

3. KALMAN FILTER
The schematic diagram of a classical estimation scheme is provided in Fig. 1. We consider a
quantum plant, which is a quantum system of the form (1), (2), defined as follows:




da(t)
da(t)#
dY(t)
dY(t)#





=A
=C

z=L







a(t)
a(t)#
a(t)
a(t)#
a(t)
a(t)#







dt + B
dt + D





dA(t)
dA(t)#
dA(t)
dA(t)#





,
,

(8)

.

Here, z denotes a scalar operator on the underlying Hilbert space and represents the quantity to
be estimated. Also, Y(t) represents the vector of output fields of the plant, and A(t) represents a
vector of quantum disturbances acting on the plant.
A quadrature of each component of the vector Y(t) is measured using homodyne detection to
produce a corresponding classical signal yi :
e−ιθ1
eιθ1
dy1 = √ dY1 + √ dY1∗ ,
2
2
..
.
−ιθm

(9)

ιθm

e
e
∗
dym = √ dYm + √ dYm
.
2
2

Here, the angles θ1 , . . . , θm determine the quadrature measured by each homodyne detector. The
vector of classical signals y = [y1 . . . ym ]T is then used as the input to a classical estimator defined
as follows:
dxe = Ae xe dt + Ke dy,
ẑ = Le xe .

(10)

For the sake of comparison, we will first consider the optimal estimation problem for quantum
linear systems; see also [4, 29]. The optimal classical estimator is given by the standard (complex)
Kalman filter defined for the system (8), (9). This optimal classical estimator is obtained from the
solution to the algebraic Riccati equation:
AP + P A† + BB † − (B + P C † )S † S(B + P C † )† = 0,
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

(11)

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

ROBUST H∞ ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAIN LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS

5

where
S=







S1 = 







S2 = 



S1

S2

1
e−ιθ
√
2

0



,
0

...

0

2
e−ιθ
√
2

...
..
.

0



m
e−ιθ
√
2

eιθ1
√
2

0

0
ιθ2
e√
2

...

0

...
..
.

0
ιθm
e√
2





,



(12)



.



Here we have assumed that the quantum disturbance A is purely canonical, i.e. dAdA† = Idt
and hence D = I .
Then, the corresponding optimal classical estimator (10) is defined by the equations:
Ae = A − Ke SC,

Ke = (B + P C † )S † ,
Le = L.

(13)

4. ROBUST H∞ FILTER
Corresponding to the system described by (8), (9), we define our uncertain system modelled as
follows:
(Σ1 ) : ẋ(t) = [A + ∆A(t)]x(t) + [B + ∆B(t)]w(t),
z(t) = Lx(t),

(14)

′

y (t) = S[C + ∆C(t)]x(t) + SDw(t),





a(t)
is the state, w(t) is the disturbance input, z(t) is a linear combination
a(t)#
of the state variables to be estimated, y ′ (t) is the measured output, L ∈ Cp×2n , SC ∈ Cm×2n ,
SD ∈ Cm×2m , and ∆A(·), ∆B(·) and ∆C(·) denote the time-varying parameter uncertainties.
These uncertainties are in the following structure
 


H1
∆A(t)
=
F1 (t)E,
∆C(t)
H3
(15)

where x(t) :=

∆B(t) = H2 F2 (t)G,

where H1 , H2 , H3 , E and G are known complex constant matrices with appropriate dimensions,
and the unknown matrix functions F1 (·) and F2 (·) satisfy the following:
F1† (t)F1 (t) ≤ I,

∀t,

≤ I,

∀t.

F2† (t)F2 (t)

(16)

Note that for the system (14) to be physically realizable, the following constraints are required to
be satisfied by the uncertainties:
∆AΘ + Θ∆A† + BJ∆B † + ∆BJB † + ∆BJ∆B † = 0,
∆B = −Θ∆C † J.
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

(17)

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

6

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN

The robust H∞ estimation problem for the uncertain system (14) can be converted into a scaled
H∞ control problem, as described in Ref. [28], by introducing the following parameterized linear
time-invariant system corresponding to system (14):


γ
γ
(Σ2 ) : ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + B ǫ1 H1 ǫ2 H2 w̃(t),






ǫ1 E
0
0 0
0
z̃(t) =  0  x(t) +  ǫ2 G 0 0  w̃(t) +  0  u(t),
L
0
0 0
−I


γ
y ′ (t) = SCx(t) + SD ǫ1 SH3 0 w̃(t).

(18)

Here, u(t) is the control input, z̃(t) is the controlled output, ǫ1 , ǫ2 > 0 are suitably chosen scaling
parameters and γ > 0 is the desired level of disturbance attenuation for the robust H∞ estimation
problem. We also have the augmented disturbance


w̃(t) := 

w(t)
ǫ1
γ η(t)
ǫ2
γ ξ(t)



,

where
η(t) := F1 (t)Ex(t),

and
ξ(t) := F2 (t)Gw(t).

The following assumptions are made for the system (18):
Assumptions
A1. The system matrix A is stable.
A2. ǫ22 G† G < I . 
A3. SD SH3 is of full
 row rank.
A − ιωI B
A4. rank
= 2n + 2m,
C
D

∀ω ≥ 0.

Remark 1. The assumption A1 is required so that the H∞ norm for the combined plant-estimator
system is finite. The remaining assumptions are technical assumptions arising in H∞ control theory
which are required in order to obtain a solution using Riccati equations.
A complete solution to the robust H∞ estimation problem is then provided below.
Theorem 4.1
Consider the robust H∞ estimation problem for the uncertain system (14) converted to a scaled H∞
control problem for the system (18), satisfying the assumptions A1 to A4. Given a prescribed level
of disturbance attenuation γ > 0, the robust H∞ estimation problem for the uncertain system (14)
is solvable if for some ǫ1 , ǫ2 > 0, the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There exists a stabilising solution X = X † ≥ 0 to the algebraic Riccati equation:
†

†

†

−1

†

A X + XA + X(γ −2 B 1 B 1 )X + C 1 (I − D12 E 1 D12 )C 1 = 0.

(19)

(b) There exists a stabilising solution Y = Y † ≥ 0 to the algebraic Riccati equation:
†

†

†

AY + Y A + Y C 1 C 1 Y + γ −2 B 1 B 1
†

†

†

−1

†

†

− (γ −1 B 1 D21 + γY C 2 )S E 2 S(γ −1 B 1 D21 + γY C 2 )† = 0.

(20)

(c) I − γ −2 XY > 0.
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

ROBUST H∞ ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAIN LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS

7

Here, we have
A = A,

B 1 = B(I − ǫ22 G† G)−1/2


ǫ1 E
C1 =  0  ,
L


0
D12 =  0  ,
−I

γ
ǫ 1 H1

γ
ǫ 2 H2



,

(21)

C 2 = C,

D21 = D(I − ǫ22 G† G)−1/2

γ
ǫ 1 H3

0

S = S,



,

and
†

E 1 = D12 D12 = I,
†

†

E 2 = SD21 D21 S = SD(I − ǫ22 G† G)−1 D† S † +

γ2
SH3 H3† S † .
ǫ21

When conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied, a suitable estimator is given by:
˙
x̂(t)
= AK x̂(t) + BK y ′ (t),

(23)

ẑ(t) = CK x̂(t),

where

(22)

†

AK = A − BK SC 2 + γ −2 (B 1 − BK SD21 )B 1 X,
†

†

†

†

−1

BK = γ 2 (I − Y X)−1 (Y C 2 S + γ −2 B 1 D21 S )E 2 ,
CK =

(24)

−1 †
−E 1 D12 C 1 .

Proof
The system (18) is of the following form:
(Σ2 ) : ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + B1 w̃(t) + B2 u(t),
z̃(t) = C1 x(t) + D11 w̃(t) + D12 u(t),
y ′ (t) = SC2 x(t) + SD21 w̃(t) + SD22 u(t),

(25)

where
B1 =



B

γ
ǫ 1 H1

γ
ǫ 2 H2

B2 = 0,



ǫ1 E
C1 =  0  ,
L


0
0 0
D11 =  ǫ2 G 0 0  ,
0
0 0


0
D12 =  0  ,
−I
C2 = C,

D21 = D

D22 = 0.
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

γ
ǫ 1 H3

0





,

(26)

,

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

8

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN

We will use the results from Ref. [30] to solve the above H∞ control problem. However, Ref. [30]
requires the matrix D11 to be zero. The system (18) with non-zero D11 can be converted to an
equivalent system having D11 = 0 using the loop-shifting technique, as outlined in Ref. [31].
We define


D1111
D1112
D̃11 :=
,
(27)
D1121 D1122 + D∞
†
−1 †
where we let D∞ =
 . Here, for our system (18),
 D1112
 −D1122 − D1121 (I − D1111 D1111 ) D1111


0
0
0
, and D1122 = 0. Note that
, D1121 = 0 0 , D1112 =
we take D1111 =
0
ǫ2 G 0
D̃11 < 1 follows from Assumption A2. Then, we get D∞ = 0. Thus, we have D̃11 = D11 .
Hence, the H∞ control problem in (25) takes the following form:

(Σ3 ) : ẋ(t) = Ãx(t) + B̃1 w̃(t) + B̃2 u(t),
z̃(t) = C̃1 x(t) + D̃11 w̃(t) + D̃12 u(t),

(28)

′

y (t) = S̃ C̃2 x(t) + S̃ D̃21 w̃(t) + S̃ D̃22 u(t),

where
Ã = A + B2 D∞ C2 = A,
B̃1 = B1 + B2 D∞ D21 = B1 ,
B̃2 = B2 = 0,
C̃1 = C1 + D12 D∞ C2 = C1 ,
D̃12 = D12 ,

(29)

C̃2 = C2 ,
D̃21 = D21 ,
D̃22 = D22 = 0,
S̃ = S.

The H∞ control problem equivalent to the above system (28) is [31]:
(Σ4 ) : ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + B 1 w̃(t) + B 2 u(t),
z̃(t) = C 1 x(t) + D11 w̃(t) + D12 u(t),

(30)

′

y (t) = SC 2 x(t) + SD21 w̃(t) + SD22 u(t),

Here,
†
A = Ã + B̃1 R1−1 D̃11
C̃1 ,
−1/2

B 1 = B̃1 R1

,

†
B 2 = B̃2 + B̃1 R1−1 D̃11
D̃12 ,
−1/2

C 1 = R̃1

C̃1 ,

D11 = 0,
−1/2

D12 = R̃1

(31)
D̃12 ,

†
C 2 = C̃2 + D̃21 R1−1 D̃11
C̃1 ,
−1/2

D21 = D̃21 R1
D22 =

,

†
D̃12 ,
D̃21 R1−1 D̃11

S = S,
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

9

ROBUST H∞ ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAIN LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS

where
†
D̃11
R1 = I − D̃11

†
R̃1 = I − D̃11 D̃11




0
0 ,
I

0
0 .
I

I − ǫ22 G† G 0
0
I
=
0
0

I
0
=  0 I − ǫ22 GG†
0
0

(32)

One can verify that (31) yields (21), B 2 = 0 and D22 = 0. Note that from assumptions A1 to A4
and (22), it follows that we have:
• E 1 > 0.
• E 2 >0.
A − ιωI
• rank
C1

A − ιωI
• rank
C2


B2
= 2n + p for all ω ≥ 0.
D12

B1
= 2n + m for all ω ≥ 0.
D21

Hence, the H∞ control problem for the system (30) can be solved using the results in Ref. [30].
However, Ref. [30] assumed γ = 1. The results from that paper may be generalised for different
values of γ > 0, simply by scaling the coefficients of the disturbance w̃(t) in (30), viz. B 1 and D21
(note D11 = 0), by γ −1 . Note that this also has an effect on E 2 , which is scaled by γ −2 . This yields
conditions (a)-(c) of the theorem, which are required to be satisfied by the system (30), such that a
suitable estimator is given by (23).
The transfer function of the robust estimator (23) can be obtained to be:
GK (s) :=

ẑ(s)
= CK (sI − AK )−1 BK .
y ′ (s)

(33)

The estimation error is given as:
e(t) := ẑ(t) − z(t) = CK x̂(t) − Lx(t).

(34)

Then, the disturbance-to-error transfer function may be obtained as:




e(s)
A + ∆A
G̃we (s) :=
= −L CK
sI −
BK S(C + ∆C)
w(s)

0
AK

−1 

B + ∆B
BK SD



.

(35)

We are interested in the disturbance A to error e transfer function, which is simply the first
component of the matrix transfer function G̃we (s). The other component is the disturbance A# to
error e transfer function, which we shall ignore.
Remark 2. Note that the fact that the plant is a quantum system that will be physically realizable
restricts the class of plants under consideration, when compared to the case when the plant is a
classical system as in Ref. [28], owing to the conditions in (7) (and also (17)) required to be satisfied
by the system matrices of the quantum plant (uncertain plant).

5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE 1
An example of a linear quantum system from quantum optics is a linearized dynamic squeezer.
This corresponds to an optical cavity with a non-linear active medium inside. Let us consider the
quantum plant to be a linearized dynamic squeezer, described by the QSDEs [26]:
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

10

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN





√
dA(t)
a(t)
− β2 −χ
,
dt − κ
=
dA(t)∗
a(t)∗
−χ∗ − β2






√
dY(t)
dA(t)
a(t)
=
,
dt
+
κ
dY(t)∗
dA(t)∗
a(t)∗



 a(t)
0.1
−0.1
,
z(t) =
a(t)∗


da(t)
da(t)∗





(36)

where β > 0 is the overall cavity loss, κ > 0 determines the loss arising from the cavity mirrors,
χ ∈ C quantifies the size of the non-linearity of the active medium, and a is a single annihilation
operator of the cavity mode.
Here, we choose β = 4, κ = 4, and χ = −0.5. Then, the above quantum system is physically
realizable, since we have β = κ. Moreover, we fix the homodyne detection angle at 90◦ . We, thus,
have the following:






−2 0.5
−2 0
2 0
A=
,B=
,C=
,
0.5 −2
0 −2
0 2


(37)
i
h −ι90◦
◦


1 0
eι90
√
.
= I, L = 0.1 −0.1 , S = e √
D=
2
2
0 1
√
We introduce uncertainty in the parameter α := κ as follows: α → α + µδα, where |δ| ≤ 1 is
an uncertain parameter and µ ∈ [0, 1) determines the level of uncertainty. Then, we will have the
following:
#
"
2 2 2
0
−µδα2 − µ δ2 α
,
∆A =
2 2 2
0
−µδα2 − µ δ2 α


−µδα
0
(38)
,
∆B =
0
−µδα


µδα
0
.
∆C =
0
µδα
Then, we define the relevant matrices in (15) as follows:


δ 0 0 0
 0 δ 0 0 
F1 (t) = 
,
0 0 δ2 0 
2
0 0 0 δ


δ 0
,
F2 (t) =
0 δ
 1

−2
0
 0 −1 
2 ,
E=
 −1
0 
2
0 − 12


1 0
,
G=
0 1


2µα2
0
µ2 α2
0
,
H1 =
0
2µα2
0
µ2 α2


−µα
0
,
H2 =
0
−µα


−2µα
0
0 0
H3 =
.
0
−2µα 0 0
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

(39)

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

11

ROBUST H∞ ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAIN LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS

One can then verify that we have ∆A = H1 F1 (t)E , ∆B = H2 F2 (t)G and ∆C = H3 F1 (t)E , as
required in (15). We set the uncertainty level to µ = 0.1. Moreover, in our simulations, we choose a
fixed value of δ = 1.
We now solve the associated H∞ estimation problem using the Riccati equation approach
described in the previous section. We choose the desired disturbance attenuation level to be
γ = 0.65. Then, the scaling parameters are suitably chosen to be ǫ1 = 0.2 and ǫ2 = 0.6. A robust
H∞ estimator is obtained as in (23) with the following parameters:
AK
BK
CK



0.1905 −1.4676
=
−1.4676 0.1905


−1.4717ι
,
=
1.4717ι


= 0.1 −0.1 .



,

(40)

The transfer function (33) of the estimator is obtained to be:
GK (s) =

−0.2943ιs − 0.3759ι
.
s2 − 0.381s − 2.118

(41)

Fig. 2 shows the disturbance to error transfer function (35) of the above robust filter. It also shows
those of the optimal H∞ filter and the Kalman filter for the uncertain system (14) with δ = 1 in our
example for comparison, which corresponds to the uncertain parameter taking on its maximum
value. The optimal Kalman and H∞ filters are built for the nominal system of (14).
Clearly, the robust H∞ filter provides for preferable disturbance attenuation and performance
than the standard optimal H∞ filter or the Kalman filter for this value of the uncertain parameter δ .

6. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE 2
In this section, we consider another numerical example involving the dynamic squeezer plant (36),
(37). Here, we do not consider uncertainty in β or κ. Instead, we introduce uncertainty in the
squeezing parameter χ as follows: χ → χ + µδχ, where again |δ| ≤ 1 is an uncertain parameter
Bode Diagram
0

Kalman Filter
H∞ Filter
Robust H∞ Filter

−10
−20
Magnitude (dB)

−30
−40
−50
−60
−70
−80
−90
−100 −1
10

0

1

10

10

2

10

Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 2. Example 1: Disturbance to estimation error transfer functions for various estimators.
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

12

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN

and 0 ≤ µ < 1 is the extent of uncertainty. Then, we will have the following:
∆A =
∆B =
∆C =







0
−µδχ

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

−µδχ
0







,

,

(42)

.

Note that the results from Ref. [28] are enough to construct the robust estimator for this scenario.
When ∆B = 0 as in this case, ǫ2 has no impact on the estimator.
Here, the relevant matrices may be defined as follows:
F1 (t) =



δ 0
0 δ

F2 (t) = 0,

χ
E=
0

0
χ



,



,

G = 0,


0 −µ
,
H1 =
−µ 0

(43)

H2 = 0,


0 0
.
H3 =
0 0

We fix the uncertainty level at µ = 0.1. We then solve the associated H∞ estimation problem
using our Riccati equation approach. We again choose the desired disturbance attenuation level to
be γ = 0.65. The scaling parameters are chosen to be ǫ1 = 0.7 and ǫ2 = 1. A robust H∞ estimator
is obtained as in (23) with the following parameters:
AK
BK
CK



0.3231 −1.3660
=
−1.3660 0.3231


−1.4852ι
,
=
1.4852ι


= 0.1 −0.1 .



,

(44)

The transfer function (33) of the estimator is obtained to be:
GK (s) =

−0.297ιs − 0.3098ι
.
s2 − 0.6461s − 1.762

(45)

The disturbance to error transfer function (35) of the robust filter in this example is shown in
Fig. 3. We also plot those of the optimal H∞ filter and the Kalman filter for the uncertain system
(14) with δ = 1 here for comparison. The optimal H∞ and Kalman filters are constructed for the
nominal system of (14).
Clearly, the robust H∞ filter again provides for preferable disturbance attenuation and
performance compared with the standard optimal H∞ filter or the Kalman filter for this value of
the uncertain parameter δ .
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

13

ROBUST H∞ ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAIN LINEAR QUANTUM SYSTEMS

Bode Diagram
0

Kalman Filter
H∞ Filter
Robust H∞ Filter

−10
−20
Magnitude (dB)

−30
−40
−50
−60
−70
−80
−90
−100 −2
10

−1

10

0

10
Frequency (rad/s)

1

10

2

10

Figure 3. Example 2: Disturbance to estimation error transfer functions of various estimators.

7. CONCLUSION
This paper considered the problem of robust H∞ estimation for uncertain linear quantum systems.
The estimator is a classical filter, that produces a classical estimate of a variable of the quantum
plant. The H∞ estimation problem is solved by converting it to a scaled H∞ control problem. The
solution is obtained in the form of two algebraic complex Riccati equations. We have illustrated
the results obtained by means of some numerical examples involving dynamic optical squeezers.
As part of future work, the robust H∞ estimator constructed here could be applied in studying
robust coherent-classical estimation. For example, it might be interesting to explore if and when a
robust H∞ coherent-classical estimator (with and/or without coherent feedback) can provide better
estimation precision than the robust H∞ purely-classical estimator considered in this paper. Such a
comparison of optimal estimators was presented in Ref. [32].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The first author would like to thank Dr. Obaid Ur Rehman for useful discussion related to this work.

REFERENCES
1. Wiseman HM, Milburn GJ. Quantum Measurement and Control. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
2. Yanagisawa M, Kimura H. Transfer function approach to quantum control-part I: Dynamics of quantum feedback
systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 2003; 48(12):2107–2120.
3. Yanagisawa M, Kimura H. Transfer function approach to quantum control-part II: Control concepts and
applications. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 2003; 48(12):2121–2132.
4. Yamamoto N. Robust observer for uncertain linear quantum systems. Physical Review A 2006; 74:032 107.
5. James MR, Nurdin HI, Petersen IR. H ∞ control of linear quantum stochastic systems. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 2008; 53(8):1787–1803.
6. Nurdin HI, James MR, Petersen IR. Coherent quantum LQG control. Automatica 2009; 45(8):1837–1846.
7. Gough J, Gohm R, Yanagisawa M. Linear quantum feedback networks. Physical Review A 2008; 78:062 104.
8. Maalouf AI, Petersen IR. Bounded real properties for a class of linear complex quantum systems. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control 2011; 56(4):786–801.
9. Maalouf AI, Petersen IR. Coherent H ∞ control for a class of linear complex quantum systems. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control 2011; 56(2):309–319.
10. Yamamoto N, Nurdin HI, James MR, Petersen IR. Avoiding entanglement sudden-death via feedback control in a
quantum network. Physical Review A 2008; 78(4):042 339.
11. Gough J, James MR. The series product and its application to quantum feedforward and feedback networks. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 2009; 54(11):2530–2544.
Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

14

S. ROY AND I. R. PETERSEN

12. Gough JE, James MR, Nurdin HI. Squeezing components in linear quantum feedback networks. Physical Review A
2010; 81:023 804.
13. Petersen IR. Quantum linear systems theory. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Mathematical
Theory of Networks and Systems, Budapest, Hungary, 2010; 2173–2184.
14. Walls DF, Milburn GJ. Quantum Optics. Springer-Verlag: Berlin; New York, 1994.
15. Gardiner C, Zoller P. Quantum Noise. Springer: Berlin, 2000.
16. Wiseman HM, Doherty AC. Optimal unravellings for feedback control in linear quantum systems. Physical Review
Letters 2005; 94:070 405.
17. Nurdin HI, James MR, Doherty AC. Network synthesis of linear dynamical quantum stochastic systems. SIAM
Journal on Control and Optimization 2009; 48(4):2686–2718.
18. Mabuchi H. Coherent-feedback quantum control with a dynamic compensator. Physical Review A 2008; 78:032 323.
19. Sarma G, Silberfarb A, Mabuchi H. Quantum stochastic calculus approach to modeling double-pass atom-field
coupling. Physical Review A 2008; 78:025 801.
20. Petersen IR. Notes on coherent feedback control for linear quantum systems. Proceedings of the Australian Control
Conference, Perth, Australia, 2013; 319–324.
21. Bachor H, Ralph T. A Guide to Experiments in Quantum Optics. 2 edn., Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2004.
22. Wiseman HM, Milburn GJ. All-optical versus electro-optical quantum-limited feedback. Physical Review A 1994;
49(5):4110–4125.
23. Lloyd S. Coherent quantum feedback. Physical Review A 2000; 62:022 108.
24. Gough JE, Wildfeuer S. Enhancement of field squeezing using coherent feedback. Physical Review A 2009;
80:042 107.
25. Petersen IR. Coherent-classical estimation for quantum linear systems. Proceedings of the Australian Control
Conference, Perth, Australia, 2013; 371–376.
26. Roy S, Petersen IR, Huntington EH. Coherent-classical estimation versus purely-classical estimation for linear
quantum systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Decision and Control, Los Angeles CA, USA, 2014; 5782–
5787.
27. Miao Z, James MR. Quantum observer for linear quantum stochastic systems. Proceedings of the 51st IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, Hawaii, 2012; 1680–1684.
28. Fu M, DeSouza CE, Xie L. H∞ estimation for uncertain systems. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
Control 1992; 2:87–105.
29. Bouten L, Handel RV, James MR. An introduction to quantum filtering. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization
2007; 46(6):2199–2241.
30. Petersen IR, Anderson BDO, Jonckheere EA. A first principles solution to the non-singular H ∞ control problem.
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 1991; 1:171–185.
31. Zhou K, Doyle JC, Glover K. Robust and Optimal Control. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, USA, 1996.
32. Roy S, Petersen IR, Huntington EH. Coherent-classical estimation for linear quantum systems. ArXiv:1502.03729.

Copyright c 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using rncauth.cls

Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/rnc

