Hybrid Filtering for a Class of Quantum Systems
with Classical Disturbances ⋆
Qi Yu ∗ Daoyi Dong ∗ Ian R. Petersen ∗ Qing Gao ∗,∗∗
∗

arXiv:1703.08976v1 [quant-ph] 27 Mar 2017

School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South
Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia (e-mail: qi.yu@student.adfa.edu.au;
i.r.petersen@gmail.com; daoyidong@gmail.com)
∗∗
Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China (e-mail: qing.gao.chance@gmail.com)

Abstract: A filtering problem for a class of quantum systems disturbed by a classical stochastic process
is investigated in this paper. The classical disturbance process, which is assumed to be described
by a linear stochastic differential equation, is modeled by a quantum cavity model. Then the hybrid
quantum-classical system is described by a combined quantum system consisting of two quantum cavity
subsystems. Quantum filtering theory and a quantum extended Kalman filter method are employed to
estimate the states of the combined quantum system. An estimate of the classical stochastic process is
derived from the estimate of the combined quantum system. The effectiveness and performance of the
proposed methods are illustrated by numerical results.
Keywords: quantum filtering, hybrid quantum-classical system, quantum extended Kalman filter.
1. INTRODUCTION
Characterizing unknown quantum states have been a fundamental task in quantum computation, quantum metrology and
quantum control. To estimate an unknown static quantum state,
state tomography methods such as maximum likelihood estimation (Paris and Řeháček (2004)), Bayesian mean estimation
(Paris and Řeháček (2004)) and linear regression estimation
(Hou et al. (2016); Qi et al. (2013)) have been developed.
For estimating a dynamic quantum state, a quantum filtering
theory has been developed (Bouten et al. (2007, 2009)). Quantum filtering theory was introduced by Belavkin in the 1980’s
as documented in a series of articles (Belavkin (1991)). The
basic premise is to build a non-commutative counterpart for
classical probability theory so that approaches to deriving the
classical filtering equation can be adapted to quantum dynamical systems. The main difference between this theory and
classical filtering theory is that non-commutative observables
in quantum systems cannot be jointly represented on a single
classical probability space. Quantum filtering theory enables
us to optimally estimate the quantum system state using nondemolition measurements. It plays a crucial role in many areas
such as quantum control (van Handel et al. (2005), Armen
et al. (2002)). Recently, quantum filtering theory has been
successfully applied in experimental designs such as trapped
ions (Hume et al., 2007), cavity QED systems (Sayrin et al.,
2011), and optomechanical systems (Wieczorek et al., 2015).
In practice, physical quantum systems are unavoidably affected
by classical signals (Ralph et al., 2011; Wang and Dong, 2016),
and a number of researchers are becoming interested in the
filtering problem for ‘hybrid’ quantum-classical systems where
the quantum systems are subject to a classical process. Relevant
results can be found in e.g., Tsang’s work on quantum smooth⋆ This work was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery
Projects funding scheme under Project DP130101658 and Laureate Fellowship
FL110100020.

ing (Tsang (2009a,b)) where a concept of hybrid quantumclassical density operator was used as the main technical tool.
Recently, Gao et al. (2016a,b) developed a quantum-classical
Bayesian inference approach to solve fault tolerant quantum
filtering and fault detection problems for a class of quantum
optical systems subject to stochastic faults.
In this paper, we extend the previous work (Gao et al., 2016a)
to the case that the disturbance process has a continuous value
space and our main goal is to estimate both the quantum state
and the classical process using non-demolition quantum measurements. We consider a system-probe model with a timevarying Hamiltonian that depends on a classical stochastic process. This hybrid quantum-classical stochastic system is analyzed by building a quantum analog of the classical stochastic
process; see also (Wang et al., 2013). The idea of using an
aritificial quantum system to model noise has been considered
before (Xue et al., 2016, 2015a,b). However, the author only
consider the disturbance to be quantum noise. Then, in our
case, quantum filtering theory can be utilized to investigate the
filtering problem. The estimation tasks are accomplished by
using a quantum extended Kalman filter (QEKF) approach.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we briefly
introduce quantum probability theory and quantum filtering
theory. Section 3 is devoted to the modeling of the classical signal using a quantum cavity model. A stochastic master equation
(SME) is then obtained to solve the filtering problem. A QEKF
approach is also employed to estimate both the quantum state
and the classical process in Section 4. In Section 5, we present
a numerical example to demonstrate the performance and also
compare the QEKF algorithm with the SME method. Section 6
concludes this paper.
Notation: Am×n denotes an m row and n column matrix; A†
denotes conjugate and transpose of A; A⊤ is the transpose of

A; A∗ is the conjugate of A; Tr(A) is the trace of A; X is used to
denote any operators and x is a vector of those operators; ρ is a
density operator representing a quantum state;
√ â is the estimate
of a; i means the imaginary unit, i.e., i = −1.
2. PRELIMINARIES
2.1 Quantum probability theory
We briefly present a preliminary discussion on quantum probability theory. For a detailed treatment, one can refer to the
paper (Bouten et al., 2007). Denote the Hilbert space under
consideration as H . The system observables, which represent
the physical properties of the system, are represented by selfadjoint operators on H . The quantum state, which provides the
status of a physical system, is specified by a density operator
ρ ∈ S(H ), where S is the class of unity trace operators on the
associated Hilbert space (Emzir et al., 2016). In this paper, the
evolution of the quantum system is mostly described under the
Heisenberg picture. That means, any system observable evolves
with time as A(t) = U(t)† AU(t) while the density operator ρ remains unchanged. Then any simple measurement of A(t) yields
values within the spectrum of A(t) with a certain probability
distribution and the expectation of the measurement is given by
hA(t)i = Tr[ρ A(t)] (Bouten et al., 2007). The key point of the
quantum probability formalism is that any single realization of
a quantum measurement corresponds to a particular choice of
a commutative ∗-algebra of observables and any commutative
∗-algebra is equivalent to a classical (Kolmogorov) probability
space (Bouten et al., 2007).
For the finite-dimensional case, the set spec(A) = {a j } of
eigenvalues of A is called the spectrum of A, and A can be
written as
A = ∑ aPa ,
(1)
a∈spec(A)

where Pa is the projection operator of A. The following theorem
has been presented in (Bouten et al., 2007).
Theorem 1. (Bouten et al., 2007) (spectral theorem, finitedimensional case). Let A be a commutative *-algebra of operators on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, and let P be a
state on A . Then there is a probability space (Ω, F , P) and a
map ι from A onto the set of measurable functions on Ω that is
a ∗-isomorphism; i.e., a linear bijection with ι (AB) = ι (A)ι (B)
(pointwise) and ι (A∗ ) = ι (A)∗ , and moreover P(A) = EP (ι (A)).
For the infinite-dimensional case, a system operator can be
expressed in terms of its spectral measure by
A=

Z

R

λ PA (d λ ).

(2)

The corresponding spectral theorem for infinite-dimensional
case is stated as follows (Bouten et al., 2007):
Theorem 2. (Bouten et al., 2007) (Spectral Theorem). Let C be
a commutative von Neumann algebra. Then there is a measure
space (Ω, F , µ ) and a ∗-isomorphism ι from C to L∞ (Ω, F , µ ),
the algebra of bounded measurable complex functions on Ω up
to µ - a.s. equivalence. Moreover, a normal state P on C defines
a probability measure P, which is absolutely continuous with
respect to µ such that P(C) = EP (ι (C)) for all C ∈ C .
The spectral theorem above allows us to treat any set of commutative observables as a set of classical random variables
defined on a single classical probability space. In other words,

any quantum probabilistic concept can be directly extended to
its classical counterpart. Therefore, classical statistical analysis
methods can be applied directly in analyzing quantum systems.
The following concept of quantum conditional expectation is
defined in a similar way to classical conditional expectation and
is very useful in quantum filtering theory (Bouten et al., 2007).
Definition 1. (Bouten et al., 2007) (conditional expectation).
Let (N , P) be a quantum probability space and let A ⊂ N
be a commutative von Neumann subalgebra. Then the map
P(.|A ) : A ′ → A is called (a version of) the conditional
expectation from A ′ on to A if P(P(B|A )A) = P(BA) for all
A ∈ A ,B ∈ A ′ .
The A ′ here is used to denote the commutant of A . P(B|A )
is the projection of B onto the algebra A and represents the
maximum information of B that can be extracted from the
observation A .
2.2 Quantum filtering theory
We use quantum stochastic differential equations (QSDEs) to
describe the dynamics of an open quantum system with driving
noises. Three fundamental noise processes are described using
the annihilation process At , the creation process At∗ and the
Poisson (conservation) process Λt . The quantum It ô integral is
defined for the calculation of a quantum stochastic integral.
With a corresponding conditional quantum expectation, we can
estimate an arbitrary quantum observable A(t), which commutes with the observation process Y (t). That means A(t) ∈ Yt ′
(Bouten et al., 2007; Dong and Petersen, 2010; James, 2015).
A typical quantum scenario in quantum optics demonstrating
quantum filtering theory is a collection of atoms interacting
with an electromagnetic field that is assumed to be in a vacuum state. The quantum dynamics of the atomic system is described by the following quantum stochastic differential equation (Bouten et al., 2007; James, 2015):
1
dUt = {LdAt∗ − L∗ dAt − L∗ Ldt − iHdt}, U0 = I,
(3)
2
which is driven by the noncommuting white-noise process At
and At∗ . The evolution of a system observable X is : X →
U ∗ (t)(X ⊗ I)U(t). Also X(t), which is denoted by jt (X), satisfies:
d jt (X) = jt (LL,H (X))dt + jt ([L∗ , X])dAt + jt ([X, L])dAt∗ , (4)
where L is the quantum Lindblad generator (Bouten et al.,
2007) such that
1
LL,H (X) = i[H, X] + L∗XL − (L∗ LX + XL∗ L).
(5)
2
There are two main types of measurement in quantum optics:
homodyne detection and photon counting measurement. In our
case, we adopt the homodyne detection scheme. The dynamic
equation of the observation is
dYt = jt (L + L∗ )dt + dAt + dAt∗.
(6)
Quantum filtering theory aims to provide an optimal estimate
of any system observable using the observation process. From
Section 2.1, this can be achieved if one can calculate the recursive equation satisfied by the conditional expectation πt (X) =
P( jt (X)|Yt ). This recursive quantum stochastic equation is then
the quantum filter we obtain. Using the reference probability

method or the characteristic function method, one has (Bouten
et al., 2007)
d πt (X) = πt (LL,H (X))dt+
(πt (L∗ X + XL) − πt (L∗ + L)πt (X))(dYt − πt (L∗ + L)dt),
(7)
or its SME form
1
1
d ρt = − i[H, ρt ]dt + (Lρt L∗ − L∗ Lρt − ρt L∗ L)dt+
(8)
2
2
(Lρt + ρt L∗ − Tr[(L + L∗ )ρt ]ρt )dWt ,
where the stochastic process dWt = dY (t) − Tr[(L + L∗ )ρt ]dt is
a standard Wiener process. Equations (7) and (8) are quantum
filter equations for open systems whose dynamics can be described by (4) and (6).
3. DESCRIPTION OF HYBRID QUANTUM-CLASSICAL
SYSTEM
In this paper, we consider a quantum cavity system disturbed
by a classical diffusion stochastic process; see the schematic
in Fig. 1. The classical disturbance process is assumed to
evolve according to the following first-order linear stochastic
differential equation (SDE)
dq = −uqdt − vdwt ,
(9)
where wt is classical Wiener process with zero mean and unit
variance; u and v are arbitrary real numbers while u is assumed
to be positive. The disturbance signal will influence the cavity
system S1 by changing its Hamiltonian such that
H1 (t) = q(t)a† (t)a(t),
(10)
where a(t) is the annihilation operator of cavity system S1 .

Fig. 2. A quantum cavity system S1 is coupled to another
quantum disturbance system S2 . The combined system Sc
consists of S1 and S2 .
where α is a scalar that depends on the dynamic equations of
q and Q2 . Then we can obtain an estimate of q by using the
relationship that

πt (Q2 ) Tr[Q2 ρ̂2 ]
=
,
(12)
α
α
where πt (Q2 ) = P(Q2 |Yt ) represents the quantum estimate of
Q2 given the measurement Yt .
q̂ =

We assume that the Hamiltonian of system S2 and system S1 are
†
H2 = 0 and H1 = Q2αa a , respectively. The coupling operators are
√
√
L2 = K2 b and L1 = K1 a. K1 , K2 > 0 are parameters which
indicate the coupling strength to each channel.
Open quantum systems with multiple field channels can be
characterized by the parameter list
G = (S, L, H)

(13)
S† S

where S is a scattering matrix which satisfies
= I, L is the
coupling vector that specifies the interface between the system
and the fields and H is the Hamiltonian of the system.
For the combined system Sc , the (S, L, H) model (Gough and
James, 2009) is given as
S = I,
Q2 †
H = H1 + H2 =
a a,
√
 α
Ka
L= √ 1
.
K2 b

Fig. 1. A quantum cavity system S1 which is affected by a
classical disturbance q(t).
In our case, we consider a cavity mode disturbed by an external
signal (Gardiner and Haken, 1991). The dynamics of this hybrid
system is different from that in the standard quantum filter
problem. Later we will show how to transform the problem into
a standard quantum filtering problem so that the filtering equations (7) and (8) apply. Rather than using the hybrid quantumclassical density operator method in (Diósi et al., 2000) and
(Aleksandrov, 1981), we build a quantum analog of the classical
stochastic process and use quantum probability theory to analyze the combined quantum system consisting of two quantum
subsystems. To be specific, we consider a cavity system with
a quantum disturbance as in Fig. 2, where the quantum disturbance system S2 is used to model the classical disturbance signal q. The corresponding analogy quantum signal with respect
†
to q is Q2 = b+b
2 , which is a real quadrature of the system S2 .
That is, we write
Q2
,
(11)
q∼
α

(14)

We have now obtained a quantum system S2 as the analogue
of the classical disturbance system. The classical signal q is
†
now equivalently represented by Qα2 = b+b
2α . We can derive
the stochastic properties of q as we obtain an estimate of Q2 .
Moreover, we have obtained a model for the combined system
Sc consisting of subsystems S1 and S2 .
Note that
b + b† †
a a]
2α
b + b† †
]a a
= [b,
2α
†
a a
= [b, b† ]
2α
a† a
=
,
2α

[b, H] = [b,

and that

(15)

b + b† †
a a]
2α
b + b†
[a, a† a]
=
2α
(16)
b + b†
=
a
2α
Qb a
=
.
α
Then the QSDEs used to describe the disturbance system S2 and
cavity system S1 are listed below:
√
K2
a† a
db = − bdt − i
dt − K2 dw2 ,
2
2α
√
K2
a† a
db† = − b† dt + i
dt − K2 dw†2 ,
2
2α
(17)
√
iQ2 a
K1
da = − adt −
dt − K1 dw1 ,
2
α
√
ia† Q2
K1
da† = − a† dt +
dt − K1 dw†1 .
2
α
The real quadratures corresponding to the position and momentum of the two systems, respectively, are:
a − a†
−i
a + a†
,
P1 =
,
[Q1 , P1 ] =
,
Q1 =
2
2i
2
(18)
b + b†
b − b†
−i
Q2 =
,
P2 =
,
[Q2 , P2 ] =
.
2
2i
2
From
Q2 ∼ α q,
√
K2
K2
(dw2 + dw∗2 ),
dQ2 = − Q2 dt −
2
2
dq = −uqdt − vdwt ,
we have
√
2u
,
K2 = 2u = 4(α v)2 .
α=
(19)
2v
The fact K2 > 0 results in u > 0.
[a, H] = [a,

A vector of operators is defined to describe the combined system Sc :
   
x1
Q1
x2   P1 
x =   =  .
(20)
x3
Q2
x4
P2
The QSDE satisfied by x is
dx = f (x)dt + Gdzx + G∗ dz∗x ,

(21)

where
 †
 
w1
w1
,
z∗x =
;
w2
w†2
 √K


 √K
− √2 1
0
0
− √2 1




K
K
0 
0
− 1 √
−i 2 1
∗
√ 
G =  2i
,
G
=

;

 0 − 2K2 
 0
− √2K2  (22)
√
0 − 2iK2
0
−i 2K2


− K21 x1 + x2αx3


− K21 x2 − x1αx3
.
f (x) = 
K2


− 2 x3
K2
1 2
1 2
1
− 2 x4 − 2 α x1 − 2 α x2 − 4 α
The homodyne detection method is used to continuously monitor the scattered field from the cavity S1 , which generates an
observation process satisfying
zx =

dy = (L1 + L†1 )dt + dwy + dw∗y .
(23)
√
Let C = (2 K1 0 0 0), h(x) = Cx and dzy = dwy + dw∗y .
Equation (23) can be rewritten in the following compact form
dy = h(x)dt + dzy .
(24)
Then the evolution of the system Sc in the Heisenberg picture
can be described by the diffusive QSDEs (21) and (24). Since
the combined system consists of two quantum subsystems,
quantum filtering theory can be directly applied to the combined system and the standard quantum filter is described by
the stochastic master equation (SME)
1
1
d ρt = −i[H, ρt ]dt + (Lρt L∗ − L∗ Lρt − ρt L∗ L)dt+
2
2
(Lρt + ρt L∗ − Tr[(L + L∗ )ρt ]ρt )(dY (t) − Tr[(L + L∗ )ρt ]dt),
(25)
where the corresponding H and L are given in (14).

4. EXTENDED KALMAN FILTER
The fact that the computation time in simulating the filter SME
scales exponentially with the dimension of the Hilbert space
adds difficulty to implementing the filter in realtime. A quantum
extended Kalman filter (QEKF) was introduced in (Emzir et al.,
2016), aiming to reduce the computational complexity of the
quantum filter. For the QEKF, the constraint that elements
of observable operator vector x(t) belong to a commutative
von Neumann algebra is not required and there can be noncommutating operators in the dynamic equation. Otherwise,
if the commutativity of all the observables and operators are
given, then the QEKF reduces to a classical EKF since the
filtering problem can be transformed into a single classical
probability space using the ∗-isomorphism. This is the main
difference between the classical EKF method and the QEKF
method. A commutative operator approximation of the noncommutative nonlinear QSDE is used to estimate the system
observables given nondemolition measurements. Keeping the
first order term of the Taylor series, the Kalman filter gain
is effectively calculated. This method was proposed to solve
the filtering problem for a class of multiple output channel
open quantum systems whose evolution can be described by
the following QSDE (Emzir et al., 2016):
dxt = f (xt )dt + G(xt )dAt∗ + G(xt )∗ dAt ,
(26)
where
f (xt ) = L (xt ) and G(xt ) = [xt , Lt ]St∗ .
(27)
The operators L and S are the parameters from the (S, H, L)
model which can be used to describe a multiple channel open
quantum system (Emzir et al., 2016). The measurement dynamic equation is given by
dyt = h(xt )dt + L(xt )dAt∗ + L(xt )∗ dAt + Nt d αt ,
(28)
with
h(xt ) = Et∗ L + Et L∗ + Nt 1t ;
(29)
L(xt ) = (Et + Nt L)St∗ ,
where L = L = L and 1t = L∗ L in our case. Et and Nt are
real matrices. d αt = diag(St dΛSt⊤ ) where Λ is the conservation
process that represents the photon counting measurement. Et
indicates output channels which are subject to the homodyne
detection measurement. Nt shows photon counting measurement channels. For example, if a quantum system is observed

by a homodyne detector and a photon counting measurement,
we have




0 0
1 0
.
(30)
, N=
E=
0 1
0 0
According to (Emzir et al., 2016), Et and Nt have to satisfy
the condition of Theorem 3.1 in (Emzir et al., 2015). For this
paper, this condition is satisfied since we have E = 1 and N = 0
which means the system is observed using only one homodyne
detector.
1 (I) denote the Banach ∗-algebra of C 1 -functions on the
Let Cop
compact interval I such that the corresponding Hilbert space
operator function T → f (T ), for T = T ∗ and the spectra of T
satisfies sp(T ) ∈ I, is Fréchet differentiable (Pedersen, 2000).
The Fréchet derivative of an operator differentiable function
1 (I) can then be constructed as in the following lemma:
f ∈ Cop
1 (I), for any two elements
(Pedersen, 2000) If f ∈ Cop
∗
a unital commutative C - algebra, then the corre-

Lemma 3.
S, T ∈ U,
sponding Fréchet derivative satisfies

D( f ,T ) S = f ′ (T )S,

(31)

where D( f ,T ) is the Fréchet derivative and f ′ (·) denotes the
normed derivative of f (·).
This lemma can be used to calculate the partial derivative of the
nonlinear quantum Markovian process generator f (x) in case
1 (I).
f (x) ∈ Cop
1
According to (Pedersen, 2000), we have C 2 ⊆ Cop
⊆ C 1 which
2
means if the function f ∈ C , then its operator extension is
operator differentiable. Given (14) and let f (xt ) = LH,L (xt ),
1 (R).
we have f (xt ) ∈ C 2 (R) which results in f (xt ) ∈ Cop

Note that, using the QEKF method, x̂t is no longer the projection of xt onto Yt . That is, x̂t 6= EP [xt |Yt ]. However, if x̂0 ∈ Y0 ,
then we still have x̂t ∈ Yt and the elements of x̂t are commutative with other elements.
According to Lemma 3, one can calculate
 K1 x3

x2
−2 α
0
α
 −x3 − K1 −x1 0 
′
α
2
α
,
F(x) = f (x) = 
 0
0 − K22 0 
−x1 −x2
0 − K22
α
α

√
′
H(x) = h (x) = 2 K1 0 0 0 .

(32)

As in (Emzir et al., 2016), let the variance of the system observables and measurements be denoted as Qt and Rt , respectively.
Also, the cross-correlation matrix of the system observables
and measurements is denoted as St , such that
1
EP [{dxt , dxt }|Yt ];
2dt
1
EP [{dyt , dyt }|Yt ];
Rt =
2dt
1
St =
EP [{dxt , dyt }|Yt ].
2dt

1
1
EP [(GG† + (GG† )⊤ )dt|Yt ] = (GG† + (GG† )⊤ );
2dt
2
1
Rt =
EP [2Idt|Yt ] = I;
2dt
St = 0.
(34)

Qt =

To apply the QEKF in our case, the following constraints should
be satisfied:
(i) The covariance and cross-correlation matrices Qt , Rt , St
are single valued (see Definition 2.4 in (Emzir et al., 2016)
for the definition of a single valued operator);
(ii) Rt is invertible;
(iii) Initially x̂0 ∈ Y0 .
It can be verified that the first two constraints are satisfied in
our case. As a result, we only have to make sure that x̂0 ∈ Y0 .
Then the quantum EKF can be given as
d x̂t = f (x̂t )dt + Kt (dyt − d ŷt ),
(35)

where Pt is defined as Pt , 21 EP [{x̃t , x̃t }|Yt ] and x̃t = xt − x̂t . Pt
evolves according to the following Riccati differential equation
(Emzir et al., 2016)
dPt
=F(x̂t )Pt + Pt F(x̂t )⊤ +
dt
(36)
Qt − [Pt H(x̂t )⊤ + St ]Rt−1 [Pt H(x̂t )⊤ + St ]⊤ .
Without loss of generality, we assume that P0 ∈ Y0 . Consider
an open quantum system described by the QSDEs given in (21)
subject to the measurements given in (23). From the result in
(Emzir et al., 2016), then there exists a Kalman gain Kt ∈ Yt ,
Kt = [Pt H(x̂t ) + St ]Rt−1 ,
(37)
such that if the quantum extended Kalman filter is given by
(35), then x̂t ∈ Yt , ∀t > 0 and Pt evolves according to (36) upon
neglecting the residual terms of the Taylor series.

To implement numerical calculations using the QEKF method,
one needs to transform (35) into a classical stochastic differential equation. This is feasible since we are only concerned
with the mean value and covariance of x(t) for our application. Recall that Yt is a commutative von Neumann algebra
generated by the measurement dyt . By Theorem 2, there exists
a ∗-isomorphism ι from Yt to L∞ (Ω, F , µ ). Denoting ι (·)t,w
as (·)t,w , the following classical SDE is satisfied (Emzir et al.,
2016):
d x̂t,w = [ f (x̂t,w ) − Kt,w h(x̂t,w )]dt + Kt,w dyt,w ,
(38)
for all w ∈ Ω,t ≥ 0. The dynamic equation (36) for Pt can also
be written as a classical SDE in the same way. Since x̂t,w , dyt,w
and Pt,w are classical random variables in the same probability
space L∞ (Ω, F , µ ), then the previous constraints x̂0 ∈ Y0 and
P0 ∈ Y0 can all be satisfied (for details, see (Emzir et al., 2016)).
The QEKF method is thus suitable for our problem.
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

Qt =

(33)

The anti-commutator above is given by {x, y} = xy⊤ + (yx⊤ )⊤ .
In our case of the combined system Sc , (33) yields

In our example, the evolution of both the system S1 and the
system S2 can be represented by the annihilators a(t) and b(t).
∗
of sysThe aim is to estimate the real quadrature Q2 = b+b
2
tem S2 . Then we can obtain an estimate of both the quantum
quadrature Qa and the classical signal q using the relationship
2)
= Tr[Qα2 ρ̂b ] .
q̂ = πt (Q
α

Fig. 3. Application of the quantum EKF and SME methods to estimate the real quadrature Qα2 . The red line is the ensemble average
(qhat) of 500 trajectories of the classical stochastic process q. The green line is the estimate of quantum real quadrature Qα2
using the SME method. The blue line is the estimate of Qα2 as calculated by the QEKF method.

Fig. 4. Application of the quantum EKF and SME methods to estimate the real quadrature Q1 . The blue line is the estimate of
quantum real quadrature Q1 using the SME method. The green line is the estimate of Q1 as calculated by the QEKF method.
The basic settings are listed below:
1
1
(39)
dq = − qdt − dwt ,
4
8
√
√
u
which means that α = − √2v
= 2 2 and K2 = 2u = 0.5. The

initial quantum states for S1 and S2 are ρ1 = ρ2 = 21 (I + σx ).
We also choose K1 = 0.55. The initial value of q is set to be
1
√
. Fig. 3 illustrates the trajectories of Q̂α2 obtained by using
4 2
the SME and QEKF methods, respectively. In the SME method,
each cavity is approximated by a two level system. The red
line is the average value of q over 500 realizations. It can be
seen that the estimated q̂ = Q̂α2 for both methods converges to
the real expected value of q. Fig. 4 demonstrate the estimate
of quantum real quadrature Q1 using the SME method and the
QEKF method respectively.
In order to test the robustness of our method, a set of perturbations on the initial state is considered in Fig. 5. A certain level
of initial error can affect the performance of the QEKF method
but the convergence is still guaranteed.

6. CONCLUSION
By modeling a classical stochastic process using a quantum
cavity model, we solve the filtering problem of a class of hybrid
quantum-classical systems using the standard quantum filtering
method and a quantum extended Kalman filtering method. A
performance comparison between these two methods is provided using numerical results. Future work includes extending
our method to more general quantum systems and classical
signals with nonlinear dynamics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Discussions with Muhammad Fuady Emzir are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Aleksandrov, I. (1981). The statistical dynamics of a system consisting of a classical and a quantum subsystem.
Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A, 36(8), 902–908.

Fig. 5. The estimate of q using the QEKF method with different initial errors. The error matrix is set as X̂0 = X̂SME +
ξ [0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5]⊤ .
Armen, M.A., Au, J.K., Stockton, J.K., et al. (2002). Adaptive
homodyne measurement of optical phase. Physical Review
Letters, 89(13), 133602.
Belavkin, V. (1991). Continuous non-demolition observation
quantum filtering and optimal estimation. In Quantum aspects of optical communications, 151–163. Springer.
Bouten, L., van Handel, R., and James, M.R. (2007). An
introduction to quantum filtering. SIAM Journal on Control
and Optimization, 46(6), 2199–2241.
Bouten, L., Van Handel, R., and James, M.R. (2009). A discrete
invitation to quantum filtering and feedback control. SIAM
review, 51(2), 239–316.

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(11), 2530–
2544.
Hou, Z., Zhong, H.S., Tian, Y., Dong, D., Qi, B., Li, L., Wang,
Y., Nori, F., Xiang, G.Y., Li, C.F., and Guo, G.C. (2016). Full
reconstruction of a 14-qubit state within four hours. New
Journal of Physics, 18(8), 083036.
Hume, D., Rosenband, T., and Wineland, D. (2007). Highfidelity adaptive qubit detection through repetitive quantum nondemolition measurements. Physical Review Letters,
99(12), 120502.
James, M.R. (2015). Quantum measurement, lecture notes
phys4003b. The Australian National University.

Diósi, L., Gisin, N., and Strunz, W.T. (2000). Quantum approach to coupling classical and quantum dynamics. Physical Review A, 61(2), 022108.

Paris, M. and Řeháček, J.e. (2004). Quantum State Estimation,
volume 649 of Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin.

Dong, D. and Petersen, I.R. (2010). Quantum control theory
and applications: a survey. IET Control Theory & Applications, 4(12), 2651–2671.

Pedersen, G.K. (2000). Operator differentiable functions. Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
36(1), 139–157.

Emzir, M.F., Woolley, M.J., and Petersen, I.R. (2015). Quantum
filtering for multiple diffusive and poissonian measurements.
Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 48(38),
385302.

Qi, B., Hou, Z., Li, L., Dong, D., Xiang, G.Y., and Guo, G.C.
(2013). Quantum state tomography via linear regression
estimation. Sci. Rep., (3), 3496.

Emzir, M.F., Woolley, M.J., and Petersen, I.R. (2016).
A quantum extended kalman filter.
arXiv preprint
arXiv:1603.01890.
Gao, Q., Dong, D., and Petersen, I.R. (2016a). Fault tolerant
quantum filtering and fault detection for quantum systems.
Automatica, 71, 125–134.
Gao, Q., Dong, D., Petersen, I.R., et al. (2016b). Fault tolerant
filtering and fault detection for quantum systems driven by
fields in single photon states. Journal of Mathematical
Physics, 57(6), 062201.
Gardiner, C.W. and Haken, H. (1991). Quantum noise, volume 26. Springer Berlin.
Gough, J. and James, M.R. (2009). The series product and its
application to quantum feedforward and feedback networks.

Ralph, J.F., Jacobs, K., and Hill, C.D. (2011). Frequency
tracking and parameter estimation for robust quantum state
estimation. Physical Review A, 84(5), 052119.
Sayrin, C., Dotsenko, I., Zhou, X., et al. (2011). Real-time
quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number
states. Nature, 477(7362), 73–77.
Tsang, M. (2009a). Optimal waveform estimation for classical
and quantum systems via time-symmetric smoothing. Physical Review A, 80(3), 033840.
Tsang, M. (2009b). Time-symmetric quantum theory of
smoothing. Physical Review Letters, 102(25), 250403.
van Handel, R., Stockton, J.K., and Mabuchi, H. (2005). Feedback control of quantum state reduction. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 50(6), 768–780.

Wang, S. and Dong, D. (2016). Fault-tolerant control of
linear quantum stochastic systems. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, PP(99), 1–1.
Wang, S., Nurdin, H.I., Zhang, G., and James, M.R. (2013).
Quantum optical realization of classical linear stochastic
systems. Automatica, 49(10), 3090–3096.
Wieczorek, W., Hofer, S.G., Hoelscher-Obermaier, J., et al.
(2015). Optimal state estimation for cavity optomechanical
systems. Physical Review Letters, 114(22), 223601.
Xue, S., Hush, M.R., and Petersen, I.R. (2016). Feedback
tracking control of non-markovian quantum systems. IEEE
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, PP(99), 1–12.
Xue, S., James, M.R., Shabani, A., Ugrinovskii, V., and Petersen, I.R. (2015a). Quantum filter for a class of nonmarkovian quantum systems. In Decision and Control
(CDC), 2015 IEEE 54th Annual Conference on, 7096–7100.
IEEE.
Xue, S., James, M.R., Shabani, A., Ugrinovskii, V., and Petersen, I.R. (2015b). Quantum filter for a non-markovian
single qubit system. In Control Applications (CCA), 2015
IEEE Conference on, 19–23. IEEE.

