the manipulation and control of quantum systems is becoming an important task in many fields @xcite-@xcite , such as atomic physics @xcite , molecular chemistry @xcite and quantum information @xcite .
it is desirable to develop quantum control theory in a systematic way in order to adapt it to the development of quantum technology @xcite .
several useful tools from classical control theory have been introduced to the control analysis and design of quantum systems .
for example , optimal control theory has been used to assist in control design for closed and dissipative quantum systems @xcite-@xcite .
a learning control method has been presented for guiding the control of chemical reactions @xcite , @xcite .
quantum feedback control approaches including measurement - based feedback and coherent feedback have been used to improve performance for several classes of tasks such as preparing quantum states , quantum error correction , controlling quantum entanglement @xcite-@xcite .
robust control tools have been introduced to enhance the robustness of quantum feedback networks and linear quantum stochastic systems @xcite , @xcite .
although some progress has been made , more research effort is necessary in controlling quantum phenomena . in particular ,
the robustness of quantum control systems has been recognized as a key issue in developing practical quantum technology @xcite-@xcite . in this paper , we focus on the robustness problem for quantum control systems . in @xcite , james and co -
workers have formulated and solved a quantum robust control problem using the @xmath0 method for linear quantum stochastic systems . here , we develop a variable structure control approach with sliding modes to enhance the robustness of quantum systems .
the variable structure control strategy is a widely used design method in classical control theory and industrial applications where one can change the controller structure according to a specified switching logic in order to obtain desired closed - loop properties @xcite , @xcite . in @xcite and @xcite , dong and petersen
have formulated and solved a variable structure control problem for the control of quantum systems .
however , the results in @xcite only involve open - loop control design using an idea of changing controller structures and do not consider the robustness which can be obtained through sliding mode control .
@xcite and ref .
@xcite have briefly discussed the possible application of sliding mode control to quantum systems . in @xcite ,
two approaches based on sliding mode design have been proposed for the control of quantum systems and potential applications of sliding mode control to quantum information processing have been presented . following these results , this
paper formally presents a sliding mode control method for two - level quantum systems to deal with bounded uncertainties in the system hamiltonian @xcite .
in particular , we propose two approaches of designing the measurement period for different situations which are dependent on the bound on the uncertainties and the allowed probability of failure
.    variable structure control design with sliding modes generally includes two main steps : selecting a sliding surface ( sliding mode ) and controlling the system to and maintaining it in this sliding surface . being in the sliding surface guarantees that the quantum system has the desired dynamics .
we will select an eigenstate of the free hamiltonian of the controlled quantum system as a sliding mode . in the second step , direct feedback control is not directly applicable since we generally can not acquire state information without destroying the quantum system s state .
hence , we propose a new method to accomplish this task , which is based on the lyapunov methodology and periodic projective measurements .
the lyapunov methodology is a powerful tool for designing control laws in classical control theory and has also been applied to quantum control problems @xcite-@xcite .
most existing results on lyapunov control of quantum systems focus on designing a control law to ensure that the controlled quantum system s state asymptotically converges to the target state .
the existing lyapunov design methods in quantum control rely on perfect knowledge of the initial quantum states and system hamiltonian . in our approach ,
once the lyapunov control steers the quantum system into a sliding mode domain , we make a projective measurement on the system .
hence , the lyapunov design method can tolerate small drifts ( uncertainties ) when carrying out our control tasks , which will be demonstrated by simulation in section ii.c .
periodic projective measurements are employed to maintain the system s state in the sliding mode domain when uncertainties exist in the system hamiltonian .
if the measurement period is small enough and the initial state is an eigenstate , the frequent measurements make the system collapse back to the initial state .
this is related to the quantum zeno effect ( for details , see @xcite , @xcite and @xcite ) .
in contrast to the quantum zeno effect , our objective is to design a measurement period which is as large as possible .
the framework of the proposed method involves unitary control ( lyapunov control ) and projective measurement . in this sense
, it is similar to the discrete - time quantum feedback stabilization problem in @xcite and @xcite .
however , these papers do not consider possible uncertainties in the system hamiltonian and use generalized measurements rather than periodic projective measurements .
the main feature of the proposed method is that the control law can guarantee control performance when bounded uncertainties exist in the system hamiltonian .
this paper is organized as follows .
section [ sec2 ] introduces a quantum control model , defines the sliding mode and formulates the control problem . in section [ sec3 ]
, we present a sliding mode control method based on the lyapunov methodology and periodic projective measurements for two - level quantum systems with bounded uncertainties . using the known information about uncertainties ( e.g. , the uncertainty bound and type of uncertainties ) , we propose two approaches ( i.e. , eqs .
( [ 1period ] ) and ( [ 2period ] ) ) for designing the measurement period to guarantee the control performance .
an illustrative example is presented to demonstrate the proposed method .
the detailed proofs of the main theorems are presented in section [ sec4 ] .
conclusions are given in section [ sec5 ] .
in this section , we first introduce a two - level quantum control model . then a sliding mode is defined using an eigenstate . finally the control problem considered in this paper is formulated .      in this paper , we focus on two - level pure - state quantum systems . the quantum state can be represented by a two - dimensional unit vector @xmath1 in a hilbert space @xmath2 . since the global phase of a quantum state has no observable physical effect , we do not consider the effect of global phase .
if we denote the pauli matrices @xmath3 as follows : @xmath4 we may select the free hamiltonian of the two - level quantum system as @xmath5 .
its two eigenstates are denoted as @xmath6 and @xmath7 . to control a quantum system ,
we introduce the following control hamiltonian @xmath8 , where @xmath9 and @xmath10 is a set of time - independent hamiltonians . for simplicity
, the control hamiltonian for two - level systems can be written as @xmath11 , where @xmath12    the controlled dynamical equation can be described as ( we have assumed @xmath13 by using atomic units in this paper ) @xmath14 this control problem is converted into the following problem : given an initial state and a target state , find a set of controls @xmath15 in ( [ controlled model ] ) to drive the controlled system from the initial state to the target state .    in practical applications
, we often use the density operator ( or density matrix ) @xmath16 to describe the quantum state of a quantum system . for a pure state @xmath1 , the corresponding density operator is @xmath17 .
for a two - level quantum system , the state @xmath16 can be represented in terms of the bloch vector @xmath18 : @xmath19 the evolution equation of @xmath16 can be written as @xmath20\ ] ] where @xmath21=ab - ba$ ] and @xmath22 is the total system hamiltonian .    after we represent the state @xmath16 with the bloch vector , the pure states of a two - level quantum system correspond to the surface of the bloch sphere , where @xmath23 , @xmath24 $ ] , @xmath25 $ ] .
an arbitrary pure state @xmath1 for a two - level quantum system can be represented as @xmath26      sliding modes play an important role in variable structure control @xcite .
usually , the sliding mode is constructed so that the system has desired dynamics in the sliding surface . for a quantum control problem , a sliding mode may be represented as a functional of the state @xmath1 and the hamiltonian @xmath22 ; i.e. , @xmath27 .
for example , an eigenstate @xmath28 of the free hamiltonian @xmath29 ( i.e. , @xmath30 where @xmath31 is one eigenvalue of @xmath29 ) can be selected as a sliding mode .
we can define @xmath32 . if the initial state @xmath33 is in the sliding mode
; i.e. , @xmath34 , we can easily prove that the quantum system will maintain its state in this surface under only the action of the free hamiltonian @xmath29 .
in fact , @xmath35 , and we have @xmath36 that is , an eigenstate of @xmath29 can be identified as a sliding mode . for two - level quantum systems , we may select either @xmath6 or @xmath7 as a sliding mode . without loss of generality
, we identify the eigenstate @xmath6 of a two - level quantum system as the sliding mode in this paper .      in section ii.b
, we have identified an eigenstate @xmath6 as a sliding mode .
this means that if a quantum system is driven into the sliding mode , its state will be maintained in the sliding surface under the action of the free hamiltonian .
however , in practical applications , it is inevitable that there exist noises and uncertainties . in this paper
, we suppose that the uncertainties can be approximately described as perturbations in the hamiltonian .
that is , the uncertainties can be denoted as @xmath37 .
the unitary errors in @xcite belong to this class of uncertainties and uncertainties in one - qubit ( one quantum bit ) gate also correspond to this class of uncertainties @xcite . for a spin system in solid - state nuclear magnetic resonance ( nmr ) , external noisy magnetic fields and unwanted coupling with other spins may lead to uncertainties in this class .
further , we assume the uncertainties are bounded ; i.e. , @xmath38 when @xmath39 , @xmath40 . that is ,
there exist no uncertainties , which is trivial for our problem .
hence , in the following we assume @xmath41 .
an important advantage of classical sliding mode control is its robustness .
our main motivation for introducing sliding mode control to quantum systems is to deal with uncertainties .
we further suppose that the corresponding system without uncertainties is completely controllable and arbitrary unitary control operations can be generated .
this assumption can be guaranteed for a two - level quantum system if we can realize arbitrary rotations along the @xmath42-axis and @xmath43-axis ( @xmath44 ) ( e.g. , see @xcite for details ) .
the control problem under consideration is stated as follows : design a control law to drive and then maintain the quantum system s state in a sliding mode domain even when bounded uncertainties exist in the system hamiltonian . here
a sliding mode domain may be defined as @xmath45 , where @xmath46 is a given constant .
here we assume @xmath47 since the case @xmath48 only occurs in the sliding mode surface and the case @xmath49 is always true .
hence , the two cases with @xmath48 and @xmath49 are trivial for our problem .
the definition of the sliding mode domain implies that the system has a probability of at most @xmath46 ( which we call the probability of failure ) to collapse out of @xmath50 when making a measurement .
this behavior is quite different from that which occurs in traditional sliding mode control .
hence , we expect that our control laws will guarantee that the system s state remains in @xmath50 except that a measurement operation may take it away from @xmath50 with a small probability ( not greater than @xmath46 ) .
the control problem considered in this paper includes three main subtasks : ( i ) for any initial state ( assumed to be known ) , design a control law to drive the system s state into a defined sliding mode domain @xmath50 ; ( ii ) design a control law to maintain the system s state in @xmath50 ; ( iii ) design a control law to drive the system s state back to @xmath50 if a measurement operation takes it away from @xmath50 .
for simplicity , we suppose that there exist no uncertainties during the control processes ( i ) and ( iii ) .
the first task is to design a control law to drive the controlled system to the chosen sliding mode domain @xmath50 .
lyapunov - based methods are widely used to accomplish this task in traditional sliding mode control .
if the gradient of a lyapunov function is negative in the neighborhood of the sliding surface , then the controlled system s state will be attracted to and maintained in @xmath50 .
the lyapunov methodology has also been used to design control laws for quantum systems @xcite-@xcite . however
, these existing results do not consider the issue of robustness against uncertainties .
since the measurement of a quantum system will inevitably destroy the measured state , most existing results on lyapunov - based control for quantum systems in fact use a feedback design to construct an open - loop control .
that is , lyapunov - based control can be used to first design a feedback law which is then used to find the open - loop control by simulating the closed - loop system . then the control can be applied to the quantum system in an open - loop way .
hence , the traditional sliding mode control methods using lyapunov control can not be directly applied to our problem .
although quantum measurement often has deleterious effects in quantum control tasks , recent results have shown that it can be combined with unitary transformations to complete some quantum manipulation tasks and enhance the capability of quantum control @xcite , @xcite-@xcite .
for example , vilela mendes and manko @xcite showed nonunitarily controllable systems can be made controllable by using  measurement plus evolution " .
quantum measurement can be used as a control tool as well as a method of information acquisition .
it is worth mentioning that the effect of measurement on a quantum system as a control tool can be achieved through the interaction between the system and measurement apparatus . in this paper
, we will combine the lyapunov methodology and projective measurements ( with the measurement operator @xmath51 ) to accomplish the sliding mode control task for two - level quantum systems .
the projective measurement with @xmath51 on a two - level system makes the system s state collapse into @xmath6 ( corresponding to eigenvalue @xmath52 of @xmath51 ) or @xmath7 ( corresponding to eigenvalue @xmath53 of @xmath51 ) .
the steps in the control algorithm are as follows ( see fig .
1 ) :    1 .   select an eigenstate @xmath6 of @xmath29 as a sliding mode @xmath54 , and define the sliding mode domain as @xmath55 .
2 .   for a known initial state @xmath33 ,
construct a lyapunov function @xmath56 to find the control law that can drive @xmath33 into the sliding mode @xmath57 .
3 .   for a specified probability of failure @xmath46 and
@xmath56 , construct the control period @xmath58 so that the control law can drive the system s state into @xmath50 in a time period @xmath58 .
4 .   for an initial condition which is another eigenstate @xmath7 , design a lyapunov function @xmath59 and construct the period @xmath60 by using a similar method to that in 3 ) . 5 .   according to @xmath46 and @xmath61 , design the period @xmath62 for periodic projective measurements .
use the designed control law to drive the system s state into @xmath50 in @xmath58 and make a projective measurement at @xmath63 . then repeat the following operations
: make periodic projective measurements with the period @xmath62 to maintain the system s state in @xmath50 ; if the measurement result corresponds to @xmath7 , we use the corresponding control law to drive the state back into @xmath50 .        from the above control algorithm
, we see that the design of lyapunov functions and the selection of the period @xmath62 for the projective measurements are the two most important tasks . to design a control law for quantum systems ,
several lyapunov functions have been constructed , such as state distance - based and average value - based approaches @xcite-@xcite . here
we select a function based on the hilbert - schmidt distance between a state @xmath1 and the sliding mode state @xmath28 as a lyapunov function @xcite , @xcite ; i.e. , @xmath64 it is clear that @xmath65 .
the first - order time derivative of @xmath66 is @xmath67\\ & = -\sum_{k = x , y , z}u_{k}|\langle \psi|\phi_{j}\rangle|\im[e^{i\angle \langle \psi|\phi_{j}\rangle } \langle \phi_{j}|i_{k}|\psi\rangle],\\ \end{array}\ ] ] where @xmath68=b$ ] ( @xmath69 ) and @xmath70 denotes the argument of a complex number @xmath71 . to ensure @xmath72
, we choose the control laws as in @xcite : @xmath73 ) , \ \ \ ( k = x , y , z)\ ] ] where @xmath74 may be used to adjust the control amplitude and @xmath75 satisfies @xmath76 .
define @xmath77 when @xmath78 .
when one employs a lyapunov methodology to design a control law , lasalle s invariance principle is a useful tool to analyze its convergence .
that is , if @xmath79 is an autonomous dynamical system with phase space @xmath80 and @xmath81 is a lyapunov function on @xmath80 satisfying @xmath82 for all @xmath83 and @xmath84 , any bounded solution converges to the invariant set @xmath85 as @xmath86 ( for details , see @xcite ) . for two - level quantum systems ,
lasalle s invariance principle can guarantee that the quantum state converges to the sliding mode @xmath6 under the control law in ( [ lyapunov_control ] ) ( for details , see @xcite ) .
the convergence is asymptotic .
hence , we make a projective measurement with the measurement operator @xmath51 when we apply the lyapunov control to the system for @xmath58 ( corresponding to the initial condition @xmath33 ) or @xmath60 ( corresponding to the initial condition @xmath7 ) , which will drive the system into @xmath6 with a probability not less than @xmath87 .
another important task is to design the measurement period @xmath62 .
we can estimate a bound according to the bound @xmath61 on the uncertainties and the allowed probability of failure @xmath46 .
then , we construct a period @xmath62 to guarantee control performance according to the estimated bound . an extreme case is @xmath88 .
that is , after the quantum system s state is driven into the sliding mode , we make frequent measurements .
this corresponds to the quantum zeno effect @xcite , which is the inhibition of transitions between quantum states by frequent measurement of the state ( see , e.g. , @xcite and @xcite ) .
frequent measurements ( i.e. , @xmath88 ) can guarantee that the state is maintained in the sliding mode in spite of the presence of uncertainties . however , it is usually a difficult task to make such frequent measurements .
we may conclude that the smaller @xmath62 is , the bigger the cost of accomplishing the periodic measurements becomes .
hence , in contrast to the quantum zeno effect , we wish to design a measurement period @xmath62 as large as possible . in the following subsection
, we will propose two approaches of designing @xmath62 for different situations .
we select the sliding mode as @xmath89 .
if there exist no uncertainties and we have driven the system s state to the sliding mode at time @xmath90 , it will be maintained in the sliding mode using only the free hamiltonian @xmath29 ; i.e. , @xmath91 .
that is , if the quantum system s state is driven into the sliding mode , it will evolve in the sliding surface .
however , in practical applications , some uncertainties are unavoidable , which may drive the system s state away from the sliding mode .
we wish to design a control law to ensure the desired robustness in the presence of uncertainties .
assume that the state at time @xmath92 is @xmath93 .
if we make measurements on this system , the probability @xmath94 that it will collapse into @xmath7 ( the probability of failure ) is @xmath95 where @xmath96 .
we have assumed that the possible uncertainties can be described by @xmath37 , where unknown @xmath97 , @xmath98 and @xmath99 satisfy @xmath100 .
we now give detailed discussions to design the measurement period @xmath62 for possible uncertainties .
first we consider a special case @xmath101 ( @xmath102 ) .
this case corresponds to phase - flip type bounded uncertainties . for any @xmath103 ( where @xmath104 ) , if @xmath105 , we have @xmath106 this type of uncertainty does not drive the system s state away from the sliding mode .
hence we ignore this type of uncertainty in our method .
now we consider the unknown uncertainties @xmath107 ( where @xmath108 ) and have the following theorem .
for a two - level quantum system with the initial state @xmath109 at the time @xmath110 , the system evolves to @xmath111 under the action of @xmath112 ( where @xmath113 and @xmath114 ) . if @xmath115 $ ] , where @xmath116 the system s state will remain in @xmath117 ) .
when one makes a projective measurement with the measurement operator @xmath51 at the time @xmath92 , the probability of failure @xmath118 is not greater than @xmath46 .    using theorem 1
, we may try to maintain the system s state in @xmath50 ( i.e. , the subtask ( ii ) ) by implementing periodic projective measurements with the measurement period @xmath119 .
if we have more knowledge about the uncertainties , it is possible to improve the measurement period @xmath120 . now assume that the uncertainty is @xmath121 ( @xmath122 ) and @xmath123 $ ] .
we have the following theorem .    for a two - level quantum system with the initial state @xmath109 at the time @xmath110
, the system evolves to @xmath111 under the action of @xmath124 ( where @xmath44 , @xmath102 and @xmath41 ) . if @xmath125 $ ] and @xmath126 $ ] , where @xmath127}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^{2}}},\ ] ] the system s state will remain in @xmath117 ) .
when one makes a projective measurement with the measurement operator @xmath51 at the time @xmath92 , the probability of failure @xmath118 is not greater than @xmath46 .
the proofs of theorem 1 and theorem 2 will be presented in section [ sec4 ] .
the two theorems mean the following fact .
for a two - level quantum system with unknown uncertainties @xmath107 ( where @xmath113 ) , if its initial state is in the sliding mode @xmath6 , we can ensure that the probability of failure is not greater than a given constant @xmath46 ( @xmath128 ) through implementing periodic projective measurements with the measurement period @xmath119 using ( [ 1period ] ) .
further , if we know that @xmath46 and @xmath61 satisfy the relationship @xmath129 and there exists only one type of uncertainty ( i.e. , @xmath130 or @xmath131 , where @xmath102 ) , we can design a measurement period @xmath132 using ( [ 2period ] ) which is larger than @xmath120 .
the proof of theorem 2 also shows that @xmath133 is an optimal measurement period .
this measurement period will guarantee the required robustness .
it is easy to prove the relationship @xmath134 for arbitrary @xmath123 $ ] .
the detailed proof will be presented in the appendix .
based on the above analysis , the selection rule for @xmath62 is summarized in table i. moreover , from ( [ 1period ] ) and ( [ 2period ] ) , it is clear that for a constant @xmath61 , @xmath135 and @xmath136 when @xmath137 .
that is , for a given bound @xmath61 on the uncertainties , if we expect to guarantee the probability of failure @xmath137 , it requires us to implement frequent measurements such that the measurement period @xmath88 .
another special case is @xmath138 , which leads to @xmath135 and @xmath136 .
that is , to deal with very large uncertainties , we need to make frequent measurements ( @xmath88 ) to guarantee the desired robustness . from ( [ 1period ] ) , we also know that for a given @xmath46 , @xmath120 monotonically decreases with increasing @xmath61 .
this means that we need to employ a smaller measurement period to deal with uncertainties with a larger bound @xmath61 .
@xmath107 & @xmath121 ( @xmath139 + allowed probability of failure @xmath46 & @xmath128 &    .a summary on the selection rule of the measurement period @xmath62 [ cols="^,^ " , ]      +      now we present an illustrative example to demonstrate the proposed method .
assume @xmath140 .
consider two cases : ( a ) @xmath141 ; ( b ) @xmath142 .
for simplicity , we assume @xmath143 . hence , @xmath144 . we first design the control and @xmath60 using ( [ lyapunov_control ] ) . here
, we consider control only using @xmath145 . using ( [ lyapunov_control ] ) , we select @xmath146)$ ] and @xmath147 . let the time stepsize be given by @xmath148 .
we can obtain the probability curve of @xmath6 shown in fig .
[ smc_probability ] , the control value shown in fig .
[ smc_control ] and @xmath149 . for @xmath141 , we can design the measurement period @xmath150 using ( [ 1period ] ) . for @xmath142 , we can design the measurement period @xmath151 using ( [ 1period ] ) . since @xmath152 when @xmath142 , if the uncertainties take the form of @xmath121 ( @xmath139 , we can improve the measurement period to @xmath153 using ( [ 2period ] ) .
it is clear that @xmath154 in these two cases .
for some practical quantum systems such as spin systems in nmr , we can use strong control actions ( e.g. , @xmath155 ) to drive the system from @xmath7 into @xmath50 within a short time period @xmath60 @xcite .
these facts make the assumption of no uncertainties in the control process reasonable . moreover , the fact that the measurement period @xmath62 is much greater than the control time required to go to @xmath6 from @xmath7 indicates the possibility of realizing such a periodic measurement on a practical quantum system .     under lyapunov control.,width=345 ]    .,width=345 ]    in the process of designing the control law for driving the system s state from @xmath7 to @xmath6 , we employ an approach based on the lyapunov methodology .
an advantage of such an approach is that it is relatively easy to find a control law by simulation .
it is worth noting that most existing applications of the lyapunov methodology to quantum systems do not involve measurement . here
, we combine the lyapunov - based control and projective measurements for controlling quantum systems , which in some applications make our method more useful than the lyapunov - based control for quantum systems proposed in previous papers . in @xcite , an approach based on time - optimal control design has also been proposed to complete this task .
the advantage of such an approach is that we take the shortest time to complete the control task .
however , it is generally difficult to find a complete time - optimal solution for high - dimensional quantum systems .
for the above simple task , it has been proven that the time - optimal control employs a bang - bang control strategy @xcite . using the method in @xcite
, we should take @xmath156 in @xmath157 $ ] and then use @xmath158 in @xmath159 $ ] .
in this case , the total time required is @xmath160 ( @xmath161 ) .    in the process of designing the lyapunov control for driving the system s state from @xmath7 to @xmath6 ,
we ignore possible uncertainties . by simulation
, we find that small uncertainties can also be tolerated in this process .
for example , if @xmath141 and the uncertainty @xmath162 is the noise with a uniform distribution on the interval @xmath163 $ ] , the probability curves of @xmath6 are shown in fig .
[ figure_with_noise ] when we apply the control obtained from fig .
[ smc_control ] to the quantum system .
the probabilities of @xmath6 for the cases with uncertainties are very close to the probability of @xmath6 for the case without uncertainties . by more simulation , we find that the final probability of @xmath6 is @xmath164 for @xmath165 ( @xmath102 where @xmath141 or @xmath166 ) , the final probability of @xmath6 is @xmath167 for @xmath168 ( @xmath169 ) and the final probability of @xmath6 is @xmath170 for @xmath168 ( @xmath171 ) .
if we use a smaller probability of failure @xmath172 ( e.g. , @xmath173 ) as the terminal condition of the lyapunov control or employ a bigger @xmath174 for the same @xmath60 , these simulations suggest that it is possible to ensure that the lyapunov control will drive the system s state into the sliding mode domain even when there exist small uncertainties .     for the case without uncertainties ( without noise ) and the cases with uncertainties ( noise ) when we apply the control in fig .
[ smc_control ] to the quantum system .
the @xmath175-axis noise ( @xmath176 or @xmath177 ) means the existence of @xmath178 where @xmath162 is the noise with a uniform distribution on the interval @xmath179$].,width=576 ]
this section will present the detailed proofs of theorem 1 and theorem 2 .
the proof of theorem 1 involves the following steps : ( i ) compare the probabilities of failure for @xmath180 and @xmath181 ( @xmath182 and @xmath183 are constant ) ; ( ii ) compare the probabilities of failure for @xmath184 and @xmath185 ( @xmath102 ) ; ( iii ) use the previous results to compare the probabilities of failure for @xmath184 and @xmath186 ( @xmath187 ) ; ( iv ) use @xmath184 to estimate the measurement period .
the basic steps for the proof of theorem 2 include : ( i ) formulate the problem of finding the  worst " case as an optimal control problem of @xmath188 ; ( ii ) obtain the optimal control solution for nonsingular cases ; ( iii ) exclude the possibility of singular cases ; ( iv ) use the  worst " case to estimate the measurement period .
considering that the arguments in the proof of theorem 2 are useful for the proof of theorem 1 , we will first present the proof of theorem 2 and then prove theorem 1 .      for @xmath189 , using @xmath190 $ ] and ( [ eq4 ] ) , we have @xmath191 that is , @xmath192 where @xmath193 .
we now consider @xmath162 as a control input and select the performance measure as @xmath194 from ( [ fidelity ] ) , we know that the  worst " case ( i.e. , the case maximizing the probability of failure ) corresponds to minimizing @xmath195 . also , we introduce the lagrange multiplier vector @xmath196 and obtain the corresponding hamiltonian function as follows : @xmath197 where @xmath198 .
that is @xmath199 according to pontryagin s minimum principle @xcite , a necessary condition for @xmath200 to minimize @xmath201 is @xmath202 the necessary condition provides a relationship to determine the optimal control @xmath200 .
if there exists a time interval @xmath203 $ ] of finite duration during which the necessary condition ( [ necessary_condition ] ) provides no information about the relationship between @xmath204 , @xmath200 , @xmath205 , we call the interval @xmath203 $ ] a singular interval @xcite .
if we do not consider singular cases ( i.e. , @xmath206 ) , the optimal control @xmath200 should be chosen as follows : @xmath207 that is , the optimal control strategy for @xmath162 is bang - bang control ; i.e. , @xmath208 .
now we consider @xmath209 which leads to the state equation    @xmath210    where @xmath193 .
the corresponding solution is @xmath211 where @xmath212 . from ( [ theorem1-bound - solution ] ) , we know that @xmath213 is a monotonically decreasing function in @xmath92 when @xmath214 $ ] .
hence , we only consider the case @xmath215 $ ] where @xmath216 $ ] .
now consider the optimal control problem with a fixed final time @xmath217 and a free final state @xmath218 . according to pontryagin s minimum principle , @xmath219 . from this , it is straightforward to verify that @xmath220
. now let us consider another necessary condition @xmath221 which leads to the following relationships :    @xmath222    where @xmath220 .
the corresponding solution is @xmath223    we obtain @xmath224 .
% \end{array}\ ] ] it is easy to show that the quantity @xmath225 occurring in ( [ bangbang ] ) does not change its sign when @xmath216 $ ] and @xmath215 $ ] .
now we further exclude the possibility that there exists a singular case .
suppose that there exists a singular interval @xmath226 $ ] ( where @xmath227 ) such that when @xmath228 $ ] @xmath229 we also have the following relationship @xmath230 where we have used ( [ thm2stateeq ] ) and the following costate equation @xmath231    if @xmath232 , we have @xmath193 . by the principle of optimality @xcite , we may consider the case @xmath233 . using ( [ singular1eq ] ) , ( [ singular2eq ] ) and @xmath234 , we have @xmath235 and @xmath236 . using the relationship of @xmath237
, we obtain @xmath238 or @xmath53 . if @xmath238 , the initial state and the final state are the same state @xmath6
. however , if we use the control @xmath239 , from ( [ theorem1-bound - solution ] ) we have @xmath240 .
hence , this contradicts the fact that we are considering the optimal case @xmath241 .
if @xmath242 , there exists @xmath243 such that @xmath244 . by the principle of optimality @xcite , we may consider the case @xmath245 .
from the two equations ( [ singular1eq ] ) and ( [ singular2eq ] ) , we know that @xmath246 which contradicts @xmath244 . hence , no singular condition can exist if @xmath232 .    if @xmath247 , using ( [ bangbang ] ) we must select @xmath239 when @xmath248 $ ] . from ( [ singularcondition ] ) , we know that there exist no @xmath249 satisfying @xmath250 .
hence , there exist no singular cases for our problem .    from the above analysis
, @xmath239 is the optimal control when @xmath251 $ ] .
hence @xmath252 . from ( [ fidelity ] ) , it is clear that the probabilities of failure satisfy @xmath253 .
that is , the probability of failure @xmath254 is not greater than @xmath255 for @xmath214 $ ] . when @xmath214 $ ] , @xmath256 is monotonically decreasing and @xmath257 is monotonically increasing . when @xmath258 , using ( [ theorem1-bound - solution ] ) we have @xmath259
that is , the probability of failure @xmath260 .
hence , we can design the measurement period @xmath62 using the case of @xmath261 when @xmath262 .    using ( [ fidelity ] ) and ( [ theorem1-bound - solution ] ) , for @xmath251 $ ] we obtain the probability of failure @xmath263 hence , we can design the maximum measurement period as follows @xmath264}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^{2}}},\ ] ]    for @xmath131 ( where @xmath265 ) , we can obtain the same conclusion as that in the case @xmath130 ( where @xmath102 ) .      to prove theorem 1 , we first prove two lemmas ( lemma [ lemmab ] and lemma [ lemma2 ] ) .    [ lemmab ] for a two - level quantum system with the initial state @xmath266 ( i.e. , @xmath6 ) , the system evolves to @xmath267 and @xmath268 under the action of @xmath269 (
@xmath182 is a nonzero constant ) and @xmath270 , respectively . for arbitrary @xmath271
$ ] , @xmath272 .    for the system with hamiltonian @xmath269 , using @xmath273 $ ] and ( [ eq4 ] ) , we obtain the following state equations @xmath274 where @xmath275 . the corresponding solution is as follows @xmath276 where @xmath277 .
for the system with hamiltonian @xmath270 , using @xmath273 $ ] and ( [ eq4 ] ) , we obtain the following state equations @xmath278 where @xmath279 . we can obtain the corresponding solution as @xmath280    since @xmath281 , we may first assume @xmath282 .
we define @xmath283 and @xmath284 as follows .
@xmath285    @xmath286    now we consider @xmath287 $ ] , and obtain @xmath288 it is clear that @xmath289 only when @xmath110 .
hence @xmath284 is a monotonically increasing function and @xmath290    hence , we have @xmath291 from this , it is clear that @xmath283 is a monotonically increasing function and @xmath292    hence @xmath293 when @xmath294 $ ] . moreover , it is clear that @xmath295 and @xmath296 is a monotonically decreasing function when @xmath271 $ ] .
it is easy to obtain the following relationship @xmath297}\leq z_{t}^{b}|_{t=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon_{0}^{2}}}}<z_{t}^{a}|_{t=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon_{0}^{2}}}}.\ ] ]    hence we can conclude that @xmath272 for arbitrary @xmath271 $ ] .
let @xmath298 , and we have the following corollary .    [ corollary ] for a two - level quantum system with the initial state @xmath266 ( i.e. , @xmath6 ) , the system evolves to @xmath267 and @xmath268 under the action of @xmath299 ( where @xmath182 is a nonzero constant ) and @xmath300 , respectively . for arbitrary @xmath271
$ ] , @xmath272 .
we now present another lemma .
[ lemma2 ] for a two - level quantum system with the initial state @xmath266 ( i.e. , @xmath6 ) , the system evolves to @xmath267 and @xmath268 under the action of @xmath189 ( where @xmath102 ) and @xmath301 , respectively . for arbitrary @xmath302
$ ] , @xmath272 .
first , we take an arbitrary evolution state ( except @xmath7 ) starting from @xmath6 as a new initial state .
for @xmath303 , the initial state can be represented as @xmath304 , where @xmath305 .
we have @xmath306 the corresponding solution is as follows : @xmath307    for @xmath189 , we have @xmath308 where @xmath309 and @xmath310 $ ] . from ( [ state42 ] )
, we have @xmath311 from ( [ equation43 ] ) and ( [ bound ] ) , it is easy to obtain the following relationship : @xmath312+\sin\theta_{0}\epsilon
\delta t + o((\delta t)^{2})\\ & = \delta t
\sin\theta_{0}(\epsilon+\epsilon(0)\sin\varphi_{0})+o((\delta t)^{2}).\\ \end{array}\ ] ]    when @xmath305 , @xmath313 .
moreover , it is always true that @xmath314 .
if @xmath315 and @xmath316 , we have @xmath317    if @xmath318 , we have @xmath319 .
according to corollary [ corollary ] and the proof of theorem 2 , we have @xmath320    for @xmath321 , it corresponds to two cases : ( a ) @xmath322 and @xmath323 ; ( b ) @xmath324 and @xmath325 . in the following , we consider the case ( a ) ( for the case ( b ) we have the same conclusion as the case ( a ) ) . since @xmath323 , @xmath326 . using a similar argument to the proof of theorem 2 , we know that for @xmath327 with @xmath328 , the optimal control for the performance index @xmath329 takes a form of bang - bang control @xmath330 or @xmath331 .
so we only need to consider a bang - bang strategy .
for such a bang - bang strategy as @xmath332 , we have @xmath333 where @xmath334 and @xmath335 $ ] .
we can obtain the corresponding solution as @xmath336    now , we consider the limit as @xmath337 and obtain @xmath338-\frac{\bar{\epsilon}\sin\theta_{0}}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^{2}}}\sqrt{1+\epsilon^{2}}\delta t\\ & \ \ \ + \frac{\cos\theta_{0}}{1+\epsilon^{2}}-\cos\theta_{0}[1-\frac{\epsilon^{2}(\delta t)^{2}}{2}]+\sin\theta_{0}\epsilon \delta t-\frac{\epsilon^{3}}{6}(\delta t)^{3 } \sin\theta_{0}+o((\delta t)^{4})\\ & = \delta t \sin\theta_{0}(\epsilon-\bar{\epsilon})+\sin\theta_{0 } ( \delta t)^{3}(\bar{\epsilon}+\bar{\epsilon}\epsilon^{2}-\epsilon^{3})+o((\delta t)^{4})\\ & > 0 .\\
\end{array}\ ] ] hence , for arbitrary @xmath339 ( @xmath340 ) , we have @xmath341    for @xmath342 , @xmath343 .
hence the relationship @xmath344 is always true .
we now define @xmath345 and assume that there exist @xmath346 such that @xmath347 .
that is , @xmath348 .
since @xmath349 is continuous in @xmath92 and @xmath350 , there exists a time @xmath351 satisfying @xmath352 for @xmath353 $ ] .
however , we have proven that for any @xmath354 and @xmath337 , @xmath355 , which contradicts @xmath352 for @xmath356 $ ] .
hence , we have the following relationship for @xmath302 $ ] @xmath357    now we can prove theorem 1 using lemma [ lemmab ] and lemma [ lemma2 ] .    for @xmath358 , using @xmath273 $ ] and ( [ eq4 ] ) , we can obtain the following state equations @xmath359 where @xmath275 .
define @xmath360 and @xmath361 , @xmath362 .
this leads to the following equation @xmath363 where @xmath364 and @xmath310 $ ] . from ( [ twouncertainties ] )
, we have @xmath365 from ( [ differential ] ) and ( [ bound ] ) , it is easy to obtain the following relationship : @xmath366+\sin\theta_{0}\epsilon
\delta t + o((\delta t)^{2})\\ % & = \epsilon(0)\cos\gamma_{0}\sin\theta_{0}\sin\varphi_{0 } \delta % t\\ % & -\epsilon(0)\sin\gamma_{0 } \sin\theta_{0}\cos\varphi_{0 } \delta t+\sin\theta_{0}\epsilon \delta t + o((\delta t)^2)\\ & = \delta t
\sin\theta_{0}(\epsilon+\epsilon(0)\sin(\varphi_{0}-\gamma_{0}))+o((\delta t)^{2}).\\ \end{array}\ ] ]    when @xmath305 , @xmath313 .
moreover , it is always true that @xmath367 .
if @xmath315 and @xmath368 , we have @xmath317    if @xmath318 , we have @xmath319 .
according to lemma [ lemmab ] and pontryagin s minimum principle , we have @xmath320    for @xmath369 , it must be true that @xmath322 or @xmath331 .
we consider @xmath322 ( for @xmath324 we have the same conclusion as @xmath322 ) .
moreover , we have @xmath370 or @xmath371 .    for @xmath370 , we first employ the fact that @xmath372 is independent on @xmath373 for @xmath374 and @xmath375 since @xmath376 .
then , it is easy to prove the relationship @xmath377 using a similar argument to that in the proof of lemma [ lemmab ] . for @xmath371 , we have the same conclusion as in the case @xmath370 .
thus , we obtain @xmath378    now using a similar argument to that in the proof of lemma [ lemma2 ] , for arbitrary @xmath379 , we have @xmath380    from ( [ fidelity ] ) , it is clear that the probabilities of failure satisfy @xmath253 .
that is , the probability of failure @xmath254 is not greater than @xmath255 for @xmath381 .
hence , we can design the measurement period @xmath62 using the case of @xmath261 .    using ( [ fidelity ] ) and ( [ bound ] ) , for @xmath381 , we obtain the probability of failure @xmath382 hence , we can design the maximum measurement period as follows @xmath383
this paper proposes a variable structure control scheme with sliding modes for the robust control of two - level quantum systems where an eigenstate is identified as a sliding mode .
we present a design method for the control laws based on a lyapunov methodology and periodic projective measurements to drive and maintain this system s state in the sliding mode domain .
the key task of the control problem is converted into a problem of designing the lyapunov functions and the measurement period .
the lyapunov function can be constructed to define a control law . by using simulation
, we obtain an open - loop control to drive the controlled quantum system s state into the sliding mode domain . for different situations of the uncertainties in the system hamiltonian , we give two approaches to design the measurement period , which guarantees control performance in the presence of the uncertainties .
this sliding mode control scheme provides a robust quantum engineering strategy for controller design for quantum systems and has potential applications in state preparation , decoherence control , quantum error correction @xcite , etc .
future work which can be carried out in this area is listed as follows .
1 ) the physical implementation of the proposed method on specific quantum systems . for example , spin systems in nmr ( see , e.g. , @xcite , @xcite ) may be a suitable candidate to test the proposed approach .
2 ) the extension from two - level systems to multi - level quantum systems : the basic idea of sliding mode control can be extended in a straightforward way to multi - level quantum systems .
however , it is much more difficult to obtain an analytical solution for a multi - level system . in @xcite ,
a numerical result has been obtained for a three - level quantum system to determine the measurement period and more complex systems are worth exploring by numerical methods .
3 ) the extension to dissipative quantum systems governed by the lindblad equation @xcite or described by a stochastic differential equation : for such cases , it is necessary to develop new methods to drive the system into the sliding mode domain since the lyapunov - based control approach does not usually work @xcite .
4 ) the exploration of practical applications for the proposed approaches : the sliding mode may correspond to an eigenstate or a state subspace and the sliding mode design approach could be used in quantum state preparation and protection of encoded quantum information in a subspace .
take @xmath46 as the variable and define @xmath384 for @xmath385 , we have the following relationship @xmath386    it is clear from ( [ f_p0 ] ) and ( [ f_p0 ] ) that @xmath387 for @xmath385 and @xmath388 .
hence @xmath389 for @xmath390 .    when @xmath391 , @xmath392 @xmath393    let @xmath394 and @xmath395 we have @xmath396 for @xmath397 $ ] , @xmath398 is continuous in @xmath399 and we also know that @xmath400 only when @xmath401 .
it is easy to check @xmath402 .
hence , we know that for @xmath403 $ ] , @xmath404 . that is , for @xmath114 , @xmath405 . from the relationship @xmath405 , we know @xmath406 for @xmath114 .    hence we concluded that for arbitrary @xmath407 $ ] , @xmath134 .
the authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for helpful comments and suggestions .
f. ticozzi and s. bolognani ,  on a canonical qr decomposition and feedback control of discrete - time quantum dynamics " , _ proc . of the 19th international symposium on mathematical theory of networks and systems _ , pp.2065 - 2071 , budapest , hungary , july , 2010 .
d. dong , c. chen , t.j .
tarn , a. pechen and h. rabitz ,  incoherent control of quantum systems with wavefunction controllable subspaces via quantum reinforcement learning , " _ ieee transactions on systems man and cybernetics - part b : cybernetics _ , vol .
38 , pp.957 - 962 , 2008 .