# Unsupervised Quantum Gate Control for Gate-Model Quantum Computers

## Abstract

In near-term quantum computers, the operations are realized by unitary quantum gates. The precise and stable working mechanism of quantum gates is essential for the implementation of any complex quantum computations. Here, we define a method for the unsupervised control of quantum gates in near-term quantum computers. We model a scenario in which a tensor product structure of non-stable quantum gates is not controllable in terms of control theory. We prove that the non-stable quantum gate becomes controllable via a machine learning method if the quantum gates formulate an entangled gate structure.

## Introduction

Quantum computers1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 utilize quantum mechanics to solve computational problems more efficiently than traditional computers1,3,4,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46. The experimental realizations of quantum computers have already begun to be implemented1,2,3,4,8,9 to demonstrate the quantum supremacy3,4 (advantages) of quantum computations2,5,6,7,47. In a gate-model quantum computer, the operations are performed by quantum gates (unitary operators)13,14,15,18,20,32,33,34,35,36,39. The precise and stable working mechanism of quantum gates is essential for the realization of any complex quantum computations. In particular, the quantum gates can communicate through a quantum bus39,48,49,50,51 that consists of the quantum systems outputted by the quantum gates, along with several auxiliary quantum systems and measurement operators. The aim of the quantum bus is analogous to that of traditional communication buses, though in a quantum computer, the quantum bus can also entangle the quantum gates. Practically, the creation of the entangled gate structure is achievable by an appropriate measurement operator applied to the auxiliary systems on the quantum bus, where the auxiliary systems are correlated with the gate outputs. Here, we are focusing on the problem of controlling non-stable quantum gates in an entangled gate structure in gate-model quantum computers. Another important aspect is the application of gate-model quantum computations24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,52,53,54,55 in the near-term quantum devices of the quantum Internet20,52,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105 (such as in quantum repeaters56,57,58,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114, or in small scale quantum devices of the quantum Internet20,56,57,58,65,66).

Machine learning is about statistical inference of measured data. The aim of machine learning is to derive system models and effective control functions from noisy data (measurements)24,115,116,117. The field of machine learning is at the intersection of computer science, mathematics, artificial intelligence, and statistical sciences. Machine learning–based solutions have been applied successfully in academic and industrial studies as well as technology and marketing applications24,115,116,117. This has been possible mainly because the large amounts of data required by machine learning methods are now available due to the technical advancements in current telecommunication networks and data processing tools. The motivation behind the application of machine learning–based models for controlling complex physical systems24,25,53,115,118,119,120,121,122,123,124. is that these models can extract precise system models and optimal control functions in scenarios in which this task is hard or impossible by other control methods24,33,53,115,116,117. In a general architecture of machine learning–based controlling, the system model consists of a complex physical system subject to controlling, noisy measurement results from the physical system, a cost function, and the machine learning control unit, which outputs a control function to calibrate the physical system24,115,116,117. The machine learning unit uses the noisy measurements and the cost function as feedback information, formulating a learning loop. The aim of a machine learning–based control is to find an optimal control function that minimizes the cost function for the system calibration.

Here we define a framework for controlling entangled quantum gates in quantum computer architectures via unsupervised learning. In the system model, the quantum gates output quantum systems to a quantum bus that correlates these output quantum systems with some auxiliary quantum system (probe beams39,48,49,50,51). These auxiliary systems are then measured, providing information about the gate unitaries for the machine learning module. The quantum bus also contains a measurement operator to entangle the output quantum systems, which results in an entangled gate structure. In the control problem, it is assumed that a particular quantum gate oscillates randomly, i.e., a quantum gate is non-stable. We prove that this random oscillation is not controllable in terms of control theory115,116,117 if the quantum gates formulate a product system (i.e., the quantum gates are unentangled). On the other hand, the non-stable quantum gate is controllable if the quantum gates are entangled. In this case, the randomly oscillating quantum gate can be controlled by a stable quantum gate in the joint gate structure. We also define a post-processing unit that processes the measurement results, which are then fed into the machine learning control ($${\mathscr{C}}$$) unit to learn an optimal control function in an unsupervised manner. The $${\mathscr{C}}$$ unit achieves the quantum gate calibration via the determination of an appropriate control function that minimizes a particular cost function defined for the mechanism. The output of the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block is a control parameter that achieves the calibration of the non-stable gate in the entangled gate structure. We also define a scheme for the calibration of the quantum bus states directly on the quantum bus. We provide the results for a particular gate pair in the entangled structure, but the results can be extended for an arbitrary setting with an arbitrary number of gates. The proposed framework provides an easily implementable and effective control mechanism for quantum gate structures. The results are particularly convenient for experimental quantum computers and the near-term quantum devices of the quantum Internet.

The novel contributions of our manuscript are as follows:

1. 1.

We prove that random oscillation of unitary quantum gates is not controllable in terms of control theory if the quantum gates formulate a product system. We show that the quantum gate becomes controllable if the quantum gates are entangled.

2. 2.

We show that for an entangled quantum gate structure, the randomly oscillating quantum gate can be controlled by a stable quantum gate in the entangled gate structure.

3. 3.

We define a post-processing unit that processes the measurement results, which are then fed into the machine learning unit to learn an optimal control function in an unsupervised manner.

4. 4.

The control achieves the quantum gate calibration via the determination of an appropriate control function that minimizes a particular cost function defined for the mechanism. The output of the control block is a control parameter that achieves the calibration of the non-stable gate in the entangled gate structure.

5. 5.

We define a scheme for the calibration of the quantum bus states directly on the quantum bus.

6. 6.

The proposed framework provides an effective control mechanism for entangled quantum gate structures. Since the results are independent from the level of scaling, the method is particularly convenient for experimental quantum computations and near-term quantum devices of the quantum Internet.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the related works are summarized. In Section 3, the system model is defined. Section 4 proposes the control problem. In Section 5, the control method is defined. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper. Supplemental material is included in the Appendix.

## Related works

The related works are as follows.

The theoretical background of the gate-model quantum computer environment utilized in our manuscript can be found in13 and14.

In14, the authors studied the subject of objective function evaluation of computational problems fed into a gate-model quantum computer environment. The work focuses on a qubit architectures with a fixed hardware structure in the physical layout.

A scheme for the evaluation of objective function connectivity (computational pathway) in gate-model quantum computers has been proposed in21. Objective function examples can be found in10,11. A method for the optimization of the measurement procedure in gate-model quantum computers has been defined in72. An approach for the stabilization of the state of the quantum computer in an optimal state has been discussed in74. A framework for the design of quantum circuits for gate-model quantum computers has been defined in75. A method for the optimization of quantum memory units via quantum machine learning in near-term quantum devices has been defined in67.

A control method of coupled spin dynamics and the design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms has been conceived in125.

An optimization algorithm related to gate-model quantum computer architectures is defined in13. In126,127, the authors studied some relevant attributes of the algorithm. An application of the optimization algorithm to a bounded occurrence constraint problem can be found in18.

In40, the authors studied the objective function value distributions of the optimization algorithm. In41,42,43, the authors analyzed the experimental implementation of the algorithm on near-term gate-model quantum devices.

An approximate approximation on a quantum annealer has been studied in128. In129, the authors concealed approximate quantum adders with genetic algorithms, and analyzed the experimental scenarios. The proposed model employs a machine learning algorithm via genetic algorithms, for optimizing a quantum circuit in terms of the best gate sequence to be applied to achieve a certain global unitary operation.

In15, the authors defined a gate-model quantum neural network model. A training method has been proposed in73.

For a review on the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era, we suggest1. On the subject of quantum computational supremacy, see4. The complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy is studied in3. A survey on quantum channels can be found in24, while for a survey on quantum computing, see130.

## Problem statement and system model

### Problem statement

The problems to be solved are given in Problems 1–4.

### Problem 1

Find a method to extract the gate unitary operations for the machine learning–based control of the quantum gates of the quantum computer.

### Problem 2

Define a method to fix random oscillations of quantum gates in an entangled gate structure.

### Problem 3

Find a P post-processing that yields the estimations of the unitary operations of the quantum gates in an arbitrary gate-model quantum computer.

### Problem 4

Define a $${\mathscr{C}}$$ unsupervised control method for the entangled gate structure of the quantum computer.

The resolutions to Problems 1–4 are proposed in the Theorems and Lemmas.

### System model

The system model consist of n unitary gates, Ui, i = 1, …, n, that output quantum states $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$, which are placed onto the Qb quantum bus39,48,49,50,51. For simplicity, we assume qubit systems; therefore, the quantum systems are d = 2 dimensional, and Qb is a qubus. In the Qb qubus, for each $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ an auxiliary qubit system $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$ is associated via a CNOT gate. In a physical layer representation, the probe beam is a continuous quantum variable, i.e., a collection of a large number of photons implementable by laser or microwave pulses39,48,49,50,51). The CNOT gate refers to the interaction between the output states and the auxiliary systems.

To identify the correctness of the quantum gates, for each Ui, a reference angle ±θi is associated in the phase space (i.e., the phase of $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$ is rotated in the $${\mathscr{S}}$$ phase space by an angle ±θi). The actual phase space angle of Ui is identified through the measurement of $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$ via the M homodyne measurement39,131. The measurement results are post-processed by P post-processing unit and then fed into the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ machine learning control block that achieves the calibration of the Ui quantum gates.

Finally, the system model contains an operator UC for the direct correction of the actual $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ states on Qb and a second homodyne measurement Mb that creates entanglement between the calibrated states via the measurement of the (n + 1)-th beam39,131 $${|0\rangle }_{b}$$.

The aim of the machine learning–based gate controlling procedure is to calibrate the working mechanism of the quantum operations via the derivation of a C(·) control function. The C(·) control function requires the construction of a system model by $${\mathscr{C}}$$ from measurement information provided by an M measurement phase. The measurement information is post-processed via a P post-processing phase and are then fed into the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ procedure to determine the optimal control function.

Without loss of generality, as vector M refers to the measurement results, then the output of $${\mathscr{C}}$$ is defined as

$$\partial =C(P(M)),$$
(1)

where ∂ is the control parameter. The s = P(M) system state is associated with a cost function fs, while the ∂ control parameter is associated with a cost function f. The functions fs and f formulate the fC cost function subject to a minimization as

$${f}_{C}={f}_{s}+\gamma {f}_{\partial },$$
(2)

via the determination of an optimal control function C*(s) as

$${C}^{\ast }(s)=\mathop{{\rm{\arg }}\,{\rm{\min }}}\limits_{\forall C(s)}{f}_{C}(s).$$
(3)

#### Identify the unstable and stable gates

The unstable and stable unitaries of the gate-model quantum computer can be identified via a homodyne measurement applied on the auxiliary quantum states of the quantum bus. The measurement extracts relevant information about the quantum gates to determine the stable and unstable unitaries. The method and results are given by Theorem 1.

### Theorem 1

(Identify the unstable and stable gates). The unitary operators of the n quantum gates Ui, i = 1, …, n of the quantum computer can be extracted via a M homodyne measurement of n auxiliary quantum systems $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$ of Qb.

Proof. Let $$|0{\rangle }^{\otimes n}={\{|0\rangle }_{1},\ldots ,|0{\rangle }_{n}\}$$ be an auxiliary system measured by a homodyne measurement M. This measurement serves for the identification of the imperfections of the Ui, i = 1, …, n gates via the $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ output systems.

In the system model, each $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$ auxiliary system is physically realized by a probe beam (e.g., laser or microwave pulse). A particular i-th probe beam is, in fact, a continuous-variable that contains a large number of photons, each of which interacts with the i-th output state, $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ (logically, this interaction is represented by the CNOT gate between an i-th pair, $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ and $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$). The n probe beams are then measured by the M homodyne measurement block39,131, such that n continuous variables are generated on its output.

Without loss of generality, the interaction for an i-th qubit can be described by the effective form of cross-Kerr nonlinearity39,48,49,50,51 via the $${H}_{\mathrm{int}}^{i}$$ interaction Hamiltonian as

$${H}_{\mathrm{int}}^{i}=\hslash {\chi }_{i}{\sigma }_{Z}{a}^{\dagger }a,$$
(4)

where χi is the strength of the nonlinear interaction, a and $${a}^{\dagger }$$ are the creation and annihilation operators39,48,49,50,51, and σz is the Pauli Z-operator.

Assuming that the interaction holds for a time $${t}_{\mathrm{int}}^{i}$$ for an i-th probe beam $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$, the interaction causes a rotation in the phase space $${\mathscr{S}}$$ by a particular angle $$\pm {\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }$$ (i.e., phase shift of $${|0\rangle }_{i}$$), which is defined as

$${\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }={\chi }_{i}{t}_{\mathrm{int}}^{i}.$$
(5)

Then, by $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ interacting with the i-th probe beam, the $${\theta {\prime} }_{i}$$ angle is as follows:

$${\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }=\{\begin{array}{l}{\theta }_{i},{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|0\rangle \\ -{\theta }_{i},{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|1\rangle \\ {\theta }_{i}+{\Delta }_{i},{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={V}_{i}|0\rangle \\ -({\theta }_{i}+{\lambda }_{i}),{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={Q}_{i}|1\rangle \end{array}\mathrm{}.$$
(6)

A detailed description of (6) is as follows: The i-th probe beam picks up a θi phase shift if $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ is in the state $${U}_{i}|0\rangle$$ and a −θi phase shift if $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ is in the state Ui|1〉, where Ui is the transformation associated with the i-th unitary gate. Hence, for each Ui, a reference angle θi exists that identifies the correct working mechanism of gate Ui. On the other hand, if $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ is not in the state Ui|0〉—i.e., the i-th gate realizes the unitary Vi with output $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={V}_{i}|0\rangle$$, where Vi ≠ Ui—then the i-th probe beam has a phase shift $${\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }$$ as

$${\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }={\theta }_{i}+{\varDelta }_{i}.$$
(7)

Specifically, if the i-th gate realizes the unitary Qi, so $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ is not in the state Ui|1〉, i.e., $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={Q}_{i}|1\rangle$$, where Qi ≠ Ui, then the phase shift is as

$$-{\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }=-\,({\theta }_{i}+{\lambda }_{i}).$$
(8)

The θi reference values are known in the model because the ideal gate unitaries are also known; therefore, the errors Δi and λi can be determined as follows: Since a coherent state in the phase space is associated with an x position and a p momentum parameter, the M homodyne measurement is in fact a projection of the elements of $${\mathscr{S}}$$ onto the x-axis39,131. Therefore, from the $$M({|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i})$$ projection, where $${|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i}$$ is the probe beam state after the interaction, the phase shift of the i-th probe beam is evaluated as

$$M({|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i})=\{\begin{array}{l}x\,\cos ({\theta }_{i}),{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|0\rangle \\ x\,\cos (-{\theta }_{i}),{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|1\rangle \\ x\,\cos ({\theta }_{i}+{\Delta }_{i})\,{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={V}_{i}|0\rangle \\ x\,\cos (-{\theta }_{i}-{\lambda }_{i})\,{\rm{if}}|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={Q}_{i}|1\rangle \end{array}\mathrm{}.$$
(9)

Thus, from the result $$M({|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i})$$, the quantities Δi and λi can be determined as

$${\Delta }_{i}={\cos }^{-1}\left(\frac{M({|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i})}{x}\right)-{\theta }_{i}$$
(10)

and

$${\lambda }_{i}=-\left({\cos }^{-1}\left(\frac{M({|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i})}{x}\right)+{\theta }_{i}\right),$$
(11)

where x and θi are known parameters. In fact, we do not have to know whether the actual state of $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ is $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={V}_{i}|0\rangle$$ or $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={Q}_{i}|1\rangle$$, since only the difference between the actual angle $${\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }$$ and the reference angle θi (see (10) and (11)) is required to establish the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block.

An i-th gate Ui can therefore be referred via the following operations in function of (10) and (11):

$${U}_{i}=\{\begin{array}{l}{U}_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\Delta }_{i}=0\,{\rm{or}}\,{\lambda }_{i}=0\\ {V}_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\Delta }_{i}\ne 0\\ {Q}_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\lambda }_{i}\ne 0\end{array}\mathrm{}.$$
(12)

In the next step, the $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ states are entangled by the Mb homodyne measurement block. For a particular pair $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}$$, the aim of the quantum bus39,48,49,50,51 is to achieve the entangled system |Φ〉 = UiUj|β〉, where $$|\beta \rangle$$ is a Bell state, while Ui and Uj are the unitaries of the i-th and j-th unitary gates. After the Mb measurement, the operations Ui and Uj therefore formulate the entangled system UiUj, since $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|{\psi }_{i}\rangle$$ and $$|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle ={U}_{j}|{\psi }_{j}\rangle$$ for some inputs $$|{\psi }_{i}\rangle$$ and $$|{\psi }_{j}\rangle$$.

The interaction Hamiltonian for the probe beam $${|0\rangle }_{b}$$ is $${H}_{\mathrm{int}}=\hslash {\chi }_{b}{\sigma }_{Z}{a}^{\dagger }a$$, where χb is the strength of the nonlinear interaction39,48,49,50,51. For a given interaction time tb, the interaction with a particular $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ causes a rotation $$\pm {\omega }_{i}^{b}$$ in the angle of the probe beam $${|0\rangle }_{b}$$ with angle $${\omega }_{i}^{b}={\chi }_{b}{t}_{b}$$. For a corrected pair $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}$$, the result of the $${M}_{b}({|0\rangle }_{b})$$ homodyne measurement is $$x\,\cos ({\omega }_{i}^{b}+{\omega }_{j}^{b})$$ or $$x\,\cos ({\omega }_{i}^{b}-{\omega }_{j}^{b})$$. This is because for $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}={U}_{i}{|0\rangle }_{i}{U}_{j}{|0\rangle }_{j}$$ or $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}={U}_{i}{|1\rangle }_{i}{U}_{j}{|1\rangle }_{j}$$, the probe beam $${|0\rangle }_{b}$$ is shifted by $${\omega }_{i}^{b}$$ for a $${U}_{i}|0\rangle$$ state and by $$-{\omega }_{i}^{b}$$ for a $${U}_{i}|1\rangle$$ state; thus, in this case, the phase shift is $${\omega }_{i}^{b}+{\omega }_{j}^{b}$$. On the other hand, if $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}={U}_{i}{|0\rangle }_{i}{U}_{j}{|1\rangle }_{j}$$ or $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}={U}_{i}{|1\rangle }_{i}{U}_{j}{|0\rangle }_{j}$$, the resulting phase shift is $$|{\omega }_{i}^{b}-{\omega }_{j}^{b}|$$, which yields $$x\,\cos ({\omega }_{i}^{b}-{\omega }_{j}^{b})$$. If $${M}_{b}({|0\rangle }_{b})$$ results in $$x\,\cos ({\omega }_{i}^{b}-{\omega }_{j}^{b})$$, an auxiliary NOT gate is applied to either qubit of an ij pair $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}$$.

Therefore, the unstable and stable quantum gates can be identified via Qb and M, that concludes the proof. ■

#### NISQ applications

A straightforward NISQ1 application of the system model is in trapped ion scenarios or in superconducting circuits. The explicit number of gates, gate fidelities, and total error of the protocol are external parameters in the system model that depend on the actual physical-layer apparatus. The control theory behind the system model and the definition of the machine learning control unit makes implementable the results via near-term technologies in experiment. In particular, a near-term application is in qubit gate-model quantum computer architectures considering the case of a large number of qubits and quantum gates, $$n\gg 1$$2,5,6,7. As a future work, our aim is to analyze the performance of the system model in these scenarios.

The proposed system model utilizes a Qb quantum bus, however UC controlling block, the P post-processing block and the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ machine learning control block can also be implemented in different practical scenarios. As follows, the system model is not limited for quantum buses allowing a widespread application in experiment. Other practical application scenarios of the results include measurement control problems and measurement optimization in quantum computations, qubit control and readout, objective function evaluation in gate-model quantum computes for solving optimization problems, and optimization of tasks of measurement-based quantum information processing. An aim is to extend the application of the proposed system model into these directions also.

The schematic model of the quantum gate controlling method is depicted in Fig. 147. For simplicity, the figure shows only one-qubit unitaries, however the results hold for arbitrary quantum gates. The UC, P, and $${\mathscr{C}}$$ operations are defined in Section 4.

## Quantum gate control

The aim of the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block is to achieve a machine learning–based method for controlling the unitary gates using the results of the M homodyne measurement block post-processed by P. The UC operation for controlling the quantum states directly on the qubus is also defined. First, we give the problem statement in terms of control theory115,116,117.

### Method

Let us assume that for each i-th quantum system $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$, a reference angle θi is defined (see Theorem 1). This angle identifies a correct working mechanism of the unitary gate Ui. Focusing on qubit gates, for an i-th gate, the reference operation Ui is defined as

$${U}_{i}=\exp (-i{H}_{i}{t}_{{U}_{i}}/\hslash )=\,\cos ({t}_{{U}_{i}}/\hslash )I-i\,\sin ({t}_{{U}_{i}}/\hslash ){H}_{{U}_{i}},$$
(13)

where $${t}_{{U}_{i}}$$ is the application time of unitary Ui, $$\hslash$$ is the reduced Planck constant (we set $$\hslash =1$$), and I is the identity operator, while $${H}_{{U}_{i}}$$ is a Hamiltonian with energy Ei:

$${E}_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\hslash 2\pi ({f}_{i}),$$
(14)

where fi is the frequency:

$${f}_{i}=\frac{1}{{T}_{i}}$$
(15)

where Ti is the period time.

Focusing on a particular pair $$\{|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ,|{\varphi }_{j}\rangle \}$$, the corresponding Ui and Uj reference operations are identified as follows: Let us assume that the application time of the Ui unitary is $${t}_{{U}_{i}}$$, with period time $${\pi }_{i}={T}_{i}=z{t}_{{U}_{i}}$$, z > 0, and for Uj, the application time is $${t}_{{U}_{j}}$$, with period time $${\pi }_{j}={T}_{j}=y{t}_{{U}_{j}}$$, y > 0. Then, by introducing quantities A and B for Ui, as

$$A=\,\cos ({t}_{{U}_{i}}),$$
(16)
$$B=\,\sin ({t}_{{U}_{i}}),$$
(17)

and quantities C and D for Uj, as

$$C=\,\cos ({t}_{{U}_{j}}),$$
(18)
$$D=\,\sin ({t}_{{U}_{j}}),$$
(19)

the Ui and Uj operations can be rewritten as

$${U}_{i}=AI-iB{H}_{{U}_{i}},$$
(20)

and

$${U}_{j}=CI-iD{H}_{{U}_{j}},$$
(21)

with the corresponding Hamiltonians $${H}_{{U}_{i}}$$, $${H}_{{U}_{j}}$$. The related energy operators are $${E}_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\hslash 2\pi ({f}_{i})$$, $${E}_{j}=\frac{1}{2}\hslash 2\pi ({f}_{j})$$, where $${f}_{i}=\frac{1}{{T}_{i}}$$ and $${f}_{j}=\frac{1}{{T}_{j}}$$.

In the control problem, we assume a scenario in which the Ui gate works improperly, which leads to imperfect oscillations, while Uj works perfectly. The aim of the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ is to achieve the stabilization of Ui using the fact that Mb creates the entangled structure UiUj, since Mb entangles the qubus states. The challenge here is therefore the stabilization of Ui such that it randomly oscillates (i.e., Ui is non-stable) while Uj is stable in UiUj. In the control problem, this random oscillation cannot be corrected by a controlling parameter applied directly to Ui. The problem is then to find a way to correct the random oscillations by exploiting the fact that UiUj is an entangled structure.

As we show in Theorem 2, in an entangled structure UiUj, it is possible to fix the random oscillations of Ui by controlling Uj. On the other hand, if $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ is a product system, then calibration is not possible.

### Theorem 2

(Controlling of entangled gate structure). In an entangled gate structure UiUj, a randomly oscillating non-stable gate Ui is controllable via a stable gate Uj. In a product system $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$, the non-stable gate Ui is not controllable via the control of a stable gate Uj.

Proof. First, let assume that Ui and Uj are formulating the entangled structure UiUj via the Mb measurement on the qubus. Using the parameters A, B of Ui (see (16) and (17)) and C, D of Uj (see (18) and (19)), the controlling problem in terms of control theory115,116,117 is as follows.

Using a Galerkin expansion and a generalized mean-field system formulation115 for the description of the controlling, for a non-stable gate Ui in the joint system UiUj, a growth rate115,116,117 parameter μi is defined as

$${\mu }_{i}={\beta }_{i}^{0}-{\beta }_{i}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})-{\beta }_{i}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2}),$$
(22)

where $${\beta }_{i}^{0}$$ is the initial growth rate115,116,117, $${\beta }_{i}^{i}$$ is the parameter for growth-rate change of μi due to $$\sqrt{({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})}$$, while $${\beta }_{i}^{j}$$ is the parameter for growth-rate of μi due to $$\sqrt{({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})}$$ for Ui.

Then, let $${D}_{t}(x)=dx/dt$$, and define sets $${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{U}_{i}}:\{{D}_{t}(A),{D}_{t}(B)\}$$ and $${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{U}_{j}}:\{{D}_{t}(C),{D}_{t}(D)\}$$. For Ui, the quantity Dt(A) in set $${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{U}_{i}}$$ is as

$${D}_{t}(A)={\mu }_{i}A-{F}_{i}B,$$
(23)

where Fi is a parameter for the frequency defined as

$${F}_{i}={f}_{i}+{\delta }_{i}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})+{\delta }_{i}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2}),$$
(24)

where fi is the initial frequency, $${f}_{i}=\frac{1}{{T}_{i}}$$, $${\delta }_{i}^{i}$$ is a parameter for frequency-change due to term $$\sqrt{({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})}$$, while $${\delta }_{i}^{j}$$ is a parameter for frequency-change due to term $$\sqrt{({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})}$$; while Dt(B) in $${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{U}_{i}}$$ is as

$${D}_{t}(B)={F}_{i}A+{\mu }_{i}B.$$
(25)

For unitary Uj, we define μj as

$${\mu }_{j}={\beta }_{j}^{0}-{\beta }_{j}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})-{\beta }_{j}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2}),$$
(26)

where $${\beta }_{j}^{0}$$ is the initial growth rate, $${\beta }_{j}^{i}$$ is the parameter for growth-rate of μj due to $$\sqrt{({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})}$$, while $${\beta }_{j}^{j}$$ is the parameter for growth-rate of μj due to $$\sqrt{({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})}$$; and Dt(C) from $${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{U}_{j}}$$ is as

$${D}_{t}(C)={\mu }_{j}C-{F}_{j}D,$$
(27)

where Fj is a parameter for the frequency as

$${F}_{j}={f}_{j}+{\delta }_{j}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})+{\delta }_{j}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2}),$$
(28)

where fj is the initial frequency, $${f}_{j}=\frac{1}{{T}_{j}}$$, $${\delta }_{j}^{i}$$ is a parameter for frequency-change due to $$\sqrt{({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})}$$, while $${\delta }_{j}^{j}$$ is a parameter for frequency-change due to $$\sqrt{({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})}$$; and Dt(D) from $${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{U}_{j}}$$ is as

$${D}_{t}(D)={F}_{j}C+{\mu }_{j}D+\partial ,$$
(29)

where ∂ is a control parameter.

Since for the UiUj entangled structure, in (22) the terms $${\beta }_{i}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})$$ and $${\beta }_{i}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})$$ are non-vanishing, making the Ui gate to be controllable via Uj. This connection still holds for UiUj after some simplifications of the system model.

Let simplify the description UiUj, as follows. For Ui, let use Fi = 1, and set $${\beta }_{i}^{i}={\beta }_{i}^{j}=1$$ in (22). Then, by using (20) and (21), we redefine (22) as

$${\mu }_{i}={\beta }_{i}^{0}-({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})-({C}^{2}+{D}^{2}).$$
(30)

After the Mb measurement, the yielding system of Ui can be evaluated via (30) as

$${D}_{t}(A)={\mu }_{i}A-B,$$
(31)

and

$${D}_{t}(B)=A+{\mu }_{i}B.$$
(32)

For Uj, set $${\beta }_{j}^{i}={\beta }_{j}^{j}=0$$, thus (26) can be rewritten as

$${\mu }_{j}={\beta }_{j}^{0},$$
(33)

and set $${\delta }_{j}^{i}={\delta }_{j}^{j}=0$$ in (28), thus (28) can be rewritten as

$${F}_{j}={f}_{j}=\frac{1}{{T}_{j}}.$$
(34)

Thus, (27) and (29) can be reevaluated as

$${D}_{t}(C)={\beta }_{j}^{0}C-{f}_{j}D,$$
(35)

and

$${D}_{t}(D)={\beta }_{j}^{0}D+{f}_{j}C+\partial .$$
(36)

As follows, for the simplified model (3036) of UiUj, the Ui gate remains controllable via Uj since terms $${\beta }_{i}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})$$ and $${\beta }_{i}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})$$ are non-vanishing in (30). However, this is not the case if $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ formulate a product state system with unentangled gates.

The system model of the product system $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ is derived follows. Let assume that gates Ui and Uj are formulating a product state system $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$. In this case, the gates Ui and Uj in $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ are unentangled, thus modifications required in the system model.

In terms of control theory, the $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ product system is analogous to a linearization around the $${A}^{2}={B}^{2}={C}^{2}={D}^{2}=0$$ (fixed point of the model). This linearization breaks the entangled structure UiUj, leading to $${\beta }_{i}^{i}={\beta }_{i}^{j}={\beta }_{j}^{i}={\beta }_{j}^{j}=0$$, and $${\delta }_{i}^{i}={\delta }_{i}^{j}={\delta }_{j}^{i}={\delta }_{j}^{j}=0$$.

Thus, for $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$, the terms $${\beta }_{i}^{i}({A}^{2}+{B}^{2})$$ and $${\beta }_{i}^{j}({C}^{2}+{D}^{2})$$ are vanishing in (22), thus (22) picks up the formula of

$${\mu }_{i}={\beta }_{i}^{0},$$
(37)

thus the resulting system model for $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ is as

$${D}_{t}(A)={\beta }_{i}^{0}A-{f}_{i}B,$$
(38)
$${D}_{t}(B)={f}_{i}A+{\beta }_{i}^{0}B.$$
(39)
$${D}_{t}(C)={\beta }_{j}^{0}C-{f}_{j}D,$$
(40)

and

$${D}_{t}(D)={f}_{j}C+{\beta }_{j}^{0}D+\partial .$$
(41)

As follows from the system model (3841) of $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$, for Ui the quantity $$\sqrt{{A}^{2}+{B}^{2}}$$ grows without bound (i.e., Ui is non-stable), while for Uj, the quantity $$\sqrt{{C}^{2}+{D}^{2}}$$ converges to zero for ∂ = 0 (i.e., Uj is stable)115,116,117,. Thus, in terms of control theory, in system (3841), the randomly fluctuating quantum gate Ui cannot controlled by Uj. As a corollary, while Ui is controllable in the entangled structure UiUj, in a tensor product system $${U}_{i}\otimes {U}_{j}$$ is not controllable.

The proof is concluded here. ■

### Cost function

The cost function fC(UiUj) for the controlling of the UiUj entangled gate structure is a subject to a minimization, and defined as

$${f}_{C}({U}_{i}{U}_{j})={\tilde{f}}_{{U}_{i}}+\gamma {f}_{\partial }$$
(42)

where

$${\tilde{f}}_{{U}_{i}}={A}^{2}+{B}^{2}$$
(43)

and

$${f}_{\partial }={\partial }^{2},$$
(44)

where ∂ is the control parameter (75), while γ is a penalization parameter115,116,117.

Let C(UiUj) be a control function defined for the joint structure UiUj as

$$\partial =C({U}_{i}{U}_{j}),$$
(45)

and let Pr(A, B, C, D) be the probability density associated to a current values of A, B, C, D of the entangled structure UiUj. At a particular A, B of Ui, the result of ∂ on Ui can be evaluated by the $${\partial }_{{U}_{i}}={\mathbb{E}}(C({U}_{i}{U}_{j})|A,B)$$ expectation value as

$${\partial }_{{U}_{i}}=\int \int \,Pr(A,B,C,D)C({U}_{i}{U}_{j})dCdD\mathrm{}.$$
(46)

At a given C, D of Uj, the result of ∂ on Uj can be evaluated the expectation value $${\partial }_{{U}_{j}}={\mathbb{E}}(C({U}_{i}{U}_{j})|C,D)$$ as

$${\partial }_{{U}_{j}}=\int \int \,Pr(A,B,C,D)C({U}_{i}{U}_{j})dAdB\mathrm{}.$$
(47)

The terms (45), (46) and (47) will be specified further in Section 5 via the determination of the controlling function C(UiUj).

### Lemma 1

P post-processing on the results of the M homodyne measurement yields the estimations of the unitaries of the quantum gates.

Proof. Focusing on a gate-pair {Ui, Uj}, the aim of the P post-processing method is to achieve the estimates $$\tilde{A}$$, $$\tilde{B}$$ and $$\tilde{C}$$, $$\tilde{D}$$ using the results of the M measurement. The estimated quantities are then fed into the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block that achieves the automated control of the quantum gates.

The quantities A, B C, and D are derived from the M measurement as follows: Let us focus on a i-th unitary Ui with quantities A, B and reference phase space angle θi. The quantities Δi (10) and λi (11) are also computed in the P post-processing phase using the $$M({|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i})$$ measurement (see (9)) of the i-th probe beam $${|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i}$$. These steps yield the estimates $$\tilde{A}$$ and $$\tilde{B}$$ as follows: Since at a particular $${t}_{{U}_{i}}$$ application time of Ui, at Δi = 0 or λi = 0,

$$\tilde{A}=\,\cos ({\varsigma }_{i}{\theta }_{i})=\,\cos ({t}_{{U}_{i}}),$$
(48)
$$\tilde{B}=\,\sin ({\varsigma }_{i}{\theta }_{i})=\,\sin ({t}_{{U}_{i}}),$$
(49)

where

$${\varsigma }_{i}=\frac{{t}_{{U}_{i}}}{{\theta }_{i}}.$$
(50)

Therefore, for Δi ≠ 0, the Vi unitary is performed instead of Ui:

$$\tilde{A}=\,\cos ({\varsigma }_{i}({\theta }_{i}+{\phi }_{i}))=\,\cos ({t}_{{U}_{i}}+{t}_{{\phi }_{i}}),$$
(51)
$$\tilde{B}=\,\sin ({\varsigma }_{i}({\theta }_{i}+{\phi }_{i}))=\,\sin ({t}_{{U}_{i}}+{t}_{{\phi }_{i}}),$$
(52)

where

$${\phi }_{i}=\{\begin{array}{l}{\Delta }_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} } < {\theta }_{i}\\ -{\Delta }_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} } > {\theta }_{i}\end{array},$$
(53)

where $${\theta }_{{\mathscr{i}}}^{{\prime} }$$ is given in (7), and $${t}_{{\phi }_{i}}$$ is as

$${t}_{{\phi }_{i}}={\varsigma }_{i}({\theta }_{i}+{\phi }_{i})-{t}_{{U}_{i}}.$$
(54)

For λi ≠ 0, the Qi unitary is performed instead of Ui; thus,

$$\tilde{A}=\,\cos ({\varsigma }_{i}({\theta }_{i}+{\varphi }_{i}))=\,\cos ({t}_{{U}_{i}}+{t}_{{\varphi }_{i}}),$$
(55)
$$\tilde{B}=\,\sin ({\varsigma }_{i}({\theta }_{i}+{\varphi }_{i}))=\,\sin ({t}_{{U}_{i}}+{t}_{{\varphi }_{i}}),$$
(56)

where

$${\varphi }_{i}=\{\begin{array}{l}-\,{\lambda }_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,-\,{\theta {\prime} }_{i} > -\,{\theta }_{i}\\ {\lambda }_{i},\,{\rm{if}}\,-\,{\theta {\prime} }_{i} < -\,{\theta }_{i}\end{array},$$
(57)

where $$-{\theta {\prime} }_{i}$$ is as given in (8) and $${t}_{{\varphi }_{i}}$$ is as

$${t}_{{\varphi }_{i}}={\varsigma }_{i}({\theta }_{i}+{\varphi }_{i})-{t}_{{U}_{i}}.$$
(58)

These results straightforwardly follow for Uj, with the corresponding parameters Δj, λj, $${t}_{{U}_{j}}$$, reference angle θj, and $${\varsigma }_{j}$$. ■

The machine learning–based control of the randomly oscillating non-stable gate Ui in the UiUj joint structure is discussed in Section 5.

## Unsupervised Control of Entangled Gates

### Theorem 3

(Quantum gate calibration). For an entangled gate structure UiUj with a non-stable Ui, the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block calibrates the quantum gates via the optimal control function $${C}^{\ast }({U}_{i}{U}_{j})=\sqrt{{\bar{L}}_{act}}$$, where $${\bar{L}}_{act}$$ = ∏2$${\beta }_{i}^{0}/0.2(({\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2})+({\tilde{C}}^{2}+{\tilde{D}}^{2}))$$, whereis a controlling amplitude, while $$\tilde{A}$$, $$\tilde{B}$$, $$\tilde{C}$$, $$\tilde{D}$$ are determined via P post-processing.

Proof. The $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block gets as input the post-processed results $$P(M{(|\tilde{0}\rangle }_{i}))$$, i = 1, …, n. The C$$(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D})$$ control function of the joint system UiUj is evaluated via the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block, where $$\tilde{A}$$, $$\tilde{B}$$, $$\tilde{C}$$, $$\tilde{D}$$ are determined by P post-processing step.

The $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block operates via a set $${{\mathscr{S}}}_{f}$$ of operations, as

$${{\mathscr{S}}}_{f}:\{{S}_{e},{S}_{t}\},$$
(59)

where se is a set of elementary operations Se = {±, ×, /}, while St = {exp, sin, ln, tanh} is a set of transcendental functions115,116,117.

Focusing on a particular pair of unitaries {UiUJ}, where Ui is not stable while Uj is a stable gate, the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block iterates until the optimal control function C*(UiUj) is determined. The output of the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block is the ∂* optimal control parameter of the for the joint structure UiUj, as

$$\begin{array}{rcl}{\partial }^{\ast } & = & \int \int \,{\rm{\Pr }}(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D}){C}^{\ast }(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D})d\tilde{A}d\tilde{B}d\tilde{C}d\tilde{D}\\ & = & {\partial }_{1}{\partial }_{2},\end{array}$$
(60)

where $$\Pr (\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D})$$ is the probability density associated with $$\tilde{A}$$, $$\tilde{B}$$, $$\tilde{C}$$, $$\tilde{D}$$, while ∂1 is a control parameter for the joint structure UiUj as

$${\partial }_{1}={C}^{\ast }(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D}),$$
(61)

where $${C}^{\ast }(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D})$$ is an optimal control function using the post-processing results $$\tilde{A}$$, $$\tilde{B}$$, $$\tilde{C}$$, $$\tilde{D}$$, while ∂2 is a stabilization parameter associated with the stable gate Uj, as

$${\partial }_{2}=\int \int \,{\rm{\Pr }}(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D}){C}^{\ast }(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D})d\tilde{A}d\tilde{B}={C}^{\ast }(\tilde{D}).$$
(62)

From (60), (61), and (62), C*(UiUj) is yielded as

$${C}^{\ast }({U}_{i}{U}_{j})={\partial }^{\ast }={C}^{\ast }(\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D}){C}^{\ast }(\tilde{D}),$$
(63)

such that the quantities of (61) and (62) are determined by $${\mathscr{C}}$$ using the set of (59).

We also give the form of C*(UiUj) with respect to the cost function fC(UiUj). For this purpose, we also introduce time parameters for the controlling mechanism.

Let TL be the time interval defined for the controlling as

$${T}_{L}=\,\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{{\overline{A}}^{2}+{\overline{B}}^{2}}}{\sqrt{{\underline{A}}^{2}+{\underline{B}}^{2}}}\right)\frac{1}{-\vartheta },$$
(64)

where $$\bar{x}$$, $$\underline{x}$$ refer to the upper and lower bound on x, while ϑ is a decay rate parameter for the controlling, defined as

$$\vartheta ={\beta }_{i}^{0}-({\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2})-({\tilde{C}}^{2}+{\tilde{D}}^{2}).$$
(65)

For the activation of the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block, the AL activation parameter is defined as

$$\begin{array}{rcl}{{\rm{A}}}_{L} & = & h((\sqrt{{\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2}})-(\sqrt{{\bar{A}}^{2}+{\bar{B}}^{2}}))\\ & & -h((\sqrt{{\underline{A}}^{2}+{\underline{B}}^{2}})-(\sqrt{{\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2}}))\\ & & +h((\sqrt{{\tilde{C}}^{2}+{\tilde{D}}^{2}})-{\beta }_{i}^{0}),\end{array}$$
(66)

where h(·) is the Heaviside function115,116,117 and $${\beta }_{i}^{0}$$ is as shown in (22). As AL > 0, the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block starts the calibration of the quantum gates; otherwise, there is no calibration in the system.

Then let TP be the period time for one controlling cycle, defined as

$${T}_{P}={T}_{L}+{T}_{\bar{L}},$$
(67)

where $${T}_{\bar{L}}$$ refers to an uncontrolled period, defined via $${\beta }_{i}^{0}$$ as

$${T}_{\bar{L}}=\,\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{{\overline{A}}^{2}+{\overline{B}}^{2}}}{\sqrt{{\underline{A}}^{2}+{\underline{B}}^{2}}}\right)\frac{1}{{\beta }_{i}^{0}}.$$
(68)

Let ∏ be the controlling amplitude and $${L}_{act}^{{\rm{\max }}}$$ be maximal actuation level, as

$${L}_{act}^{{\rm{\max }}}=\frac{{\Pi }^{2}}{2}.$$
(69)

Using ∏ and a quasi-equilibrium assumption115,116,117, the parameter of (65) can be rewritten as

$$\vartheta ={\beta }_{i}^{0}-\ell {\Pi }^{2}={\beta }_{i}^{0}-\ell 2{L}_{act}^{{\rm{\max }}},$$
(70)

where l is defined as

$$\ell =\frac{({\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2})+({\tilde{C}}^{2}+{\tilde{D}}^{2})}{{\Pi }^{2}}.$$
(71)

The $${f}_{{\partial }^{\ast }}$$ cost in function fC(UiUj) is therefore analogous to an $${\bar{L}}_{act}$$ average actuation level at a particular $$\tilde{A}$$ and $$\tilde{B}$$, as

$${f}_{C}({U}_{i}{U}_{j})=({\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2})+\gamma {\bar{L}}_{act},$$
(72)

where γ is as in (42), while $${\bar{L}}_{act}$$ is as

$$\begin{array}{rcl}{\bar{L}}_{act} & = & \left(\frac{{T}_{L}}{{T}_{P}}\right){L}_{act}^{max}=\left(\frac{{\beta }_{i}^{0}}{\ell {\Pi }^{2}}\right)\frac{{\Pi }^{2}}{2}\\ & = & \frac{{\beta }_{i}^{0}}{2\ell }=\frac{{\Pi }^{2}{\beta }_{i}^{0}}{2(({\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2})+({\tilde{C}}^{2}+{\tilde{D}}^{2}))}\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$
(73)

The optimal ∂* = C*(UiUj) control function is therefore as

$$\begin{array}{rcl}{C}^{\ast }({U}_{i}{U}_{j}) & = & \mathop{{\rm{argmin}}}\limits_{\forall C({U}_{i}{U}_{j})}\,{f}_{C}({U}_{i}{U}_{j})\\ & = & \sqrt{{\bar{L}}_{act}}\\ & = & \sqrt{\frac{{\Pi }^{2}{\beta }_{i}^{0}}{2(({\tilde{A}}^{2}+{\tilde{B}}^{2})+({\tilde{C}}^{2}+{\tilde{D}}^{2}))}}\\ & = & {\partial }^{\ast },\end{array}$$
(74)

where fC(UiUj) is the cost function defined in (72).

The proof is concluded here. ■

### Direct L algorithm

Here we give the steps of the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ controlling procedure assuming that there is no activation function (66) in the $${\mathscr{C}}$$ block (referred to as Direct L Algorithm) and the UiUj system is simplified as given by (3136). The steps are summarized in Algorithm A.1.

### Lemma 2

The quantum states placed onto the qubus can be calibrated by operation UC.

Proof. The proof assumes that the aim of UC is the correction of the qubus states before the Mb measurement is performed.

The $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$, i = 1, …, n quantum states placed onto the qubus are transformed into the reference state by the $${U}_{C}=\{{U}_{C}^{1},\ldots ,{U}_{C}^{n}\}$$ operation (qubus operation), where $${U}_{C}^{i}$$ is the operation associated with the i-th qubit. The controlling is as follows.

Since for a particular $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$, the difference in the reference phase space angle ±θi of an i-th gate Ui can be identified by (10) and (11) via the M measurement and P post-processing, for Δi ≠ 0, a correction operator $${U}_{C}^{i,{\varDelta }_{i}}$$ can be straightforwardly defined as

$${U}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}={e}^{i\varsigma }{R}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}({\eta }_{i}),$$
(77)

where $$\varsigma$$ is a real number, and $${R}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}({\eta }_{i})$$ is as

$${R}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}({\eta }_{i})=\,\cos \left(\frac{{\eta }_{i}}{2}\right)I-i\,\sin \left(\frac{{\eta }_{i}}{2}\right)\bar{n}\cdot \overrightarrow{\sigma }=\exp \left(-i\frac{{\eta }_{i}}{2}\bar{n}\cdot \overrightarrow{\sigma }\right),$$
(78)

where $$\bar{n}$$ is a unit vector as $$\bar{n}=({n}_{x},{n}_{y},{n}_{z})=(a/L,b/L,c/L)$$, where a, b, c and $${\mathscr{C}}$$ are real numbers determined by the $${H}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}$$ correction Hamiltonian $${H}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}$$, as

$${H}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}}=a{\sigma }_{X}+b{\sigma }_{Y}+c{\sigma }_{Z}=L\bar{n}\cdot \overrightarrow{\sigma },$$
(79)

where $$L=\sqrt{{a}^{2}+{b}^{2}+{c}^{2}}$$, while $$\overrightarrow{\sigma }=({\sigma }_{X},{\sigma }_{Y},{\sigma }_{Z})$$ is the Pauli vector, $${(\bar{n}\cdot \overrightarrow{\sigma })}^{2}=I$$, and

$${\eta }_{i}=\{\begin{array}{l}|{\varsigma }_{i}{\phi }_{i}|,\,{\rm{if}}\,{\theta {\prime} }_{i} < {\theta }_{i}\\ 2\pi -|{\varsigma }_{i}{\phi }_{i}|,\,{\rm{if}}\,{\theta {\prime} }_{i} > {\theta }_{i}\end{array},$$
(80)

where ϕi is given in (53).

For λi ≠ 0, a correction operator $${U}_{C}^{i,{\lambda }_{i}}$$ can be straightforwardly defined as

$${U}_{C}^{i,{\lambda }_{i}}={e}^{i\varsigma }{R}_{C}^{i,{\lambda }_{i}}({\nu }_{i}),$$
(81)

where

$${R}_{C}^{i,{\lambda }_{i}}({\nu }_{i})=\,\cos \,\frac{{\nu }_{i}}{2}I-i\,\sin \,\frac{{\nu }_{i}}{2}\bar{n}\cdot \overrightarrow{\sigma }=\exp \left(-i\frac{{\nu }_{i}}{2}\bar{n}\cdot \overrightarrow{\sigma }\right),$$
(82)

where

$${\nu }_{i}=\{\begin{array}{l}2\pi -|{\varsigma }_{i}{\varphi }_{i}|,\,{\rm{if}}\,-{\theta {\prime} }_{i} > -{\theta }_{i}\\ |{\varsigma }_{i}{\varphi }_{i}|,\,{\rm{if}}\,-{\theta {\prime} }_{i} < -{\theta }_{i}\end{array},$$
(83)

where $${\varphi }_{i}$$ is given in (57), and with the corresponding a, b, c and $${\mathscr{C}}$$ parameters of the Hamiltonian $${H}_{C}^{i,{\lambda }_{i}}$$. The operators (77) and (82) therefore calibrate the qubit onto the reference position $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|0\rangle$$ or $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle ={U}_{i}|1\rangle$$ associated with the reference angle ±θi via Δi (10) and λi (11), yielded by the M measurement. If Δi = 0 or λi = 0, then $$|{\varphi }_{i}\rangle$$ is in the correct position; therefore, $${U}_{C}^{i}=I$$; thus, the final form of $${U}_{C}^{i}$$ is

$${U}_{C}^{i}=\{\begin{array}{l}{U}_{C}^{i,{\Delta }_{i}},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\Delta }_{i}\ne 0\\ {U}_{C}^{i,{\lambda }_{i}},\,{\rm{if}}\,{\lambda }_{i}\ne 0\\ I,\,{\rm{if}}\,{\Delta }_{i}=0\,{\rm{or}}\,{\lambda }_{i}=0\end{array}.$$
(84)

The proof is therefore concluded here. ■

## Conclusions

Here, we defined a method for unsupervised control of entangled quantum gates in gate-model quantum computers and near-term quantum devices. The framework utilizes the terms of control theory for the description of the control problem. The system model uses the quantum bus scheme that correlates the gate outputs with auxiliary probe beams. The probe states are measured to provide information to a post-processing unit and are then inputted into the machine learning control. The entangled gate structure is achieved by a second measurement block that entangles the gate outputs, leading to an entangled gate structure. We showed that if the quantum gates are entangled, the non-stable gate is controllable by a stable quantum gate; however, if the gates formulate a product system, then the random oscillations of the non-stable gate are not controllable in terms of control theory. The solution stabilizes the quantum gate structure via the derivation of an optimal control function that minimizes a particular cost function. The framework provides an implementable solution for experimental quantum computations and for near-term quantum computer architectures in the quantum Internet.

### Submission note

Parts of this work were presented in conference proceedings47.

### Ethics statement

This work did not involve any active collection of human data.

## References

1. 1.

Preskill, J. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018).

2. 2.

Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature, Vol 574, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 (2019).

3. 3.

Aaronson, S. & Chen, L. Complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments. Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference, CCC ’17, pages 22:1–22:67 (2017).

4. 4.

Harrow, A. W. & Montanaro, A. Quantum Computational Supremacy. Nature 549, 203–209 (2017).

5. 5.

Foxen, B. et al. Demonstrating a Continuous Set of Two-qubit Gates for Near-term Quantum Algorithms, arXiv:2001.08343 (2020).

6. 6.

Harrigan, M. et al. Quantum Approximate Optimization of Non-Planar Graph Problems on a Planar Superconducting Processor, arXiv:2004.04197v1 (2020).

7. 7.

Rubin, N. et al. Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, arXiv:2004.04174v1 (2020).

8. 8.

Alexeev, Y. et al. Quantum Computer Systems for Scientific Discovery, arXiv:1912.07577 (2019).

9. 9.

Loncar, M. et al. Development of Quantum InterConnects for Next-Generation Information Technologies, arXiv:1912.06642 (2019).

10. 10.

Ajagekar, A., Humble, T. & You, F. Quantum Computing based Hybrid Solution Strategies for Large-scale Discrete-Continuous Optimization Problems. Computers and Chemical Engineering Vol 132, 106630 (2020).

11. 11.

Ajagekar, A. & You, F. Quantum computing for energy systems optimization: Challenges and opportunities. Energy ume 179, 76–89 (2019).

12. 12.

Lloyd, S. Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal, arXiv:1812.11075 (2018).

13. 13.

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028. (2014).

14. 14.

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Neven, H. Quantum Algorithms for Fixed Qubit Architectures. arXiv:1703.06199v1 (2017).

15. 15.

Farhi, E. & Neven, H. Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors, arXiv:1802.06002v1 (2018).

16. 16.

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Zhou, L. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size, arXiv:1910.08187 (2019).

17. 17.

Farhi, E., Gamarnik, D. & Gutmann, S. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: Worst Case Examples, arXiv:2005.08747 (2020).

18. 18.

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Applied to a Bounded Occurrence Constraint Problem. arXiv:1412.6062. (2014).

19. 19.

IBM. A new way of thinking: The IBM quantum experience, http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum (2017).

20. 20.

Van Meter, R. Quantum Networking, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, ISBN 1118648927, 9781118648926 (2014).

21. 21.

Gyongyosi, L. Quantum State Optimization and Computational Pathway Evaluation for Gate-Model Quantum Computers, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61316-4 (2020).

22. 22.

Shor, P. W. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994).

23. 23.

Shor, P. W. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493–R2496 (1995).

24. 24.

Gyongyosi, L., Imre, S. & Nguyen, H. V. A Survey on Quantum Channel Capacities. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 99, 1, https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2786748 (2018).

25. 25.

Biamonte, J. et al. Quantum Machine Learning. Nature 549, 195–202 (2017).

26. 26.

Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning, arXiv:1307.0411v2 (2013).

27. 27.

Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics 10, 631 (2014).

28. 28.

Monz, T. et al. Realization of a scalable Shor algorithm. Science 351, 1068–1070 (2016).

29. 29.

Barends, R. et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature 508, 500–503 (2014).

30. 30.

Kielpinski, D., Monroe, C. & Wineland, D. J. Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer. Nature 417, 709–711 (2002).

31. 31.

Ofek, N. et al. Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits. Nature 536, 441–445 (2016).

32. 32.

Rebentrost, P., Mohseni, M. & Lloyd, S. Quantum Support Vector Machine for Big Data Classification. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014).

33. 33.

Lloyd, S. The Universe as Quantum Computer, A Computable Universe: Understanding and exploring Nature as computation, Zenil, H. ed., World Scientific, Singapore, 2012, arXiv:1312.4455v1 (2013).

34. 34.

LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep Learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2014).

35. 35.

Schuld, M., Sinayskiy, I. & Petruccione, F. An introduction to quantum machine learning. Contemporary Physics 56, pp. 172-185. arXiv: 1409.3097 (2015).

36. 36.

Imre, S. & Gyongyosi, L. Advanced Quantum Communications - An Engineering Approach. Wiley-IEEE Press (New Jersey, USA) (2012).

37. 37.

Petz, D. Quantum Information Theory and Quantum Statistics, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Hiv: 6 (2008).

38. 38.

Bacsardi, L. On the Way to Quantum-Based Satellite Communication. IEEE Comm. Mag. 51(08), 50–55 (2013).

39. 39.

Van Meter, R. Architecture of a Quantum Multicomputer Optimized for Shor’s Factoring Algorithm, Ph.D Dissertation, Keio University, arXiv:quant-ph/0607065v1 (2006).

40. 40.

Brandao, F. G. S. L., Broughton, M., Farhi, E., Gutmann, S. & Neven, H. For Fixed Control Parameters the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm’s Objective Function Value Concentrates for Typical Instances, arXiv:1812.04170 (2018).

41. 41.

Zhou, L., Wang, S.-T., Choi, S., Pichler, H. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices, arXiv:1812.01041 (2018).

42. 42.

Lechner, W. Quantum Approximate Optimization with Parallelizable Gates, arXiv:1802.01157v2 (2018).

43. 43.

Crooks, G. E. Performance of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on the Maximum Cut Problem, arXiv:1811.08419 (2018).

44. 44.

Ho, W. W., Jonay, C. & Hsieh, T. H. Ultrafast State Preparation via the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm with Long Range Interactions, arXiv:1810.04817 (2018).

45. 45.

Song, C. et al. 10-Qubit Entanglement and Parallel Logic Operations with a Superconducting Circuit. Physical Review Letters 119(no. 18), 180511 (2017).

46. 46.

Brown, K. A. & Roser, T. Towards storage rings as quantum computers. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 054701 (2020).

47. 47.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Unsupervised Machine Learning Control of Quantum Gates in Gate-Model Quantum Computers, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Optics 2018 (FiO 2018), Optical Society of America (OSA), 16-20 Sept. 2018, Washington, D.C., USA, https://doi.org/10.1364/FIO.2018.FTh1B.3 (2018).

48. 48.

Chou, C. W. et al. Measurement-induced entanglement for excitation stored in remote atomic ensembles. Nature 438, 828–832 (2005).

49. 49.

Nemoto, K. & Munro, W. J. Nearly deterministic linear optical controlled-NOT gate. Physical Review Letters 93, 250502 (2004).

50. 50.

Munro, W., Nemoto, K. & Spiller, T. Weak nonlinearities: a new route to optical quantum computation. New Journal of Physics 7, 137 (2005).

51. 51.

Spiller, T. P. et al. Quantum computation by communication. New Journal of Physics 8, 30 (2006).

52. 52.

Lloyd, S. et al. Infrastructure for the quantum Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 34, 9–20 (2004).

53. 53.

Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA (2016).

54. 54.

Lloyd, S., Garnerone, S. & Zanardi, P. Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric analysis of data. Nat. Commun., 7, arXiv:1408.3106 (2016).

55. 55.

Debnath, S. et al. Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits. Nature 536, 63–66 (2016).

56. 56.

Pirandola, S. & Braunstein, S. L. Unite to build a quantum internet. Nature 532, 169–171 (2016).

57. 57.

Pirandola, S. End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network. Commun. Phys. 2, 51 (2019).

58. 58.

Wehner, S., Elkouss, D. & Hanson, R. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science 362, 6412 (2018).

59. 59.

Pirandola, S., Laurenza, R., Ottaviani, C. & Banchi, L. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications. Nature Communications 8, 15043, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15043 (2017).

60. 60.

Pirandola, S. et al. Theory of channel simulation and bounds for private communication. Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 035009 (2018).

61. 61.

Pirandola, S. Bounds for multi-end communication over quantum networks. Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 045006 (2019).

62. 62.

Pirandola, S. Capacities of repeater-assisted quantum communications, arXiv:1601.00966 (2016).

63. 63.

Pirandola, S. et al. Advances in Quantum Cryptography, arXiv:1906.01645 (2019).

64. 64.

Laurenza, R. & Pirandola, S. General bounds for sender-receiver capacities in multipoint quantum communications. Phys. Rev. A 96, 032318 (2017).

65. 65.

Kimble, H. J. The quantum Internet. Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008).

66. 66.

Van Meter, R. & Devitt, S. J. Local and Distributed Quantum Computation. IEEE Computer 49(9), 31–42 (2016).

67. 67.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Optimizing High-Efficiency Quantum Memory with Quantum Machine Learning for Near-Term Quantum Devices, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56689-0 (2019).

68. 68.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Theory of Noise-Scaled Stability Bounds and Entanglement Rate Maximization in the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58200-6 (2020).

69. 69.

Gyongyosi, L. Services for the Quantum Internet, DSc Dissertation, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) (2020).

70. 70.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Entanglement Access Control for the Quantum Internet, Quantum Information Processing, Springer Nature, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2226-5 (2019).

71. 71.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Opportunistic Entanglement Distribution for the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38495-w (2019).

72. 72.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Dense Quantum Measurement Theory, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43250-2 (2019).

73. 73.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Training Optimization for Gate-Model Quantum Neural Networks, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48892-w (2019).

74. 74.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. State Stabilization for Gate-Model Quantum Computers, Quantum Information Processing, Springer Nature, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2397-0 (2019).

75. 75.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Quantum Circuit Design for Objective Function Maximization in Gate-Model Quantum Computers, Quantum Information Processing, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2326-2 (2019).

76. 76.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Multilayer Optimization for the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30957-x (2018).

77. 77.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Entanglement Availability Differentiation Service for the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28801-3, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28801-3 (2018).

78. 78.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Entanglement-Gradient Routing for Quantum Networks, Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14394-w, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14394-w (2017).

79. 79.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Decentralized Base-Graph Routing for the Quantum Internet, Physical Review A, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022310 (2018).

80. 80.

Chakraborty, K., Rozpedeky, F., Dahlbergz, A. & Wehner, S. Distributed Routing in a Quantum Internet, arXiv:1907.11630v1 (2019).

81. 81.

Khatri, S., Matyas, C. T., Siddiqui, A. U. & Dowling, J. P. Practical figures of merit and thresholds for entanglement distribution in quantum networks. Phys. Rev. Research 1, 023032 (2019).

82. 82.

Kozlowski, W. & Wehner, S. Towards Large-Scale Quantum Networks, Proc. of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication, Dublin, Ireland, arXiv:1909.08396 (2019).

83. 83.

Pathumsoot, P. et al. Modeling of Measurement-based Quantum Network Coding on IBMQ Devices, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052301 (2020).

84. 84.

Pal, S., Batra, P., Paterek, T. & Mahesh, T. S. Experimental localisation of quantum entanglement through monitored classical mediator, arXiv:1909.11030v1 (2019).

85. 85.

Miguel-Ramiro, J. & Dur, W. Delocalized information in quantum networks, New J. Phys, https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab784d (2020).

86. 86.

Pirker, A. & Dur, W. A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglement-based networks, arXiv:1810.03556v1 (2018).

87. 87.

Shannon, K., Towe, E. & Tonguz, O. On the Use of Quantum Entanglement in Secure Communications: A Survey, arXiv:2003.07907 (2020).

88. 88.

Amoretti, M. & Carretta, S. Entanglement Verification in Quantum Networks with Tampered Nodes, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2020.2967955 (2020).

89. 89.

Cao, Y. et al. Multi-Tenant Provisioning for Quantum Key Distribution Networks with Heuristics and Reinforcement Learning: A Comparative Study, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2020.2964003 (2020).

90. 90.

Cao, Y. et al. Key as a Service (KaaS) over Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)-Integrated Optical Networks, IEEE Comm. Mag., https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2019.1701375 (2019).

91. 91.

Liu, Y. Preliminary Study of Connectivity for Quantum Key Distribution Network, arXiv:2004.11374v1 (2020).

92. 92.

Sun, F. Performance analysis of quantum channels, Quantum Eng. e35, https://doi.org/10.1002/que2.35 (2020).

93. 93.

Chai, G. et al. Blind channel estimation for continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Quantum Eng. e37, https://doi.org/10.1002/que2.37 (2020).

94. 94.

Krisnanda, T. et al. Probing quantum features of photosynthetic organisms. npj Quantum Inf. 4, 60 (2018).

95. 95.

Krisnanda, T. et al. Revealing Nonclassicality of Inaccessible Objects. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 120402 (2017).

96. 96.

Krisnanda, T. et al. Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity. npj Quantum Inf. 6, 12 (2020).

97. 97.

Krisnanda, T. et al. Detecting nondecomposability of time evolution via extreme gain of correlations. Phys. Rev. A 98, 052321 (2018).

98. 98.

Caleffi, M. End-to-End Entanglement Rate: Toward a Quantum Route Metric, 2017 IEEE Globecom, https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOMW.2017.8269080 (2018).

99. 99.

Caleffi, M. Optimal Routing for Quantum Networks, IEEE Access, Vol 5, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2763325 (2017).

100. 100.

Caleffi, M., Cacciapuoti, A. S. & Bianchi, G. Quantum Internet: from Communication to Distributed Computing, aXiv:1805.04360 (2018).

101. 101.

Castelvecchi, D. The quantum internet has arrived, Nature, News and Comment, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01835-3 (2018).

102. 102.

Cacciapuoti, A. S., et al Quantum Internet: Networking Challenges in Distributed Quantum Computing, arXiv:1810.08421 (2018).

103. 103.

Cuomo, D., Caleffi, M. & Cacciapuoti, A. S. Towards a Distributed Quantum Computing Ecosystem, arXiv:2002.11808v1 (2020).

104. 104.

Miguel-Ramiro, J., Pirker, A. & Dur, W. Genuine quantum networks: superposed tasks and addressing. arXiv:2005.00020v1 (2020).

105. 105.

Amer, O., Krawec, W. O. & Wang, B. Efficient Routing for Quantum Key Distribution Networks. arXiv:2005.12404 (2020).

106. 106.

Rozpedek, F. et al. Optimizing practical entanglement distillation. Phys. Rev. A 97, 062333 (2018).

107. 107.

Humphreys, P. et al. Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a quantum network, Nature 558 (2018).

108. 108.

Liao, S.-K. et al. Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution. Nature 549, 43–47 (2017).

109. 109.

Ren, J.-G. et al. Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation. Nature 549, 70–73 (2017).

110. 110.

Hensen, B. et al. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526 (2015).

111. 111.

Hucul, D. et al. Modular entanglement of atomic qubits using photons and phonons, Nature Physics 11(1) (2015).

112. 112.

Noelleke, C. et al. Efficient Teleportation Between Remote Single-Atom Quantum Memories. Physical Review Letters 110, 140403 (2013).

113. 113.

Sangouard, N. et al. Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics. Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 33 (2011).

114. 114.

Quantum Internet Research Group (QIRG), web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/qirg/about/ (2018).

115. 115.

Duriez, T., Brunton, S. L. & Noack, B. R. Machine Learning Control: Taming Nonlinear Dynamics and Turbulence, ISSN 0926-5112 ISSN 2215-0056 (electronic), Springer (2017).

116. 116.

Noack, B. R. & Niven, R. K. Maximum-entropy closure for a Galerkin system of an incompressible periodic wake. J. Fluid Mech. 700, 187–213 (2012).

117. 117.

Low, K. R. et al. Noise source identification and control in a Mach 0.6 turbulent jet with simultaneous time resolved PIV, pressure and acoustic measurements. Exp. Fluids 54(4), 1–17 (2013).

118. 118.

Zahedinejad, E., Ghosh, J. & Sanders, B. C. Designing high-fidelity single-shot three-qubit gates: A machine-learning approach. Physics Review Applied 6, 054005 (2016).

119. 119.

Zahedinejad, E., Schirmer, S. & Sanders, B. C. Evolutionary algorithms for hard quantum control. Physics Review A 90(no. 3), 032310 (2014).

120. 120.

Wu, C., Qi, B., Chen, C. & Dong, D. Robust learning control design for quantum unitary transformations, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics (2018).

121. 121.

Bukov, M. et al. Reinforcement Learning in Different Phases of Quantum Control. Phys. Rev. X 8, 031086 (2018).

122. 122.

Dong, D. et al. Learning robust pulses for generating universal quantum gates. Scientific Reports 6, 36090 (2016).

123. 123.

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Sipser, M. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. Technical Report MIT-CTP-2936, MIT, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106 (2000).

124. 124.

Kadowaki, T. & Nishimori, H. Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355–5363, arXiv:cond-mat/9804280 (1998).

125. 125.

Khaneja, N. et al. Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms. Journal of magnetic resonance 172.2, 296–305 (2005).

126. 126.

Farhi, E. & Harrow, A. W. Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, arXiv:1602.07674 (2016).

127. 127.

Farhi, E., Kimmel, S. & Temme, K. A Quantum Version of Schoning’s Algorithm Applied to Quantum 2-SAT, arXiv:1603.06985 (2016).

128. 128.

Sax, I. et al. Approximate Approximation on a Quantum Annealer, arXiv:2004.09267 (2020).

129. 129.

Li, R. et al. Approximate Quantum Adders with Genetic Algorithms: An IBM Quantum Experience. Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology 4, 1 (2017).

130. 130.

Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. A Survey on Quantum Computing Technology, Computer Science Review, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.11.002, ISSN: 1574-0137 (2018).

131. 131.

Armen, M. A., Au, J. K., Stockton, J. K., Doherty, A. C. & Mabuchi, H. Adaptive homodyne measurement of optical phase. Physical Review Letters 89, 133602 (2002).

## Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME). The research reported in this paper has been supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA Premium Postdoctoral Research Program 2019), by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (TUDFO/51757/2019-ITM, Thematic Excellence Program), by the National Research Development and Innovation Office of Hungary (Project No. 2017-1.2.1-NKP-2017-00001), by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund - OTKA K-112125 and in part by the BME Artificial Intelligence FIKP grant of EMMI (Budapest University of Technology, BME FIKP-MI/SC).

## Author information

Authors

### Contributions

L.G.Y. designed the protocol, wrote the manuscript, and analyzed the results.

### Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laszlo Gyongyosi.

## Ethics declarations

### Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Gyongyosi, L. Unsupervised Quantum Gate Control for Gate-Model Quantum Computers. Sci Rep 10, 10701 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67018-1