Abstract
A scheme for arbitrary quantum state engineering (QSE) in threestate systems is proposed. Firstly, starting from a set of complete orthogonal timedependent basis with undetermined coefficients, a timedependent Hamiltonian is derived via Counterdiabatic driving for the purpose of guiding the system to attain an arbitrary target state at a predefined time. Then, on request of the assumed target states, two singlemode driving protocols and a multimode driving protocol are proposed as examples to discuss the validity of the QSE scheme. The result of comparison between singlemode driving and multimode driving shows that multimode driving seems to have a wider rang of application prospect because it can drive the system to an arbitrary target state from an arbitrary initial state also at a predefined time even without the use of microwave fields for the transition between the two ground states. Moreover, for the purpose of discussion in the scheme’s feasibility in practice, a polynomial ansatz as the simplest exampleis used to fix the pulses. The result shows that the pulses designed to implement the protocols are not hard to be realized in practice. At the end, QSE in higherdimensional systems is also discussed in brief as a generalization example of the scheme.
Introduction
In recent years, to fulfill the requirement of highprecision quantum gates, teleportation, or state transfer, much focus is given to quantum state engineering (QSE)^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13} which aims to manipulate the system and obtain a target state, typically a pure state, at a designed time T, or more ambitiously, to drive the eigenstates of an initial Hamiltonian into those of a final Hamiltonian^{8,9,10,11,12}. To be concrete about it, taking twolevel system as an example, the goal of QSE is to construct a passage to achieve an expected final state (μ^{2} + ν^{2} = 1) from a given initial state ψ(0)〉 with a designed evolution time T in an undisturbed way. Typically, adiabatic techniques behave very well in the field of QSE. In an adiabatic control of a quantum system, the system remains in one of the instantaneous eigenstates of its timedependent Hamiltonian during the entire evolution. The control parameters in the Hamiltonian are carefully designed such that the adiabaticity condition always holds, which usually results in a very long execution time. By adiabatic passages and sequential programming^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,14,15}, robust protocols^{16,17} of realizing QSE have been provided in closedsystem scenario. As the system remains in the instantaneous eigenstates, there is no heating or friction, but the long operation times needed may render the operation useless or even impossible to implement because decoherence would spoil the intended dynamics. Therefore, accelerating the dynamics towards the perfect final outcome is a good idea and perhaps the most reasonable way to actually fight against the decoherence that is accumulated during a long operation time. In this field, ways of speeding up an adiabatic control are available in the adiabatic regime^{8,18,19,20,21,22}, for instance, in ref. 22, based on Berry’s transitionless tracking algorithm^{8}, Chen et al. put forward a shortcut to adiabatic passage in two and threelevel systems. Soon after that, lots of speeding up protocols have been springing up and have been applied in a wide range of fields including “fast coldatom”, “fast ion transport”, “fast expansions”, “fast wavepacket splitting”, “fast quantum information processing”, and so on refs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40.
The transitionless tracking algorithm which is also known as Counterdiabatic driving, provides Hamiltonians H(t) for which the adiabatic approximation for the timedependent wave function evolving with a reference Hamiltonian H_{0}(t) becomes exact. According to ref. 8, the simplest Hamiltonian which steers the dynamics along the instantaneous eigenstates {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} of the original Hamiltonian H_{0}(t) without transitions among them and without phase factors, formally in an arbitrarily short time, , where the dot means time derivative. Strictly speaking, the form of the Hamiltonian deduced by transitionless tracking algorithm is H(t) = H_{0}(t) + H_{1}(t), where . While, in fact, the addition of H_{0}(t) is possible, but not necessary, it only affects the phases^{22}. So H_{1} may substitute H_{0}(t), when H(t) = H_{1}(t). In this case, the evolution operator of the system could be described as .
We should notice that if we pay no attention to that {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} are the instantaneous eigenstates of H_{0}(t), the Hamiltonian H(t) seems to be irrelevant to H_{0}(t) but only closely related to ϕ_{n}(t)〉. Therefore, assuming {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} are just a set of complete orthogonal basis that {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} satisfy and . According to transitionless tracking algorithm, when the Hamiltonian for driving the system is , each of the moving states ϕ_{n}(t)〉 will evolve along itself all the time without transition to others. In other words, {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} are not necessarily being the instantaneous eigenstates of an original Hamiltonian H_{0}(t), as long as they satisfy orthonormality, the corresponding Counterdiabatic driving Hamiltonian H(t) could be deduced. In this case, suitable pathes can be designed for different purposes as one desired. With the designed paths, full information including the populations of the states and the phases at any time would be exactly known. Here, it is important to note that shortening the time implies an energy cost, so T could be arbitrarily value only when the energy cost could be arbitrarily value. Which means the advantage of obtaining an arbitrarily target state with an arbitrarily operation time T is constrained only the complementarity energytime^{41,42,43,44,45}.
In this paper, motivated by refs 8,22,40, we start from a set of undetermined moving states which satisfy orthonormality to deduce a Hamiltonian based on transitionless tracking algorithm to implement arbitrary QSE scheme in threestate systems. We first consider the coefficients μ, η, and ν of the expected state are all real. Then, according to transitionless tracking algorithm, we deduce the corresponding Counterdiabatic driving Hamiltonian. The third step, through using the initial state, the final states, and the limiting conditions for a realizable Hamiltonian, we set the boundary conditions. At last, the pulses (or the coupling coefficients) are determined, which means the Hamiltonian will be constructed. And the constructed Hamiltonian will accurately guide the system from the given initial state to the expected state with a designed evolution time T. To show the work in more detail, two singlemode driving protocols are proposed, and the result of numerical analysis show that, as expected, the target state could be ideally achieved along the passage constructed. Moreover, a protocol of multimode driving is proposed later. We show that even without using the microwave fields for the transition between the two ground states (the 1–3 pulse), the multimode driving protocol still can drive the system to an arbitrary target state from an arbitrary initial state, which makes sense in application prospect. We give an example to discuss the situation when the coefficients μ, η, and ν contain complex phases. Finally, the generalization of higherdimensional systems and several application examples of the present QSE scheme are given.
QSE in threestate systems via counterdiabatic driving
We start from constructing a complete orthogonal basis for a threestate system with three bare states 1〉, 2〉, and 3〉,
where α_{n} and β_{n} are timedependent real coefficients. To satisfy the orthogonality condition that (n ≠ m), we find α_{n} and β_{n} satisfy the condition
Then, according to transitionless tracking algorithm^{8}, the Hamiltonian that exactly drives the moving states is derived in the form (ħ = 1),
To satisfy the condition in eq. (2), the simplest choice for the coefficients α_{n} and β_{n} could be
For convenience, we set α_{1} = θ and β_{2} = φ. Then, the three moving states become , , and . Putting eq. (4) into eq. (3), the Hamiltonian is deduced
So, supposing that the atomic system is Λtype for the following discussion (two ground states 1〉, 3〉, one excited state 2〉). Accordingly, we set , , and , where Ω_{p}(t), Ω_{s}(t), and Ω_{a}(t) can be regarded as the pump, Stokes, and microwave fields, respectively. The aim is to obtain a fast population transfer to create an arbitrary stable superposition state (μ^{2} + η^{2} + ν^{2} = 1) from a given initial state, i.e., 1〉, along a chosen moving state ϕ_{k}(t)〉 (k = 1, or 2, or 3). Therefore, according to eq. (1), the boundary condition is
where τ_{0} is the initial time, τ_{f} is the final time, and T = τ_{f} − τ_{0} is the total operation time. Based on the Hamiltonian, anyone of the three moving states {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} could be chosen to complete the QSE scheme. Now, we are ready to apply QSE by means of different protocols including singlemode driving and multimode driving. Here, the singlemode driving denotes the system accurately evolves alone one of the moving states. In other words, when the system is initially in one of the three moving states, (k = 1, or 2, or 3), it will be in that moving state all the time, , where ψ(t)〉 is the evolution state given by solving the Schrödinger equation . The multimode driving means that the timedependent wave function ψ(t)〉 will include contributions from the three moving states. That is, when the system is initially in a linear superposition of the moving states, (c_{k} is a timeindependent coefficient satisfying ), at the time t, the system will be also in a linear superposition of the moving states .
Singlemode driving
Protocol I
In the first singlemode driving protocol, assuming that the aim now is to obtain an arbitrary stable superposition state (μ^{2} + ν^{2} = 1) between the two ground states 1〉 and 3〉 in a classical Λtype atom. Then, ϕ_{1}(t)〉 could be chosen to gain the target. Since the moving state ϕ_{1}(t)〉 is irrelevant to φ, so in fact we can further simplify the Hamiltonian in eq. (5) by setting φ = const. H(t) becomes , and the boundary condition is (for simplicity, we set τ_{0} = 0 and τ_{f} = T)
To satisfy this boundary condition, the simplest choice could be assuming a polynomial ansatz to interpolate at intermediate time, . Then, putting eq. (7) into θ(t), we obtain
Therefore, . Once is fixed, which means Ω_{a}(t) is fixed, we may calculate the timeevolution for pulse and population (see, e.g., Fig. 1, where is chosen as an example). Here the population for a quantum state is defined as , where ψ(t)〉 is the solution of the Schrödinger equation . From Fig. 1, two results could be easily got: the pulse for driving the system is easy to be realized in practice and the system accurately evolve along the moving state ϕ_{1}(t)〉. The pulse could be simulated by the sine curve algorithm, , where Ω_{0} is the pulse amplitude. A classic application example of protocol I is the realization of an arbitrarily fast populations inversion between the ground states as shown in Fig. 2 when ν = 1. The result shows that the population inversion could be realized in an arbitrarily interaction time T.
It is worth noting that in confirming the boundary condition, there would be two results for θ(T), say, θ(T) = arccos μ and θ(T) = arcsin ν. Once the target state requests μ < 0, for θ(T) = arccos μ, there are two solutions: θ(T) = π + arcos μ and θ(T) = π − arccos μ, where arccos μ = arcsin ν. Then, putting these two solutions into , for , we have , while for , we have . Meanwhile, when ν < 0, for θ(T) = arcsin ν, the two solutions are θ(T) = π + arcsin ν and θ(T) = −arcsin ν. These two solutions correspond to the target states and , respectively. In order to embody the difference caused by the choices of θ(T), we plot Fig. 3, which shows the fidelities F_{n} of the three bare states 1〉, 2〉, and 3〉 with as an example. We define (n = 1, 2, 3) as the fidelity for the state n〉 in plotting the Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3, both the population and the phase that affecting the coefficients of the system are evolved as expected. In fact, taking the global phases off, and are actually equivalent to and , respectively. Therefore, when the global phase of the target state is not in view, in order to reduce the pulse intensity to reduce the energy consumption, θ(T) = arcsin ν would be the best choice to confirm the boundary condition to implement the protocol according to which decides the pulse intensity.
Protocol II
Now, we assume the aim is to obtain an arbitrary superposition state in three levels (μ^{2} + η^{2} + ν^{2} = 1). We consider μ > 0, η > 0, and ν > 0 as a matter of convenience for the discussion in the following. According to eqs (1) and (6), we choose as the moving state. The same as protocol I in Sec. III A, there also exist different choices for setting the boundary condition. Nevertheless, since the difference only happens in the signs of the coefficients, to avoid the fussy, duplication and repetition, we choose the boundary condition on the principle of less energy consumption (we set τ_{0} = 0 and τ_{f} = T),
Similar to protocol I, we set and . In this case, we obtain
where . Then θ and φ are fixed,
The Rabi frequencies for driving the system are
In Fig. 4, we plot the evolutions in time of the Rabi frequencies with μ = 0, and with as examples. We accordingly plot the evolutions in time of the populations with and with in Fig. 5. The results show that the expected states can be ideally obtained with a given evolution time T without doubt. Here, it is notable that to realize the pulse with Rabi frequency Ω_{a}(t), in this protocol, we should substitute the original twophoton transition in a stimulated Raman adiabatic passage by a special onephoton 1–3 pulse. This operation possibly can be realized by exploiting the atomic clock transition between ground state hyperfine levels (1〉 and 3〉) with microwaves in alkali atoms^{22}.
In fact, there is a special case that we can make the pulses more simple by suitably choosing parameters. After reanalysing the moving state ϕ_{2}〉, we find if the initial state is 2〉, through time evolution, the moving state will also end up with an arbitrary stable superposition state with a timeindependent special θ. In this case, Ω_{a} = 0, which means the microwave fields for the transition between 1〉 and 3〉 to realize the special onephoton 1–3 pulse is no longer required and the protocol maybe easier to be realized in practice. We will discuss this special case in the following.
When θ is a const, the boundary condition should be a little different from eq. (9). The initial state is no longer in state 1〉 but changes into 2〉. Then, the boundary condition becomes (τ_{0} = 0 and τ_{f} = T)
The same as protocol I, we obtain the polynomial function for φ
and the Rabi frequencies
In this case, the Rabi frequencies are shown in Fig. 6 with two set of parameters , η = 0 and , , as examples. As we can see from Fig. 5, the shapes of the pulses are sinusoid. Also, we accordingly deduce the populations versus time with these two set of pulses (see Fig. 7), which demonstrates that the expected superposition states are ideally achieved at the designed time t = T.
Multimode driving
The protocols proposed above in Sec. III are all based on singlemode driving which means only one of the moving states participates in the evolution. In fact, since each of the moving states ϕ_{n}(t)〉 will evolve along itself all the time without transition to other ones, multimode driving is also applicable for the QSE scheme. That is, the initial state is not necessary in one of the moving states, it is feasible to set , where and τ_{0} is an arbitrary time for the use of the boundary conditions. The final state will be , where τ_{f} is also a time for setting the boundary conditions. According to Sec. II, the three moving states in the simplest form are , , and . Supposing the initial state is 1〉 and the target state is (μ^{2} + η^{2} + ν^{2} = 1). According to the initial condition, we have
and according to the final condition, we have
where θ_{0} = θ(τ_{0}), θ_{f} = θ(τ_{f}), φ_{0} = φ(τ_{0}), and φ_{f} = φ(τ_{f}). A set of equations are obtained
Obviously, there are four unknowns θ_{0} = θ(τ_{0}), θ_{f} = θ(τ_{f}), φ_{0} = φ(τ_{0}), and φ_{f} = φ(τ_{f}) in a set of three equations. So, in order to solve the equations set in eq. (18), it is better to confirm one of the unknowns. For example, we can set φ_{0} = 0 to make c_{3} = 0 such that the time evolution of the system is irrelevant to the moving state ϕ_{3}(t)〉. In this case, the results of eq. (18) are
Here, we should notice that since , according to the second equation of eq. (19), there would be two results for φ_{f}, say and . So, it is better to use the third equation in eq. (19) to determine φ_{f}, then, go back and check out which one of the two results is correct. As we have mentioned in Sec. III B that a protocol would be relatively easy to be realized if the microwave field is not needed. In view of that, according to eq. (19), we can further set θ_{0} = θ(t) = θ_{f} = const to make . We obtain
That is, the boundary condition for the system is confirmed
Also, by fitting of a threeorder polynomial , we have
where , and the Rabi frequencies are
We plot Fig. 8 to show timeevolutions for pulses [Fig. 8(a)] and corresponding populations transfer [Fig. 8(b)]. We take as the target state, which corresponds to . By comparison with the singlemode driving in protocol II, the benefit of multimode driving is clear, the initial state is not necessary to be prepared in 2〉, the designed process will guide the system from an arbitrary initial state to the target state without using the microwave field. To demonstrate that arbitrary target state would be achieved by using multimode driving, in Fig. 9, we plot timeevolution for the populations for states 1〉, 2〉, and 3〉 when: (a) μ = η = 0, ν = 1; (b) μ = 0, ; (c) , η = ν = 1/2; (d) , η = 0, . The results show that, as expected, the multimode driving would guide the system to attain arbitrary target state in an ideal way.
Noting that energy consumption is also an important index for the effectiveness of the protocol, we calculate the behavior of the timeaveraged frequency (interpreted geometrically as a length in ref. 46),
and the timeaveraged energy
where T = τ_{f} − τ_{0}. For comparison, we put eqs (15) and (23) into eqs (24) and (25). The results are
and
where the subscripts o and m denote the singlemode driving protocol and the multimode driving protocol, respectively. Obviously, as η ranges from 0 to 1, the ratio or is less than 1. Figure 10 which shows the ratio versus η and μ also demonstrates this point. This result signifies that the multimode driving protocol consumes more energy than the singlemode driving protocols.
Example for coefficients containing phases
The discussions above have not considered the situation when the moving states’ coefficients contain phases. However, it is possible that one may ask for a target state in form of
Therefore, in this section, we will discuss how to obtain such a target state. Obviously, to obtain a target state like that in eq. (28), the moving state should be in form
Generally speaking, it does not matter whether γ and κ are timedependent or not, but for the veracity of discussion, we set γ and κ are timedependent in the following. Using the analysis above in Sec. III and Sec. IV, we can easily set the other two moving states to complete the system
Then, the Hamiltonian is given as
Contrasting eq. (31) with eq. (5), we can find the Hamiltonians in eqs (5) and (31) are very close to each other. Therefore, we can similarly consider the system is a threelevel Λtype system. The three Rabi frequencies are , , and . Then, at the instance of the final state, we can suitably set the boundary conditions to design the pulses and perform the QSE scheme as what we do in Sec. III and Sec. IV. For instance, assuming the initial state is 3〉 and the target state is , the coefficients could be chosen as
where λ is a coefficient decided by the target state. To demonstrate the time evolution governed by the designed Hamiltonian H is accurately along the moving state when phases are considered, we extract θ and κ from ψ(t)〉 with relations (−π/2 < θ < π/2)
where ψ(t)〉 is the solution of Schrödinger equation . Based on eqs (32) and (33), we plot θ, κ, θ′, and κ′ versus time in Fig. 11 with . Obviously, from the figure, we find θ = θ′ and κ = κ′. That is, when the phases are considered, the system still evolves along the way as we expected. In fact, when φ = 0, the system can be regarded as a twostate system, in which any quantum state can be depicted as a point at the origin of the Bloch sphere. We plot the time evolution of the system in Fig. 12 with the help of Bloch sphere when r = 1, , and λ = 0.5/T. Any point on the black solid curve expresses a quantum state containing information of population and phase. As the information of phase during the whole evolution is accurately known, the present QSE scheme has a good application prospect in quantum phase gates.
Discussion and Conclusion
An classical application of the QSE scheme could be the implementation of beam splitters in a system with longitudinal coordinate three coupled waveguides^{36,47,48,49,50}, or in a system with a single particle in a triple well^{51}. For such systems the minimal channel basis for left, center, and right wave functions are , , and , where the superscript t means transposition. The Rabi frequencies Ω_{p}, Ω_{s}, and Ω_{a} play the roles of coupling coefficients between the adjacent waveguides or between the adjacent wells. For example, if we would like to implement a 1 : 3 beam splitter, the goal is to drive the system from C〉 to . So, we can choice protocol II to realize the process. The boundary condition is given according to eq. (13), and the coefficients for the final state are . If the coefficients for the final state are chosen as , the protocol II can be used to implement a 1:3 beam splitter. The QSE scheme also has a good application prospect in the field of multiparticle entanglement generation, for instance, by Rydberg blockade^{52,53}. For the multimode driving protocol, the application area would be much wider as the Hamiltonian turns out to be a stimulated Raman passage Hamiltonian, for example, the multimode driving protocol would be applied in field of entangled states’ fast generation in cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) systems^{31,32,33}. As it is known to all, the 1–3 pulse has been regarded as a problematic term^{31,32,33,34,35,36} because it is possibly an outstanding challenge to realize the 1–3 pulse in some specific systems. Therefore, in the schemes proposed in refs 31, 32, 33, the authors did a lot to design Hamiltonian to overcome the problem caused by the problematic term which is actually equivalent to the special onephoton 1–3 pulse (the microwave field). However, the operations in refs 31, 32, 33 usually cause other problem or make other limiting conditions to the schemes, for examples, there will be a limiting condition for the total operation time to generate the entangled states. So, researchers never ceased finding realizable methods to replace or nullify the problematic term in some specific systems. In this paper, we find that by applying the multimode driving, the problem will probably be avoided because the multimode driving allows the designed Hamiltonian without using the problematic terms to guide the system to achieve the target state. Taking a cavity QED system with two twolevel atoms (ground state g〉 and excited state e〉) in a cavity as an example, the Hamiltonian for the oneexcited subspace under rotating wave approximation is (ħ = 1)
where the basis for the Hamiltonian are , , and . We just need to set g_{1} = −iΩ_{p} and g_{2} = iΩ_{s} according to eq. (23). Choosing , timeevolution of the system [see Fig. 13] will end up with which is a twoatom maximal entangled state.
Moreover, this universal QSE scheme can be extended straightforwardly into higherdimensional systems. For example, a simple set of moving states for a fourdimensional system could be given as . Then, the orthogonality condition requests . We can accordingly set the four moving states as
The corresponding Hamiltonian is
Then, according to the initial state and the target state, we set the boundary condition to construct the pulses to determine the Hamiltonian. By applying the constructed Hamiltonian, arbitrary quantum states in a fourdimensional system will be achieved.
In conclusion, we have proposed an effective scheme for arbitrary quantum state engineering via Counterdiabatic driving. The scheme enables to achieve an arbitrarily fast population transfer in a threestate quantum system. As it is known to all, the transitionless tracking algorithm provides a Hamiltonian to accurately drive one of the eigenstates of an original Hamiltonian without transition to other ones. Different from the previous work based on the transitionless tracking algorithm that the start point is usually assuming which means ϕ_{n}(t)〉 should be the eigenstate of H_{0}(t), in this paper, we directly start from a timedependent moving state ϕ_{n}(t)〉 to design a process to achieve the target state. Strictly speaking, the moving states {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} are probably (but not necessary) the eigenstates of an unknown Hamiltonian because {ϕ_{n}(t)〉} satisfy orthonormality. While that does not matter because the unknown Hamiltonian affects nothing to the proposed QSE scheme. In this QSE scheme, the key point is to make sure that the moving states satisfy orthonormality which means and . We have proposed different protocols based on singlemode driving and multimode driving as examples to discuss the QSE scheme. The result shows that all the protocols, especially, the multimode driving protocol, can realize the target state in a perfect way: guiding the system to attain an arbitrary target state at a predefined time. The only drawback is that by singlemode driving, there might be some limits for the initial condition according to some special requirements. For example, if it is impossible to perform the onephoton 1–3 pulse (the microwave field), in order to achieve an arbitrary target state, the initial state should be ideally in the intermediate state, i.e., 2〉. Moreover, the pulses designed by polynomial fitting to realize the QSE scheme are shown as the shapes of sinusoid or linear superposition of sinusoids, which means realizing the QSE scheme in practice is not a challenge. Therefore, we hope the QSE scheme would be possible to realize within the current experimental technology.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Chen, Y.H. et al. Arbitrary quantum state engineering in threestate systems via Counterdiabatic driving. Sci. Rep. 6, 38484; doi: 10.1038/srep38484 (2016).
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
 1.
Zanardi, P. & Rasetti, M. Holonomic quantum computation. Phys. Lett. A 264, 94–99 (1999).
 2.
Farhi, E. et al. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NPComplete problem. Science 292, 472–475 (2001).
 3.
Duan, L. M., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Geometric manipulation of trapped ions for quantum computation. Science 292, 1695–1697 (2001).
 4.
GarcíaRipoll, J. J. & Cirac, J. I. Quantum computation with unknown parameters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 127902 (2003).
 5.
Bacon, D. & Flammia, S. T. Adiabatic gate teleportation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 120504 (2009).
 6.
del Campo, A., Rams, M. M. & Zurek, W. H. Assisted finiterate adiabatic passage across a quantum critical point: Exact solution for the quantum ising model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 115703 (2012).
 7.
Oh, S. et al. Resonant adiabatic passage with three qubits. Phys. Rev. A 87, 022332 (2013).
 8.
Berry, M. V. Transitionless quantum driving. J. Phys. A 42(36), 365303 (2009).
 9.
Chen, X. et al. Fast Optimal frictionless atom cooling in harmonic traps: Shortcut to Adiabaticity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 063002 (2010).
 10.
Chen, X., Torrontegui, E. & Muga, J. G. LewisRiesenfeld invariants and transitionless quantum driving. Phys. Rev. A 83, 062116 (2011).
 11.
Ruschhaupt, A., Chen, X., Alonso, D. & Muga, J. G. Optimally robust shortcuts to population inversion in twolevel quantum systems. New J. Phys. 14, 093040 (2012).
 12.
Lu, X. J. et al. Fast and robust population transfer in twolevel quantum systems with dephasing noise and/or systematic frequency errors. Phys. Rev. A 88, 033406 (2013).
 13.
Sarandy, M. S., Duzzioni, E. I. & Serra, R. M. Quantum computation in continuous time using dynamic invariants. Phys. Lett. A 375, 3343–3347 (2011).
 14.
Bergmann, K., Theuer, H. & Shore, B. W. Coherent population transfer among quantum states of atoms and molecules. Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1003 (1998).
 15.
Král, P., Thanopulos, I. & Shapiro, M. Colloquium: Coherently controlled adiabatic passage. Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 53 (2007).
 16.
Bacon, D. & Flammia, S. T. Adiabatic clusterstate quantum computing. Phys. Rev. A 82, 030303 (2010).
 17.
Kosut, R. L., Grace, M. D. & Brif, C. Robust control of quantum gates via sequential convex programming. Phys. Rev. A 88, 052326 (2013).
 18.
Wei, L. F. et al. Controllable coherent population transfers in superconducting qubits for quantum computing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 113601 (2008).
 19.
Muga, J. G., Chen, X., Ruschhaupt, A. & GueéryOdelin, D. Frictionless dynamics of BoseCEinstein condensates under fast trap variations. J. Phys. B 42, 241001 (2009).
 20.
Chen, Y. H. et al. Method for constructing shortcuts to adiabaticity by a substitute of counterdiabatic driving terms. Phys. Rev. A 93, 052109 (2016).
 21.
Torrontegui, E. et al. Chapter 2Shortcuts to Adiabaticity. Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. 62, 117–169 (2013).
 22.
Chen, X. et al. Shortcut to adiabatic passage in two and threeLevel Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 123003 (2010).
 23.
Chen, X. & Muga, J. G. Engineering of fast population transfer in threelevel systems. Phys. Rev. A 86, 033405 (2012).
 24.
Torrontegui, E. et al. Fast atomic transport without vibrational heating. Phys. Rev. A 83, 013415 (2011).
 25.
Torrontegui, E. et al. Fast transitionless expansion of cold atoms in optical Gaussianbeam traps. Phys. Rev. A 85, 033605 (2012).
 26.
Ibáñez, S. & Muga, J. G. Adiabaticity condition for nonHermitian Hamiltonians. Phys. Rev. A 89, 033403 (2014).
 27.
Masuda, S. & Nakamura, K. Acceleration of adiabatic quantum dynamics in electromagnetic fields. Phys. Rev. A 84, 043434 (2011).
 28.
Lu, M. et al. Shortcuts to adiabatic passage for population transfer and maximum entanglement creation between two atoms in a cavity. Phys. Rev. A 89, 012326 (2014).
 29.
del Campo, A. Frictionless quantum quenches in ultracold gases: A quantumdynamical microscope. Phys. Rev. A 84, 031606(R) (2011).
 30.
Ibáñez, S. et al. Shortcuts to adiabaticity for nonHermitian systems. Phys. Rev. A 84, 023415 (2011).
 31.
Chen, Y. H., Xia, Y., Chen, Q. Q. & Song, J. Efficient shortcuts to adiabatic passage for fast population transfer in multiparticle systems. Phys. Rev. A 89, 033856 (2014).
 32.
Fast and noiseresistant implementation of quantum phase gates and creation of quantum entangled states. Phys. Rev. A 91, 012325 (2015).
 33.
Shortcuts to adiabatic passage for multiparticles in distant cavities: applications to fast and noiseresistant quantum population transfer, entangled states preparation and transition. Laser Phys. Lett. 11, 115201 (2014).
 34.
Ibáñez, S., Chen, X. & Muga, J. G. Improving shortcuts to adiabaticity by iterative interaction pictures. Phys. Rev. A 87, 043402 (2013).
 35.
Torrontegui, E., MartínezGaraot, S. & Muga, J. G. Hamiltonian engineering via invariants and dynamical algebra. Phys. Rev. A 89, 043408 (2014).
 36.
MartínezGaraot, S., Torrontegui, E., Chen, X. & Muga, J. G. Shortcuts to adiabaticity in threelevel systems using Lie transforms. Phys. Rev. A 89, 053408 (2014).
 37.
Ibáñez, S. et al. Multiple schrödinger pictures and dynamics in shortcuts to adiabaticity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100403 (2012).
 38.
Chen, X. & Muga, J. G. Transient energy excitation in shortcuts to adiabaticity for the timedependent harmonic oscillato. Phys. Rev. A 82, 053403 (2010).
 39.
Schaff, J. F., Capuzzi, P., Labeyrie, G. & Vignolo, P. Shortcuts to adiabaticity for trapped ultracold gases. New J. Phys. 13, 113017 (2011).
 40.
Jing, J., Wu, L. A., Sarandy, M. S. & Muga, J. G. Inverse engineering control in open quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 88, 053422 (2013).
 41.
Santos, A. C. & Sarandy, M. S. Superadiabatic controlled evolutions and universal quantum computation. Sci. Rep. 5, 15775 (2015).
 42.
Santos, A. C., Silva, R. D. & Sarandy, M. S. Shortcut to adiabatic gate teleportation. Phys. Rev. A 93, 012311 (2016)
 43.
Subasi, Y. & Jarzynski, C. Simulating highly nonlocal Hamiltonians with less nonlocal Hamiltonians, arXiv: 1601.02922.
 44.
Song, X. K., Ai, Q., Qiu, J. & Deng, F. G. Physically feasible threelevel transitionless quantum driving with multiple Schrödinger dynamics. Phys. Rev. A 93, 052324 (2016).
 45.
Song, X. K., Zhang, H., Ai, Q., Qiu, J. & Deng, F. G. Shortcuts to adiabatic holonomic quantum computation in decoherencefree subspace with transitionless quantum driving algorithm. New J. Phys. 18, 023001 (2016).
 46.
Boscain, U. et al. Optimal control in laserinduced population transfer for two and threelevel quantum systems. J. Math. Phys. 43, 2107–2132 (2002).
 47.
Longhi, S. Quantumoptical analogies using photonic structures. Laser Photon. Rev. 3, 243–261 (2009).
 48.
Longhi, S. Optical realization of the twosite BoseHubbard model in waveguide lattices. J. Phys. B 44, 051001 (2010).
 49.
Ornigotti, M. et al. Visualization of twophoton Rabi oscillations in evanescently coupled optical waveguides. J. Phys. B 41, 085402 (2008).
 50.
Rangelov, A. A. & Vitanov, N. V. Achromatic multiple beam splitting by adiabatic passage in optical waveguides. Phys. Rev. A 85, 055803 (2012).
 51.
Eckert, K. et al. Threelevel atom optics via the tunneling interaction. Phys. Rev. A 70, 023606 (2004).
 52.
Møllmer, D., Madsen, L. B. & Mølmer, K. Quantum gates and multiparticle entanglement by Rydberg excitation blockade and adiabatic passage. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 170504 (2008).
 53.
Opatrný & Mølmer, K. Partial suppression of nonadiabatic transitions. New J. Phys. 16, 015025 (2014).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11575045, No. 11374054 and No. 11675046, and the Major State Basic Research Development Program of China under Grant No. 2012CB921601.
Author information
Affiliations
Department of Physics, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350002, China
 YeHong Chen
 , QiCheng Wu
 , BiHua Huang
 & Yan Xia
Department of Physics, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
 Jie Song
Authors
Search for YeHong Chen in:
Search for QiCheng Wu in:
Search for BiHua Huang in:
Search for Jie Song in:
Search for Yan Xia in:
Contributions
Y.H.C. and Y.X. came up with the initial idea for the work and performed the simulations for the model. J.S. performed the calculations for the model. B.H.H., Q.C.W., and Y.H.C. performed all the data analysis and the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors participated in the writing and revising of the text.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Yan Xia.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Further reading

Shortcuts to adiabatic passage for the generation of maximally entangle states in a distributed atomcavity system
Laser Physics Letters (2019)

Onestep implementation of a deterministic SWAP gate via a shortcut to adiabatic passage
Laser Physics Letters (2019)

Fast and robust generation of singlet state via shortcuts to adiabatic passage
Quantum Information Processing (2019)

Complete and Nondestructive Atomic BellState Analysis Assisted by Inverse Engineering
Annalen der Physik (2018)

Quantum gates by inverse engineering of a Hamiltonian
Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (2018)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.