The 2010 experiment of Gillett et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080503) demonstrated that a variable-strength (weak) quantum measurement combined with real-time feedback stabilizes a photonic qubit, prepared in one of two non-orthogonal states against dephasing, better than even the theoretical best of any measurement-free or projective-measurement scheme — realizing the provably optimal protocol of Branczyk et al. (Phys. Rev. A 75, 012329 (2007)). The paper explicitly motivates extending generalized-measurement feedback control to a range of quantum systems. The open problem is a complete analytic characterization of the optimal information-gain versus back-action trade-off — with optimality proven over all physical feedback maps, as exists only for the single-qubit pure-dephasing case — for (i) other noise channels (e.g. amplitude damping, depolarization, finite-temperature generalized amplitude damping) and (ii) multi-qubit and multi-state targets, together with experimental realizations using tunable-strength measurements in those extended settings. Platform demonstrations in the continuous-monitoring form (superconducting circuits, NV centres, cavity QED) and family-internal optima for generalized amplitude damping already exist, but the general optimality theory and multi-qubit non-orthogonal-state stabilization remain open.

Background

In measurement-based quantum feedback control, a quantum system is continuously or repeatedly measured, and the measurement record is used in real time to drive corrections that counteract noise. The central tension is that any quantum measurement both extracts information and disturbs the system (back-action): a strong projective measurement reveals a lot but destroys superpositions, while no measurement at all avoids disturbance but leaves the system at the mercy of the environment. A generalized (variable-strength or 'weak') measurement interpolates between these limits; mathematically it is described by a two-outcome positive operator-valued measure (POVM — a generalized quantum measurement whose operators need not be projectors), with measurement strength parameterized by an angle χ\chi: Π±=[1±cos⁡(χ)Z]/2\Pi_\pm = [1 \pm \cos(\chi) Z]/2, so cos⁡χ=1\cos\chi = 1 is a full projective measurement of ZZ and cos⁡χ=0\cos\chi = 0 extracts no information and applies no back-action.

A canonical testbed, introduced theoretically by Branczyk, Mendonça, Gilchrist, Doherty and Bartlett (Phys. Rev. A 75, 012329 (2007), 'Quantum control of a single qubit') and realized experimentally by Gillett, Dalton, Lanyon, Almeida, Barbieri, Pryde, O'Brien, Resch, Bartlett and White (Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080503 (2010)), is the stabilization of non-orthogonal states against dephasing. A 'signal' qubit is prepared in one of two non-orthogonal states ∣ψ±⟩|\psi_\pm\rangle (states whose overlap forbids perfect discrimination by any measurement — the Helstrom bound limits how well they can be told apart) and then subjected to phase-flip (dephasing) noise, which with probability pp applies the Pauli operator ZZ. After the noise, a variable-strength measurement of the computational basis is made, and a unitary correction (a rotation about the y axis of the Bloch sphere — the geometric representation of qubit states) is applied depending on the outcome, aiming to maximize the average fidelity between input and output states. Branczyk et al. derived the closed-form optimal measurement strength cos⁡χopt\cos\chi_{\mathrm{opt}} and the optimal fidelity, and proved that the resulting average fidelity is the best achievable by any feedback control scheme whatsoever, i.e. by any completely positive physical map. Gillett et al. implemented this in linear optics, entangling the signal photon to a meter photon with a controlled-Z gate (a two-qubit entangling gate that flips the phase of one qubit conditional on the state of the other) and projectively measuring the meter, thereby realizing the weak measurement on the signal. The experiment confirmed the theory: an intermediate measurement strength (cos⁡χ=0.93\cos\chi = 0.93) beat not only the experimental but even the ideal-theory performance of the two limiting strategies — 'do nothing' (direct feedback with no measurement) and the Helstrom projective-discrimination scheme. The main experimental limitations were identified as manufacturing deviations (~1%) of the central beamsplitter reflectivities in the entangling gate and thermal drift.

The paper's conclusion states that this result 'motivates the investigation of generalized measurements for control protocols in a range of quantum systems, where quantum control will ultimately be used for realizing quantum technologies' — i.e. extending the variable-strength measurement feedback framework beyond the single-qubit pure-dephasing scenario: to other noise channels, other physical platforms, and more complex control tasks such as multi-state or multi-qubit stabilization. In the intervening years the field has developed mainly along the route of continuous weak measurement (diffusive monitoring with feedback): superconducting qubits (Vijay et al., Nature 490, 77 (2012), stabilization of Rabi oscillations), NV centres — nitrogen-vacancy impurity spins in diamond — (Blok et al., Nat. Phys. 10, 189 (2014), sequential partial measurements with real-time feedback), cavity quantum electrodynamics, in which atoms couple strongly to a single resonant cavity field mode (Sayrin et al., Nature 477, 73 (2011), real-time feedback preparation and stabilization of discrete photon-number states), and two-qubit continuous parity monitoring of remote superconducting qubits (Roch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 170501 (2014)); theory has been extended to feedback-controlled quantum transport (Daryanoosh, Wiseman and Brandes, Phys. Rev. B 93, 085127 (2016)) and to single-qubit weak-measurement feedback under finite-temperature generalized amplitude damping noise — the qubit analogue of thermal relaxation towards a mixed equilibrium state — (Liu et al., Laser Phys. Lett. 18, 115203 (2021)). However, as Balouchi and Jacobs note (New J. Phys. 16, 093059 (2014)), 'except in very special cases, even for a single qubit optimal feedback protocols are unknown' — their own protocol being a conjectured candidate — and the comprehensive review by Zhang, Liu, Wu, Jacobs and Nori (Phys. Rep. 679, 1 (2017)) documents that the optimal-measurement problem for measurement-based feedback remains largely unsolved beyond the dephasing case. No published work known to date proves optimality (over all physical feedback maps) of variable-strength measurement feedback for any non-dephasing channel or multi-qubit target, nor demonstrates feedback stabilization of non-orthogonal multi-qubit states at the analytic optimum.

Problem Statement

Extend the complete analytic treatment of variable-strength (weak) measurement feedback stabilization — which is solved, with the optimal measurement strength, correction, achievable fidelity, and proof of optimality over all physical feedback maps, only for a single qubit in one of two non-orthogonal states undergoing pure dephasing (Branczyk et al. 2007; Gillett et al. 2010) — to the wider setting the source paper motivates, keeping one overarching objective: characterize the optimal trade-off between information gain and measurement back-action for generalized-measurement feedback control of quantum systems beyond that solved case. Concretely, the extension has two directions, and it suffices to resolve a single non-trivial class (defined by the acceptance condition below) in either direction; neither both directions nor all the named channels are required. (1) For noise channels other than pure dephasing — in particular the named classes of amplitude damping, i.e. energy relaxation toward a lower-energy state; depolarization, i.e. uniform contraction of the Bloch sphere toward the maximally mixed state; and finite-temperature generalized amplitude damping, where only family-internal optima within the weak-measurement feedback scheme are known — determine the optimal variable-strength measurement and correction, the optimal achievable fidelity, and prove or disprove that it is optimal over all physical feedback maps, including whether the provable advantage of weak-measurement feedback over every measurement-free and projective-measurement scheme persists; and (2) establish the corresponding optimal trade-off for multi-qubit and multi-state targets — e.g. stabilization of entangled or otherwise non-orthogonal multi-qubit states. Answers may take the form of closed-form optima with proofs, certified tight bounds, or a rigorous no-advantage result for any specified class of channels and targets, provided the specified class is non-trivial: it must contain at least one of the named non-dephasing channels, or a multi-qubit or multi-state target, in a regime where the optimality question is genuinely open, so that degenerate limits in which measurement obviously cannot help (such as vanishing noise, or channels that already preserve the input states) do not by themselves satisfy the objective. Experimental realization with tunable-strength measurements in these extended settings would complement such a characterization, but a completed experiment is not a required component of an answer.

References

  1. G. G. Gillett, R. B. Dalton, B. P. Lanyon, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O'Brien, K. J. Resch, S. D. Bartlett, A. G. White, 'Experimental Feedback Control of Quantum Systems Using Weak Measurements', Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080503 (2010). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.080503; arXiv:0911.3698; https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3698
  2. A. M. Brańczyk, P. E. M. F. Mendonça, A. Gilchrist, A. C. Doherty, S. D. Bartlett, 'Quantum control of a single qubit', Phys. Rev. A 75, 012329 (2007). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.012329; arXiv:quant-ph/0608037; https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608037
  3. A. Balouchi, K. Jacobs, 'Optimal measurement-based feedback control for a single qubit: a candidate protocol', New J. Phys. 16, 093059 (2014). DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/9/093059; arXiv:1407.8172; https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8172
  4. A. Balouchi, K. Jacobs, 'Coherent versus measurement-based feedback for controlling a single qubit', Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 025001 (2017). DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/aa5409; arXiv:1606.06507; https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06507
  5. J. Zhang, Y. Liu, R.-B. Wu, K. Jacobs, F. Nori, 'Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments, and applications', Phys. Rep. 679, 1-60 (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.02.003; arXiv:1407.8536; https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8536
  6. C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, S. Gleyzes, P. Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, S. Haroche, 'Real-time quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number states', Nature 477, 73-77 (2011). DOI: 10.1038/nature10376; https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10376
  7. R. Vijay, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, S. J. Weber, K. W. Murch, R. Naik, A. N. Korotkov, I. Siddiqi, 'Stabilizing Rabi oscillations in a superconducting qubit using quantum feedback', Nature 490, 77-80 (2012). DOI: 10.1038/nature11505; https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11505
  8. M. S. Blok, C. Bonato, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, V. V. Dobrovitski, R. Hanson, 'Manipulating a qubit through the backaction of sequential partial measurements and real-time feedback', Nat. Phys. 10, 189-193 (2014). DOI: 10.1038/nphys2881; arXiv:1311.2899; https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2899
  9. N. Roch, M. E. Schwartz, F. Motzoi, C. Macklin, R. Vijay, A. W. Eddins, A. N. Korotkov, K. B. Whaley, M. Sarovar, I. Siddiqi, 'Observation of measurement-induced entanglement and quantum trajectories of remote superconducting qubits', Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 170501 (2014). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.170501; arXiv:1402.1868; https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1868
  10. S. Daryanoosh, H. M. Wiseman, T. Brandes, 'Stochastic feedback control of quantum transport to realize a dynamical ensemble of two nonorthogonal pure states', Phys. Rev. B 93, 085127 (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.085127; arXiv:1510.05180; https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05180
  11. C.-C. Liu, T.-S. Wei, J.-D. Shi, Z.-Y. Ding, J. He, T. Wu, L. Ye, 'Optimal measurement-based feedback control on noisy quantum systems', Laser Phys. Lett. 18, 115203 (2021). DOI: 10.1088/1612-202X/ac2b95; https://doi.org/10.1088/1612-202X/ac2b95