MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396754156 · doi:10.3934/cam.2024017

Time optimal problems on Lie groups and applications to quantum control

2024· article· en· W4396754156 on OpenAlexaff
Velimir Jurdjevic

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Analysis and Mechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum controlQuantumLie groupControl (management)MathematicsPure mathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<abstract><p>In this paper we introduce a natural compactification of a left (right) invariant affine control system on a semi-simple Lie group $ G $ in which the control functions belong to the Lie algebra of a compact Lie subgroup $ K $ of $ G $ and we investigate conditions under which the time optimal solutions of this compactified system are "approximately" time optimal for the original system. The basic ideas go back to the papers of R.W. Brockett and his collaborators in their studies of time optimal transfer in quantum control (<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">1</xref>]</sup>, <sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">2</xref>]</sup>). We showed that every affine system can be decomposed into two natural systems that we call horizontal and vertical. The horizontal system admits a convex extension whose reachable sets are compact and hence posess time-optimal solutions. We then obtained an explicit formula for the time-optimal solutions of this convexified system defined by the symmetric Riemannian pair $ (G, K) $ under the assumption that the Lie algebra generated by the control vector fields is equal to the Lie algebra of $ K $.</p> <p>In the second part of the paper we applied our results to the quantum systems known as Icing $ n $-chains (introduced in <sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">2</xref>]</sup>). We showed that the two-spin chains conform to the theory in the first part of the paper but that the three-spin chains show new phenomena that take it outside of the above theory. In particular, we showed that the solutions for the symmetric three-spin chains studied by (<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">3</xref>]</sup>, <sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">4</xref>]</sup>) are solvable in terms of elliptic functions with the solutions completely different from the ones encountered in the two-spin chains.</p></abstract>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Analysis and MechanicsSame topicQuantum chaos and dynamical systemsFrench-language works237,207