MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416937974 · doi:10.1103/5591-xjfr

Reinforcement learning for optimal control of spin magnetometers

2025· article· en· W4416937974 on OpenAlexafffund
Logan Cooke, Stefanie Czischek

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdaptive Dynamic Programming Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)Reinforcement learningControl theory (sociology)QuantumOptimal controlMagnetometerQuantum decoherenceSensitivity (control systems)Quantum sensor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum optimal control in the presence of decoherence is difficult, particularly when not all Hamiltonian parameters are known precisely, as in quantum sensing applications. In this context, maximizing the sensitivity of the system is the objective, for which the optimal target state or unitary transformations are unknown, especially in the case of multiparameter estimation. Here we investigate the use of reinforcement learning (RL), specifically the soft actor-critic (SAC) algorithm, for problems in quantum optimal control. We adopt a spin-based magnetometer as a benchmarking system for the efficacy of the SAC algorithm. In such systems, the magnitude of a background magnetic field acting on a spin can be determined via projective measurements. The precision of the determined magnitude can be optimized by applying pulses of transverse fields with different strengths. We train an RL agent on numerical simulations of the spin system to determine a transverse-field pulse sequence that optimizes the precision and compare it to existing sensing strategies. We evaluate the agent's performance against various Hamiltonian parameters, including values not seen in training, to investigate the agent's ability to generalize to different situations. We find that the RL agents are sensitive to certain parameters of the system, such as the pulse duration and the purity of the initial state, but overall are able to generalize well, supporting the use of RL in quantum optimal control settings.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicAdaptive Dynamic Programming ControlFrench-language works237,207