Can Optimal Control Be Achieved Using Direct Cost Function Calculation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kreizhn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Control Theoretical
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the feasibility of achieving optimal control through direct cost function calculation in the context of gradient ascent methods applied to quantum control. The primary focus is on optimizing the mutual inner product between two operators, \(\tau\) and \(\rho(T)\), represented by the cost function \(C = \langle \tau , \rho(T) \rangle\). The participant questions whether direct calculation of \(C\) can lead to an efficient algorithm for optimizing control variables, ultimately concluding that while \(C\) indicates proximity to a solution, it does not provide directional guidance for updates in control variables.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gradient ascent methods in optimization
  • Familiarity with quantum control principles
  • Knowledge of operator theory, specifically inner products
  • Basic mathematical proficiency in calculus and numerical methods
NEXT STEPS
  • Research advanced gradient ascent algorithms for quantum control
  • Explore the implications of direct cost function calculation in optimization
  • Study operator space and its geometric interpretations in control theory
  • Investigate alternative optimization techniques beyond gradient ascent
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and practitioners in quantum control, mathematicians focused on optimization algorithms, and anyone interested in the intersection of control theory and quantum mechanics.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
Hey everyone,

I have a hypothesis that I would like to confirm. I won't bore anyone with the nitty gritty details, so I will try to be as general as possible.

I'm doing a project on gradient ascent methods and their application to quantum control. The quantum part isn't important as my question is mathematical in nature, though a small caveat will appear and I'll make that clear.

Essentially, I'm trying to find an optimal control that will drive an operator \rho(t), \rho(0) =\rho_0 to an operator \tau in time T such that it optimizes their mutual inner product, say
C = \langle \tau , \rho(T) \rangle [/itex]<br /> The gradient ascent method says that we should find the gradient of C, and then proceed in the direction in which the gradient is maximal. This is very useful from a numerical standpoint, and that is the context with which I will be using it.<br /> <br /> I was asked during a seminar whether, in the event that we could directly calculate C, there was any way of formulating an optimal control just using the value of C, and if this could be potentially more efficient. Incidentally, this is where the quantum caveat occurs, in that there&#039;s no guarantee we can calculate C.<br /> <br /> Thus my question comes down to this. Under the assumption that we can calculate the cost function directly, can I then find an algorithm to optimize my control variables?<br /> <br /> I suspect not, since the inner product <i>naively</i> represents the overlap of the two operators. Hence calculating the cost function may tell us how close we are to a solution, but in an iterative numerical process, does not tell us &quot;in which direction&quot; to update our control variables.<br /> <br /> Any thoughts on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I cannot see any changes in ##C##. If ##\rho## and ##\tau## are given, so is their angle ##C##. As I understand it, the control operator represents a path from ##\rho## and ##\tau## within the operator space, say ##\gamma(s)\,.## Thus you get angles ##C(s)=\langle \rho, \gamma(s) \rangle## which you could optimize.

However, a more specific answer depends on a more specific description.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K