- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Adiabatic Echo Protocols for Robust Quantum Many-Body State Preparation

Zhongda Zeng1,2,*, Giuliano Giudici1,2,*, Aruku Senoo3, Alexander Baumgärtner3, Adam M. Kaufman3, and Hannes Pichler1,2,†

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: hannes.pichler@uibk.ac.at
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 120404 – Published 25 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/z2tj-cwzb

Abstract

Entangled many-body states are a key resource for quantum technologies. Yet their preparation through analog control of interacting quantum systems is often hindered by experimental imperfections. Here, we introduce the adiabatic echo protocol, a general approach to state preparation designed to suppress the effect of static perturbations. We provide an analytical understanding of its robustness in terms of dynamically engineered destructive interference. By applying quantum optimal control methods, we demonstrate that such a protocol emerges naturally in a variety of settings, without requiring assumptions on the form of the control fields. Examples include Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state preparation in Ising spin chains and two-dimensional Rydberg atom arrays, as well as the generation of quantum spin liquid states in frustrated Rydberg lattices. Our results highlight the broad applicability of this protocol, providing a practical framework for reliable many-body state preparation in present-day quantum platforms.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (63)

  1. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
  2. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106.
  3. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
  4. J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation, Nat. Phys. 8, 264 (2012).
  5. I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014).
  6. C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017).
  7. E. Altman et al., Quantum simulators: Architectures and opportunities, PRX Quantum 2, 017003 (2021).
  8. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quantum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011).
  9. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017).
  10. J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024).
  11. J. Dziarmaga, Dynamics of a quantum phase transition and relaxation to a steady state, Adv. Phys. 59, 1063 (2010).
  12. A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalattore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011).
  13. M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems, Phys. Rep. 697, 1 (2017).
  14. D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, E3909 (2017).
  15. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
  16. P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, L. Tagliacozzo, I. Deutsch, and M. Lewenstein, Can one trust quantum simulators?, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 082401 (2012).
  17. H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature (London) 551, 579–584 (2017).
  18. A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pichler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Kibble–Zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable Rydberg simulator, Nature (London) 568, 207 (2019).
  19. A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, J. Cui, M. Rossignolo, P. Rembold, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Generation and manipulation of Schrödinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays, Science 365, 570 (2019).
  20. S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature (London) 595, 227 (2021).
  21. P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. Läuchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hundreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature (London) 595, 233 (2021).
  22. G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science 374, 1242 (2021).
  23. S.-A. Guo, Y.-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R.-Y. Yan, Y.-J. Yi, Y.-L. Xu, B.-W. Li, Y.-H. Hou, Y.-Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, A site-resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with hundreds of trapped ions, Nature (London) 630, 613–618 (2024).
  24. S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. Köckenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Training Schrödinger’s cat: Quantum optimal control. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe, Eur. Phys. J. D 69, 279 (2015).
  25. N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: Design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson. 172, 296 (2005).
  26. A. Garon, S. J. Glaser, and D. Sugny, Time-optimal control of SU(2) quantum operations, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043422 (2013).
  27. D. J. Egger and F. K. Wilhelm, Optimized controlled-Z gates for two superconducting qubits coupled through a resonator, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 27, 014001 (2014).
  28. F. Dolde, I. Jakobi, B. Naydenov, N. Zhao, S. Pezzagna, C. Trautmann, J. Meijer, P. Neumann, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, High-fidelity spin entanglement using optimal control, Nat. Commun. 5, 3371 (2014).
  29. S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Time-optimal two- and three-qubit gates for Rydberg atoms, Quantum 6, 712 (2022).
  30. G. Giudici, S. Veroni, G. Giudice, H. Pichler, and J. Zeiher, Fast entangling gates for Rydberg atoms via resonant dipole-dipole interaction, PRX Quantum 6, 030308 (2025).
  31. X. Wang, A. Bayat, S. Bose, and S. G. Schirmer, Global control methods for GHZ state generation on 1-D Ising chain, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012330 (2010).
  32. A. Senoo, A. Baumgärtner, J. W. Lis, G. M. Vaidya, Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, H. Pichler, and A. M. Kaufman, High-fidelity entanglement and coherent multi-qubit mapping in an atom array, arXiv:2506.13632.
  33. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/z2tj-cwzb for perturbative analyses of the adiabatic echo protocol, robustness to additional perturbations, details of the optimal-control methods, finite-size scaling of GHZ state preparation, and additional results for Rydberg atom arrays and higher-symmetry cat states, which includes Refs. [17,25,32,34–42].
  34. A. H. Al-Mohy and N. J. Higham, Computing the Fréchet derivative of the matrix exponential, with an application to condition number estimation, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 30, 1639 (2009).
  35. J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165116 (2016).
  36. P. Virtanen et al., scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020).
  37. S. Machnes, E. Assémat, D. Tannor, and F. K. Wilhelm, Tunable, flexible, and efficient optimization of control pulses for practical qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150401 (2018).
  38. L. Eck and P. Fendley, Critical lines and ordered phases in a Rydberg-blockade ladder, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125135 (2023).
  39. J. Soto-Garcia and N. Chepiga, Numerical investigation of quantum phases and phase transitions in a two-leg ladder of Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013215 (2025).
  40. J. Zhang, S. H. Cantú, F. Liu, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, F. Huber, J. Amato-Grill, A. Lukin, N. Gemelke, A. Keesling, S.-T. Wang, Y. Meurice, and S.-W. Tsai, Probing quantum floating phases in Rydberg atom arrays, Nat. Commun. 16, 712 (2025).
  41. P. Zanardi and N. Paunković, Ground state overlap and quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006).
  42. S.-J. Gu, Fidelity approach to quantum phase transitions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 24, 4371 (2010).

  43. Level crossings between the two symmetry sectors occurring at isolated points would lead only to subleading contributions to the preparation infidelity induced by symmetry breaking. As shown in [33], the dominant contribution instead arises from the ordered phase, where hybridization between the ground and first excited states persists over a time interval that scales extensively with system size.

  44. E. L. Hahn, Spin echoes, Phys. Rev. 80, 580 (1950).
  45. R. R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, and A. Wokaun, Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions (Oxford University Press, New York, 1990).
  46. S. Suzuki, J.-i. Inoue, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum Ising Phases and Transitions in Transverse Ising Models, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 862 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013).
  47. A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nat. Phys. 16, 132 (2020).
  48. J. Wurtz, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, J. Amato-Grill, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Lukin, F. Liu, P. Weinberg, J. Long, S.-T. Wang, N. Gemelke, and A. Keesling, Aquila: QuEra’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer, arXiv:2306.11727.
  49. D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Côté, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000).
  50. M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. M. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Dipole blockade and quantum information processing in mesoscopic atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 037901 (2001).
  51. A. Gaëtan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Observation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the Rydberg blockade regime, Nat. Phys. 5, 115 (2009).
  52. R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Complex density wave orders and quantum phase transitions in a model of square-lattice Rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 103601 (2020).
  53. R. Verresen, M. D. Lukin, and A. Vishwanath, Prediction of Toric code topological order from Rydberg blockade, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031005 (2021).
  54. P. W. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973).
  55. G. Misguich, D. Serban, and V. Pasquier, Quantum dimer model on the kagome lattice: Solvable dimer-liquid and Ising gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137202 (2002).
  56. R. Moessner and K. S. Raman, Quantum dimer models, in Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism, edited by C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila (Springer, New York, 2011), pp. 437–479.
  57. G. Giudici, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, Dynamical preparation of quantum spin liquids in Rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 090401 (2022).
  58. R. Sahay, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Quantum spin puddles and lakes: NISQ-Era spin liquids from non-equilibrium dynamics, arXiv:2211.01381.
  59. N. O. Gjonbalaj, R. Sahay, and S. F. Yelin, Shortcuts to analog preparation of non-equilibrium quantum lakes, arXiv:2502.03518.
  60. Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, and H. Pichler, Quantum dimer models with Rydberg gadgets, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012006 (2025).
  61. T. Caneva, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Chopped random-basis quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. A 84, 022326 (2011).
  62. J. Cui, R. van Bijnen, T. Pohl, S. Montangero, and T. Calarco, Optimal control of Rydberg lattice gases, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 035006 (2017).
  63. Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, A. Senoo, A. Baumgärtner, A. Kaufmann, and H. Pichler, Adiabatic echo protocols for robust quantum many-body state preparation, 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.18865750.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 120404– Published 25 March, 2026
  • Received 27 June 2025
  • Revised 16 October 2025
  • Accepted 4 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation