Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 25, Issue 3
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Modulation of Quantum Features of a Driven Two-Level System via a rf Field

Shuning Sun, Xiangjia Meng, Xiangji Cai

Author affiliations
  • Shuning Sun1
  • Xiangjia Meng1
  • Xiangji Cai2
  1. School of Information Engineering, Shandong Youth University of Political Science, Jinan, China
  2. School of Science, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, China

pp. 248-259 · 10.2478/qic-2025-0013

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the environmental influences exerted by the rf field on quantum coherence, quantum fidelity and dynamics in a two-level open system. Our results demonstrate that the rf field modulation enables the quantum system to maintain a higher degree of coherence with its initial state within a shorter evolution interval, thereby optimizing evolution speed of the system, suggesting its potential as an additional method for information encoding in quantum communication. By systematically adjusting the rf field modulation index, we observed a notable increase in quantum fidelity, which plays a crucial role in improving the accuracy and stability of quantum computing. Furthermore, the rf field’s environmental influence was found to dynamically alter the quantum speed limit (QSL), effectively modulating its tightness. These findings highlight the rf field’s capability to optimize the performance of quantum systems, offering new insights for applications in quantum communication, computing and sensing.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • coherence
  • fidelity
  • quantum speed limit

Suggested citation

Shuning Sun, Xiangjia Meng, Xiangji Cai (2025). Modulation of Quantum Features of a Driven Two-Level System via a rf Field. Quantum Information & Computation, 25(3), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2025-0013

Download BibTeX

References (66)

  1. J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum (2018).DOI: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79Google Scholar
  2. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning. Quantum(2017).DOI: 10.1038/nature23474Google Scholar
  3. B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015).DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307Google Scholar
  4. M. A. Khan, S. Ghafoor, S. M. H. Zaidi, H. Khan, and A. Ahmad, From quantum communication fundamentals to decoherence mitigation strategies: Addressing global quantum network challenges and projected applications. Heliyon 10, e34331 (2024).DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34331Google Scholar
  5. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010).Google Scholar
  6. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum-Enhanced Measurements: Beating the Standard Quantum Limit. Science 306, 1330 (2004).DOI: 10.1126/science.1104149Google Scholar
  7. Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023).DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005Google Scholar
  8. L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, The Uncertainty Relation Between Energy and Time in Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics. In: Bolotovskii, B.M., Frenkel, V.Y., Peierls, R. (eds) Selected Papers. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991, pp. 115–123.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-74626-0_8Google Scholar
  9. N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, The maximum speed of dynamical evolution. Physica D 120, 188 (1998).DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2789(98)00054-2Google Scholar
  10. L. B. Levitin and T. Toffoli, Fundamental Limit on the Rate of Quantum Dynamics: The Unified Bound Is Tight. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160502 (2009).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502Google Scholar
  11. A. del Campo, I. L. Egusquiza, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Quantum Speed Limits in Open System Dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 050403 (2013).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050403Google Scholar
  12. Y. Zhang, W. Han, Y. Xia, J. Cao, and H. Fan, Quantum speed limit for arbitrary initial states. Sci. Rep. 4, 4890(2014).DOI: 10.1038/srep04890Google Scholar
  13. Y. Wu, J. Yuan, C. Zhang, Z. Zhu, J. Deng, X. Zhang, P. Zhang, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, J. Huang, C. Song, H. Li, D.-W. Wang, H. Wang, and G. S. Agarwal, Testing the unified bounds of the quantum speed limit. Phys. Rev.A 110, 042215 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.042215Google Scholar
  14. K. Bhattacharyya, Quantum decay and the Mandelstam-Tamm-energy inequality. J. Phys. A 16, 2993 (1983).DOI: 10.1088/0305-4470/16/13/021Google Scholar
  15. B. Yadin, S. Imai, and O. Gühne, Quantum Speed Limit for States and Observables of Perturbed Open Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 230404 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.230404Google Scholar
  16. Z.-y. Mai and C.-s. Yu, Tight and attainable quantum speed limit for open systems. Phys. Rev. A 108, 052207(2023).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.052207Google Scholar
  17. K. Kobayashi, Reachable-set characterization of an open quantum system by the quantum speed limit. Phys. Rev.A 105, 042608 (2022).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.042608Google Scholar
  18. S.-S. Nie, F.-H. Ren, R.-H. He, J. Wu, and Z.-M. Wang, Control cost and quantum speed limit time in controlled almost-exact state transmission in open systems. Phys. Rev. A 104, 052424 (2021).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052424Google Scholar
  19. A. J. B. Rosal, D. O. Soares-Pinto, and D. P. Pires, Quantum speed limits based on Schatten norms: Universality and tightness. Phys. Lett. A 534 (2025).DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2025.130250Google Scholar
  20. T. Nishiyama and Y. Hasegawa, Speed limits and thermodynamic uncertainty relations for quantum systems with the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. A 111, 012214 (2025).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.111.012214Google Scholar
  21. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum limits to dynamical evolution. Phys. Rev. A 67, 052109(2003).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.67.052109Google Scholar
  22. J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov, Geometry of quantum evolution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1697 (1990).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1697Google Scholar
  23. I. Brouzos, A. I. Streltsov, A. Negretti, R. S. Said, T. Caneva, S. Montangero, and T. Calarco, Quantum speed limit and optimal control of many-boson dynamics. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062110 (2015).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062110Google Scholar
  24. Z. Hu, L. Wang, H. Chen, H. Yuan, C.-H. F. Fung, J. Liu, and Z. Miao, Tight bounds of quantum speed limit for noisy dynamics via maximal rotation angles. (2023), arXiv:1601.00150.Google Scholar
  25. A. Steane, C. F. Roos, D. Stevens, A. Mundt, D. Leibfried, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Speed of ion-trap quantum-information processors. Phys. Rev. A 62, 042305 (2000).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.62.042305Google Scholar
  26. J. J. García-Ripoll, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Speed Optimized Two-Qubit Gates with Laser Coherent Control Techniques for Ion Trap Quantum Computing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 157901 (2003).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.157901Google Scholar
  27. P. Lu, T. Liu, Y. Liu, X. Rao, Q. Lao, H. Wu, F. Zhu, and L. Luo, Realizing quantum speed limit in open system with a -symmetric trapped-ion qubit. New J. Phys. 26, 013043 (2024).DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/ad1a28Google Scholar
  28. M. Musadiq, Quantum Speed Limit Time of A Spin Qubit Coupled With Heisenberg Spin Environment. Int.J. Theor. Phys. 63, 205 (2024).DOI: 10.1007/s10773-024-05745-1Google Scholar
  29. M. Musadiq, S. Khan, M. Javed, and M. Shamirzaie, Quantum speed limit time of a spin qubit in noninteracting spin bath. Int. J. Quant. Inf. 17, 1950054 (2019).DOI: 10.1142/S0219749919500540Google Scholar
  30. P. J. Jones and P. Kok, Geometric derivation of the quantum speed limit. Phys. Rev. A 82, 022107 (2010).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022107Google Scholar
  31. M. Zwierz, Comment on “Geometric derivation of the quantum speed limit”. Phys. Rev. A 86, 016101 (2012).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.016101Google Scholar
  32. S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Quantum Speed Limit for Non-Markovian Dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010402(2013).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.010402Google Scholar
  33. S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Energy–time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems. J. Phys. A 46, 335302(2013).DOI: 10.1088/1751-8113/46/33/335302Google Scholar
  34. M. Okuyama and M. Ohzeki, Comment on ’Energy-time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems’. J. Phys. A 51, 318001 (2018).DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/aacb90Google Scholar
  35. S. Sun, Y. Peng, X. Hu, and Y. Zheng, Quantum Speed Limit Quantified by the Changing Rate of Phase. Phys.Rev. Lett. 127, 100404 (2021).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.100404Google Scholar
  36. V. Chouhan, T. Ring, G. Wu, and E. Viklund, Mitigation of Pitting on Nitrogen-Doped Niobium Surfaces through Two-Step Electropolishing. J. Electrochem. Soc. 172, 023502 (2025).DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/adaef4Google Scholar
  37. T. Zhu, X. Bao, Y. He, Z. Xue, Y. Qiu, C. Li, W. Xue, T. Jiang, Q. Chu, H. Guo, S. Huang, Z. Yang, W. Yue, J. Chen, M. Xu, S. Zhang, K. Zhang, H. Zhao, T. Tan, and A. Wu, Plasma characterization and modulation techniques for 1.3 GHz, 9-cell superconducting rf cavity cleaning. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27, 123101 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.27.123101Google Scholar
  38. J. Slim, N. N. Nikolaev, F. Rathmann, A. Wirzba, A. Nass, V. Hejny, J. Pretz, H. Soltner, F. Abusaif, A. Aggarwal, A. Aksentev, A. Andres, L. Barion, G. Ciullo, S. Dymov, R. Gebel, M. Gaisser, K. Grigoryev, D. Grzonka, O. Javakhishvili, A. Kacharava, V. Kamerdzhiev, S. Karanth, I. Keshelashvili, A. Lehrach, P. Lenisa, N. Lomidze, B. Lorentz, A. Magiera, D. Mchedlishvili, F. Müller, A. Pesce, V. Poncza, D. Prasuhn, A. Saleev, V. Shmakova, H. Ströher, M. Tabidze, G. Tagliente, Y. Valdau, T. Wagner, C. Weidemann, A. Wrońska, and M. Żurek (JEDI Collaboration), First detection of collective oscillations of a stored deuteron beam with an amplitude close to the quantum limit. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 124601 (2021).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.24.124601Google Scholar
  39. S. Vappangi, T. Deepa, V. Mani, and N. Bharathiraja, On the performance of delta sigma modulators for DCO-OFDM based NOMA visible light communication systems. Opt. Laser Technol. 167, 109653 (2023).DOI: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2023.109653Google Scholar
  40. F. Ni, Z. Song, J. Chen, B. Xu, F. Xu, and L. Ding, Achieving Electron Capture Dissociation in the Radio Frequency Linear Ion Trap without the Assistance of a Magnetic Field A Simulation Study. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 35, 2499 (2024).DOI: 10.1021/jasms.4c00287Google Scholar
  41. J.-Y. Wang, W.-X. Huang, Y.-L. Tian, Y.-S. Wang, Y. Wang, W.-L. Zhang, Y.-J. Huang, Z.-G. Gan, and H.-S. Xu, A Radio-Frequency Ion Trap System for the Multi-Reflection Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer at SHANS and Its Offline Commissioning. Atoms 11 (2023).DOI: 10.3390/atoms11110139Google Scholar
  42. D. J. Sorce and S. Michaeli, On the geometric phase effects on time evolution of the density matrix during modulated radiofrequency pulses. J. Magn. Reson. 372, 107840 (2025).DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2025.107840Google Scholar
  43. C. Hao, Z. Qiu, Q. Sun, Y. Zhu, and D. Sheng, Interactions between nonresonant rf fields and atoms with strong spin-exchange collisions. Phys. Rev. A 99, 053417 (2019).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.053417Google Scholar
  44. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom—Photon Interactions: Basic Process and Appilcations (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2008).Google Scholar
  45. P. Poggi, F. Lombardo, and D. Wisniacki, Quantum speed limit and optimal evolution time in a two-level system. Europhys. Lett. 104, 40005 (2013).DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/104/40005Google Scholar
  46. G. C. Hegerfeldt, Driving at the Quantum Speed Limit: Optimal Control of a Two-Level System. Phys. Rev.Lett. 111, 260501 (2013).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.260501Google Scholar
  47. Y. Zheng and F. L. H. Brown, Single-Molecule Photon Counting Statistics via Generalized Optical Bloch Equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 238305 (2003).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.238305Google Scholar
  48. Y. Zhang, W. Han, Y. Xia, J. Cao, and H. Fan, Classical-driving-assisted quantum speed-up. Phys. Rev. A 91,032112 (2015).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.91.032112Google Scholar
  49. V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N‐level systems. J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976).DOI: 10.1063/1.522979Google Scholar
  50. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).DOI: 10.1007/BF01608499Google Scholar
  51. G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle, and A. Rimini, Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles. Phys. Rev. A 42, 78 (1990).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.78Google Scholar
  52. F. Shikerman, L. P. Horwitz, and A. Pe’er, Reconstruction of the environmental correlation function from single-emitter photon statistics: A non-Markovian approach. Phys. Rev. A 87, 053851 (2013).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.053851Google Scholar
  53. F. Shikerman and E. Barkai, Probing dynamics of single molecules: Nonlinear spectroscopy approach. J. Chem.Phys. 129, 244702 (2008).DOI: 10.1063/1.3037221Google Scholar
  54. S. Mouslih, Z. Dahbi, M. Jakha, S. El Asri, S. Taj, and B. Manaut, Influence of an external electromagnetic field on quantum entanglement and coherence in a two-qubit graphene system. Phys. Scr. 100, 035104 (2025).DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/adaf82Google Scholar
  55. H. Sun, H. Chen, J. Ma, W. Tao, M. Liu, and X. Yang, Protecting quantum coherence of semiconductor qubit by utilizing charge noise. Laser Phys. Lett. 22, 035201 (2025).DOI: 10.1088/1612-202X/adaddbGoogle Scholar
  56. N.-N. Zhang, C.-Y. Wu, X. Zhou, Q.-Y. Liu, C.-G. Liu, Y.-R. Guo, and R.-P. Li, Tunable non-Markovian and quantum coherence in the single-qubit dephasing noise channel. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 230313(2025).DOI: 10.1007/s11433-024-2565-2Google Scholar
  57. A. Garg and A. K. Pati, Trade-off relations between quantum coherence and measure of many-body localization. Phys. Rev. B 111, 054202 (2025).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.054202Google Scholar
  58. S. S. Pratapsi, L. Buffoni, and S. Gherardini, Competition of decoherence and quantum speed limits for quantumgate fidelity in the Jaynes-Cummings model. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023296 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.023296Google Scholar
  59. L. Tian, A. Govindarajan, P. Parajuli, and K. Cai, Quantum state preparation in Jaynes-Cummings lattices. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2912, 012041 (2024).DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2912/1/012041Google Scholar
  60. X. Cao, J. Cui, M. H. Yung, and R.-B. Wu, Robust control of single-qubit gates at the quantum speed limit. Phys. Rev. A 110, 022603 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.022603Google Scholar
  61. K. Andrzejewski, Krzysztofand Bolonek-Lasoń and P. Kosiński, Note on the Margolus–Levitin quantum speed limit for arbitrary fidelity. Quant. Inf. Proc. 23, 167 (2024).DOI: 10.1007/s11128-024-04375-0Google Scholar
  62. B. T. Gard, Z. Parrott, K. Jacobs, J. Aumentado, and R. W. Simmonds, Fast high-fidelity quantum nondemolition readout of a superconducting qubit with tunable transverse couplings. Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 024008 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.21.024008Google Scholar
  63. S. Sun and Y. Zheng, Distinct Bound of the Quantum Speed Limit via the Gauge Invariant Distance. Phys. Rev.Lett. 123, 180403 (2019).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.180403Google Scholar
  64. T. van der Sar, Z. H. Wang, M. S. Blok, H. Bernien, T. H. Taminiau, D. M. Toyli, D. A. Lidar, D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, and V. V. Dobrovitski, Decoherence-protected quantum gates for a hybrid solid-state spin register. NATURE 484, 82 (2012).DOI: 10.1038/nature10900Google Scholar
  65. J. E. Lang, R. B. Liu, and T. S. Monteiro, Dynamical-Decoupling-Based Quantum Sensing: Floquet Spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. X 5, 041016 (2015).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.041016Google Scholar
  66. J. Jiang, and Q. Chen, Universal and robust dynamic decoupling controls for zero-field magnetometry by using molecular clock sensors. Phys. Rev. A 110, 043714 (2024).DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.043714Google Scholar