Effects of coherence on quantum speed limits and shortcuts to adiabaticity in many-particle systems
Extracted source text · arXiv 1910.06581
\documentclass[aps,prresearch,epsfigure,twocolumn,longbibliography,superscriptaddress]{revtex4-1}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{calc}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{epstopdf}
\usepackage{dcolumn}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{txfonts}
\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage[colorlinks, citecolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\vert #1\rangle}
\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle #1\vert}
\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\RNum}[1]{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral #1\relax}}
\newcommand{\tb}[1]{{\color{blue}#1}}
\newcommand{\tbq}[1]{{\color{teal}#1}}
\newcommand{\jing}[1]{{\color{ForestGreen}[#1]}}
\newcommand{\mossy}[1]{{\color{red}[#1]}}
\newcommand{\TN}[1]{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.50,0.00}{[#1]}}
\begin{document}
\title{Effects of coherence on quantum speed limits and shortcuts to adiabaticity in many-particle systems}
\author{Tian-Niu Xu}
\affiliation{International Center of Quantum Artificial Intelligence for Science and Technology (QuArtist) \\ and Department of Physics, Shanghai University, 200444 Shanghai, China}
\author{Jing Li}
\affiliation{ Quantum Systems Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Okinawa, 904-0495, Japan}
\author{Thomas Busch}
\email{thomas.busch@oist.jp}
\affiliation{ Quantum Systems Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Okinawa, 904-0495, Japan}
\author{Xi Chen}
\email{xchen@shu.edu.cn}
\affiliation{International Center of Quantum Artificial Intelligence for Science and Technology (QuArtist) \\ and Department of Physics, Shanghai University, 200444 Shanghai, China}
\affiliation{Department of Physical Chemistry, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Apartado 644, 48080 Bilbao, Spain}
\author{Thom\'as Fogarty}
\email{thomas.fogarty@oist.jp}
\affiliation{ Quantum Systems Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Okinawa, 904-0495, Japan}
%
\begin{abstract}
We discuss the effects of many-body coherence on the speed of evolution of ultracold atomic gases and the relation to quantum speed limits. Our approach is focused on two related systems, spinless fermions and the bosonic Tonks-Girardeau gas, which possess equivalent density dynamics but very different coherence properties. To illustrate the effect of the coherence on the dynamics we consider squeezing an anharmonic potential which confines the particles and find that the speed of the evolution exhibits subtle, but fundamental differences between the two systems. Furthermore, we explore the difference in the driven dynamics by implementing a shortcut to adiabaticity designed to reduce spurious excitations. We show that collisions between the strongly interacting bosons can lead to changes in the coherence which results in different evolution speeds and therefore different fidelities of the final states.
\end{abstract}
%
\maketitle
%
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec_intro}
While the Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty relation is often viewed as a purely fundamental restriction on quantum mechanical measurements, it also has implications for dynamical processes.
This was first formally recognized by Mandelstam and Tamm (MT) \cite{QSL_MT}, %, QSL_ML},
who used the standard deviation of the energy to introduce the lower bound, $\tau_\text{QSL}\geq \hbar\pi/(2\Delta H)$, on the minimum time required to transform a given quantum state into a final one. This quantity has become known as the quantum speed limit (QSL) time \cite{QSLreview,DeffnerReview}.
%and which describes the minimum time required to transform a given quantum state into a final one with unit fidelity.
In the last few years, QSLs have been extensively studied, in particular for applications in quantum computing \cite{TC2009}, quantum metrology \cite{QMetro2014, Campbell_2018}, quantum optimal control \cite{TC_MB_2015,Pecak_2018} and quantum thermodynamics \cite{FunoPRL,Campbell_2017}.
Various improved bounds and alternative derivations have been proposed, including generalizations to interacting many-body systems \cite{BukovPRX2019},
mixed states \cite{Deffner:2013, DeffnerNJP} and open systems \cite{CampoQSL2013,TaddeiQSL2013}.
%
Among all possible dynamical processes driven by time-dependent Hamiltonians, adiabatic evolution and quench dynamics have in the past received a large amount of attention. The first one happens on infinitely slow time-scales and keeps the system in an eigenstate at all times, whereas the second one describes an instantaneous change that does not usually end in an eigenstate of the system. More recently the field of shortcuts-to-adiabticity (STA) has shown how one can construct dynamical processes that lead to an eigenstate on finite time scales with almost unit fidelity \cite{STAreview,STAreview2019}. The use of shortcuts is well established for single particle and meanfield systems \cite{PRL104,Deffner_PRX2014}, where the fidelity between the achieved final wavefunction and the target wavefunction is a good indicator for the success of the shortcut as only local properties are of interest. %as the density distribution is usually the only interesting quantity.
However interacting many-particle systems can be more complex and present further challenges when exact STA techniques do not exist \cite{polkovnikov}. Furthermore, non-local correlations between the particles need to be taken into account and evolved on the given timescales, which means that the speed at which correlations can spread becomes important \cite{AdolfTG,interacting,STAent,Hatomura2018,nature2012}. One can therefore expect the speed limit to depend on the coherence inherent in the system.
% In particular, the simple measure of wave-function overlap needs to be replaced by the trace distance of the density matrix \cite{DeffnerNJP}.
%
%
Applying and testing this idea by designing shortcuts for many-particle systems is a formidable problem as it requires one to solve many-particle systems exactly. While this is not possible in general, noteworthy recent experimental progress has allowed to realise the textbook example of a strongly-correlated bosonic quantum gases in one dimension, the so-called Tonks-Girardeau (TG) gas. This model, even though it describes the physics of strongly interacting particles, is solvable due to the existence of a Bose-Fermi mapping theorem \cite{GirardeaPRL,GirardeaPRA}, which also implies that the fermionic counterpart is exactly solvable. Since the coherences in the bosonic TG case are $\sqrt{N}$ times larger than in the fermionic case \cite{Forrester2003,Rigol_2006,Colcelli2018}, where $N$ is the number of particles,
%, and the coherences in the Fermi gas scale with $1/N$,
these models offer insight into two interesting limits.
In this work, we first consider a sudden quench of the confining potential and show that the pure state bound holds for all local properties in both systems, but that the coherence properties in each need to be carefully analyzed when considering the dynamics of the reduced single particle density matrix. In a second step we focus on designing a STA for these many-body states %which in general cannot be exactly solved
using the usual scale invariant approach \cite{Deffner_PRX2014}. While such task is not easy, the Bose-Fermi mapping theorem allows us to essentially treat this as a single particle problem which can be approached by a Lagrangian variational method \cite{Zoller1996,Zoller1997}. We show that one can then create approximate many-body STAs that can prevent dynamical excitations in the entire system \cite{JingSciRep,jing2,Lewis2019,kahan2019} and which can lead to high-fidelity dynamics on short time scales. To quantify the success of the STA, we use the many-body fidelity for the pure state dynamics, while for the reduced single particle density matrix we show that the trace distance is a good figure of merit \cite{DeffnerNJP}. Furthermore, it is in the latter quantity that we find subtle differences depending on the system and its coherence which is not observed in the pure state fidelity. The speed of the dynamics during the STA is qualitatively similar to the one predicted by the QSL and highlights the importance of coherence in the control of many-body quantum states.
%To create a shortcut for the dynamics of a many-particle system in an anharmonic trap and at zero temperature is not an easy task. However, for the TG and using the Bose-Fermi mapping theorem, one can realise that the problem can be split into two parts. Particles which are low down in the Fermi sea see a reduced Hilbert space due to Pauli blocking \cite{Dowdall2017} and are therefore hard to excite. However, particles close to the Fermi edge can easily be excited, but it is possible to use a Lagrangian variational method \cite{Zoller1996,Zoller1997} to create a shortcut that prevents these excitations \cite{JingSciRep}. We will show below that this strategy will lead to high-fidelity dynamics on short time scales.
%
\section{Model and Hamiltonian}
\subsection{Quantum Speed Limits}
\label{sec:QSLs}
%
%Mandelstam and Tamm's QSL describes the minimal timescale for the unitary dynamics of quantum systems based on the variance of the Hamiltonian, {\color{red}$\Delta H=\sqrt{\bra{\psi} H^2 \ket{\psi}-\bra{\psi} H \ket{\psi}^2}$ where $H$ is the Hamiltonian and $\ket{\psi}$ is the wave function}, and is given by
%The state of a quantum system with Hamiltonian $H$ can be characterized by its wavefunction $|\psi\rangle$. Accordingly,
The well known QSL time as derived by Mandelstam and Tamm (MT) describes the minimal timescale for the unitary dynamics of the initial wavefunction $|\Psi_0\rangle$ through the variance of the Hamiltonian $\Delta H=\sqrt{\langle\Psi_0|H^2|\Psi_0\rangle-\langle\Psi_0|H|\Psi_0\rangle^2}$. Margolus and Levitin (ML) proposed an alternative expression in terms of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian $\langle H \rangle = \langle \Psi_0 |H |\Psi_0\rangle$ and a unification of the MT and ML bound has been shown to be tight \cite{LevitinPRL}, such that
\begin{equation}\label{combin}
\tau_{QSL} \geq \text{max}\left(\frac{\hbar}{\Delta H}\mathcal{B}(\Psi_0,\Psi_\tau),\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\hbar}{\langle H\rangle}\mathcal{B}^2(\Psi_0,\Psi_\tau)\right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{B}(\Psi_0,\Psi_\tau) = \arccos\left( \sqrt{F(\tau)} \right)$ is the Bures angle. This allows one to generalize the QSLs to arbitrary initial and final pure states, $\Psi_0$ and $\Psi_{\tau}$ respectively, with
%$F(\tau) = \left[\text{tr}{\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_0}\rho_\tau\sqrt{\rho_0}}} \right]^2$
$F(\tau) = |\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_{\tau} \rangle|^2$ being their many-body fidelity \cite{Giovannetti2003}.
%{\color{red}The other widely used bound is Margolus and Levitin (ML) bound which provide different QSL \cite{QSL_ML}, namely,
%\begin{equation}
% \tau_{ML} \geq \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\hbar}{\langle H\rangle}\mathcal{B}^2(\rho_0,\rho_\tau)\;.
%\end{equation}
%Both of these two bound are not tight in general.
%Therefore a combination of them are provided as the strict bound \cite{LevitinPRL}, which written as
%\begin{equation}\label{combin}
% \tau_{\ket{\Psi_0}} \geq \text{max}\left(\frac{\hbar}{\Delta H}\mathcal{B}(\rho_0,\rho_\tau),\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\hbar}{\langle H\rangle}\mathcal{B}^2(\rho_0,\rho_\tau)\right).
%\end{equation}}
%For pure states the fidelity is simply given by the overlap of the two many-body states, $F(\tau) = |\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_{\tau} \rangle|^2$,
While the MT bound describes the timescales for pure states well \cite{costXi}, extensions to mixed states $\rho_0$ and $\rho_{\tau}$ can yield tighter bounds depending on the coherences \cite{Marvian2016}. Therefore to derive a QSL that takes the coherence of a many-body state into account one must start from the density matrices of the initial and final state and quantify the connection between these two in terms of the trace distance.
% \mossy{* I don't know why this is here}Especially, we also focus on the study of QSLs after the non-adiabatic dynamical evolution of many-body states which is described by the reduced single particle density matrix (RSPDM) \cite{Pezer2007}.
%\mossy{I think we should be clear that we are interested in the evolution of the mixed state. that is, the OBDM.}
This can be done by starting from the geometric formulation of the QSL time using the Schatten-1-norm \cite{Marvian2016,DeffnerReview, DeffnerNJP,PhysRevLett.120.060409,Campaioli2019tightrobust}
\begin{equation}\label{Scha_p}
\ell_p(\rho_{\tau},\rho_0) = \|\rho_{\tau}-\rho_0\|_p = \big( \text{tr}\{|\rho_{\tau}-\rho_0|^p\}\big)^{\frac{1}{p}},
\end{equation}
%where $p$ is a positive real number. Then, we get the QSL for
with $p=1$, which gives
\begin{equation}\label{QSL_TD}
\tau_{QSL} \geq \frac{\ell_1(\rho_{\tau},\rho_0)}{\frac{1}{t_f}\int_0^{t_f}\|\dot{\rho}_t\|_1 dt} = \frac{ 2 T_D(\rho_{\tau},\rho_0)}{\overline{v}}.
\end{equation}
%\mossy{Is there a $\hbar$ missing here? Also, should this factor of 2 be here? In equation 2 in the appendix of the Zanardi paper its not there.}
The QSL time is therefore characterized by the trace distance $T_D(\rho_{\tau},\rho_0) = \frac{1}{2} \text{Tr}\left[ \sqrt{(\rho_{\tau}-\rho_0)^2} \right]$ and the time averaged norm of the dynamics $(1/t_f)\int_0^{t_f} \|\dot{\rho}_t\|_1 dt =(1/t_f)\int_0^{t_f} \| \frac{1}{i\hbar} [H(t),\rho(t)] \|_1 dt$ taken over a time duration $t_f$. The latter quantity is commonly called the speed, and in the following we label it as $\overline{v}$ for simplicity.
%For bosons this requires the use of the commutator $i \hbar \dot{\rho}_{\tau}^{B}=[H_\tau,\rho_0]$, whereas the anticommutator $i \hbar \dot{\rho}^{F}_{\tau}=\lbrace H_\tau,\rho_0 \rbrace$ has to be used for fermions.
Even though there are a large family of bounds to define the QSL time, e.g., the Bures angle, the quantum Fisher information and the Wigner-Yanase information, they are all bounded by the norm of $\dot{\rho}_t$ \cite{Pires2016PRX}.
Therefore, the QSL time which is characterized by Schatten-1-norm is tighter than others \cite{DeffnerNJP}.
%and the denominator vanishes if the state is incoherent.
%\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \rho (x,x_2,\ldots,x_N;x^{'},x_2^{'},\ldots,x_N^{'}) dx_2 \ldots dx_N dx_2^{'}\ldots d x_N^{'}
In general the calculation of $\|\dot{\rho}_t\|_1$ for large many-body states can be numerically challenging. However by simplifying the problem to consider the dynamics of the reduced single particle density matrix (RSPDM) which describes the two-point correlations in the system after tracing out all particles but one,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho(x,x';t)&=\\
&\int\Psi(x,x_2,\dots,x_N;t) \Psi^{*}(x',x_2,\dots,x_N;t) dx_2\dots dx_N\,,
\end{split}
\label{RSPDM}
\end{equation}
it becomes computationally tractable in certain limits
%It is worth noting that for the TG gas the integration in Eq.~\eqref{RSPDM} can be efficiently performed
and we summarise the technical details in Appendix \ref{appenB}
\cite{Pezer2007}. We will use the speed $\overline{v}$ to quantify the dynamics of the RSPDMs of two related systems, spinless fermions and the strongly interacting TG gas, specifically focusing on two common dynamical processes, a sudden quench and the efficient control of the system by using a STA.
%\mossy{*** could remove this sentence...}While the MT bound is the same for both due to the equivalency of their fidelity and energy variance, their reduced states behave quite differently due to their distinct coherence properties.
%\jing{I think we have written the similar sentences above....}
%This QSL is an interesting quantity compared to the MT in Eq.\eqref{MT-bound}, as it quantifies the speed of correlations which can be different to the speed of the fidelity \cite{Mossy2019}.
%Indeed, there are situations where the MT bound may give the same result for two fundamentally different atomic species, for example with non-interacting fermions and hard-core bosons.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{Single particle states of the quartic trap $|\psi_n(x)|$ with strength $\lambda_0 =1$. The long-dashed line is the width of the harmonic oscillator single particle states, $\sigma_n^{HO}= (\int \psi_n x^2 \psi^*_n dx)^{1/2}=\sqrt{2(n+1/2)}$, while the short-dashed line represents the approximation to the width of the quartic trap states $\sigma_n\approx \sigma_n^{HO} \left( \frac{2n+1}{3\lambda_0 (2n^2+2n+1)} \right)^{1/6}$.} %Units are scaled as given in the text.}
\label{fig:states}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Degenerate Quantum Gases} %% starting from here -Jing
\label{sec:TG}
%Let us begin by describing the many-body state.
In the following, we consider a gas of $N$ interacting bosons of mass $m$ trapped in a quartic trap and assume tight transverse trapping potentials, such that the motion of the particles is confined to one dimension. The system can be described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{H}
H=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x_i^2} + \frac{m}{2} \lambda(t) x_i^{4}\right] + g\sum_{j<k}\delta(|x_j-x_k|)\;,%
\end{equation}
where $\lambda(t)$ is a tunable strength of the potential. Such an external geometry can be experimentally realized by propagating a blue-detuned Gaussian laser along the axial direction of the gas \cite{quarticexp}.
Our choice of the quartic potential \cite{Dowdall2017} is motivated by wanting to explore the dynamics away from the well known and extensively studied harmonic oscillator, where the single particle dynamics is exactly known \cite{PRL104,LuPRA,Luanharmonic,QiPRA,ThiagoPRE}. %, allowing us to study a more general case where the exact dynamics may not be known \cite{Dowdall2017}. %\jing{Have to check the definition of \lambda}
We assume that the interaction between the bosons is point-like and controlled by the 3D scattering length via $g=\frac{4\hbar^{2}a_{3D}}{md_{\perp}^{2}}\frac{1}{1-C\frac{a_{3D}}{d_{\perp}}}$, where $d_\perp$ is a length scale characterising the strong transversal confinement and the constant $C$ is given by $C=\zeta(\frac{1}{2})\approx 1.4603$ \cite{olshanni}.
%If the transverse trapping is achieved by a harmonic potential of frequency $\omega_{\perp}$, then $d_{\perp}=\sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_{\perp}}$.
In general this model is not exactly solvable for arbitrary values of $g$,
%using a Bethe ansatz in free space \cite{Bethe1931},
however, the solution becomes tractable in the TG limit of $g\rightarrow\infty$. In this regime the interaction terms in the Hamiltonian can be replaced by a constraint on the many-body bosonic wavefunction given by
%
\beq
\Psi_B(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_N)=0, \quad \mathrm{if} \quad x_i-x_j=0 \quad \mathrm{with} \quad i\neq j\;,
\eeq
which is formally similar to the Pauli principle for identical fermions. This allows one to map the strongly interacting bosons onto a gas of non-interacting and spin-polarised fermions which are described by the many-body wavefunction
\beq
\Psi_{F}(x_1,\ldots,x_N)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}\det^{N}_{n,j=1}[\psi_{n}(x_{j})]\;,%
\eeq
where the $\psi_{n}(x_{j})$ are the single particle eigenstates of the trapping potential. To obtain the TG many-body wavefunction one needs to symmetrize the fermionic state, $\Psi_B(x_1,\ldots,x_N)=\mathbf{s}(x_1,\ldots,x_N) \Psi_F(x_1,\ldots,x_N)$, where $\mathbf{s}(x_1,\ldots,x_N)$ is the unit anti-symmetrisation operator \cite{Girardeau}. Therefore, in this hard-core limit, calculating the dynamical evolution of the entire strongly interacting gas only requires evolving the single-particle states $\psi_n(x,t)$, which are governed by the single particle Hamiltonian,
\begin{equation}
\label{singleH}
\tilde{H}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial \tilde{x}^2} + \frac{1}{2}\tilde{\lambda}(t) \tilde{x}^{4}\;.%
\end{equation}
Here we have chosen to rescale our system with respect to a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\omega_0$ as this provides a convenient basis for discussing the dynamics of the individual single particle states. While the width of the quartic trap single particle states is smaller than the width of the harmonic oscillator eigenstates (see Fig.~\ref{fig:states}) they can be approximately mapped to one another by applying a scaling factor which will be introduced in the next section. We therefore express lengths in units of $d_{\parallel}=\sqrt{\hbar/(m\omega_0)}$, time in units $1/\omega_{0}$, energy in units of $\hbar \omega_0$ and $\tilde{\lambda}(t)$ is the time-dependent trap strength in units $m\omega_{0}^3/\hbar$. For simplicity of notation in the following sections we will drop the tilde for the scaled variables.
%\tb{We do not have a definition of $\omega_0$ I think and also need to justify why HO units.} Compared to the width of the harmonic oscillator eigenstates the quartic trap single states are narrower (see Fig. \ref{fig:states}), and this scaling will be useful when we later discuss their dynamics. For simplicity of notation in the following sections we will drop the tilde for the scaled variables.
% remove all the tilde signs in Eq. (\ref{singleH}).
Bosons in the TG limit share many properties with spinless fermions, such as equivalent densities and thermodynamic observables \cite{GirardeaPRA}, and they also possess identical fidelities as the symmetrisation operator vanishes when taking the many-body overlap $\langle \Psi_0 \vert \Psi_{\tau} \rangle$ \cite{adolfo_PRA2011}. In fact, the fidelity between two states can be conveniently written as
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& \big| \langle \Psi_0 \big| \Psi_{\tau} \rangle \big{|}^{2}= \left| \frac{1}{N!}\sum_{\sigma_1}\sum_{\sigma_2} (-1)^{\sigma_1(i)+\sigma_2(i)} \prod_{i=0}^{N-1}P_{\sigma_1(i)\sigma_2(i)}\right|^2 \nonumber\\
&=& \big| \det \mathbf{P} \big| ^2,
\label{eq:fidelity}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_{1(2)}$ denotes a permutation in $N$ indices, $P_{ij} = \langle \psi_i | \phi_j \rangle$, and $\psi_i$ and $\phi_j$ are the single particle states of the fermionic states $\Psi_0$ and $\Psi_{\tau}$ respectively. The equivalent energies and fidelities of the TG and Fermi gas therefore result in identical QSLs in terms of the unified MT-ML bound in Eq.~\eqref{combin}.
%which is shown in Fig.~\ref{QSLquench}. The QSL decreases as the system size grows which is due to linear growth of the energy variance with $N$, and is also a manifestation of the orthogonality catastrophe whereby the overlap of two many-body states decays with increasing particle number \cite{Goold2011,Knap2012}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.png}
\caption{RSPDM for (a) $50$ fermions and (b) $50$ TG particles in a quartic trap of strength $\lambda_0 = 1$.
}
\label{coherence}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
While the dynamics of the TG and Fermi pure states are identical, the mixed reduced states of both systems differ drastically \cite{Girardeau2005,Bender2005}. This is due to the fact that in the TG case the RSPDM is sensitive to the phase of the single particle wavefunctions
through the interactions, whereas in the case of the Fermi gas, where the particles do not interact, the RSPDM can be written as
% case the interactions, which are only present in the bosonic system, leading to different non-local properties, such as the momentum distribution and coherences .
%which describes the two-point correlations in the gas after tracing out all particles but one, $\rho^1(x,x')=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Psi(x,x_2,\ldots,x_N) \Psi^{*}(x',x_2,\ldots,x_N) dx_2\ldots dx_N$.
%\tbq{While the RSPDM of the TG gas is sensitive to the phase of the single particle wavefunctions due to interparticle collisions, the Fermi gas is not as the particles do not interact, allowing one to write the RSPDM for the fermions as
\beq
\rho_F(x,x')=\sum_{n=1}^N \psi_n(x) \psi^{*}_n(x') dx\;,%
\label{fer_reduce}
\eeq
which does not depend on the phases. This leads to differences in the non-local properties of both systems, such as the momentum distribution and coherences.
%whereby the phase information between the fermions is lost.
Although the RSPDM of both the TG gas and the spinless fermions do not possess off-diagonal long range order, the TG gas possesses larger off-diagonal contributions than the fermions (see Fig.~\ref{coherence}). One can quantify this by using the largest eigenvalue, $\theta_0$, of the RSPDM via $\int \rho(x,x') \varphi_n(x) dx=\theta_n \varphi_n(x')$, where $\theta_n$ are the occupation numbers of the respective eigenvectors $\varphi_n$ and the RSPDM is normalised to the system size such that $ \sum \theta_n =N $. For a non-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate $\theta_0$ scales with $N$, showing that there is a macroscopic occupation of the lowest energy state $\varphi_0$, while the spinless Fermi gas is incoherent with $\theta_0=1$. For the strongly interacting TG gas in a harmonic trap it is known to scale as $\sim \sqrt{N}$ \cite{Forrester2003}. In general the scaling of $\theta_0$ is determined by the large distance behaviour of the RSPDM and is therefore a good quantifier of the presence of off-diagonal long range order \cite{Rigol_2006}. Therefore, in the following we will adhere to the conventional use of $\theta_0$ to quantify the coherence of the TG gas \cite{Goold2008,Colcelli2018,Sowi_ski_2019}.
\section{Quench Dynamics}
We start by examining the simple case of a sudden increase of the trap strength from $\lambda(0) \equiv \lambda_i=1$ to $\lambda(t_f) \equiv \lambda_f=8$. The instantaneous speed $v(t)=\|\dot{\rho}_t\|_1$ of the subsequent evolution is shown in Fig.~\ref{QSLquench}(a)
% we show the instantaneous speed $v(t)=\|\dot{\rho}_t\|_1$ after the sudden quench of the quartic trap width
for the TG gas and the spinless fermions. While the fermionic speed can be seen to be fixed and not change over time, the speed of the TG undergoes dramatic changes. It is maximal immediately after the quench and significantly larger than the speed of the fermionic system. However, it very quickly slows down and saturates at an average value lower than the one for the fermions. This difference stems from the excitation of a collective breathing mode in the TG gas after the sudden compression, whereas the non-interacting fermions only react with single particle dynamics. In fact, these TG gas oscillations are known as a \textit{many-body bounce} \cite{Atas2017} and are the result of interparticle collisions between the strongly interacting bosons, while the non-interacting fermions just pass through one another. In the harmonic trap periodic revivals of the larger speeds would be observed, however, due to the anharmonicity of the quartic trap the single particle states used in the Bose-Fermi mapping approach dephase with respect to each other during the dynamics, which prevents the creation of perfect revivals of the initial state. Indeed, this sudden decay of the speed is amplified with increasing system size (see inset of Fig.~\ref{QSLquench}(a)) as more particles are involved in these collisions on differing timescales. This decoherence effect can also be observed in the dynamics of the largest eigenvalues of the RSPDM, $\theta_n(t)$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{QSLquench}(b). The initially large coherence $\theta_0$ and consecutive eigenvalues quickly decay and reach quasi-steady values on the same timescale as $v(t)$. In fact, these eigenvalues become tightly grouped and the tails of the eigenvalue distribution broadens showing that higher $n$ eigenvectors $\varphi_n(x,t)$ contribute more to the dynamics at long time scales (see inset), highlighting that the quench reduces the coherence in the system. In comparison, the eigenvalues of the RSPDM for the Fermi gas do not change after the quench and therefore the gas experiences no change in coherence. This suggests that the speed of the TG dynamics is closely related to its coherence, a fact that will become important when later discussing the driven dynamics of the system.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig3.png}
\caption{(a) Instantaneous speed $v(t)$ after a quench from $\lambda_i=1$ to $\lambda_f=8$ for $N=50$ particles, for the TG gas (green dots) and Fermi gas (red dashed line). Inset: average speed $\overline{v}$ for spinless fermions (red triangles) and TG gas (dark blue dots). For comparison the initial speed of the TG gas, $v(0)$, is also shown (light blue dots). (b) Evolution of the ten largest eigenvalues of the RSPDM of the TG gas with the largest one, $\theta_0$, indicated by the black line. Inset: Eigenvalues of the RSPDM of the TG gas at $t=0$ (green diamonds) and at $t=10$ (orange dots). The same for the Fermi gas is shown as the dotted red line ($\theta_n=1$ for $n=0,\dots,N-1$).}
\label{QSLquench}
\end{figure}
%In Fig.~\ref{QSLquench}(c) the QSL time for the pure state dynamics (Mandelstamm-Tamm bound) and the reduced states (Schatten-p-distance) are shown as a function of system size. Firstly, the QSLs elucidate different times based on the distinguishability measure, with a clear difference visible between the QSL time for the pure state fidelity and the trace distance of the reduced states. This is not surprising since we choose different metrics which can be governed by different speed limits, however one must be careful when comparing these speed limits as they describe the dynamics of different states. In general the QSL times exhibit similar scalings with particle number, which is related to the appearance of the orthogonality catastrophe in sudden quenched dyanmics \cite{Fogarty_QSL}. Furthermore, there is a further subtle difference between the QSL times for the reduced states of the TG gas and the spinless fermions, with the latter having slightly lower times suggesting that it can be driven faster. This is a result of the differences in $v_{QSL}$ shown in the inset of panel (a), whereby the amount of coherence strongly affects the speed of the TG gas. In the following section we will explore how the QSL inform about the controllability of
%which suggesting that one may be driven faster than the other, thereby highlighting differences in the ability to accurately control them. We will explore the relation between the QSL time and the driven dynamics in the next section.
%since we choose different metrics to quantify the connection of the initial and target states, namely the pure state fidelity and the trace distance between the reduced states, the QSLs elucidate different times on the distinguishability measure.
%Since we possess two different metrics.... different quantum speed limits.
% showing that it possesses significantly more coherence (see Fig.~\ref{coherence}). Indeed, one may quantify the coherence from the largest eigenvalue $\theta_0$ of the RSPDM via $\int \rho_1(x,x') \varphi_i(x) dx=\theta_i \varphi_i(x')$.
%The coherence of the TG gas scales as $\theta_0\sim\sqrt{N}$ (compared to the coherent Bose-Einstein condensate with $\theta_0=N$), while the Fermi gas is comparatively incoherent with $\theta_0=1$. This inherent difference in the coherence of the two species results in a subtle distinction in the QSL (see Fig.~\ref{QSLquench}) where the consistently lower values for the fermions suggests that it reaches the target state faster than the TG gas. We will explore the relation between the QSL and the dynamics in the next section.
% This suggests that the dynamics of the reduced states of the fermions and the TG gas will slightly differ after a change in the system Hamiltonian.
%The QSL is based on trance distance in Eq. (\ref{QSL_TD}), where $i\dot{\rho}_t = [H_t,\rho_t]$.
%It illustrates that all the QSL decays with increasing particle numbers are larger systems are driven further from their equilibrium after the quench.
%In this case the QSL for the TG gas is always less than that of the free fermions, suggesting that larger irreversible dynamics are created during the trap squeezing due to the collisions between the bosons. In comparison, the MT bound possesses a similar form and becomes comparable to the TG QSL for large $N$.
% \jing{****the above part, I think we paid much more attention for describing the basic theory..... *****}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\begin{figure}[tbp]
% \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{vQSL_t_vertx.png}
% \caption{(a) speed after quench for $N=50$, TG gas (yellow dots) and Fermi gas (grey dashed line). (b) Largest ten natural orbitals of the TG gas with the largest orbital (coherence) shown as the black dotted line. Inset: Distribution of the natural orbital occupation numbers $\theta_n$ of the TG at $t=0$ (blue diamonds) and at $t=10$ (red dots). Natural orbital occupation numbers for the Fermi gas included as dotted grey line.
% }
% \label{QSLquench}
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[tbp]
% \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{speed_after_quench.png}
% \caption{maximum speed after the quench as a function of $N$. Tonks gas (blue line), fermions (red dotted line).
% }
% \label{QSLquench}
%\end{figure}
\section{Driven dynamics and shortcuts to adiabaticity}
\label{sec:STA}
We will next consider a finite-time driving dynamics that ramps the trapping potential in such a way that a desired final state is reached. Such processes are known as shortcuts-to-adiabaticity (STA) and their success can be quantified using a number of different fidelity measures.
%While QSLs are certainly useful indicators of the dynamical properties of quantum states, we will now qualify these observations by exploring how to efficiently control the dynamics to reach a desired final state. Specifically we consider dynamically driving the system through a ramp of the trapping potential $\lambda(t)$ to find the timescales needed to reach adiabatic behaviour, which is related to the QSL, and can be quantified through the different fidelity measures.
For pure states the standard approach is to use the many-body fidelity as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:fidelity}, which corresponds to calculating the overlap between the evolved state at the end of the ramp, $\Psi(t_f)$, %after a ramp duration $t_f$
and the target eigenstate, $\Psi_{\tau}$, as $F(t_f)=\big| \langle \Psi(t_f) \big| \Psi_{\tau} \rangle \big{|}^{2}$. For an adiabatic process this fidelity is unity, implying that the final state is an eigenstate of the target Hamiltonian, and that no dynamical excitations remain in the system. The energies of the final and target state are therefore equivalent, $E(t_f)-E_{\tau}=0$. For a non-adiabatic process with $F(t_f)<1$ one gets $E(t_f)-E_{\tau}>0$, which means that the system possesses non-equilibrium excitations \cite{jing2,Lewis2019}. A good fidelity measure for mixed states is the trace distance, $T_D(t_f)= \frac{1}{2} \text{Tr} \left[ \sqrt{(\rho(t_f)-\rho_{\tau})^2} \right]$, where $\rho_{\tau}$ is the RSPDM of the respective target state. Similarly to the pure state situation, a vanishing trace distance means that the target state has been reached.
Again, we will consider the dynamics of squeezing the trap, $\lambda_f>\lambda_i$, and optimize the time-dependence of the ramp % by employing an STA technique. This will
such that all unwanted excitations are minimized and the target groundstate is achieved for any finite timescale. However, for many-body systems which are not scale invariant or are in anharmonic trapping potentials, only approximate STAs can be designed, which will not suppress all excitations of the many-body state \cite{polkovnikov}. Nevertheless, they can still allow one to find a close-to-optimal driving ramp that realizes quasi-adiabatic dynamics on short time scales. In our case we use an STA which is based on a single particle state of the system and which will be the same for the Fermi and the TG gas, ensuring that any discrepancy is due to the difference in coherence inherent in the respective systems.
To design the STA we use a variational method where we choose an ansatz for the $n^{th}$ single particle eigenstate of the external potential to minimize the effective Langrangian of the system \cite{Zoller1996,Zoller1997}. For the quartic potential a good ansatz is given by a scaled harmonic oscillator eigenstate, as these states have the appropriate functional form for an oscillatory dynamics %, approximately describe the $n^{th}$-eigenstate of the quartic potential
\cite{Ansatz2003,Zinner}
\begin{equation}
\psi_n(x,t) = A_n\exp\left[\frac{-x^{2}}{2a_n^{2}(t)} + ib(t)x^{2}\right] H_n\left(\frac{x}{a_n(t)}\right)\;.
\label{TriGa}
\end{equation}
Here $A_n=(1/2^n \sqrt{\pi} n! a_n(t))^{1/2}$ are the normalization constants,
$H_n$ are the Hermite polynomials of order $n$ and $b(t)$ is a chirp. The scaling factor $a_n(t)$ %plays an important role as it describes
ensures the rescaling of each single particle state to the width of the quartic trap $\sigma_n\approx \sigma_n^{HO} \left( \frac{2n+1}{3\lambda(t) (2n^2+2n+1)} \right)^{1/6}$ with $\sigma_n^{HO}=(\int \psi_n x^2 \psi^*_n dx)^{1/2}=\sqrt{2(n+1/2)}$ the width of the corresponding harmonic oscillator eigenstate. %with respect to the corresponding harmonic oscillator eigenstate which has a fixed lengthscale $d_{\parallel}$.
This ansatz therefore allows us to map the quartic potential to the paradigmatic problem of a single particle in a harmonic trap \cite{Luanharmonic,QiPRA} and leads to the explicit Lagrangian
%For simplicity, we omit all $(t)$ in those time-dependent variables.
%Substitute the ansatz Eq. (\ref{TriG}) into ...
%$\omega_0 = \omega(0)$ is the initial frequency of trap $V(t) = m \lambda(t) x^{4}/2$,
%$\lambda(t) = m \omega(t)^3/\hbar$,
%Calculating the Langrangian using the ansatz in Eq.~(\ref{TriGa}), we explicitly get % the effective Lagrangian of this system is obtained%
%
\begin{align}
\label{effLag}
\mathcal{L}=& - \frac{(2n+1) }{2}a_n^2(t) \dot{b}(t) - (2n+1) \left[ a_n^2(t)b^2(t)+\frac{1}{4a_n^2(t)} \right]\nonumber \\
&- a_n^{4}(t)\lambda(t) B(n)\;,%
\end{align}
%
where $B(n) = 3(2n^2+2n+1)/8$. After calculating the Euler-Lagrange equations with respect to $a_n(t)$ and $b(t)$ we get the Ermakov-like equation \cite{JingSciRep,jing2}
%
\begin{equation}\label{Erm_2}
\ddot{a}_n(t) + \frac{3(2n^2+2n+1) a_n^3(t)\lambda(t)}{2n+1} = \frac{1}{a_n^{3}(t)}\;.%
\end{equation}
%It could describe the dynamics of single particle behaviour when the even-power potential is small, e.g $q=2, 4, 6...$ in appendix. %The adiabatic invariant \cite{Jarzynsk2013} associated with Eq. (\ref{singleH}) is $\Lambda=\mu \lambda d_{\parallel}^3$, % \mossy{I think we need to be careful here, i think this should be in terms of $d_{\parallel}$} %where $\mu=3(2n^2+2n+1)/(2n+1)$.
Any change in $\lambda (t)$ is closely coupled to a change in the scaling factor $a_n(t)$ and induces an energy shift in the single particle states, which is associated with the adiabatic invariant \cite{Jarzynsk2013,campo_PRL2013,Deffner_PRX2014}.
One can therefore reverse engineer the $\lambda(t)$-ramp that leads to the desired adiabatic evolution of the system by %inverse engineering \cite{Torrontegui2011}, i.e.,
fitting the scaling factors $a_n(t)$, that characterize the ansatz in Eq.~\eqref{TriGa}, by a polynomial $a_n(t) = \sum_{i=0}^{5}c_i t^i$ \cite{Torrontegui2011}. %which we use to describe the desired adiabatic evolution of our system.
The exact form of $a_n(t)$ can be calculated by using the boundary conditions $a_n(0) = \left[ (2n+1)/8B(n)\lambda_i \right]^{1/6}$, $\dot{a}_n(0) = \ddot{a}_n(0)=0$ at the initial time and $ a_n(t_f) = \left[ (2n+1)/8B(n)\lambda_f \right]^{1/6}$, $\dot{a}_n(t_f) = \ddot{a}_n(t_f) = 0$ at the final time. The corresponding ramp $\lambda(t)$ %to realize this adiabatic dynamics
is then found by solving the auxiliary equation Eq.~\eqref{Erm_2}.
In Appendix \ref{appen}, we discuss the details on the suitability of the ansatz, the derivation of the STA for arbitrary power-law potentials and we compare the STA to non-optimized ramps.
%Then put the factors $a_n(t)$ into Eq.~(\ref{Erm_2}), you can get the accelerated frequency $\lambda(t)$.}
%To speed up the frequency changes from $\lambda_i$ to $\lambda_f$, we reverse engineer the scaling factors $a_n(t)$ using an interpolating function $a_n = \sum_{\xi=0}^{5}d_\xi t^\xi$, with the initial scaling factor $a_n(0) = \left[ (2n+1)/8B(n)\lambda_i \right]^{1/6}$ and the final scaling factor $ a_n(t_f) = \left[ (2n+1)/8B(n)\lambda_f \right]^{1/6}$ with the usual boundary conditions at the beginning and end of the ramp, $\dot{a}_n(0) = \ddot{a}_n(0)=0$ and $\dot{a}_n(t_f) = \ddot{a}_n(t_f) = 0$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig4.png}
\caption{
(a) Many-body fidelity $F$ versus duration $t_f$ for the STA ramps $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$ (black solid line) and $\lambda^{n=0}(t)$ (dotted green line). The inset shows the explicit form of both ramps for $t_f=2$. The total particle number is fixed at $N=50$ with $\lambda_i=1$ and $\lambda_f=8$. %With $t_f$ increasing, the fidelities based on the $50$th eigenstate grow faster than the ground state.
(b) Infidelity versus particle number $N$ for $t_f=2$.%The paths based on $50$th eigenstate (black solid) are more valid than the ground state (green dotted) with the particle number increasing.
%Parameters are $t_f$ = 2, $\lambda_i = 1$, $\lambda_{f} = 8$.
(c) Scaling factors $a_n$ for the initial state as a function of $n$. The inset shows the difference between neighbouring single particle states, $\Delta a_n=a_{n+1}-a_{n}$.}
\label{fid_com}
\end{figure}
In what follows we shall assume the total number of particles in the system is fixed at $N=50$ and compare two ramps based on STAs for a single particle either in the $n=0$ state (i.e.~at the bottom of the Fermi sea at $T=0)$ or in the $n=49$ state (i.e.~at the Fermi edge at $T=0$).
% the two boundaries of the Fermi sea for the ansatz in Eq.~(\ref{Erm_2}): $i)$ the STA $\lambda^{n=0}(t)$ which uses the lowest energy single particle state ($n=0$ state) at the bottom of the Fermi sea as the ansatz and $ii)$ the STA $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$ which uses the largest energy single particle state which sits at the Fermi surface ($n=49$ state at zero temperature).
Both ramps are shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fid_com}(a) for a trap compression going from $\lambda_i=1$ to $\lambda_f=8$ over a time of $t_f=2$. While at first glance both controllers seem to possess a similar form, they differ significantly at the beginning and end, with $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$ having a gentler slope compared to $\lambda^{n=0}(t)$.
To test the ramp we time evolve the system by numerically intergrating the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation $i\hbar d \psi_n(x,t)/dt=H(t) \psi_n(x,t)$ where the initial single particle eigenstates $\psi_n(x,t=0)$ and the target states $\phi_n$ are found by numerically diagonalizating Eq.~\eqref{singleH}. Note that we use the ansatz only for deriving the STA, but not for the numerical work. At the end of the STA process the many-body fidelity $F(t_f)=\big| \langle \Psi(t_f) \big| \Psi_{\tau} \rangle \big{|}^{2}$ is computed from the single particle expression using Eq.~\eqref{eq:fidelity}, stressing again that this is equivalent for the TG and Fermi gases. In Fig.~\ref{fid_com}(a) we show this many-body fidelity as a function of $t_f$, and one can see that for slow ramps ($t_f\approx 4$) the fidelity of the two STAs are equivalent and very close to one. In this limit both ramps can therefore be considered adiabatic, i.e.~the final state is an eigenstate of the target Hamiltonian and dynamical excitations have been successfully suppressed. However, for shorter process times the shortcut ramp $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$ shows a clear advantage by achieving unit fidelity already for $t_f \sim 1$, while the shortcut ramp $\lambda^{n=0}(t)$ results in distinct oscillations of the fidelity. For ramp times $t_f<1$ both STAs becomes ineffective and instead of reducing excitations they create them. This is due to a combination of our approximate approach and the fast modulations in the trap strength $\lambda(t)$ needed at short times, which drive the system far out of equilibrium \cite{Lewis2019,kahan2019}.
To compare the two shortcut ramps further, we show in Fig.~\ref{fid_com}(b) the resulting infidelity as a function of $N$. One can see that the STA $\lambda^{n=0}(t)$ is effective for small particle numbers ($N<6$), but gets increasingly worse as the system size grows. In comparison the STA $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$ improves as $N\rightarrow 50$ and is efficient for most $N$. It should be not surprising that the STA designed for higher energy states performs better for larger systems, as near their Fermi surface the scaling factors of the single particle states become comparable with values $a_n\sim (3 \lambda_i n)^{-1/6}$, see Fig.~\ref{fid_com}(c).
% which ensures that there is not much difference between the STAs designed by the ansatzes of the higher lying particles.
Actually, for single particle states with $n\gtrsim 20$ the differences in $a_n$ between consecutive states is less than $1\%$ (see inset of Fig.~\ref{fid_com}(c)), suggesting that the dynamical timescales of these higher lying states are closely related. Therefore, with similar scaling factors and thus equivalent dynamics described by Eq.~\eqref{Erm_2}, a large majority of particles in the Fermi sea are optimally driven by the STA $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$. %In essence, larger systems in a quartic trap close to being scale invariant like the harmonic oscillator (i.e. $d_{\parallel}$ is fixed for every state), and therefore a growing majority of particles in the fermi sea are near optimally driven by the STA.
%$\sigma_n=\sqrt{\int \psi_n x^2 \psi^*_n dx}\approx \sqrt{2(n+1/2)} a_n(0)\sim n^{1/3} (3 \lambda_0)^{-1/6}$,
In comparison the scaling factor of the groundstate is much larger, $a_0\sim (3 \lambda_i)^{-1/6}$, and $a_n$ varies greatly between successive low energy states of the trap. %As the scaling factors of the higher energy particles are therefore quite different from $a_0(t)$,
This renders the STA based on $\lambda^{n=0}(t)$ ineffective.
%$a_0(0)\sim 2^{-1/2} (3 \lambda_0)^{-1/6}$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig5a.png}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig5b.png}
\caption{(a) Trace distance after the trap squeezing using the STA as a function of $t_f$ for the TG gas (blue) and the Fermi gas (red). The inset compares the trace distance in logscale with the respective approximations from Eq.~\eqref{eq:TD_Bx} (yellow dashed and indistinguishable from the numerical results) and Eq.~\eqref{eq:TD_Fx} (black dashed). The parameters used are $\lambda_i=1$, $\lambda_f=8$ and $N=50$. (b) Fluctuations of the largest ($\theta_0(t_f)-\kappa_0$, orange) and second largest $(\theta_1(t_f)-\kappa_1$, green) eigenvalues of the RSPDM of the TG gas around the corresponding eigenvalues of the target state. %occupations numbers about the target occupation numbers
% ($\theta_n(t_f)-\sigma_n$).
% as a function of the STA duration $t_f$. Shown are the dynamaics of the largest occupation number $\theta_0(t_f)-\sigma_0$ (orange thick line) and the second largest $\theta_1(t_f)-\sigma_1$ (green thin line).
The inset shows $\vert \theta_0(t_f)-\kappa_0 \vert$ in logscale (orange) as function of $t_f$ compared to the trace distance (blue) for the TG gas. The oscillation frequencies of both quantities closely match.
%(a) Trace distance as a function of $t_f$ for fermions (dashed red line) and TG gas (solid blue line). (b) Coherence of the TG gas as a function of $t_f$. (c) Time average of $\tau_{QSL}$ as a function of $t_f$ for fermions (dashed red line) and the TG gas (solid blue line). $\tau_{QSL}$ is rescaled by its adiabatic value $\tau_{AD}\approx 0.002$ for the fermions and $\tau_{AD}\approx 0.018$ for the TG gas.
}
\label{TD}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig6.png}
\caption{Average speed during the STA for the TG gas (blue circles) and the Fermi gas (red triangles). The inset displays the same data on a log-log scale, showing an algebraic decay of the average speed when the systems become more adiabatic. %with decaying exponent $\sim t_f^{-2}$ when $t_f>2$.}
The parameters used are $\lambda_i=1$, $\lambda_f=8$ and $N=50$.
}
\label{speed_STA}
\end{figure}
Let us now explore the dynamics of the RSPDMs of the fermionic and TG gas using the trace distance. We can rewrite the trace distance in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the RSPDM, specifically $\rho(t_f)=\sum_n^{\infty} \theta_n(t_f) \vert \varphi_n(t_f)\rangle \langle \varphi_n(t_f)\vert$ for the state after the STA and $\rho_{\tau}=\sum_n^{\infty} \kappa_n \vert \chi_n\rangle \langle \chi_n\vert$ for the target state. Since both sets of eigenstates form orthonormal systems, we can substitute %Rewriting the STA orbitals in the basis of the target orbitals,
$\ket{\varphi_n}=\sum_m \Delta_{mn} \ket{\chi_m}$ into the expression for the trace distance, which gives
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_D&=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\Biggl\{\sum_m \ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_m} \kappa^2_m + \sum_n \theta^2_n \sum_{l,m} \Delta_{ln} \Delta_{mn}^{*} \ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_l} \\
&\quad - \sum_{l,n} \theta_n \kappa_l \left( \Delta_{ln}\sum_m \Delta_{mn}^{*} \ket{\chi_l}\bra{\chi_m} + \Delta_{ln}^{*} \sum_m \Delta_{mn} \ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_l} \right)
\Biggr\}^{\!1/2},
\end{split}
\label{eq:TD_full}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{mn}(t_f)=\bra{\chi_m}\varphi_n(t_f)\rangle$. For quasi-adiabatic processes we can assume that the contribution from the cross terms, $\ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_l}$ for $l\neq m$, are negligible, allowing us to simplify the above expression
% by keeping the $l=m$ terms.
for the TG gas as %the trace distance can be written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_D^{TG}&\approx\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\Biggl\{ \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_m} \\
&\qquad\quad \times \Biggl[ \kappa_m^2+ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \vert \Delta_{mn}(t_f) \vert^2 \left( \theta_n^2(t_f)-2\theta_n(t_f) \kappa_m \right)\Biggr]
\Biggr\}^{\!1/2}\;.
\end{split}
\label{eq:TD_Bx}
\end{equation}
Here the out-of-equilibrium fluctuations are captured by the time-dependent eigenfunction overlaps $\Delta_{mn}(t_f)$ and their occupation numbers $\theta_n(t_f)$. For spinless fermions the trace distance simplifies even further, as the eigenvector occupations do not change during driven dynamics and are constant with $\kappa_n=\theta_n=1$ ($n=0,\ldots,N-1$) for both final and target states. Therefore the dynamics of the trace distance depends only on $\Delta_{mn}(t_f)$ and can be written as
\begin{equation}
T_D^{F}\approx\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\Biggl\{\sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_m} \Biggl[ 1 - \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \vert \Delta_{mn}(t_f) \vert^2 \Biggr] \Biggr\}^{\!1/2}\,.
\label{eq:TD_Fx}
\end{equation}
%T_D^{F}\approx\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\Biggl\{\sum_m \ket{\chi_m}\bra{\chi_m} \Biggl[ \theta_m^2+ \sum_n \vert \Delta_{mn}(t_f) \vert^2 \left( \theta_n^2-2\theta_n \theta_m \right)\Biggr] \Biggr\}^{\!1/2}\,.
In Fig.~\ref{TD}(a) we show the trace distances for the TG gas and the spinless fermions (calculated with the full expression in Eq.~\eqref{eq:TD_full}) after implementing the efficient STA $\lambda^{n=49}(t)$ for $N=50$ particles. We see that the target state is reached for similar timescales as the fidelity overlap (compare with Fig.~\ref{fid_com}(a)), with $T_D\approx 0$ for $t_f\gtrsim 2$ for both systems. However, a strong discrepancy between the results for the different statistics is also clearly visible.
The trace distance of the TG gas possesses distinct oscillations, unlike the fermionic case which is almost monotonically decaying with $t_f$. The source of these oscillations is again the scattering of the hardcore bosons off one another \cite{Atas2017}, %during the trap squeezing, %, which manifests as a doubling of the frequency of the trace distance of TG gas compared to the spinless fermions (see inset) \cite{Atas2017}. Indeed, these collisions
which alter the occupations of the eigenvectors of the RSPDM and therefore the coherence in the system (see Fig.~\ref{TD}(b)). This leads to differences in the off-diagonal elements of the RSPDMs and consequently to the observed behaviour of the trace distance.
%coherence of the TG gas resulting in fluctuations of the natural orbital occupations about the those of the target state (see Fig.~\ref{TD}(b)).
This can be clearly seen from the inset of Fig.~\ref{TD}(b), where we show that whenever the coherence of the dynamical state matches that of the target state, $\theta_0(t_f)\approx\kappa_0$ (minima of the orange curve), the trace distance %(see inset of Fig.~\ref{TD}(b)),
is also at a minimum.
%with the slight discrepancy due to the contributions of higher energy natural orbitals to the trace distance which can possess more complex oscillatory features (see $\theta_1(t_f)-\sigma_1$ in Fig.~\ref{TD}(b)). Nevertheless,
Fluctuations in the coherence therefore strongly affect the final state after the STA and the ability to reach the target state, an effect which is not captured by the pure state fidelity.
%The $T_D$ is used for measuring the distinguishability between two matrixes.
%During this non-adiabatic process, the TG boson system generates much more coherence at the final; while the spinless fermi particles converges quickly as it is clean.
%The trace distance is shown as a function of $t_f$ for different STA.
%Its variation is consistency with fidelity.
%Because it expresses the different between the dynamical result and target state in different ways.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\begin{figure}[htp]
% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/Com_QSL_STA}}
% \caption{QSL time of STA as a function of dynamical time $t_f$ for MT bound (thick, blue),
% TG-gas trace distance (dashed red) and fermions trace distance (dashed-dotted, magenta).
% Inset: The QSL of fermions trace distance in the large time area.}
% \label{QSLSTA}
% \end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Finally, the average speed during the STA, $\overline{v}(t_f) =(1/t_{f})\int_{0}^{t_f} \|\dot{\rho_t}\|_1 dt$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{speed_STA}. One can see that the speed of the TG gas exceeds that of the Fermi gas, echoing the results of the trace distance, which suggests that the TG gas state changes faster during the shortcut protocol. However, this should not be construed as implying that the TG gas reaches the target state quicker, rather that it is has a larger average speed due to the presence of off-diagonal excitations resulting from the scattering between the particles. As above, these excitations are also the reason that it remains further from its target state compared to the Fermi gas (see Fig.~\ref{TD}), %as shown by the trace distance and coherence,
suggesting that it requires a slightly longer path to adiabaticity. In the adiabatic limit the speed should vanish, and indeed one can see from the inset of Fig.~\ref{speed_STA} that at large $t_f$ it decays with a power law that possesses a similar exponent for the TG gas and the Fermi gas. %When $t_f$ is large and the dynamics are quasi-adiabatic, but for small $t_f$ the differences are more apparent as excitations are significant (see inset).
%
%
% \mossy{*** Similar qualitative results were observed in the sudden quench as the instantaneous speed for the TG immediately proceeding trap compression far exceeded the fermions due to the presence of a large amount of coherence. During the STA protocol coherences in the TG gas are preserved, allowing the system to maintain a high speed.****}
%
%The scattering between the particles in the TG gas also affects the QSL of this driven system, which can be calculated via the time-average of the commutator (anti-commutator for the fermionic gas) between the STA Hamiltonian $H_t$ and the time dependent RSPDM $\rho_t$ for each system
%f time-dependent Hamiltonian, we take the time-average QSL which based on trace distance in Eq.~(\ref{QSL_TD})
%\begin{equation}\label{QSL_tim-dep}
% \tau_{QSL} \geq \frac{T_D(\rho_{\tau}, \rho_0)}{(1/t_{f})\int_{0}^{t_f}dt\|\dot{\rho_t}\|_1}\;.
%\end{equation}
%The time average of the trace norm captures the non-equilibrium dynamics during the STA process, diverging as $t_f\rightarrow 0$ when the STA becomes ineffective due to the approximate nature of our approach, as shown in Fig.~\ref{TD}(c). For $t_f>1$ the QSL quickly becomes constant on a timescale similar to the one for the trace distance shown in Fig.~\ref{TD}(a), but the QSL for the fermions smoothly approaches the adiabatic limit quicker than the one for the TG gas. Again, modulations appear due to scattering between the hardcore bosons, in this case captured by $\|\dot{\rho_t}\|_1$, as they increase energy fluctuations during the driving process.
%
%=\frac{\hbar T_D(\rho_{\tau}, \rho_0)}{(1/t_{f})\int_{0}^{t_f}dt\|\left[H(t),\rho(t)\right]\|_1}.
%
%, we show the QSL as a function of $t_f$ for the MT bound (thick, blue) and for the reduced state of the TG (dashed red) and fermionic gases (dashed-dotted, magenta).
%\mossy{[this needs some work....]}
%With $t_f$ increasing, the TG-gas approach to convergency.
%It represents the dynamics rate $\|\dot{\rho}(t)\|$ become convergent and the collisions between the atoms are the same.
%The coherence in this system provides the source to speed up.
%On the other hand, there are no interactions between the fermions.
%Therefore the QSL continue to grow up with $t_f$ increasing until the adiabatic area.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work we have explored the differences in the dynamics of many-particle systems composed of spinless fermions and hardcore bosons. While in the gas of spinless fermions the coherence is low $(\theta_0=1)$, the bosonic system of the TG gas has a coherence that is much larger ($\theta_0=\sqrt{N})$.
Beginning with the average speed after a sudden quench we have demonstrated that coherences play an important role in the evolution of the reduced state of both systems, with interparticle collisions between bosonic particles causing the system to decohere quickly.
We have also shown that using approximate single-particle STA techniques in many-body states can yield good results as long as an appropriate ansatz is chosen. %, which can be promising for applications to more complex systems.
Similar to the quench, in this controlled setting the particle collisions in the TG gas can affect the ability the quickly reach the target state, as the non-equilibrium excitations they create can affect the coherence in the system and hamper implementing STAs efficiently.
With the goal to control larger quantum systems for applications in quantum information and computation there is a need to go beyond just characterising the system through the fidelity and instead probe deeper into the coherences and correlations which can exhibit different dynamics. In fact, our results suggest that the non-local correlations of the TG gas are more sensitive to non-equilibrium excitations and infidelities, which could be an important consideration for the control of large entangled states.
%In fact, examining the pure state fidelity at $t_f=2$ we find $F\approx 0.9996$ which one might assume the target state is reached, however the trace distance for the TG at this time is non-zero and noticeable oscillations still exist at longer times.
% when of quantum speed limit between TG gas and non-interacting Fermi gas.
%Based on STA, we can design the many-particle compression dynamics in the quartic trap.
%Due to the indistinguishability of there two kinds particles for MT bound, we apply the quantum speed limit based on trace distance instead.
%This not only distinct QSL between hardcore bosons and Fermions, but also gives us a tighter bound than the limit from Bures angle.
%It indicates TG gas limit time is longer than the fermions for both quench and shortcut dynamics because of scattering of the hardcore bosons.
%Furthermore, to quantify the qualities of these final states, the fidelity and trace distance are used as the criterions.
%It is clear to see that the ansatz which approaches to the edge of Fermi sea is better than the bottom one.
%The reason is that the lengthscales of each single particle state are comparable for $n\gtrsim 20$ and close to the scale invariant of harmonic oscillator.
%For the sake of dividing, we use trace distance to express the differences between TG and Fermi gas.
%It has the similar timescales as fidelity but distinct difference.
%The TG gas decrease with oscillations which also due to the scattering of particles.
%However Fermi gas are monotonically decaying with no interactions.
%We combine the variational method and STA to express the many-particle quantum speed limit.
%It gives the new results that the speed limit time are different between TG gas and fermions.
%This is a new application for quantum speed limit and STA.
%
\section*{Acknowledgement}
%
The authors thank Steve Campbell for unlimited discussions. This work was supported by NSFC (11474193), SMSTC (18010500400 and 18ZR1415500), and the Program for Eastern Scholar. XC acknowledges the Ram\'{o}n y Cajal program of the Spanish MINECO (RYC-2017-22482). TF acknowledges support under JSPS KAKENHI-18K13507, and
TB, TF and JL acknowledge support from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\begin{figure}[htp]
% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Figures/Tra_lam_q=2_T=10}}
% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Figures/Tra_NvsF_q=2_T=10}}
% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Figures/Tra_dura_q=2}}
% \caption{(a) Time evolution of trap position $x_0$ for different trial function.
% The ground state of harmonic oscillator as trial function, i.e. $n=0$ (dotted black) in Eq. (\ref{TriGau}).
% The fiftieth state as trial function, i.e. $n=49$ (dashed red) in Eq. (\ref{TriGau}).
% The linear time-dependent $x_0$ as comparison (thick blue).
% (b) The fidelities versus particle number $N$, the dynamical time $t_f=10$.
% The line styles are the same as (a).
% (c) The fidelities versus dynamical duration $t_f$, the particle number $N=50$.}
% \label{fid_tra}
%\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Fig. \ref{fid_tra}(a) shows $x_0(t)$ based on $n=0, 49$ and linear as comparison.
%The $n=49$ moves slower than the other two pathes at the beginning and ending.
%It also means this smooth path is more stable than the others at initial area and final area.
%The resulting fidelities for all pathes in Fig. \ref{fid_tra}(a) are shown in Fig. \ref{fid_tra}(b) for $t_f=10$.
%The fidelities based on $n=49$ are better than $n=0$ when $N>3$.
%With particle increasing, the fidelities for $n=49$ are always good.
%But the fidelities based on $n=0$ oscillates and reach unity at some ``magic time''.
%The fidelities versus duration times are shown in Fig. \ref{fid_tra}(c).
%The fidelities based on $n=49$ approach to be convergence faster than $n=0$ and linear.
%It indicates these fidelities from three pathes oscillate consistently.
%That means the inertia force is similar for them.
%Therefore, the $n=49$ as the trial function is more effective than $n=0$ for protecting the fermi surface during the transport.
%The mass of rubidium atom is $ m = 1.443\times 10^{-25}$kg.
%Plank constant is $\hbar = 1.0546\times 10^{-34}$J$\cdot$s.x
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\begin{figure}[htp]
% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figures/Com_den_n=0_T=1p5}}
%% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figures/Com_den_n=49_T=1p5}}
% \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figures/Com_den_n=qua_T=1p5}}
% \caption{ RSPDM after different compressions for (a) $n=0$, (b) $n=49$ and (c) quasiadiabatic at time $t_f = 1.5$.
% The target RSPDM are shown as the white contour lines.}
% \label{den_com}
%\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\begin{figure}[htp]
% %\subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figures/Tra_den_n=0_T=5}}
% % \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figures/Tra_den_n=49_T=5}}
% % \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figures/Tra_den_n=lin_T=5}}
% \caption{ RSPDM after different transports at time for (a) $n=0$, (b) $n=49$ and (c) linear $t_f = 5$.
% The target RSPDM are shown as the white contour lines.}
% \label{den_tra}
%\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%In Fig. \ref{den_com} (a), (b) and Fig. \ref{den_tra} (a), (b), the RSPDMs are represented after different STA pathes,
%while Fig. \ref{den_com} (c) and \ref{den_tra} (c) are the corresponding reference dynamics.
%The RSPDMs of target states are shown as white counters.
%At $t_f = 1.5$, the fidelities based on $n=49$ approach to unity, but the $n=0$ and quasiadiabatic are much smaller than $1$.
%Therefore, the RSPDM of STA in Fig. \ref{den_com} (b) are coincide with the target state and the others are quite different.
%This similar results are happened in the transport.
%At $t_f = 5$, the RSPDM based on $n=0$ and quasiadiabatic are mismatched with the target due to the low fidelity.
%Because of the good fidelity, the RSPDM based on $n=49$ is identical to the target state.
\bibliography{QSL-revise}
\clearpage
\onecolumngrid
%\begin{center}
% \textbf{\large Appendix}
%\end{center}
%
\begin{appendix}
%
\section{RSPDM and coherences in the TG gas}
\label{appenB}
%
The RSPDM of a TG gas can be expressed in the single particle basis as
\begin{equation}
\rho^1_B(x,x^\prime) = \sum_{i,j=1}^N \psi_i(x)\left(\textbf{P}^{-1}\right)^T\det\textbf{P} \psi^{*}_j(x')\;,
\end{equation}
where the $P_{ij}(x,x^\prime) = \delta_{ij} - 2\int_{x}^{x^{\prime}}dy\psi_i(y) \psi^{*}_j(y)$ are the matrix elements of $\textbf{P}$ \cite{Pezer2007}. The integrals over the different single particle states, $i\neq j$, describe the coherences of the TG gas.
\section{Generalized STA for arbitrary power and eigenstate}
\label{appen}
%
%The one-dimensional Hamiltonian of many-particle system can be written as
%\begin{equation}\label{}
% H(x,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x_i^2} + V(x_i,t)\right] + g\sum_{j<k}\delta(|x_j-x_k|),
%\end{equation}
%where $m$ is the mass of the particles, $V(x_i, t)$ is trap potential and $g$ is the interaction strength, $N$ is the total number of particles.
%When $g\rightarrow \infty$, these bosons can be mapped to spinless fermions \cite{Girardeau}.
%This is the theorem called Fermi-Bose mapping which means that the strongly correlated bosons are equivalent to the non-interacting spin-polarized Fermions for some quantities that only involve wave functions. Here we impose the wave function is constraint as
%\begin{equation}\label{}
% \Psi(x_1,...,x_N,t)=0\quad if \quad |x_j-x_k|\leq \alpha,
%\end{equation}
%where $1\leq j\leq k\leq N$ and $\alpha$ is the hard core diameter.
%Note that two particles can not exist at the positions less than $\alpha$ when $g\rightarrow \infty$, the system could be treated as non-interacting case.
%This fermionic many-particle wavefunction is expressed as the sum of single particle by using Slater determinant
%\begin{equation}\label{FerWav}
% \Psi_F(x_1,...,x_N,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}\rm{det}_{(n,j)=(0,1)}^{(N-1,N)}\psi_n( x_i, t),
%\end{equation}
%where $\psi_n(x_i, t)$ are the eigenstates of single-particle Hamiltonian
%\begin{equation}\label{SigHam}
% H_{sp}=\frac{p^2}{2m} + V(x, t).%-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^2}
%\end{equation}
%Then, the constraint bosonic many-particle wavefunction is obtained from Eq. (\ref{FerWav})
%\begin{equation}\label{BFmap}
% \Psi_B(x_1,...,x_N,t)=A(x_1,...,x_N,t)\Psi_F(x_1,...,x_N,t),
%\end{equation}
%where $A(x_1,...,x_N)$ is an unit anti-symmetric function.
%Consider the power-law trappings
%\begin{equation}\label{Trap}
% V(x,t) = \frac{m}{2} \lambda(t)\left[ x - x_0(t) \right]^{2q},
%\end{equation}
%$q=1, 2, 3 ...$ which is corresponding to all even-power-law potentials.
%$x_0(t)$ is the center position of the traps, $\lambda(t)$ represents the strengths of a family of trapping potential which could be written into $m^{q-1} \omega(t)^{q+1}/\hbar^{q-1}$, where $\omega(t)$ is the trap frequency.
%Notice that the scaling relations are known to apply to this class of potentials in one degree of freedom.
%In principle, one may use counterdiabatic driving to control the dynamics precisely by adding the external force out of the system.
%While in most cases, it seems that it is not easy to implement in the experiments.
%In this paper, we would like to use variational approach to obtain the dynamical equations of the system in Eq. (\ref{SigHam}).
%$q=1$ this potential corresponds to a harmonic oscillator, while for $q\rightarrow\infty$ it tends towards an infinite box potential. \cite{zy2013}
%For notational simplicity we will neglect the implicit time dependence on the parameters in the following.
%In order to express the physical meaning more clearly,
%we rewrite the trap as
%%
%\beq
%V = \frac{\hbar \omega}{2} \left(\frac{x-x_0}{x_c}\right)^{2q} ,
%\eeq
%%
%where $x_c = \sqrt{\hbar/m\omega}$ is a characteristic length and $\omega$ is the trap frequency.
%Therefore, we get the connection between strength $\lambda$ and frequency $\omega$ as
%
%\beq
%\lambda = \frac{m^{q-1} \omega^{q+1}}{\hbar^{q-1}}.
%\eeq
%
The general Lagrangian density for a particle in a power-law trap can be written as \cite{Zoller1996,Zoller1997}
\beq
\label{Density}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{i}{2}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t}\psi^{\ast} - \frac{\partial\psi^{\ast}}{\partial t}\psi\right) - \frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x}\right|^{2}
-\frac{\lambda(t)}{2} (x - x_0(t))^{2q}\left|\psi\right|^{2},
\eeq
%
where the asterisk denotes complex conjugation and $\lambda(t)$ is scaled by $m^{q-1}\omega^{q+1}/\hbar^{q-1}$.
The dynamics is determined by the extremum of $L=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\mathcal{L}\,dx$
and the choice of a proper functional form of the trial function is very important.
For $q=1$ the natural choice are the harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions and for $q=\infty$ the trigonometric box eigenstates.
While it is hard to find the eigenstates for $1<q<\infty$, a good (and computationally convenient) ansatz for small values of $q$
%Considering $n$-th eigenstate of system,
%it maybe a good choice for choosing the trial function as
%\begin{align}\label{TriGau}
% \ket{\psi} = A_n\exp\Big[&-\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\frac{(x-\xi(t))^{2}}{2a^{2}(t)} + ib(t)(x-\xi(t))^{2} \nonumber \\
% & + ic(t)(x-\xi(t))\Big] H_n\left(\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\frac{x}{a(t)}\right),
%\end{align}
can be based on the harmonic oscillator eigenstates as
\begin{equation}\label{TriGau}
\psi_n (x,t) = A_n\exp\left[-\frac{(x-\xi(t))^{2}}{2a^{2}(t)} + ib(t)(x-\xi(t))^{2}
+ ic(t)(x-\xi(t))\right] H_n\left(\frac{x}{a(t)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $A_n^{2}=1/\sqrt{\pi}2^n n! a(t)$ accounts for the normalization, $H_n$ are the Hermite polynomials,
$a(t)$ is the scaling factor, $b(t)$ is the chirp, $c(t)$ is the slope and $\xi(t)$ is the center position of wavefunction. In Fig.~\ref{En_lamt}(a) we show that the energies of the ansatz from Eq. \eqref{TriGa} ($E_n=\langle \psi_n(x,0)| H | \psi_n (x,0) \rangle $) are in good agreement with the exact eigenenergies of the quartic potential.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig7.png}
\caption{(a) Exact eigenenergies (yellow dots) and the energies of the ansatz given in Eq.~\eqref{TriGa} (asterisk) for each single particle state $n$ in a trap of strength $\lambda_0=1$. (b) STA ramps for $t_f=4$ (black), $t_f=0.5$ (blue) and $t_f=0.25$ (red).
}
\label{En_lamt}
\end{figure}
The equations that govern the evolution of $a \equiv a(t)$, $b\equiv b(t)$, $c\equiv c(t)$ and $\xi \equiv \xi(t)$ can then be found by
inserting Eq.~(\ref{TriGau}) into Eq.~(\ref{Density}) and integrating over coordinate space, which gives
\begin{equation}
L= - \frac{(2n+1) a^2 \dot b}{2} + c\dot{\xi} - (2n+1)(\frac{1}{4a^2} + a^2 b^2) - c^2
- \frac{\lambda(t)}{2} C(n),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
C(n) = \frac{2^n}{n!}\sum_{j}^{n}\binom{n}{j}^2 \frac{j!}{2^j(s+j)!}\sum_{k=0}^{q} \binom{2q}{2k}(x_0-\xi)^{2q-2k}\frac{2k!a^{2k}}{2^{2k}}.
\end{equation}
Here $s = k-n$, $\binom{n}{j}$ is a binomial coefficient and $j=\max(0,-s)$.
The parameter $l_{i}$ which represents $a$, $b$, $c$ or $\xi$, follows from the Euler-Lagrange equations
%
\beq\label{EuLa}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{l}_{i}}\right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial l_{i}} = 0,
\eeq
%
where the dot denotes derivative with respect to $t$.
Next, it is straightforward to substitute the Lagrangian into Eq.~(\ref{EuLa}), which leads to % and the derivation equations for $l_i$ are got
\begin{align}
\label{difa}
\dot{a} &= 2\hbar a b, \\
%\eeq
%
%\beq\label{difb}
%\begin{split}
% \dot{b}(t) = & \frac{m\omega_0^2}{2\hbar a^{4}(t)} - \frac{2\hbar b^{2}(t)}{m} - \frac{m^2 \omega_0\lambda(t)}{2(2n+1)\hbar^2 a(t)}
% \sum_{k=0}^{q} 2^{-2k+1}k\\
% & \left(\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\right)^{-k}a^{2k-1}B(n)\binom{2q}{2k}2k!\frac{2^n}{n!} (x_0-\xi(t))^{2q-2k},
%\end{split}
%\eeq
%\begin{equation}
\label{difb}
\dot{b} &= \frac{1}{2 a^{4}} - 2 b^{2} - \frac{\lambda(t)}{(2n+1) a^2}\sum_{k=0}^{q} k C(n),\\
%\end{equation}
%
%\beq\label{difc}
%\begin{split}
% \dot{c}(t) = & -\frac{m\lambda(t)}{2\hbar} \sum_{k=0}^{q} 2^{-2k} \left(\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\right)^{-k} a^{2k}(t)
% B(n)\binom{2q}{2k} \\
% & 2k!\frac{2^n}{n!}[2k(x_0-\xi(t))^{2q-2k-1} - 2q(x_0-\xi(t))^{2q-2k-1}],
%\end{split}
%\eeq
%\begin{equation}
\label{difc}
\dot{c} &= \lambda(t) \sum_{k=0}^{q}\frac{q- k}{x_0-\xi}C(n),\\
%\end{equation}
%
%\beq
\label{difxi}
\dot{\xi} &= c.
\end{align}
From the above we combine Eqs.~(\ref{difa}) and (\ref{difb}) to cancel the parameter $b$
and Eqs.~(\ref{difc}) and (\ref{difxi}) to cancel $c$. We then get
%
%\begin{align}\label{Erm}
% \ddot{a}(t) + \frac{m\omega_0\lambda(t)}{(2n+1)\hbar}\sum_{k=0}^{q} 2^{-2k+1}k
% \left(\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\right)^{-k}a^{2k-1}(t)\times&\nonumber \\
% B(n)\binom{2q}{2k}2k!\frac{2^n}{n!} (\xi(t)-x_0(t))^{2q-2k}
% = \frac{\omega_0^2}{a^{3}(t)}&,
%\end{align}
%
\begin{align}
\label{Erm}
\ddot{a} + \frac{2\lambda(t)}{(2n+1)a}\sum_{k=0}^{q} k C(n) &= \frac{1}{a^{3}},\\
%\end{equation}
%\begin{align}\label{Newt}
% \ddot{\xi}(t) + \lambda(t) \sum_{k=0}^{q} 2^{-2k-1} \left(\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\right)^{-k} a^{2k}(t)B(n)\binom{2q}{2k}\times & \nonumber \\
% 2k!\frac{2^n}{n!}(2q-2k)(\xi(t)-x_0(t))^{2q-2k-1} = 0&,
%\end{align}
%\begin{equation}
\label{Newt}
\ddot{\xi} - \lambda(t) \sum_{k=0}^{q}\frac{q- k}{x_0-\xi}C(n) &= 0.
\end{align}
Equation \eqref{Erm} is an Ermakov-like equation which connects the scaling factor, $a$, of the atomic cloud to the time-dependent trapping potential strength, $\lambda(t)$,
and Eq.~\eqref{Newt} is a Newton-like equation where the center position of trap, $x_0$, is connected to the center position of wavefunction, $\xi$.
%STAs for the trap compression have previously been discussed for harmonic oscillators \cite{PRL104} and for anharmonic oscillators in the perturbative regime \cite{LuPRA}.
%As a power-law trap is not just a perturbation to the harmonic oscillator, it can not be described in a perturbative way. \tb{Why are these sentences here?}
In the case of compression the parameters $a$ and $\lambda(t)$ are time dependent, but $\xi = x_0 = 0$ and do not change.
Therefore the Ermakov-like Eq.~\eqref{Erm} can be written as
%\begin{align}\label{ErSim}
% \ddot{a}(t) + \frac{m\omega_0\lambda(t)}{(2n+1)\hbar} 2^{-2q+1}q \left(\frac{m\omega_0}{\hbar}\right)^{-q}& a^{2q-1}(t) \nonumber\\
% a^{2q-1}(t)B(n)2q!\frac{2^n}{n!} & = \frac{\omega_0^2}{a^{3}(t)},
%\end{align}
\begin{equation}\label{ErSim}
\ddot{a}+ \lambda(t) a^{2q-1}D(n) = \frac{1}{a^{3}},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
D(n) = \frac{2q!q2^{n-2q+1}}{n!(2n+1)}\sum_{j}^{n}\binom{n}{j}^2 \frac{j!}{2^j(s+j)!}.
\end{equation}
By interpreting $a$ as the position of a classical particle,
it is straightforward to find its potential energy $U$ through the Newton equation $\ddot{a}=-\partial U/\partial a$ from Eq.~(\ref{ErSim}).
In order to find the minimum of the potential, we set $\partial U/\partial a=0$
and get %Then we can get the stationary point
\begin{equation}\label{adref}
a_c = \left[ D(n)\lambda(t)\right]^{-\frac{1}{2q+2}}.
\end{equation}
%To design the strength inversely, we use Eq. (\ref{adref}) to make proper boundary conditions.
%Assuming the initial trap frequency to be $\omega_0$ and final frequency to be $\omega_f$,
This expression can be used to find the specific boundary conditions as
% suppress the excitations during the compressing process we calculate the boundary condition
%we set the boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\label{BCs}
\dot{a}(0) = \ddot{a}(0) = 0, ~ a(0)=\left[D(n) \lambda_i \right]^{-\frac{1}{2q+2}}, \\
\dot{a}(t_f) = \ddot{a}(t_f) = 0, ~ a(t_f) = \left[ D(n) \lambda_f \right]^{-\frac{1}{2q+2}}.
\end{align}
%where we have the relation $\omega^{q+1}=\lambda \hbar^{q-1}m^{q-1}$.
As there are infinite number of functions that satisfy these boundary conditions,
we choose a polynomial ansatz of the form of $a = \sum_{i=0}^{5}c_i t^i$ for simplicity in our work. Examples of the STA ramp are shown in Fig.~\ref{En_lamt}(b) for different ramp durations $t_f$. In Fig.~\ref{F_linear} we explore the effectiveness of the STA by comparing its fidelity with that of a linear ramp. For our many-body state the STA is very effective for times $t_f>1$ resulting in unit fidelity, while the linear ramp always has rather poor fidelity and cannot reach the target state on these timescales.
%Then, we obtain
%\begin{equation}\label{}
% \tilde{a} = 6(\xi-1)s^5 - 15(\xi-1)s^4 + 10(\xi-1)s^3 + 1,
%\end{equation}
%where $\xi=\sqrt{\omega_0/\omega_f}$ and $s = t/t_f$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{fig8.png}
\caption{Fidelity of the many-particle state for $N=50$ as a function of ramp duration $t_f$ for the STA (black solid) and a linear ramp (red dashed). The STA is designed using the $n=49$ single particle state with the initial trap strength $\lambda_i=1$ and the final trap strength $\lambda_f=8$.
}
\label{F_linear}
\end{figure}
%The designed $\lambda$ of STA can be calculated from Eq. (\ref{ErSim}).
%To compared with STA, we use the quasiadiabatic as the reference \cite{QuaMug}
%\begin{equation}\label{Qua}
% \omega = \frac{\omega_0}{1-(\omega_f-\omega_0)/(\omega_f t_f)}.
%\end{equation}
%For transport process, we set $a=\lambda=const$ in Eq. (\ref{Newt}).
%Similarly, we set the boundary conditions of $\xi(t)$ as
%\begin{equation}\label{}
% \begin{split}
% \xi(0) = 0,\quad & \dot{\xi}(0) = \ddot{\xi}(0) = 0, \\
% \xi(t_f) = d,\quad & \dot{\xi}(t_f) = \ddot{\xi}(t_f) = 0,
% \end{split}
%\end{equation}
%and the $\xi(t)$ can be set by the polynomial ansatz $\xi(t) = \sum_{i=0}^{5}\xi_i t^i$.
%For comparison, we use linear function
%\begin{equation}\label{}
% x_0 = \xi_i+\frac{t}{t_f}(\xi_f -\xi_i),
%\end{equation}
%which satisfies the $\ddot{\xi}=0$ in Eq. (\ref{Newt}).
%This condition guarantees the center position of trap and wavefunction are consistent at initial and final time.
%%
%
\end{appendix}
%
\end{document}
%merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked
%Control: key (0)
%Control: author (0) dotless jnrlst
%Control: editor formatted (1) identically to author
%Control: production of article title (0) allowed
%Control: page (1) range
%Control: year (0) verbatim
%Control: production of eprint (0) enabled
\begin{thebibliography}{63}%
\makeatletter
\providecommand \@ifxundefined [1]{%
\@ifx{#1\undefined}
}%
\providecommand \@ifnum [1]{%
\ifnum #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
\else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
\fi
}%
\providecommand \@ifx [1]{%
\ifx #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
\else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
\fi
}%
\providecommand \natexlab [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \enquote [1]{``#1''}%
\providecommand \bibnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \bibfnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \citenamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \href@noop [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \href [0]{\begingroup \@sanitize@url \@href}%
\providecommand \@href[1]{\@@startlink{#1}\@@href}%
\providecommand \@@href[1]{\endgroup#1\@@endlink}%
\providecommand \@sanitize@url [0]{\catcode `\\12\catcode `\$12\catcode
`\&12\catcode `\#12\catcode `\^12\catcode `\_12\catcode `\%12\relax}%
\providecommand \@@startlink[1]{}%
\providecommand \@@endlink[0]{}%
\providecommand \url [0]{\begingroup\@sanitize@url \@url }%
\providecommand \@url [1]{\endgroup\@href {#1}{\urlprefix }}%
\providecommand \urlprefix [0]{URL }%
\providecommand \Eprint [0]{\href }%
\providecommand \doibase [0]{http://dx.doi.org/}%
\providecommand \selectlanguage [0]{\@gobble}%
\providecommand \bibinfo [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \bibfield [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \translation [1]{[#1]}%
\providecommand \BibitemOpen [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemStop [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemNoStop [0]{.\EOS\space}%
\providecommand \EOS [0]{\spacefactor3000\relax}%
\providecommand \BibitemShut [1]{\csname bibitem#1\endcsname}%
\let\auto@bib@innerbib\@empty
%</preamble>
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Mandelstam}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Tamm}(1945)}]{QSL_MT}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont
{Mandelstam}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont
{Tamm}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {The uncertainty
relation between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics},}\
}\href@noop {} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {J. Phys.}\
}\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {9}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {249} (\bibinfo {year}
{1945})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Frey}(2016)}]{QSLreview}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.~R.}\ \bibnamefont
{Frey}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum speed
limits - primer, perspectives, and potential future directions},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1007/s11128-016-1405-x} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Quantum Inf. Process.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {15}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {3919} (\bibinfo {year} {2016})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Deffner}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Campbell}(2017)}]{DeffnerReview}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Deffner}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Campbell}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum speed
limits: from heisenberg's uncertainty principle to optimal quantum
control},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1088/1751-8121/aa86c6} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{50}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {453001} (\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Caneva}\ \emph {et~al.}(2009)\citenamefont {Caneva},
\citenamefont {Murphy}, \citenamefont {Calarco}, \citenamefont {Fazio},
\citenamefont {Montangero}, \citenamefont {Giovannetti},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Santoro}}]{TC2009}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont
{Caneva}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Murphy}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont {Calarco}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont {Fazio}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont {Montangero}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {V.}~\bibnamefont {Giovannetti}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {G.~E.}\ \bibnamefont {Santoro}},\ }\bibfield {title}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Optimal control at the quantum speed limit},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.240501} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {103}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {240501} (\bibinfo {year} {2009})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Alipour}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014)\citenamefont
{Alipour}, \citenamefont {Mehboudi},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Rezakhani}}]{QMetro2014}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Alipour}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Mehboudi}}, \
and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.~T.}\ \bibnamefont {Rezakhani}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum metrology in open
systems: Dissipative cram\'er-rao bound},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.120405} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {112}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{120405} (\bibinfo {year} {2014})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Campbell}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont
{Campbell}, \citenamefont {Genoni},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Deffner}}]{Campbell_2018}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Steve}\ \bibnamefont
{Campbell}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Marco~G}\ \bibnamefont
{Genoni}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Sebastian}\ \bibnamefont
{Deffner}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Precision
thermometry and the quantum speed limit},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1088/2058-9565/aaa641} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Quantum
Science and Technology}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {3}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{025002} (\bibinfo {year} {2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Brouzos}\ \emph {et~al.}(2015)\citenamefont
{Brouzos}, \citenamefont {Streltsov}, \citenamefont {Negretti}, \citenamefont
{Said}, \citenamefont {Caneva}, \citenamefont {Montangero},\ and\
\citenamefont {Calarco}}]{TC_MB_2015}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Ioannis}\ \bibnamefont
{Brouzos}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Alexej~I.}\ \bibnamefont
{Streltsov}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Antonio}\ \bibnamefont
{Negretti}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Ressa~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Said}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Tommaso}\ \bibnamefont {Caneva}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Simone}\ \bibnamefont {Montangero}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Tommaso}\ \bibnamefont {Calarco}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum speed limit and
optimal control of many-boson dynamics},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062110} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {92}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {062110}
(\bibinfo {year} {2015})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Li}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont
{Li}, \citenamefont {Pecak}, \citenamefont {Sowi\ifmmode~\acute{n}\else
\'{n}\fi{}ski}, \citenamefont {Sherson},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Nielsen}}]{Pecak_2018}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xikun}\ \bibnamefont
{Li}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Daniel}\ \bibnamefont {Pecak}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Tomasz}\ \bibnamefont
{Sowi\ifmmode~\acute{n}\else \'{n}\fi{}ski}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {Jacob}\ \bibnamefont {Sherson}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {Anne E.~B.}\ \bibnamefont {Nielsen}},\ }\bibfield {title}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Global optimization for quantum dynamics of
few-fermion systems},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.033602}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {97}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {033602} (\bibinfo {year}
{2018}{\natexlab{a}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Funo}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont {Funo},
\citenamefont {Zhang}, \citenamefont {Chatou}, \citenamefont {Kim},
\citenamefont {Ueda},\ and\ \citenamefont {del Campo}}]{FunoPRL}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont
{Funo}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.-N.}\ \bibnamefont {Zhang}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.}~\bibnamefont {Chatou}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont {Kim}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Ueda}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {del Campo}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote
{\bibinfo {title} {Universal work fluctuations during shortcuts to
adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.100602} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {118}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{100602} (\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Campbell}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Deffner}(2017)}]{Campbell_2017}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Steve}\ \bibnamefont
{Campbell}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Sebastian}\ \bibnamefont
{Deffner}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Trade-off
between speed and cost in shortcuts to adiabaticity},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.100601} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {118}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{100601} (\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Bukov}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont {Bukov},
\citenamefont {Sels},\ and\ \citenamefont {Polkovnikov}}]{BukovPRX2019}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Marin}\ \bibnamefont
{Bukov}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Dries}\ \bibnamefont {Sels}}, \
and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Anatoli}\ \bibnamefont
{Polkovnikov}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Geometric
speed limit of accessible many-body state preparation},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011034} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. X}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {9}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {011034}
(\bibinfo {year} {2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Deffner}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Lutz}(2013)}]{Deffner:2013}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Sebastian}\
\bibnamefont {Deffner}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Eric}\
\bibnamefont {Lutz}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Energy{\textendash}time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/46/33/335302} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{46}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {335302} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Deffner}(2017)}]{DeffnerNJP}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Deffner}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Geometric
quantum speed limits: a case for wigner phase space},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/aa83dc} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {New J.
Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {19}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {103018}
(\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {del Campo}\ \emph {et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont {del
Campo}, \citenamefont {Egusquiza}, \citenamefont {Plenio},\ and\
\citenamefont {Huelga}}]{CampoQSL2013}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {del
Campo}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.~L.}\ \bibnamefont {Egusquiza}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.~B.}\ \bibnamefont {Plenio}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.~F.}\ \bibnamefont {Huelga}},\ }\bibfield
{title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum speed limits in open system
dynamics},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050403} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {110}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {050403} (\bibinfo {year}
{2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Taddei}\ \emph {et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont {Taddei},
\citenamefont {Escher}, \citenamefont {Davidovich},\ and\ \citenamefont
{de~Matos~Filho}}]{TaddeiQSL2013}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Taddei}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.~M.}\ \bibnamefont {Escher}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont {Davidovich}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {R.~L.}\ \bibnamefont {de~Matos~Filho}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum speed limit for
physical processes},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050402}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {110}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {050402} (\bibinfo {year}
{2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Torrontegui}\ \emph {et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont
{Torrontegui}, \citenamefont {Ib\'{a}\~{n}ez}, \citenamefont
{Mart\'{\i}nez-Garaot}, \citenamefont {Modugno}, \citenamefont {del Campo},
\citenamefont {Gu\'{e}ry-Odelin}, \citenamefont {Ruschhaupt}, \citenamefont
{Chen},\ and\ \citenamefont {Muga}}]{STAreview}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont
{Torrontegui}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Ib\'{a}\~{n}ez}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Mart\'{\i}nez-Garaot}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Modugno}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {del Campo}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont {Gu\'{e}ry-Odelin}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Ruschhaupt}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {X.}~\bibnamefont {Chen}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont {Muga}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote
{\bibinfo {title} {{Shortcuts to Adiabaticity}},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1016/B978-0-12-408090-4.00002-5} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {62}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {117} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Gu\'{e}ry-Odelin}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont
{Gu\'{e}ry-Odelin}, \citenamefont {Ruschhaupt}, \citenamefont {Kiely},
\citenamefont {Torrontegui}, \citenamefont {Mart\'{\i}nez-Garaot},\ and\
\citenamefont {Muga}}]{STAreview2019}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont
{Gu\'{e}ry-Odelin}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont
{Ruschhaupt}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Kiely}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont {Torrontegui}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont {Mart\'{\i}nez-Garaot}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont {Muga}},\ }\bibfield
{title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {{Shortcuts to Adiabaticity: concepts,
methods, and applications}},}\ }\href {https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08448}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {arXiv:1904.08448}\ } (\bibinfo
{year} {2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Chen}\ \emph {et~al.}(2010)\citenamefont {Chen},
\citenamefont {Ruschhaupt}, \citenamefont {Schmidt}, \citenamefont {del
Campo}, \citenamefont {Gu\'ery-Odelin},\ and\ \citenamefont {Muga}}]{PRL104}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont
{Chen}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Ruschhaupt}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont {Schmidt}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {del Campo}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont {Gu\'ery-Odelin}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont {Muga}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote
{\bibinfo {title} {Fast optimal frictionless atom cooling in harmonic traps:
Shortcut to adiabaticity},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.063002}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {104}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {063002} (\bibinfo {year}
{2010})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Deffner}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014)\citenamefont
{Deffner}, \citenamefont {Jarzynski},\ and\ \citenamefont {del
Campo}}]{Deffner_PRX2014}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Sebastian}\
\bibnamefont {Deffner}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Christopher}\
\bibnamefont {Jarzynski}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Adolfo}\
\bibnamefont {del Campo}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Classical and quantum shortcuts to adiabaticity for scale-invariant
driving},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021013} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. X}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {4}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {021013} (\bibinfo {year} {2014})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Sels}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Polkovnikov}(2017)}]{polkovnikov}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Dries}\ \bibnamefont
{Sels}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Anatoli}\ \bibnamefont
{Polkovnikov}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Minimizing
irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1073/pnas.1619826114} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {114}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {E3909--E3916} (\bibinfo {year}
{2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {del Campo}(2011{\natexlab{a}})}]{AdolfTG}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {del
Campo}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Frictionless
quantum quenches in ultracold gases: A quantum-dynamical microscope},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031606} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {84}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {031606} (\bibinfo {year} {2011}{\natexlab{a}})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Rohringer}\ \emph {et~al.}(2015)\citenamefont
{Rohringer}, \citenamefont {Fischer}, \citenamefont {Steiner}, \citenamefont
{Mazets}, \citenamefont {Schmiedmayer},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Trupke}}]{interacting}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {W.}~\bibnamefont
{Rohringer}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont {Fischer}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {F.}~\bibnamefont {Steiner}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {I.~E.}\ \bibnamefont {Mazets}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont {Schmiedmayer}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Trupke}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote
{\bibinfo {title} {{Non-equilibrium scale invariance and shortcuts to
adiabaticity in a one-dimensional Bose gas}},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1038/srep09820} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Sci. Rep.}\
}\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {5}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {9820} (\bibinfo {year}
{2015})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Stefanatos}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Paspalakis}(2018)}]{STAent}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Dionisis}\
\bibnamefont {Stefanatos}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Emmanuel}\
\bibnamefont {Paspalakis}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Maximizing entanglement in bosonic josephson junctions using shortcuts to
adiabaticity and optimal control},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/aac122} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {New J.
Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {20}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {055009}
(\bibinfo {year} {2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Hatomura}(2018)}]{Hatomura2018}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Takuya}\ \bibnamefont
{Hatomura}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Shortcuts to
adiabatic cat-state generation in bosonic josephson junctions},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/aaa117} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {New J. Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {20}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {015010} (\bibinfo {year} {2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Cheneau}\ \emph {et~al.}(2012)\citenamefont
{Cheneau}, \citenamefont {Barmettler}, \citenamefont {Poletti}, \citenamefont
{Endres}, \citenamefont {Schau{\ss}}, \citenamefont {Fukuhara}, \citenamefont
{Gross}, \citenamefont {Bloch}, \citenamefont {Kollath},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Kuhr}}]{nature2012}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Marc}\ \bibnamefont
{Cheneau}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Peter}\ \bibnamefont
{Barmettler}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Dario}\ \bibnamefont
{Poletti}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Manuel}\ \bibnamefont
{Endres}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Peter}\ \bibnamefont
{Schau{\ss}}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Takeshi}\ \bibnamefont
{Fukuhara}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Christian}\ \bibnamefont
{Gross}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Immanuel}\ \bibnamefont {Bloch}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Corinna}\ \bibnamefont {Kollath}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Stefan}\ \bibnamefont {Kuhr}},\ }\bibfield
{title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Light-cone-like spreading of
correlations in a quantum many-body system},}\ }\href
{https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10748} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nature}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {481}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{484 EP --} (\bibinfo {year} {2012})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Girardeau}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Wright}(2001)}]{GirardeaPRL}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.~D.}\ \bibnamefont
{Girardeau}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Wright}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Measurement of
one-particle correlations and momentum distributions for trapped 1d gases},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.050403} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {87}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {050403} (\bibinfo {year} {2001})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Girardeau}\ \emph {et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont
{Girardeau}, \citenamefont {Wright},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Triscari}}]{GirardeaPRA}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.~D.}\ \bibnamefont
{Girardeau}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Wright}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Triscari}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Ground-state
properties of a one-dimensional system of hard-core bosons in a harmonic
trap},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.033601} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {63}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {033601} (\bibinfo {year} {2001})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Forrester}\ \emph {et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont
{Forrester}, \citenamefont {Frankel}, \citenamefont {Garoni},\ and\
\citenamefont {Witte}}]{Forrester2003}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.~J.}\ \bibnamefont
{Forrester}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {N.~E.}\ \bibnamefont
{Frankel}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.~M.}\ \bibnamefont {Garoni}},
\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {N.~S.}\ \bibnamefont {Witte}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Finite one-dimensional
impenetrable bose systems: Occupation numbers},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.67.043607} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {67}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {043607}
(\bibinfo {year} {2003})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Rigol}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Muramatsu}(2006)}]{Rigol_2006}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Rigol}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont
{Muramatsu}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Nonequilibrium dynamics of tonks-girardeau gases on optical lattices},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1134/S1054660X06020253} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Laser Physics}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {16}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {348--353} (\bibinfo {year} {2006})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Colcelli}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont
{Colcelli}, \citenamefont {Viti}, \citenamefont {Mussardo},\ and\
\citenamefont {Trombettoni}}]{Colcelli2018}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont
{Colcelli}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont {Viti}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {G.}~\bibnamefont {Mussardo}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Trombettoni}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Universal off-diagonal
long-range-order behavior for a trapped tonks-girardeau gas},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.063633} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {98}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {063633} (\bibinfo {year} {2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {P\'erez-Garc\'{\i}a}\ \emph
{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont {P\'erez-Garc\'{\i}a}, \citenamefont {Michinel},
\citenamefont {Cirac}, \citenamefont {Lewenstein},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Zoller}}]{Zoller1996}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {V\'{\i}ctor~M.}\
\bibnamefont {P\'erez-Garc\'{\i}a}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{H.}~\bibnamefont {Michinel}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~I.}\
\bibnamefont {Cirac}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Lewenstein}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.}~\bibnamefont
{Zoller}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Low energy
excitations of a bose-einstein condensate: A time-dependent variational
analysis},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5320} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {77}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {5320--5323} (\bibinfo {year}
{1996})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {P\'erez-Garc\'{\i}a}\ \emph
{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont {P\'erez-Garc\'{\i}a}, \citenamefont {Michinel},
\citenamefont {Cirac}, \citenamefont {Lewenstein},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Zoller}}]{Zoller1997}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {V\'{\i}ctor~M.}\
\bibnamefont {P\'erez-Garc\'{\i}a}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{Humberto}\ \bibnamefont {Michinel}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{J.~I.}\ \bibnamefont {Cirac}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{M.}~\bibnamefont {Lewenstein}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{P.}~\bibnamefont {Zoller}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Dynamics of bose-einstein condensates: Variational solutions of the
gross-pitaevskii equations},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.56.1424}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {56}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {1424--1432} (\bibinfo {year}
{1997})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Li}\ \emph {et~al.}(2016)\citenamefont {Li},
\citenamefont {Sun},\ and\ \citenamefont {Chen}}]{JingSciRep}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont
{Li}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont {Sun}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {X.}~\bibnamefont {Chen}},\ }\bibfield
{title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Shortcut to adiabatic control of soliton
matter waves by tunable interaction},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1038/srep38258}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Sci. Rep.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {6}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {38258} (\bibinfo {year}
{2016})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Li}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont
{Li}, \citenamefont {Fogarty}, \citenamefont {Campbell}, \citenamefont
{Chen},\ and\ \citenamefont {Busch}}]{jing2}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Jing}\ \bibnamefont
{Li}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Thom\'as}\ \bibnamefont {Fogarty}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Steve}\ \bibnamefont {Campbell}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont {Chen}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {{\relax Th}omas}\ \bibnamefont {Busch}},\ }\bibfield {title}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {An efficient nonlinear feshbach engine},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/aa9cd8} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {New J. Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {20}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {015005} (\bibinfo {year} {2018}{\natexlab{b}})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Fogarty}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont
{Fogarty}, \citenamefont {Ruks}, \citenamefont {Li},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Busch}}]{Lewis2019}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Thomás}\ \bibnamefont
{Fogarty}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Lewis}\ \bibnamefont {Ruks}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Jing}\ \bibnamefont {Li}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {Thomas}\ \bibnamefont {Busch}},\ }\bibfield {title}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {{Fast control of interactions in an ultracold
two atom system: Managing correlations and irreversibility}},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.21468/SciPostPhys.6.2.021} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {SciPost Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {6}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {21} (\bibinfo {year} {2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Kahan}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont {Kahan},
\citenamefont {Fogarty}, \citenamefont {Li},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Busch}}]{kahan2019}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Alan}\ \bibnamefont
{Kahan}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Thomás}\ \bibnamefont
{Fogarty}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Jing}\ \bibnamefont {Li}}, \
and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Thomas}\ \bibnamefont {Busch}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Driving interactions
efficiently in a composite few-body system},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.3390/universe5100207} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Universe}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {5}} (\bibinfo {year} {2019}),\
10.3390/universe5100207}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Levitin}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Toffoli}(2009)}]{LevitinPRL}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.~B.}\ \bibnamefont
{Levitin}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont
{Toffoli}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fundamental
limit on the rate of quantum dynamics: the unified bound is tight},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys Rev Lett}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {103}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {160502} (\bibinfo {year} {2009})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Giovannetti}\ \emph {et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont
{Giovannetti}, \citenamefont {Lloyd},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Maccone}}]{Giovannetti2003}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Vittorio}\
\bibnamefont {Giovannetti}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Seth}\
\bibnamefont {Lloyd}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Lorenzo}\
\bibnamefont {Maccone}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Quantum limits to dynamical evolution},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.67.052109} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {67}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {052109}
(\bibinfo {year} {2003})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Chen}\ and\ \citenamefont {Muga}(2010)}]{costXi}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont
{Chen}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont
{Muga}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Transient energy
excitation in shortcuts to adiabaticity for the time-dependent harmonic
oscillator},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.053403} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{82}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {053403} (\bibinfo {year} {2010})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Marvian}\ \emph {et~al.}(2016)\citenamefont
{Marvian}, \citenamefont {Spekkens},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Zanardi}}]{Marvian2016}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Iman}\ \bibnamefont
{Marvian}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Robert~W.}\ \bibnamefont
{Spekkens}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Paolo}\ \bibnamefont
{Zanardi}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Quantum speed
limits, coherence, and asymmetry},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052331} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {93}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {052331}
(\bibinfo {year} {2016})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Campaioli}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont
{Campaioli}, \citenamefont {Pollock}, \citenamefont {Binder},\ and\
\citenamefont {Modi}}]{PhysRevLett.120.060409}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Francesco}\
\bibnamefont {Campaioli}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Felix~A.}\
\bibnamefont {Pollock}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Felix~C.}\
\bibnamefont {Binder}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Kavan}\
\bibnamefont {Modi}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Tightening quantum speed limits for almost all states},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.060409} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {120}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{060409} (\bibinfo {year} {2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Campaioli}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont
{Campaioli}, \citenamefont {Pollock},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Modi}}]{Campaioli2019tightrobust}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Francesco}\
\bibnamefont {Campaioli}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Felix~A.}\
\bibnamefont {Pollock}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Kavan}\
\bibnamefont {Modi}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Tight, robust, and feasible quantum speed limits for open dynamics},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.22331/q-2019-08-05-168} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {{Quantum}}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {3}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{168} (\bibinfo {year} {2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Pires}\ \emph {et~al.}(2016)\citenamefont {Pires},
\citenamefont {Cianciaruso}, \citenamefont {Céleri}, \citenamefont
{Adesso},\ and\ \citenamefont {Soares-Pinto}}]{Pires2016PRX}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Diego~Paiva}\
\bibnamefont {Pires}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Marco}\ \bibnamefont
{Cianciaruso}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Lucas~C.}\ \bibnamefont
{Céleri}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Gerardo}\ \bibnamefont
{Adesso}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Diogo~O.}\ \bibnamefont
{Soares-Pinto}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Generalized geometric quantum speed limits},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021031} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Physical Review X}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {6}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{021031} (\bibinfo {year} {2016})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Pezer}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Buljan}(2007)}]{Pezer2007}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont
{Pezer}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {Buljan}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Momentum distribution
dynamics of a tonks-girardeau gas: Bragg reflections of a quantum many-body
wave packet},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.240403} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {98}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {240403} (\bibinfo {year}
{2007})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Bretin}\ \emph {et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont {Bretin},
\citenamefont {Stock}, \citenamefont {Seurin},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Dalibard}}]{quarticexp}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Vincent}\ \bibnamefont
{Bretin}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Sabine}\ \bibnamefont {Stock}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Yannick}\ \bibnamefont {Seurin}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Jean}\ \bibnamefont {Dalibard}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fast rotation of a
bose-einstein condensate},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.050403}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {92}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {050403} (\bibinfo {year}
{2004})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Dowdall}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont
{Dowdall}, \citenamefont {Benseny}, \citenamefont {Busch},\ and\
\citenamefont {Ruschhaupt}}]{Dowdall2017}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Tom}\ \bibnamefont
{Dowdall}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Albert}\ \bibnamefont
{Benseny}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Thomas}\ \bibnamefont {Busch}},
\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Andreas}\ \bibnamefont
{Ruschhaupt}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fast and
robust quantum control based on pauli blocking},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043601} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {96}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {043601}
(\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lu}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont
{Lu}, \citenamefont {Muga}, \citenamefont {Chen}, \citenamefont {Poschinger},
\citenamefont {Schmidt-Kaler},\ and\ \citenamefont {Ruschhaupt}}]{LuPRA}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xiao-Jing}\
\bibnamefont {Lu}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont
{Muga}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont {Chen}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {U.~G.}\ \bibnamefont {Poschinger}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {F.}~\bibnamefont {Schmidt-Kaler}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Ruschhaupt}},\ }\bibfield {title}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fast shuttling of a trapped ion in the presence
of noise},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.89.063414} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{89}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {063414} (\bibinfo {year}
{2014}{\natexlab{a}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lu}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont
{Lu}, \citenamefont {Chen}, \citenamefont {Alonso},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Muga}}]{Luanharmonic}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xiao-Jing}\
\bibnamefont {Lu}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont
{Chen}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont {Alonso}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont {Muga}},\ }\bibfield
{title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fast transitionless expansions of
gaussian anharmonic traps for cold atoms: Bang-singular-bang control},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.89.023627} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {89}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {023627} (\bibinfo {year} {2014}{\natexlab{b}})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Zhang}\ \emph {et~al.}(2015)\citenamefont {Zhang},
\citenamefont {Chen},\ and\ \citenamefont {Gu\'ery-Odelin}}]{QiPRA}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Qi}~\bibnamefont
{Zhang}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont {Chen}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {David}\ \bibnamefont {Gu\'ery-Odelin}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fast and optimal transport
of atoms with nonharmonic traps},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.92.043410} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {92}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {043410}
(\bibinfo {year} {2015})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Acconcia}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Bonan\ifmmode~\mbox{\c{c}}\else \c{c}\fi{}a}(2015)}]{ThiagoPRE}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Thiago~V.}\
\bibnamefont {Acconcia}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Marcus
V.~S.}\ \bibnamefont {Bonan\ifmmode~\mbox{\c{c}}\else \c{c}\fi{}a}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Degenerate optimal paths in
thermally isolated systems},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.042141}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. E}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {91}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {042141} (\bibinfo {year}
{2015})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Olshanii}(1998)}]{olshanni}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Olshanii}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Atomic
scattering in the presence of an external confinement and a gas of
impenetrable bosons},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.938}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {81}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {938--941} (\bibinfo {year}
{1998})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Girardeau}(1960)}]{Girardeau}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Girardeau}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Relationship
between systems of impenetrable bosons and fermions in one dimension},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1063/1.1703687} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {J. Math. Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {1}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {516--523} (\bibinfo {year} {1960})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {del Campo}(2011{\natexlab{b}})}]{adolfo_PRA2011}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {del
Campo}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Long-time behavior
of many-particle quantum decay},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.84.012113} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {84}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {012113}
(\bibinfo {year} {2011}{\natexlab{b}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Girardeau}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Wright}(2005)}]{Girardeau2005}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.~D.}\ \bibnamefont
{Girardeau}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Wright}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Static and
dynamic properties of trapped fermionic tonks-girardeau gases},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.010406} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {95}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {010406} (\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Bender}\ \emph {et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont {Bender},
\citenamefont {Erker},\ and\ \citenamefont {Granger}}]{Bender2005}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Scott~A.}\
\bibnamefont {Bender}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Kevin~D.}\
\bibnamefont {Erker}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Brian~E.}\
\bibnamefont {Granger}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Exponentially decaying correlations in a gas of strongly interacting
spin-polarized 1d fermions with zero-range interactions},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230404} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {95}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{230404} (\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Goold}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Busch}(2008)}]{Goold2008}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont
{Goold}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Th.}\ \bibnamefont
{Busch}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Ground-state
properties of a tonks-girardeau gas in a split trap},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.77.063601} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {77}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {063601}
(\bibinfo {year} {2008})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Sowi{\'{n}}ski}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Garc{\'{\i}}a-March}(2019)}]{Sowi_ski_2019}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Tomasz}\ \bibnamefont
{Sowi{\'{n}}ski}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont
{Miguel~{\'{A}}ngel}\ \bibnamefont {Garc{\'{\i}}a-March}},\ }\bibfield
{title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {One-dimensional mixtures of several
ultracold atoms: a review},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1088/1361-6633/ab3a80}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Reports on Progress in Physics}\
}\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {82}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {104401} (\bibinfo
{year} {2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Atas}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont {Atas},
\citenamefont {Bouchoule}, \citenamefont {Gangardt},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Kheruntsyan}}]{Atas2017}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Y.~Y.}\ \bibnamefont
{Atas}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont {Bouchoule}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.~M.}\ \bibnamefont {Gangardt}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.~V.}\ \bibnamefont {Kheruntsyan}},\
}\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Collective many-body bounce
in the breathing-mode oscillations of a tonks-girardeau gas},}\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.041605} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {96}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {041605} (\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Abdullaev}\ \emph {et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont
{Abdullaev}, \citenamefont {Caputo}, \citenamefont {Kraenkel},\ and\
\citenamefont {Malomed}}]{Ansatz2003}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Fatkhulla~Kh.}\
\bibnamefont {Abdullaev}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Jean~Guy}\
\bibnamefont {Caputo}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Robert~A.}\
\bibnamefont {Kraenkel}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Boris~A.}\
\bibnamefont {Malomed}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Controlling collapse in bose-einstein condensates by temporal modulation of
the scattering length},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.67.013605}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {67}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {013605} (\bibinfo {year}
{2003})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Pecak}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont {Pecak},
\citenamefont {Dehkharghani}, \citenamefont {Zinner},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Sowi\'{n}ski}}]{Zinner}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont
{Pecak}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.~S.}\ \bibnamefont
{Dehkharghani}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {N.~T.}\ \bibnamefont
{Zinner}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont
{Sowi\'{n}ski}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Four
fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap: Accuracy of a variational-ansatz
approach},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.053632} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{95}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {053632} (\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Jarzynski}(2013)}]{Jarzynsk2013}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Christopher}\
\bibnamefont {Jarzynski}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title}
{Generating shortcuts to adiabaticity in quantum and classical dynamics},}\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.040101} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {88}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {040101} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {del Campo}(2013)}]{campo_PRL2013}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Adolfo}\ \bibnamefont
{del Campo}},\ }\bibfield {title} {\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Shortcuts to
adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving},}\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.100502} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {111}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{100502} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Torrontegui}\ \emph {et~al.}(2011)\citenamefont
{Torrontegui}, \citenamefont {Ib\'a\~nez}, \citenamefont {Chen},
\citenamefont {Ruschhaupt}, \citenamefont {Gu\'ery-Odelin},\ and\
\citenamefont {Muga}}]{Torrontegui2011}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont
{Torrontegui}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Ib\'a\~nez}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Xi}~\bibnamefont {Chen}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.}~\bibnamefont {Ruschhaupt}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont {Gu\'ery-Odelin}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~G.}\ \bibnamefont {Muga}},\ }\bibfield {title}
{\enquote {\bibinfo {title} {Fast atomic transport without vibrational
heating},}\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.013415} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{83}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {013415} (\bibinfo {year} {2011})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\end{thebibliography}%