Also at ]Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada Also at ]Department of Chemistry, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada

Quantum optimal control robust to $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises using fractional calculus:
voltage-controlled exchange in semiconductor spin qubits

Abstract

Low-frequency $1/f^{\alpha}$ charge noise significantly hinders the performance of voltage-controlled spin qubits in quantum dots. Here, we utilize fractional calculus to design voltage control pulses yielding the highest average fidelities for noisy quantum gate operations. We focus specifically on the exponential voltage control of the exchange interaction generating two-spin $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ gates. When stationary charge noise is the dominant source of gate infidelity, we derive that the optimal exchange pulse is long and weak, with the broad shape of the symmetric beta distribution function with parameter $1-\alpha/2$. The common practice of making exchange pulses fast and high-amplitude still remains beneficial in the case of strongly nonstationary noise dynamics, modeled as fractional Brownian motion. The proposed methods are applicable to the characterization and optimization of quantum gate operations in various voltage-controlled qubit architectures.

Introduction.—Quantum dots in semiconductor heterostructures offer precise electric control of highly localized few-electron spin-orbital states. This makes them a promising platform for scalable, spin-based quantum computation. Yet, the electrostatic potential fluctuations in the vicinity of the qubits, known as charge noise, are an important source of gating error and spin dephasing [1, 2] and thus a major threat to the performance and scalability of quantum processors. Charge noise dominates at low frequencies, and its power spectral density is often well approximated over many decades by a power law function $\propto 1/f^{\alpha}$, with $0<\alpha\lesssim 2$ in experiments [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. The background of fluctuating charge traps in the insulator, gate electrode voltage fluctuations (due to interaction with the interface traps, non-ideality of the external electronics, etc.), and white thermal noise, among other things, contribute to the overall incoherent electric noise with the $1/f^{\alpha}$ spectrum [12, 13, 14, 15].

While ongoing improvements in material growth and device fabrication [5, 16, 9] allow for the mitigation of decoherence, charge noise cannot be completely eliminated, even in the best-quality devices [7, 17, 18]. Given the many effects that contribute to noise and the heavily device-dependent noise spectra [19], quantum optimal control is necessary to achieve deterministic high-fidelity control with potential for scalability. To preserve coherence, dynamical decoupling sequences of strong and fast pulses [20] have been employed in the presence of the Markovian bath [21, 22, 23], and power-law noise in the spin Hamiltonian controls [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. For single-qubit rotations, time-dependent spin Hamiltonians decoupled from a single bistable flucutator [29, 30, 31], or ensemble of such fluctuators giving a power-law spectrum [32], have been engineered using few-parameter gradient-based optimization. Simultaneous dynamical decoupling and optimal control sequences have been studied for spin Hamiltonians in other systems [33, 34, 35]. Among analytical tools, the geometric formalism [36] has been instrumental in engineering minimum-time quantum gates insensitive to errors up to different orders: single-qubit gates with quasistatic errors [37, 38], pulse and transverse noise errors [39, 40], and multiqubit entangling gates [41].

In this Letter, we employ the analytical framework of fractional calculus [42] to design quantum gate operations least sensitive to charge noise when charge noise is the dominant decoherence mechanism (cf. [43]). Representing the auto-correlation functions of both stationary and non-stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ noise models with fractional integral operators enables us to variationally find smooth pulse shapes yielding highest average gate operation fidelities. In addition, we numerically analyze the influence of pulse shape, length, and noise spectral exponent $\alpha$ on the unitary operation fidelity. We focus specifically on the voltage control of exchange interaction $J(V)$—an always positive (and thus non-refocusable) quantity in the absence of the strong out-of-plane magnetic field [44]—for the generation of $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ gates on pairs of Loss-Di Vincenzo spin qubits [45]. Although the idle state of a quantum processor can be chosen as a symmetric (charge noise insensitive) point [46, 47, 48, 49], entangling operations require swee** $J(V)$ to noise-sensitive regions. Notably, our framework requires no simplifications of additive and/or quasistatic noise in the spin Hamiltonian. Rather, we fully incorporate the strongly nonlinear dependency of the spin Hamiltonian on voltage controls [such as exponential dependency of $J(V)$] leading to nonlinear noise amplification. This analysis offers more refined strategies for optimal control of exchange in the presence of noise than the standard approach of making pulses as short in time as possible [50], which we show is not necessarily optimal for charge-noise-dominated regimes.

Exchange gate fidelity.—Arising from Pauli exclusion principle and Coulomb repulsion, the isotropic exchange interaction with parameter $J(t)$ for a pair of electron spins $\vec{S}_{1,2}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\vec{\sigma}_{1,2}$ is described by the Heisenberg Hamiltonian:

$$H(t)=\frac{J(t)}{4}\vec{\sigma_{1}}\cdot\vec{\sigma_{2}}\equiv\frac{J(t)}{2}\left(\mathrm{SWAP}-\frac{1}{2}\right).$$ (1)

For a system of two spins used as independent qubits, or Loss-Di Vincenzo qubits [45], this Hamiltonian generates a $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ logic gate operation for the exchange pulse: $J(t)=\pi k\hbar{S(t)}/{T},$ where $T$ is pulse duration, and $S(t)$ is a dimensionless shape function satisfying the normalization condition:

$$\left\langle S(t)\right\rangle=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}S(t)\differential{t}=\int_{0}^{1}S(\tau)\differential{\tau}=1,$$ (2)

with $\tau=t/T\in[0,1]$ being the normalized time.

In realistic quantum processors, such quantum operations as $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ are driven by increasing the exchange coupling by orders of magnitude from its negligibly small idle value. Such regimes of large control voltage sweeps are characterized by the exponential trend: $J(V)\approx J(V_{0})\exp[\varkappa{\left(V-V_{0}\right)}].$ Here, $V$ could denote the voltage on the gate electrode controlling the tunneling barrier between the dots [51, 15], voltage bias between the pair of plunger gate electrodes accumulating electrons underneath [52, 53, 11], or a characteristic of the electric potential landscape such as the tunneling barrier height. The addition of a noisy voltage signal $\widetilde{v}(t)$ with $\left\langle\widetilde{v}\right\rangle=0$ to the ideal pulse $V(t)$ yields the noisy exchange interaction parameter: $J(V+\widetilde{v})=J(V)\exp(\varkappa{\widetilde{v}}).$ By adjusting $\varkappa$ accordingly, we can combine the contributions of both the voltage fluctuations on gate electrodes and charge trap environment into $\widetilde{v}(t)$.

As the performance metric of a singular $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ operation, we choose the average infidelity due to noise . For this, we find the overlap of the evolution operators $U\textbf{[}V(t)\textbf{]}=\exp\left[-\frac{i}{{2\hbar}}\int_{0}^{T}J\textbf{(}V(t)\textbf{)}\differential{t}\mathrm{SWAP}\right]$ in the ideal and noisy cases: $\mathcal{F}=\frac{1}{4}\absolutevalue{\tr U^{\dagger}[V]U[V+\widetilde{v}]}\leq 1.$ By expanding for small noises $\widetilde{v}(t)$ and averaging, we find the average infidelity $\left\langle\mathscr{F}\right\rangle=1-\left\langle\mathcal{F}\right\rangle$:

$$\left<\mathscr{F}\right>\approx\frac{{3}\pi^{2}}{32}{k^{2}}\varkappa^{2}\int_{0}^{T}\!\frac{\differential{t_{1}}}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\!\frac{\differential{t_{2}}}{T}S(t_{1})S(t_{2})R(t_{1},t_{2}),$$ (3)

where the auto-correlation function of the noise is introduced: $R(t_{1},t_{2})=\left<\widetilde{v}(t_{1})\widetilde{v}(t_{2})\right>.$ Expression (3) can also be understood as the average gate operation error: the variance of the number of spin swaps $k=\frac{1}{\pi\hbar}\int_{0}^{T}J(t)\differential{t}$ due to noise, $\left\langle\Delta k^{2}\right\rangle$, is proportional to $\left<\mathscr{F}\right>$.

Minimization problem.— We define the inner product on $[a,b]$: $\left(\varphi,\psi\right)=\int_{a}^{b}\varphi(x)\,\psi(x)\differential{x},$ and associate an operator $\hat{A}$ with a two-variable kernel function $A(x,s)$ when they satisfy $\quantity\big(\hat{A}\varphi)(x)=\int_{a}^{b}A(x,s)\varphi(s)\differential s$. In this notation, the optimal pulse design for lowest average infidelity [Eq. (3)] is a Lagrangian minimization problem with one Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ due to the normalization constraint in Eq. (2):

$$\Lambda[S]=(S,\hat{R}S)-\lambda(1,S)\rightarrow\underset{S(t)}{\min{}}.$$ (4)

However, it is not obvious that this functional has a minimizer $S_{\text{opt}}(t)$: this depends strongly on the nature of the noise process. We thus proceed to establish the operator representations of auto-correlation $\hat{R}$, proving the existence of $S_{\text{opt}}(t)$ and finding it analytically for relevant models of charge noise. The dependencies of $\left<\mathscr{F}\right>$ on $T$ and $\alpha$ will be analyzed numerically for certain pulse shapes.

Stationary noise.— We model the most commonly observed case of stationary charge noise as a ensemble of independent two-level fluctuators (TLFs), such as distributed interfacial or bulk charge traps [15, 13]. The auto-correlation function is assumed to incorporate all relevant mechanisms behind this non-Gaussian noise process. Its general statistical properties (noise “color”) will be then characterized by the exponent $\alpha\!\in\!(0,2)$.

A two-level voltage potential fluctuation ${\xi_{\gamma}(t)}$, with the jumps governed by the Poisson process with the switching rate $\gamma$, has the auto-correlation function: $R_{\gamma}(t_{1},t_{2})=\langle\xi_{\gamma}(t_{1})\xi_{\gamma}(t_{2})\rangle=E_{\gamma}e^{-2\gamma\left|t_{1}-t_{2}\right|},$ and a Lorentzian power spectral density [55, 26]. $E_{\gamma}=R_{\gamma}(t,t)$ will be referred to as the energy of a TLF (measured in $\mathrm{V^{2}}$). For an ensemble of TLFs with total energy $R_{0}$, we consider their energy density per unit range of switching rates of the form [56, 32]:

$${\differential{E(\gamma)}}/{\differential{\gamma}}={\mathcal{N}^{-1}(\alpha)}\left({R_{0}}/{\gamma^{\alpha}}\right)\ \mathbbm{1}_{[\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}]}.$$ (5)

Here, $\mathbbm{1}_{[a,b]}(\gamma)$ is the indicator function on $[a,b]$ (unity within the interval, and zero outside it), and $\mathcal{N}(\alpha)$ is the normalization parameter. In this case, the noise spectral density is well approximated by $P(f)\approx P_{0}/\absolutevalue{f}^{\alpha}$ [56] in the bulk of the spectrum $f_{\min}\lesssim\absolutevalue{f}\lesssim f_{\max}$. The spectrum plateaus at $f\lesssim f_{\min}$ and rapidly decays as $1/f^{2}$ at $f\gtrsim f_{\max}$, and the cutoff frequencies are given by $f_{\min}={\gamma_{\min}}/{\pi},\ f_{\max}={\gamma_{\max}}/{\pi}$ [32]. Note that the relationship between the noise spectral level $P_{0}=P(\text{1 Hz})$ and its energy $R_{0}$ depends on the spectral exponent $\alpha$:

$$P_{0}=\frac{R_{0}}{4\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}\times\begin{cases}1/\ln(f_{\max}/f_{\min}),&\alpha=1,\\[5.0pt] \left({1-\alpha}\right)/{\left(f_{\max}^{1-\alpha}-f_{\min}^{1-\alpha}\right)},&\alpha\neq 1.\end{cases}$$ (6)

Phenomenologically, we relate the low-frequency cutoff to the duration of the experiment $T_{\exp}$, which involves state preparation, quantum operations, and measurements: $f_{\min}\sim 1/T_{\exp}$, since all slower frequencies can be calibrated out [57]. The high frequency cutoff is determined by the parasitic capacitances of the device, so $f_{\max}/f_{\min}\gg 1$.

The auto-correlation function of the ensemble of TLFs $R(t_{1},t_{2})=\int\left({\differential R_{\gamma}(t_{1},t_{2})}/{\differential E_{\gamma}}\right)\left({\differential{E(\gamma)}}/{\differential{\gamma}}\right)\differential\gamma$ can be expressed analytically in terms of the generalized exponential integrals $E_{\alpha}(z)=\int_{1}^{\infty}\differential{s}{e^{-zs}}/{s^{\alpha}}\$:

$$\!\!\!R(t_{1},t_{2})={4P_{0}}\sin\!\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\left[f_{\min}^{1-\alpha}E_{\alpha}(2\pi f_{\min}\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}})\right.\qquad\\ -\left.{f_{\max}^{1-\alpha}}E_{\alpha}(2\pi f_{\max}\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}})\right].\!\!\!$$ (7)

Figure 1 compares the auto-correlation functions [Eq. (7)] and power spectral densities of stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises with a fixed energy $R_{0}$, and spectral levels $P_{0}$ given by Eq. (6).

Figure 1: Normalized auto-correlation and power spectral density of the ensemble of TLFs distributed according to Eq. (5). Here, $\Delta t=\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}}$, and $f_{\max}/f_{\min}=10^{6}$.

Exchange pulses are typically short compared to the length of an experiment: $T/T_{\exp}\ll 1$. Physically, this means that on the timescale $T$ of a single exchange pulse, the noise manifests itself as a random miscalibration of voltage potential with infrequent TLF jumps. Then, we can use the series expansion of $E_{\alpha}(z)$ for small $z=2\pi f_{\min}\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}}$ near $z\rightarrow 0$ [58]:

$$E_{\alpha}(z)=\!\begin{cases}-C-\ln(z)+O(z),&\alpha=1,\\ \frac{1}{1-\alpha}\!\left[{z^{\alpha-1}\Gamma(2-\alpha)-1}\right]+O(z),&\alpha\neq 1,\end{cases}$$ (8)

where $C\approx 0.577$ is Euler-Mascheroni constant, and $\Gamma(2-\alpha)$ is the gamma function. Note that the the weak singularity in case of $\alpha\in(0,1]$ is integrated out in the expression (3) for average infidelity. This allows us to drop the last term in the brackets of the auto-correlation formula (7), negligible for all significantly nonzero time differences $|t_{1}-t_{2}|\gtrsim 1/f_{\max}$, without being concerned about regularization. In Appendix C, we improve this approximation from Eq. (8) for longer exchange pulses ($T\sim T_{\exp}$) and show how to minimize the Lagrangian [Eq. (4)] in this case. Additionally, in Appendix A, we derive the operator representation of auto-correlation and prove the existence of the optimal $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ exchange pulse shape for an arbitrary ensemble of TLFs.

Fractional operators.— To find the operator representation of auto-correlation, we utilize integrals and derivatives of fractional orders [42]. Let $L^{p}(a,b)$ denote a Banach space of Lebesgue-integrable real functions $\varphi:(a,b)\rightarrow\mathbbm{R}$ with finite $p$-norm ($1\leq p<\infty$) [59]. Then, for an absolutely integrable $\varphi(x)\in L^{1}(a,b)$, the left- and right-sided Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operators of order $\beta>0$, ${}_{a}{I}^{\beta}$ and ${I}_{b}^{\beta}$, are defined as follows:

$$\begin{gathered}\left({}_{a}{I}^{\beta}\varphi\right)(x)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\beta)}\int_{a}^{x}(x-s)^{\beta-1}\varphi(s)\differential{s},\\ \left({I}_{b}^{\beta}\varphi\right)(x)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\beta)}\int_{x}^{b}(s-x)^{\beta-1}\varphi(s)\differential{s}.\end{gathered}$$ (9)

The corresponding kernel functions on $(a,b)$ can be written in terms of indicator functions, for instance:

$${}_{a}I^{\beta}(x,s)=\left[{(x-s)^{\beta-1}}/\,{\Gamma(\beta)}\right]\mathbbm{1}_{[a,x]}(s),$$ (10)

and similarly for $I_{b}^{\beta}(x,s)$. Integrals (9) have inverse operators known as the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives. For functions $\varphi(x)$ with ${}_{a}I^{\beta}\varphi\in L^{1}(a,b)$ or $I_{b}^{\beta}\varphi\in L^{1}(a,b)$, respectively, they are defined as combinations of ordinary differentiation and fractional integration:

$$\begin{gathered}{}_{a}D^{\beta}\varphi=\left({\differential{}}/{\differential{x}}\right)^{\![\beta]+1}{\!\!}_{a}I^{1-\{\beta\}}\varphi,\\ D_{b}^{\beta}\varphi=\left(-{\differential{}}/{\differential{x}}\right)^{\![\beta]+1}\!\!I_{b}^{1-\{\beta\}}\varphi,\end{gathered}$$ (11)

where $[\beta]\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $\{\beta\}\in[0,1)$ are the integer and fractional parts of $\beta$, respectively: $\beta=[\beta]+\{\beta\}$. Importantly, ${}_{a}I^{\beta}$ and $I_{b}^{\beta}$ are conjugate operators [60] with respect to the inner product:

$$\quantity\big(\varphi,\ {}_{a}I^{\beta}\psi)=\quantity\big(I_{b}^{\beta}\varphi,\ \psi),\qquad\left({}_{a}I^{\beta}\right)^{*}=I_{b}^{\beta},$$ (12)

for the properly Lebesgue integrable $\varphi,\psi$ . For functions $\varphi(x)$ with certain regularity conditions near the boundaries such as $I_{b}^{1-\beta}\varphi\overset{x\rightarrow b}{\longrightarrow}0$, the conjugation rule for derivatives holds as well: $\left({}_{a}D^{\beta}\right)^{*}=D_{b}^{\beta}$ [60].

Riemann-Liouville operators straightforwardly generalize the conventional derivatives and integrals of power functions: left-sided operations that act on $(x-a)^{\kappa}$ and right-sided ones that act on $(b-x)^{\kappa}$. For example, ${\ }_{a}D^{\beta}(x-a)^{\kappa}=\frac{\Gamma(\kappa+1)}{\Gamma(\kappa-\beta+1)}(x-a)^{\kappa-\beta}.$

Optimal shapes.—

Figure 2: Quantum operation performance in a stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ noise environment. (a) Voltage/exchange pulses of four distinct shapes that generate a $\mathrm{SWAP}$ operation, shown for $T=10$ ns. The optimal pulse shape from Eq. (Quantum optimal control robust to $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises using fractional calculus: voltage-controlled exchange in semiconductor spin qubits) is shown for $\alpha=1.4$. (b) Average infidelity as a function of pulse length for two values of $\alpha$. (c) Average infidelity as a function of $\alpha$ for two values of pulse length. In (b) and (c), frequency cutoffs and noise energy are set to $f_{\min}=10$ kHz, $f_{\max}=10$ GHz, $R_{0}=1$ mV².

For $\alpha\neq 1$, we now use formulae (7) and (8) to write the dominant contribution to auto-correlation in terms of normalized times $\tau_{1,2}=t_{1,2}/T\in[0,1]$, and a small parameter $\theta=2\pi f_{\min}T\sim T/T_{\exp}\ll 1$:

$$R(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})\approx\frac{4P_{0}\sin\!\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}f_{\min}^{1-\alpha}}{1-\alpha}\quantity\Bigg[\frac{\theta^{\alpha-1}\Gamma({2-\alpha})}{\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{1-\alpha}}-1].$$ (13)

For $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the expression ${\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{\alpha-1}}$ has a symmetric integral representation [62]:

$${\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{\alpha-1}}=\frac{\pi\int_{0}^{1}\differential{s}K(\tau_{1},s)K(\tau_{2},s)\differential{s}}{\Gamma\left(1-{\alpha}\right)\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}},$$ (14)

with $K(\tau,s)=\frac{\tau^{\alpha/2}}{\Gamma\left({\alpha}/{2}\right)}(\tau-s)^{{\alpha}/{2}-1}\;s^{-\alpha/2}\ \mathbbm{1}_{[0,\tau]}(s).$ Formula (10) suggests that $K\left({\tau,s}\right)$ has a fractional operator representation: $\hat{K}=\tau^{\alpha/2}\;{}_{0}I^{\alpha/2}\tau^{-\alpha/2}.$ Thus, ${\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{\alpha-1}}$ corresponds to a self-adjoint operator proportional to $\hat{K}\hat{K}^{*}.$ Introducing $M=\hat{K}^{*}S=\tau^{-\alpha/2}I_{1}^{\alpha/2}\tau^{\alpha/2}S$, we obtain the Lagrangian from Eq. (4):

$$\Lambda[M]\propto\quantity\bigg[(M,M)-\frac{\theta^{1-\alpha}\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi(1-\alpha)}]-\lambda(\hat{K}^{-1}1,M),$$

which is a quadratic, positive-definite functional of $M$. From ${\delta\Lambda}/{\delta M}=0$, we thus obtain the minimizer $M_{\text{opt}}(\tau)\propto\tau^{\alpha/2}{\,}_{0}D^{\alpha/2}\left(\tau^{-\alpha/2}\right)\propto\tau^{-\alpha/2}$. Finally, using $S=\tau^{-\alpha/2}D_{1}^{\alpha/2}\tau^{\alpha/2}M$ and normalizing to $(1,S)=1$, we determine the optimal shape of exchange pulse:

$$S_{\text{opt}}(\tau)=\frac{\tau^{-{\alpha}/{2}}(1-\tau)^{-{\alpha}/{2}}}{B\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2},1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)},$$ (15)

where $B(a,b)=\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)/\Gamma(a+b)$ is beta function.

In case of $\alpha>1$, we utilize the expression originally derived by Decreusefond and Üstünel [63] for fractional Brownian motion, a non-stationary stochastic process that will be briefly discussed later:

$$-\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{\alpha-1} =\frac{\pi(\alpha-1)\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{\,}\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}}{\Gamma(2-\alpha)\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}-\left(\tau_{1}^{\alpha-1}+\tau_{2}^{\alpha-1}\right),$$ (16)

$$\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{\,} ={}_{0}I^{\alpha-1}{\,}\tau^{1-{\alpha}/{2}}{{\,}}_{0}I^{1-{\alpha}/{2}}{\,}\tau^{{\alpha}/{2}-1}.$$

Just as above, the Lagrangian from Eq. (4) becomes a positive-definite functional of $M=\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}S$, and the same minimization procedure applies. We derive in Appendix B that the optimal shape $S_{\text{opt}}(\tau)$ is given by the same expression (15) for $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises with any $\alpha\in(0,2)$. To show this in the limiting case of $\alpha=1$, we utilize the Chebyshev polynomial basis expansion of auto-correlation instead of fractional calculus.

Numerical analysis.— We obtained analytically that the shape of a voltage-controlled exchange pulse $J\textbf{(}V(t)\textbf{)}$ giving optimal performance in the presence of stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ noise is a symmetric beta distribution function with parameter $1-\alpha/2$ [Eq. (15)]. The corresponding voltage pulse $V(t)=V_{0}+\ln\left[J(t)/J(V_{0})\right]/\varkappa$ then becomes:

$$V_{\text{opt}}(t)=V_{0}-\tfrac{1}{\varkappa}\ln\left[{J(V_{0})T\,B\!\left(1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2},1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}\right)}/{\pi k\hbar}\right]\qquad$$

$$-\left({\alpha}/{2\varkappa}\right)\,\ln\!\left[\tfrac{t}{T}\left(1-\tfrac{t}{T}\right)\right]\!.\ \qquad$$ (17)

Experimentally, the voltage pulse would be a non-singular approximation to this function, and ensure a small idle value of exchange before and after each pulse $J(t=0,T)\ll\hbar/T$.

The numerically calculated dependencies of average infidelity [Eq. (3)] on pulse length, shape, and noise spectral exponent $\alpha$ are given in Figure 2. We utilize the exact expression for auto-correlation (7), assuming the same total energy $R_{0}$ for all noise processes with different $\alpha$. The amplitudes and widths of all pulses shown in Fig. 2(a) are adjusted to perform a $\mathrm{SWAP}$ gate operation with $k=1$. For example, a Gaussian shape of exchange pulse $S(\tau)\propto\exp({-(\tau-1/2)^{2}/2\sigma^{2}})$ corresponds to a parabolic voltage pulse, and the exponential-of-Gaussian exchange $S(\tau)\propto\exp\left[h\exp({-(\tau-1/2)^{2}/2\sigma^{2}})\right]$ is realized with a Gaussian voltage pulse. We fix $\sigma=0.12,h=10$ henceforth. Device-specific parameters are adapted from the full-configuration-interaction calculation for a Si/SiO₂ double quantum dot with a tunneling gate voltage control of exchange [64]: $V_{0}=0.04$ V, $J(V_{0})=0.01\ \mu$eV, $\varkappa=80$ V^-1. Gates with other values of $k$ such as $\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}$ with $k=\frac{1}{2}$ are straightforward to analyze in the same fashion due to the relation $\left<\mathscr{F}\right>\propto k^{2}$, independent of the noise model [Eq. (3)].

It is found that the optimal voltage pulses from Eq. (Quantum optimal control robust to $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises using fractional calculus: voltage-controlled exchange in semiconductor spin qubits) perform almost identically to square pulses. However, either shape reduces the average infidelity by up to a factor of 4 when compared to a Gaussian voltage pulse. The most important trend evident in Fig. 2(b) is the decrease in $\left<\mathscr{F}\right>$ with the duration of the pulse, reaching a rate of $-5.2$ dB/decade for $\alpha=0.5$. It is consistent with the approximate expressions for auto-correlation: $A\ \mathrm{sign}(1-\alpha)(B\,T^{\alpha-1}-1)$ for $\alpha\neq 1$ [Eq. (13)], or $A-B\,\ln(T)$ for $\alpha=1$ [Eq. (29)] for some $A,B>0$, all of which are monotonically decreasing functions of $T$. This trend goes against the common strategy of making exchange pulses as short in time and high in amplitude as possible to minimize the impact of noise [50]. Our results therefore suggest an alternative strategy of using long, low-amplitude, and broad pulses: the exponential suppression of noise when $J(t)$ is kept low throughout the pulse may outweigh the loss in fidelity due to background decoherence processes. Experimentally, we anticipate a “sweet spot” in pulse length. As $T_{2}$ values increase due to material and fabrication improvements, this strategy is expected to become more relevant.

As follows from Figs. 2(b, c), the gain in fidelity from the optimal choice of pulse length and shape is most significant for weakly correlated noise environments, i.e., with small values of $\alpha$. Such spectral behavior is observed, for example, when the cotributions of white and $1/f$ flicker noises are both significant.

Comparison with non-stationary model.— We now investigate how a $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ gate performance is influenced by the non-stationarity of the noise process, which we choose to model as the fractional Brownian motion (fBm) [65]. This process $b_{\alpha}(t)$ is characterized by $b_{\alpha}(0)=0$, statistical independence of increments, and auto-correlation function:

$$R_{\textsc{fbm}}(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})=2P_{0} (2\pi T)^{\alpha-1}\absolutevalue{\Gamma(1-\alpha)\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}\qquad$$

$$\times \left(\tau_{1}^{\alpha-1}+\tau_{2}^{\alpha-1}-\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{\alpha-1}\right)\!.\quad$$ (18)

In the generalized sense of a Wigner-Ville spectrum $P(t,f)$ [66, 67], fBm demonstrates a desired spectral behavior $P_{0}/|f|^{\alpha}$ asymptotically for $t\rightarrow\infty$. Physically, the fBm model could be applicable to devices with a high density of charge traps, where charge transport was previously modeled with fractional differential equations [68, 69].

As shown in [63], expression (Quantum optimal control robust to $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises using fractional calculus: voltage-controlled exchange in semiconductor spin qubits) has an operator representation $\hat{R}_{\textsc{fbm}}=(2\pi)^{\alpha}P_{0}\,T^{\alpha-1}\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}$, where $\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}$ for the subdiffusive fBm with $\alpha\in(1,2)$ is defined in Eq. (16). The Lagrangian [Eq. (4)] then becomes a quadratic functional of $M=\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}S$: $\Lambda[M]\propto(M,M)-\lambda(\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{-1}1,M),$ with a variational minimizer given by the generalized function $M_{\text{opt}}(\tau)=\lambda^{\prime}\tau^{1-\alpha/2}\delta(\tau-0^{+})$. This indicates that the normalized shape of exchange pulse must be delta-like: $S_{\text{opt}}=\delta(\tau-0^{+})$.

This result can be understood heuristically. Since $R_{\textsc{fbm}}(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})$ is growing monotonically with respect to both variables, the effect of noise on fidelity will progressively worsen over time. Thus, making the pulse as localized near $t=0$ as possible ensures minimal impact: $(S_{\text{opt}},\hat{R}_{\textsc{fbm}}S_{\text{opt}})\rightarrow 0,$ [cf. Eq. (Quantum optimal control robust to $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises using fractional calculus: voltage-controlled exchange in semiconductor spin qubits)]. Likewise, the pulse length should be made as short as possible for optimal performance, which is consistent with $(S,\hat{R}S)\propto T^{\alpha-1}$.

Conclusions.— In summary, we address the problem of voltage pulse design for quantum dot spin qubits in the presence of $1/f^{\alpha}$ charge noise numerically and analytically, using the framework of fractional calculus. Long, low-amplitude, and broad pulses on average yield significantly higher fidelities of $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ exchange gates in the presence of stationary noises, especially those with small $\alpha$ values indicating weakly correlated noise environments. This is consistent with the result from [22] that dynamical decoupling need not contain ultrafast pulses for optimal performance. The common choice of short, high-amplitude pulses is thus advantageous only in case of a strongly non-stationary noise environment or systems with short coherence times. Strong exchange coupling regimes ($\gtrsim 10^{-5}$ eV) thus may not be necessary for high-fidelity quantum operations. Finally, although we focused on the exchange-controlled two-spin $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ gates, the fractional operator representation method presented in this work is equally applicable to engineering other spin qubit Hamiltonians controlled with noisy voltage signals. These could include singlet-triplet or exchange-only spin qubits, where $J\textbf{(}V(t)\textbf{)}$ pulses realize other quantum operations on logical qubits such as single-qubit rotations, or other effective spin couplings, arising, for example, from spin-orbit interaction.

Appendix A Appendix A. Auto-correlation operator of a general stationary charge noise

Consider an ensemble of two-level fluctuators (TLFs) with an arbitrary energy density $\frac{\differential{E(\gamma)}}{\differential{\gamma}}\geq 0$ due to a distribution of switching rates. We aim to express the auto-correlation function of such a noise process:

$$R(t_{1},t_{2})=\int_{0}^{\infty}\differential{\gamma}\frac{\differential{E(\gamma)}}{\differential{\gamma}}\;e^{-2\gamma\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}}},$$ (19)

in terms of the non-singular Caputo-Fabrizio fractional integral operators [70]:

$$\begin{gathered}\left({}_{a}\mathscr{I}^{\beta}\varphi\right)(t)=\frac{1}{\beta}\int_{a}^{t}\varphi(s)\exp\left[-\tfrac{1-\beta}{\beta}(t-s)\right]\differential{s},\\ \left(\mathscr{I}_{b}^{\beta}\varphi\right)(t)=\frac{1}{\beta}\int_{t}^{b}\varphi(s)\exp\left[-\tfrac{1-\beta}{\beta}(s-t)\right]\differential{s}.\end{gathered}$$ (19)

The fractional derivative operators [71]:

$${\,}_{a}\mathscr{D}^{\beta}=\beta\frac{\differential{}}{\differential{t}}+(1-\beta),\qquad\mathscr{D}_{b}^{\beta}=-\beta\frac{\differential{}}{\differential{t}}+\left(1-\beta\right),$$ (20)

are connected to the corresponding fractional integrals as follows:

$$\begin{gathered}\left({}_{a}\mathscr{D}^{\beta}{\,}_{a}\mathscr{I}^{\beta}\varphi\right)\!(t)=\varphi(t),\\ \left({}_{a}\mathscr{I}^{\beta}{\,}_{a}\mathscr{D}^{\beta}\varphi\right)\!(t)=\varphi(t)-\varphi(a)\exp\left[-\tfrac{1-\beta}{\beta}(t-a)\right].\end{gathered}$$

As in the Riemann-Liouville case, left and right-sided Caputo-Fabrizio integrals are conjugate operators: $\left({}_{a}\mathscr{I}^{\beta}\right)^{*}=\mathscr{I}_{b}^{\beta}$.

We use the identity $\min(t_{1},t_{2})\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(t_{1}+t_{2}-\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}}\right)$ to express the exponential difference kernel as follows:

$$e^{-2\gamma\absolutevalue{t_{1}-t_{2}}}=e^{-2\gamma(t_{1}+t_{2})}+4\gamma\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\displaylimits_{0}^{\quad\min(t_{1},t_{2})}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\differential{s}e^{-2\gamma(t_{1}-s)}e^{-2\gamma(t_{2}-s)}.$$ (21)

This expression contains an inner product on $[0,T]$ of the functions of type $e^{-2\gamma(t-s)}\;\mathbbm{1}_{[0,t]}(s)$ . As follows from Eq. (19), these terms are proportional to the kernel functions of Caputo-Fabrizio integrals with $\frac{1-\beta}{\beta}=2\gamma$, or ${\beta}=1/(2\gamma+1)$. The generalized auto-correlation from Eq. (19) thus corresponds to a positive definite, self-adjoint operator on $[0,T]$:

$$\hat{R}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\differential{\gamma}\left\{\frac{\differential{E(\gamma)}}{\differential{\gamma}}\right.\\ \times\left.\left[e^{-2\gamma(t_{1}+t_{2})}+\frac{4\gamma}{(2\gamma+1)^{2}}{\,}_{0}\mathscr{I}^{\frac{1}{2\gamma+1}}\left({\,}_{0}\mathscr{I}^{\frac{1}{2\gamma+1}}\right)^{*}\right]\right\}.$$ (22)

The optimal $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ exchange pulse shape $S(t)$ can then be found from the Lagrangian [Eq. (4)]:

$$\Lambda[S]=-\lambda(1,S)+\int_{0}^{\infty}\differential{\gamma}\left\{\frac{\differential{E(\gamma)}}{\differential{\gamma}}\right.\\ \times\left.\left[\left(S,e^{-2\gamma t}\right)^{2}+\frac{4\gamma}{(2\gamma+1)^{2}}\left(\mathscr{I}_{T}^{\frac{1}{2\gamma+1}}S,\mathscr{I}_{T}^{\frac{1}{2\gamma+1}}S\right)\right]\right\},$$ (23)

which clearly has a nonnegative second variation and thus a minimum. This proves the existence of the optimal exchange pulse shape realizing a $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ gate in any stationary noise environments due to ensembles of TLFs.

Appendix B Appendix B. Optimal exchange pulse shape for $1/f^{\alpha}$ noises with $\alpha\geq 1$

Case of ${\alpha>1}$.— In the main text, we established the self-adjoint operator form [Eq. (16)] of auto-correlation function $R(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})$ from Eq. (13). Together with the normalization condition $\left(1,S\right)=1$, it yields a positive-definite Lagrangian:

$$\Lambda[M]\propto-\lambda(1,S)+\frac{\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi(\alpha-1)}+\left\{\left(2\pi f_{\min}T\right)^{\alpha-1}\right.\\ \times\left.\left[\left(M,M\right)-\frac{2\Gamma({2-\alpha})\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi(\alpha-1)}\left(\tau^{\alpha-1},S\right)\right]\right\},$$ (24)

where $M$ and $S$ are connected via the kernel operator of fractional Brownian motion (fBm):

$$S=\left(\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}\right)^{\!-1}\!\!M\ =D_{1}^{\alpha-1}\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}D_{1}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\tau^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}M.$$ (25)

The extremum condition ${\delta\Lambda}/{\delta M}=0$ yields:

$$M_{\text{opt}}(\tau)= \frac{\Gamma({2-\alpha})\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi(\alpha-1)}\tau^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}D_{0}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}D_{0}^{\alpha-1}\tau^{\alpha-1}$$

$$+{\lambda^{\prime}}\,\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{-1}1=\frac{\Gamma\left(2-\alpha\right)}{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}+{\lambda^{\prime}}\,\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{-1}1,$$

for some rescaled Lagrange multiplier $\lambda^{\prime}$. The first term was simplified using the identities ${\ }_{0}D^{\beta}x^{\kappa}=\frac{\Gamma(\kappa+1)}{\Gamma(\kappa-\beta+1)}x^{\kappa-\beta},$ and $\Gamma(p)\Gamma(1-p)=\frac{\pi}{\sin\pi p}$. Using Eq. (25), we obtain the optimal shape of exchange pulse:

$$S_{\text{opt}}(\tau)=\tfrac{\Gamma\left(2-\alpha\right)}{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}D_{1}^{\alpha-1}\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}D_{1}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}1+{\lambda^{\prime}}\left(\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}\right)^{\!-1\!}\!\!1.$$

We now use $D_{1}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}1=\frac{1}{\Gamma({\alpha}/{2})}(1-\tau)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}$ and write the first term of the expression above explicitly as a differintegral:

$$\tfrac{\Gamma\left(2-\alpha\right)}{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}D_{1}^{\alpha-1}\tau^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}(1-\tau)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}=$$

$$-\tfrac{1}{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}\frac{\differential}{\differential\tau}\int_{\tau}^{1}\differential{s}(s-\tau)^{1-\alpha}s^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}(1-s)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}.$$

With the change of variables $\xi=\frac{s-\tau}{1-\tau}$, the expression above reduces to the standard integral representation of the hypergeometric function $F(a,b;c;z)$ [58]:

$$-\frac{\Gamma\left(2-\alpha\right)\frac{\differential}{\differential\tau}\left[\left(\tfrac{1-\tau}{\tau}\right)^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}F\left(1-\tfrac{\alpha}{2},2-\alpha;2-\tfrac{\alpha}{2};\tfrac{\tau-1}{\tau}\right)\right]}{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(2-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}.$$

Since $c=a+1$ is satisfied for the hypergeometric function above, it is related to the incomplete beta function $B(x;p,q)$ [58]:

$$B(x;p,q)=\frac{x^{p}}{p}F(p,1-q;p+1;x).$$

The first term of $S(\tau)$ thus reads as follows:

$$\frac{\Gamma\left(2-\alpha\right)\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)e^{-{i\pi\alpha}/{2}}}{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(2-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}\frac{\differential}{\differential{\tau}}B\left(\frac{\tau-1}{\tau};1-\frac{\alpha}{2},\alpha-1\right)\!.$$

The integral definition of $B(x;p,q)\equiv\int_{0}^{x}t^{p-1}(1-t)^{q-1}\differential{t}$ is straightforward to differentiate, and the pre-factor can be simplified using the basic properties of gamma functions. This yields the optimal shape function:

$$S_{\text{opt}}(\tau)=\frac{\tau^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}(1-\tau)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}}{B\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2},1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)}+{\lambda^{\prime}}\left(\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}\hat{K}_{\textsc{fbm}}^{*}\right)^{\!-1\!}\!1.$$ (26)

Since the first term satisfies the normalization condition $(1,S)=1$ by itself, we conclude that $\lambda^{\prime}\equiv 0$, and expression (26) coincides with the result obtained in the main text for $\alpha<1$.

Case of ${\alpha=1}$.—Since stationary $1/f$ noise is characterized by the logarithmic auto-correlation, we utilize the decomposition [72]:

$$-\ln\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}=2\ln 2+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{2}{n}\widetilde{T}_{n}(\tau_{1})\widetilde{T}_{n}(\tau_{2}),$$ (27)

where $\widetilde{T}_{n}(\tau)\equiv T_{n}(2\tau-1)$ is the shifted Chebyshev polynomial of order $n$. These polynomials form a complete orthogonal basis on $[0,1]$ with the weight ${\left[\tau(1-\tau)\right]^{-1/2}}.$ Now, when $\int_{0}^{1}{\absolutevalue{S(\tau)}^{2}}\sqrt{\tau(1-\tau)}\differential\tau<\infty$ is satisfied, we can expand $S(\tau)$ into a series of Chebyshev polynomials:

$$S(\tau)=\frac{2}{\pi}\ \frac{\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{0}+\Phi_{1}\widetilde{T}_{1}(\tau)+\Phi_{2}\widetilde{T}_{2}(\tau)+\ldots}{\sqrt{\tau(1-\tau)}},$$ (28)

where the coefficients are found from $\Phi_{n}=(\widetilde{T}_{n},S)$ for all $n$. Since $T_{0}(\tau)\equiv 1$, we obtain $\Phi_{0}=1$ from the normalization condition $\left(1,S\right)=1$. Using decompositions (27) and (28), we can now write $(S,\hat{R}S)\propto\left<\mathscr{F}\right>$ as a quadratic diagonal form of coefficients $\left\{\Phi_{n}\right\}$:

$$\left(S,\hat{R}S\right)=4P_{0}\!\left[-C-\ln(\frac{\pi f_{\min}T}{2})+2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\Phi_{n}^{2}}{n}\right].$$ (29)

This expression reaches its minimum when $\Phi_{n}=0$ for all $n\geq 1$. Remarkably, the corresponding optimal shape $S_{\text{opt}}(\tau)=\tfrac{1}{\pi}\left[\tau(1-\tau)\right]^{-1/2}$ is a special case of formula (26) with $\lambda^{\prime}\equiv 0$ for $\alpha=1$.

This completes the proof that for the stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ charge noise with any spectral exponent $\alpha\in(0,2)$, the optimal shape for a $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ exchange pulse is given by the symmetric beta-distribution function with parameter $\left(1-\alpha/2\right)$.

Appendix C Appendix C. Improved optimal pulse design procedure for $1/f^{\alpha}$ stationary noises

The remainder term of order $O(z)$ in the series expansion of $E_{\alpha}(z)$ near $z\rightarrow 0$ [Eq. (8)] is given by an infinite series $\mathcal{R}(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}z^{n}}{n!(1-\alpha+n)}.$ Due to its oscillatory character and semblance to the Taylor expansion of $1-e^{-z}$, we approximate it as follows:

$$\mathcal{R}(z)\approx A(1-e^{-\zeta z}),\quad A=\frac{3-\alpha}{\left(2-\alpha\right)^{2}},\quad\zeta=\frac{2-\alpha}{3-\alpha}.$$ (30)

This choice of parameters $A,\zeta$ ensures the accuracy of $E_{\alpha}(z)$ approximation up to the third order: $\mathcal{R}(z)-A(1-e^{-\zeta z})=O(z^{3}),\ z\rightarrow 0.$ This yields an improved approximation for the stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ noise auto-correlation, valid for all $\theta=2\pi f_{\min}T\lesssim 1$:

$$R(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})\approx{4P_{0}}f_{\min}^{1-\alpha}\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\times\begin{cases}-C-\ln\theta-\ln\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}+A\left(1-e^{-\theta\zeta\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}}\right),&\alpha=1,\\[10.0pt] \dfrac{1}{1-\alpha}\ \quantity\Big[\Gamma({2-\alpha})\,\theta^{\alpha-1}\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}^{\alpha-1}-1]+A\left(1-e^{-\theta\zeta\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}}\right),&\alpha\neq 1.\end{cases}$$ (31)

Figure 3: Auto-correlation expressions for stationary $1/f^{\alpha}$ noise with $\alpha=1.4$: exact [Eq. (7)], approximated with the dominant term $\propto\left(\Delta\tau^{\alpha-1}+\text{const}\right)$ [Eq. (13)], and the approximation with exponential correction [Eq. (31)]. Here, $\Delta\tau=\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}$, $f_{\min}=10$ kHz, $f_{\max}=10$ GHz.

Figure 3 compares the exact and approximate expressions for $R(\Delta\tau),$ where $\Delta\tau=\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}$. The coarse approximation (power-law for $\alpha\neq 1$ or logarithmic for $\alpha=1$) diverges from the exact expression most significantly in case of highly-correlated noises (large $\alpha$ values) and long pulses $T/T_{\exp}\sim 1.$ The improved approximation from Eq. (31) shows good correspondence with the exact expression in all such cases.

As follows from relation (21), the exponential remainder term (30) has a Caputo-Fabrizio fractional integral representation with $\tilde{\beta}={1}/\left({\zeta\theta+1}\right)$:

$$e^{-\theta\zeta\absolutevalue{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}}=e^{-\theta\zeta\left(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}\right)}+{2\tilde{\beta}^{2}\zeta\theta}\left({}_{0}\mathscr{I}^{\tilde{\beta}}\right)\!\left({}_{0}\mathscr{I}^{\tilde{\beta}}\right)^{*}\!\!\!\!.$$

This gives a precise approximation to the Lagrangian for $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ exchange pulse optimization [Eq. (4)]. For example, for $\alpha<1$, we get:

$$\!\!\!\Lambda[S]\propto\text{const}+\frac{\pi}{\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}\left(\hat{K}^{*}S,\hat{K}^{*}S\right)-\lambda(1,S)$$

$$-A\left(e^{-\theta\zeta\tau},S\right)^{2}-{2\tilde{\beta}^{2}\zeta\theta}\left(\mathscr{I}_{1}^{\tilde{\beta}}S,\mathscr{I}_{1}^{\tilde{\beta}}S\right),\!\!\!\!$$ (C3)

where $\hat{K}=\tau^{\alpha/2}\,{}_{0}I^{\alpha/2}\tau^{-\alpha/2}$, introduced in the main text. Although this functional is not positive definite, we previously proved the existence of an optimal exchange shape for a $\mathrm{SWAP}^{k}$ pulse for an arbitrary ensemble of TLFs [Eq. (23)]. This suggests that the extremum condition $\delta\Lambda/\delta S=0$ will still give an accurate fractional integro-differential equation for the optimal shape:

$$\frac{2\pi}{\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}\hat{K}\hat{K}^{*}S-\lambda-2A\left(e^{-\theta\zeta\tau},S\right)e^{-\theta\zeta\tau}\\ -{4\tilde{\beta}^{2}\zeta\theta}{}_{0}\mathscr{I}^{\tilde{\beta}}\mathscr{I}_{1}^{\tilde{\beta}}S=0.$$ (32)

As derived earlier, the zeroth-order approximation is a beta distribution function: $S_{\text{opt}}^{(0)}(\tau)\propto(\hat{K}\hat{K}^{*})^{-1}1\propto\tau^{-\alpha/2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{-\alpha/2}.$ Therefore, by applying $\frac{1}{2\pi}{\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}(\hat{K}\hat{K}^{*})^{-1}$ to both sides of Eq. (32), we bring it to a form that can be solved by iterative methods such as fixed-point iteration:

$$S=\frac{\tilde{\lambda}}{\left[\tau\left(1-\tau\right)\right]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}+\frac{A\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\left(e^{-\theta\zeta\tau},S\right)}{\pi}(\hat{K}\hat{K}^{*})^{-1}e^{-\theta\zeta\tau}\\ +2A\tilde{\beta}^{2}\zeta\theta\frac{\sin\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}}{\pi}(\hat{K}\hat{K}^{*})^{-1}{}_{0}\mathscr{I}^{\tilde{\beta}}\mathscr{I}_{1}^{\tilde{\beta}}S.$$ (33)

For the Lagrange multiplier $\tilde{\lambda}$, one would use the initial guess $\tilde{\lambda}^{(0)}=1/{B\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2},1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)},$ and adjust it at each iteration step to ensure normalization $(1,S)=1$. This procedure could be the most relevant to the long pulses and noise processes with large $\alpha$ values, where we expect the largest divergence from the beta-distribution shape from Eq. (26) with $\lambda^{\prime}\equiv 0$. However, we showed in the main text that the choice of a beta-distribution pulse shape gives nearly no gain in fidelity compared to a more experimentally feasible square shape. Thus, while finding an improved $S_{\text{opt}}(\tau)$ numerically is possible, it is not expected to noticeably change the infidelity compared to the beta pulse shape.