Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0710.5341 · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields

Adiabatic approximation in the second quantized formulation

Kazuo Fujikawa

Published Feb 4, 2008• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Recently there have been some controversies about the criterion of the adiabatic approximation. It is shown that an approximate diagonalization of the effective Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation gives rise to a reliable and unambiguous criterion of the adiabatic approximation. This is illustrated for the model of Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] and a model related to the geometric phase which can be exactly diagonalized in the present sense.

DOI
10.1103/physrevd.77.045006

Related papers

Quantum adiabatic theorem in light of the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency

Juan Ortigoso

A consensus that questions the perfunctory use of the quantum adiabatic theorem has emerged since Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] showed the existence of an inconsistency in the applicability of the theorem. Further analysis proved that the inconsistency may arise from the existence of resonant terms in the Hamiltonian, but recent work indicates that the debate about the full extent of the problem remains open. Here, we first show that key premises required in the standard demonstration of the theorem do not hold for a dual Hamiltonian involved in the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency. Also, we show that two simple conditions can identify systems for which the adiabatic approximation fails, in spite of satisfying traditional quantitative conditions that were believed to guarantee its validity. Finally, we prove that the inconsistency only arises for Hamiltonians that contain resonant terms whose amplitudes go asymptotically to zero.

arXiv:1111.5195•Physical Review A•Sep 26, 2012•24 citations

Quantitative Conditions Do Not Guarantee the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation

D. M. Tong, Kuldip Singh, L. C. Kwek +1 more

In this Letter, we point out that the widely used quantitative conditions in the adiabatic theorem are insufficient in that they do not guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation. We also reexamine the inconsistency issue raised by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] and elucidate the underlying cause.

arXiv:quant-ph/0509073•Physical Review Letters•Sep 9, 2005•153 citations

Experimental Study of the Validity of Quantitative Conditions in the Quantum Adiabatic Theorem

Jiangfeng Du, Ling-Zhi Hu, Ya Wang +3 more

The quantum adiabatic theorem plays an important role in quantum mechanics. However, counter-examples were produced recently, indicating that their transition probabilities do not converge as predicted by the adiabatic theorem [K. P. Marzlin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004); D. M. Tong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110407 (2005)]. For a special class of Hamiltonians, we examine the standard criterion for adiabatic evolution experimentally and theoretically, as well as three newly suggested adiabatic conditions. We show that the standard criterion is neither sufficient nor necessary.

Physical Review Letters•Aug 7, 2008•73 citations

Improved error bounds for the adiabatic approximation

Donny Cheung, Peter Høyer, Nathan Wiebe

The discovery of adiabatic quantum computing has revealed a need for rigorously proven bounds for the error in the adiabatic approximation. We present in this paper, a rigorous and elementary derivation of upper and lower bounds on the error incurred from using the adiabatic approximation for quantum systems that can be used to assess the runtime of adiabatic algorithms. Our bounds are often asymptotically tight in the limit of slow evolution for fixed Hamiltonians, and are used to provide sufficient conditions for the application of the adiabatic approximation. We show that our sufficiency criteria exclude the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample from the class of Hamiltonians that obey the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we demonstrate the existence of classes of Hamiltonians that resemble the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample Hamiltonian, but also obey the adiabatic approximation.

arXiv:1103.4174•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Sep 20, 2011•36 citations

Validity of the adiabatic approximation in quantum mechanics

R. MacKenzie, Alexi Morin-Duchesne, H. Paquette +1 more

We analyze the validity of the adiabatic approximation, and in particular the reliability of what has been called the ``standard criterion'' for validity of this approximation. Recently, this criterion has been found to be insufficient. We will argue that the criterion is sufficient only when it agrees with the intuitive notion of slowness of evolution of the Hamiltonian. However, it can be insufficient in cases where the Hamiltonian varies rapidly but only by a small amount. We also emphasize the distinction between the adiabatic theorem and the adiabatic approximation, two quite different, although closely related, ideas.

arXiv:0706.0885•Physical Review A•Oct 5, 2007•39 citations

Is the Adiabatic Approximation Inconsistent?

Solomon Duki, Harsh Mathur, Onuttom Narayan

Marzlin and Sanders \cite{marzlin} have shown rigorously that the adiabatic approximation can be very inaccurate when applied to a Hamiltonian $H(t)$ that generates the evolution $U^{\dagger} (t)$ even if it gives an excellent approximation to the evolution $U(t)$ generated by a dual Hamiltonian $h(t)$. We show that this is not inconsistent with the adiabatic theorem and find that in general even if $h(t)$ satisfies the conditions of the adiabatic theorem, $H(t)$ will likely violate those conditions.

arXiv:quant-ph/0510131•Oct 17, 2005•2 citations
Recently there have been some controversies about the criterion of the adiabatic approximation. It is shown that an approximate diagonalization of the effective Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation gives rise to a reliable and unambiguous criterion of the adiabatic approximation. This is illustrated for the model of Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] and a model related to the geometric phase which can be exactly diagonalized in the present sense.
A consensus that questions the perfunctory use of the quantum adiabatic theorem has emerged since Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] showed the existence of an inconsistency in the applicability of the theorem. Further analysis proved that the inconsistency may arise from the existence of resonant terms in the Hamiltonian, but recent work indicates that the debate about the full extent of the problem remains open. Here, we first show that key premises required in the standard demonstration of the theorem do not hold for a dual Hamiltonian involved in the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency. Also, we show that two simple conditions can identify systems for which the adiabatic approximation fails, in spite of satisfying traditional quantitative conditions that were believed to guarantee its validity. Finally, we prove that the inconsistency only arises for Hamiltonians that contain resonant terms whose amplitudes go asymptotically to zero.
The quantum adiabatic theorem plays an important role in quantum mechanics. However, counter-examples were produced recently, indicating that their transition probabilities do not converge as predicted by the adiabatic theorem [K. P. Marzlin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004); D. M. Tong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110407 (2005)]. For a special class of Hamiltonians, we examine the standard criterion for adiabatic evolution experimentally and theoretically, as well as three newly suggested adiabatic conditions. We show that the standard criterion is neither sufficient nor necessary.
The discovery of adiabatic quantum computing has revealed a need for rigorously proven bounds for the error in the adiabatic approximation. We present in this paper, a rigorous and elementary derivation of upper and lower bounds on the error incurred from using the adiabatic approximation for quantum systems that can be used to assess the runtime of adiabatic algorithms. Our bounds are often asymptotically tight in the limit of slow evolution for fixed Hamiltonians, and are used to provide sufficient conditions for the application of the adiabatic approximation. We show that our sufficiency criteria exclude the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample from the class of Hamiltonians that obey the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we demonstrate the existence of classes of Hamiltonians that resemble the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample Hamiltonian, but also obey the adiabatic approximation.
We analyze the validity of the adiabatic approximation, and in particular the reliability of what has been called the ``standard criterion'' for validity of this approximation. Recently, this criterion has been found to be insufficient. We will argue that the criterion is sufficient only when it agrees with the intuitive notion of slowness of evolution of the Hamiltonian. However, it can be insufficient in cases where the Hamiltonian varies rapidly but only by a small amount. We also emphasize the distinction between the adiabatic theorem and the adiabatic approximation, two quite different, although closely related, ideas.
Marzlin and Sanders \cite{marzlin} have shown rigorously that the adiabatic approximation can be very inaccurate when applied to a Hamiltonian H(t)H(t)H(t) that generates the evolution U†(t)U^{\dagger} (t)U†(t) even if it gives an excellent approximation to the evolution U(t)U(t)U(t) generated by a dual Hamiltonian h(t)h(t)h(t). We show that this is not inconsistent with the adiabatic theorem and find that in general even if h(t)h(t)h(t) satisfies the conditions of the adiabatic theorem, H(t)H(t)H(t) will likely violate those conditions.