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:0805.0350

Accuracy of the quantum adiabatic theorem in its original form

Andrew Das Arulsamy

Published May 5, 2008• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

An explicit proof is developed to reinforce the accuracy of the quantum adiabatic theorem in its original form without any inconsistency and/or violation. Based on this proof, we discuss physical implications that give rise to the violation of the quantum adiabatic approximation. We show that such a violation can be obtained if and only if one violates the adiabatic criterion itself or due to the existence of degeneracy at a later time. Subsequently, comparison of our proof with respect to other recently developed proofs and counter-examples are analyzed and discussed.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0805.0350

Related papers

Consistency of the Adiabatic Theorem

M. H. S. Amin

The adiabatic theorem provides the basis for the adiabatic model of quantum computation. Recently the conditions required for the adiabatic theorem to hold have become a subject of some controversy. Here we show that the reported violations of the adiabatic theorem all arise from resonant transitions between energy levels. In the absence of fast driven oscillations the traditional adiabatic theorem holds. Implications for adiabatic quantum computation are discussed.

arXiv:0810.4335•Physical Review Letters•Jun 3, 2009•186 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

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

Linearity and Quantum Adiabatic Theorem

Zhaohui Wei, Mingsheng Ying

We show that in a quantum adiabatic evolution, even though the adiabatic approximation is valid, the total phase of the final state indicated by the adiabatic theorem may evidently differ from the actual total phase. This invalidates the application of the linearity and the adiabatic approximation simultaneously. Besides, based on this observation we point out the mistake in the traditional proof for the adiabatic theorem. This mistake is the root of the troubles that the adiabatic theorem has met. We also show that a similar mistake remains in some recent modifications of the traditional adiabatic theorem attempting to eliminate the troubles.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701135•Jan 19, 2007•0 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

Adiabatic theorem for quantum systems with spectral degeneracy

Gustavo Rigolin, Gerardo Ortíz

By stating the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics in a clear and rigorous way, we establish a necessary condition and a sufficient condition for its validity, where the latter is obtained employing our recently developed adiabatic perturbation theory. Also, we simplify further the sufficient condition into a useful and simple practical test at the expense of its mathematical rigor. We present results for the most general case of quantum systems, i.e., those with degenerate energy spectra. These conditions are of upmost importance for assessing the validity of practical implementations of non-Abelian braiding and adiabatic quantum computation. To illustrate the degenerate adiabatic approximation, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for its validity, we analyze in depth an exactly solvable time-dependent degenerate problem.

arXiv:1111.5333•Physical Review A•Jun 18, 2012•39 citations
An explicit proof is developed to reinforce the accuracy of the quantum adiabatic theorem in its original form without any inconsistency and/or violation. Based on this proof, we discuss physical implications that give rise to the violation of the quantum adiabatic approximation. We show that such a violation can be obtained if and only if one violates the adiabatic criterion itself or due to the existence of degeneracy at a later time. Subsequently, comparison of our proof with respect to other recently developed proofs and counter-examples are analyzed and discussed.
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.
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.
We show that in a quantum adiabatic evolution, even though the adiabatic approximation is valid, the total phase of the final state indicated by the adiabatic theorem may evidently differ from the actual total phase. This invalidates the application of the linearity and the adiabatic approximation simultaneously. Besides, based on this observation we point out the mistake in the traditional proof for the adiabatic theorem. This mistake is the root of the troubles that the adiabatic theorem has met. We also show that a similar mistake remains in some recent modifications of the traditional adiabatic theorem attempting to eliminate the troubles.
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.
By stating the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics in a clear and rigorous way, we establish a necessary condition and a sufficient condition for its validity, where the latter is obtained employing our recently developed adiabatic perturbation theory. Also, we simplify further the sufficient condition into a useful and simple practical test at the expense of its mathematical rigor. We present results for the most general case of quantum systems, i.e., those with degenerate energy spectra. These conditions are of upmost importance for assessing the validity of practical implementations of non-Abelian braiding and adiabatic quantum computation. To illustrate the degenerate adiabatic approximation, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for its validity, we analyze in depth an exactly solvable time-dependent degenerate problem.