Adiabaticity occurs when, during its evolution, a physical system remains in the instantaneous eigenstate of the hamiltonian. Unfortunately, existing results, such as the quantum adiabatic theorem based on a slow down evolution (H(epsilon t), epsilon ? 0), are insufficient to describe an evolution driven by the hamiltonian H(t) itself. Here we derive general criteria and exact bounds, for the state and its phase, ensuring an adiabatic evolution for any hamiltonian H(t). As a corollary we demonstrate that the commonly used condition of a slow hamiltonian variation rate, compared to the spectral gap, is indeed sufficient to ensure adiabaticity but only when the hamiltonian is real and non oscillating (for instance containing exponential or polynomial but no sinusoidal functions).
Adiabaticity occurs when, during its evolution, a physical system remains in the instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. Unfortunately, existing results, such as the quantum adiabatic theorem based on a slow down evolution $[H(ϵt),ϵ\ensuremath{\rightarrow}0]$, are insufficient to describe an evolution driven by the Hamiltonian
H(t) itself. Here we derive general criteria and exact bounds, for the state and its phase, ensuring an adiabatic evolution for any Hamiltonian
H(t). As a corollary, we demonstrate that the commonly used condition of a slow Hamiltonian variation rate, compared to the spectral gap, is indeed sufficient to ensure adiabaticity but only when the Hamiltonian is real and nonoscillating (for instance, containing exponential or polynomial but no sinusoidal functions).
The adiabatic theorem is a powerful result concerning the evolution of quantum mechanical systems. Intuitively, it states the following: suppose we want to study the evolution of a quantum mechanical system governed by a given Hamiltonian
H (Def. 6.1), and the initial state of the system is the eigenstate of
H corresponding to its lowest eigenvalue. The laws of quantum physics tell us that the evolution of the system over time follows the Schrüdinger equation, Eq. (6.1). Suppose now that the Hamiltonian is not fixed, but rather, it changes very slowly over time, so that the evolution of the system is described by the differential equation
idtd∣ψ(t)⟩=H(t)∣ψ(t)⟩, and
H(t) is slowly changing. If, for any value of the time parameter
t, there is always a gap between the lowest eigenvalue of
H(t) and all other eigenvalues, then the adiabatic theorem asserts that the state of the system always remains in an eigenstate with the lowest eigenvalue throughout the evolution. One specific case of interest in this chapter occurs when the time-dependent Hamiltonian
H(t) varies from an initial (time-independent) Hamiltonian
HI to a final Hamiltonian
HF. If the change happens slowly, and the initial state of the system is an eigenstate of
HI with minimum eigenvalue, the adiabatic theorem asserts that the evolution eventually leads to the eigenstate with minimum eigenvalue of the final Hamiltonian
HF. This result can be used for optimization: imagine that the initial Hamiltonian encodes an easy problem for which we can construct the eigenstate with minimum eigenvalue, and the final Hamiltonian encodes a difficult optimization problem whose solution is given by the eigenstate with minimum eigenvalue. By the adiabatic theorem, evolving the eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian while slowly changing the Hamiltonian into the final one leads to the solution of the difficult optimization problem. Of course we need to know how slowly
HI should be changed into
HF. The adiabatic theorem is at the heart of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA), a framework that has been widely used to implement optimization algorithms on existing quantum hardware, because it has low requirements of quantum resources–although it does not guarantee improvements over classical algorithms in general. In this chapter we first discuss the adiabatic theorem, and then give an overview of QAOA.
The dynamics of a nonstationary quantum system whose Hamiltonian explicitly depends on time is called adiabatic if a system state that is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at the initial instant of time remains close to this eigenstate throughout the evolution. The degree of such closeness depends on the smallness of the parameter that determines the rate of change of the Hamiltonian. It is usually believed that one of the factors playing a decisive role for the stability of the adiabatic dynamics is the structure of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. As the quantum adiabatic theorem states in its usual formulation, deviations from the adiabatic evolution can be estimated from above by the ratio of the rate of change of the Hamiltonian to the minimum distance between the energy of the state that approximates the adiabatic dynamics and the rest of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. We analyze this dependence and prove theorems showing that the efficiency of the adiabatic approximation is more influenced by the rate of change of the Hamiltonian eigenvectors than by the dynamics of the spectrum. In a vast majority of physically meaningful cases, it turns out that controlling the dynamics of eigenvectors is sufficient for ensuring the adiabaticity, regardless of the dynamics of the spectrum as such.
The quantum adiabatic theorem is the basis of adiabatic quantum computation. However, the exact necessary and sufficient conditions for adiabatic evolution are still under debate. We discuss the adiabatic condition of a system undergoing a special evolution route, and obtain an explicit formula that is necessary and sufficient for the adiabatic evolution in this route. Based on this formula, we find that the traditional adiabatic condition is neither sufficient nor necessary. Finally, we show that no adiabatic process can occur even the evolution speed goes to 0 in some examples, which is surprising since the adiabatic theorem states that if the evolution of a system is slow enough, the adiabatic process could occur.
The evolution of a driven quantum system is said to be adiabatic whenever the state of the system stays close to an instantaneous eigenstate of its time-dependent Hamiltonian. The celebrated quantum adiabatic theorem ensures that such pure state adiabaticity can be maintained with arbitrary accuracy, provided one chooses a small enough driving rate. Here, we extend the notion of quantum adiabaticity to closed quantum systems initially prepared at finite temperature. In this case adiabaticity implies that the (mixed) state of the system stays close to a quasi-Gibbs state diagonal in the basis of the instantaneous eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. We prove a sufficient condition for the finite temperature adiabaticity. Remarkably, it turns out that the finite temperature adiabaticity can be more robust than the pure state adiabaticity with respect to increasing the system size. This can be the case for one-body systems with large Hilbert spaces, such as a particle in a large box, as well as for certain many-body systems. In particular, we present an example of a driven many-body system where, in the thermodynamic limit, the finite temperature adiabaticity is maintained, while the pure state adiabaticity breaks down. On the other hand, for generic many-body systems the scaling of the finite temperature adiabatic condition with the system size is exponential, analogously to pure state adiabatic conditions.
Quantum adiabatic evolution is a dynamical evolution of a quantum system under slow external driving. According to the quantum adiabatic theorem, no transitions occur between nondegenerate instantaneous energy eigenstates in such a dynamical evolution. However, this is true only when the driving rate is infinitesimally small. For a small nonzero driving rate, there are generally small transition probabilities between the energy eigenstates. We develop a classical mechanics framework to address the small deviations from the quantum adiabatic theorem order by order. A hierarchy of Hamiltonians is constructed iteratively with the zeroth-order Hamiltonian being determined by the original system Hamiltonian. The k th-order deviations are governed by a k th-order Hamiltonian, which depends on the time derivatives of the adiabatic parameters up to the k th-order. Two simple examples, the Landau–Zener model and a spin-1/2 particle in a rotating magnetic field, are used to illustrate our hierarchical theory. Our analysis also exposes a deep, previously unknown connection between classical adiabatic theory and quantum adiabatic theory.