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:1010.1321

Review of inconsistency of quantum adiabatic theorem

Yong Tao

Published Oct 7, 2010• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this paper, we note that there are two different types of inconsistencies of quantum adiabatic theorem in work of K. P. Marzlin and B. C. Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408, 2004], MS inconsistency and MS counterexample. Nevertheless, these two types are often confused as one by many authors. We shall point out that the inconsistencies of quantum adiabatic theorem raised by the relevant references just can be classified as these two types.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1010.1321

Related papers

Sufficient Condition for Validity of Quantum Adiabatic Theorem

Yong Tao

In this paper, we attempt to give a sufficient condition of guaranteeing the validity of the proof of the quantum adiabatic theorem. The new sufficient condition can clearly remove the inconsistency and the counterexample of the quantum adiabatic theorem pointed out by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 160408].

arXiv:1010.1326•Communications in Theoretical Physics•Mar 1, 2012•4 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

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

Comment I on “Inconsistency in the Application of the Adiabatic Theorem”

Solomon Duki, Harsh Mathur, Onuttom Narayan

A Comment on the Letter by Karl-Peter Marzlin and Barry C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 15 October 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.128901©2006 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Sep 18, 2006•36 citations

Comment II on “Inconsistency in the Application of the Adiabatic Theorem”

Jie Ma, Yongping Zhang, Enge Wang +1 more

A Comment on the Letter by Karl-Peter Marzlin and Barry C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 7 November 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.128902©2006 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Sep 18, 2006•36 citations

On the consistency in the adiabatic theorem and quantum geometric phase

Huazhong Li

The recent discovery of inconsistency (MS inconsistency) in the adiabatic approximation is discussed. In particular, the so-called, inconsistency in Berry phase is analyzed. On the contrary to some authors, we found that the MS inconsistency persisted and the so-called inconsistency in Berry phase does not exist.

arXiv:quant-ph/0702145•Feb 14, 2007•0 citations
In this paper, we note that there are two different types of inconsistencies of quantum adiabatic theorem in work of K. P. Marzlin and B. C. Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408, 2004], MS inconsistency and MS counterexample. Nevertheless, these two types are often confused as one by many authors. We shall point out that the inconsistencies of quantum adiabatic theorem raised by the relevant references just can be classified as these two types.
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.