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:1107.4971

Consistency of the adiabatic theorem and perturbation theory

Marco Frasca

Published Jul 25, 2011• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We present an analysis of the adiabatic approximation to understand when it applies, in view of the recent criticisms and studies for the validity of the adiabatic theorem. We point out that this approximation is just the leading order of a perturbation series, that holds in a regime of a perturbation going to infinity, and so the conditions for its validity can be only obtained going to higher orders in the expansion and removing secular terms, that is terms that runs to infinity as the time increases. In this way, it is always possible to get the exact criteria for the approximation to hold.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1107.4971

Related papers

Degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory: Foundations and applications

Gustavo Rigolin, Gerardo Ortíz

We present details and expand on the framework leading to the recently introduced degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory [Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 170406 (2010)], and on the formulation of the degenerate adiabatic theorem, along with its necessary and sufficient conditions [given in Phys. Rev. A 85, 062111 (2012)]. We start with the adiabatic approximation for degenerate Hamiltonians that paves the way to a clear and rigorous statement of the associated degenerate adiabatic theorem, where the non-Abelian geometric phase (Wilczek-Zee phase) plays a central role to its quantitative formulation. We then describe the degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory, whose zeroth-order term is the degenerate adiabatic approximation, in its full generality. The parameter in the perturbative power-series expansion of the time-dependent wave function is directly associated to the inverse of the time it takes to drive the system from its initial to its final state. With the aid of the degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory we obtain rigorous necessary and sufficient conditions for the validity of the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics. Finally, to illustrate the power and wide scope of the methodology, we apply the framework to a degenerate Hamiltonian, whose closed-form time-dependent wave function is derived exactly, and also to other nonexactly solvable Hamiltonians whose solutions are numerically computed.

arXiv:1403.6132•Physical Review A•Aug 6, 2014•23 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

Beyond the quantum adiabatic approximation: Adiabatic perturbation theory

Gustavo Rigolin, Gerardo Ortíz, V. H. Ponce

We introduce a perturbative approach to solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation, named adiabatic perturbation theory (APT), whose zeroth-order term is the quantum adiabatic approximation. The small parameter in the power series expansion of the time-dependent wave function is the inverse of the time it takes to drive the system's Hamiltonian from the initial to its final form. We review other standard perturbative and nonperturbative ways of going beyond the adiabatic approximation, extending and finding exact relations among them, and also compare the efficiency of those methods against the APT. Most importantly, we determine APT corrections to the Berry phase by use of the Aharonov-Anandan geometric phase. We then solve several time-dependent problems, allowing us to illustrate that the APT is the only perturbative method that gives the right corrections to the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we propose an experiment to measure the APT corrections to the Berry phase and show, for a particular spin-$1∕2$ problem, that to first order in APT the geometric phase should be two and a half times the (adiabatic) Berry phase.

arXiv:0807.1363•Physical Review A•Nov 18, 2008•133 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

Quantitative Condition is Necessary in Guaranteeing the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation

D. M. Tong

The quantitative condition has been widely used in the practical applications of the adiabatic theorem. However, it had never been proved to be sufficient or necessary before. It was only recently found that the quantitative condition is insufficient, but whether it is necessary remains unresolved. In this Letter, we prove that the quantitative condition is necessary in guaranteeing the validity of the adiabatic approximation.

arXiv:1004.3100•Physical Review Letters•Mar 25, 2010•98 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
We present an analysis of the adiabatic approximation to understand when it applies, in view of the recent criticisms and studies for the validity of the adiabatic theorem. We point out that this approximation is just the leading order of a perturbation series, that holds in a regime of a perturbation going to infinity, and so the conditions for its validity can be only obtained going to higher orders in the expansion and removing secular terms, that is terms that runs to infinity as the time increases. In this way, it is always possible to get the exact criteria for the approximation to hold.
We present details and expand on the framework leading to the recently introduced degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory [Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 170406 (2010)], and on the formulation of the degenerate adiabatic theorem, along with its necessary and sufficient conditions [given in Phys. Rev. A 85, 062111 (2012)]. We start with the adiabatic approximation for degenerate Hamiltonians that paves the way to a clear and rigorous statement of the associated degenerate adiabatic theorem, where the non-Abelian geometric phase (Wilczek-Zee phase) plays a central role to its quantitative formulation. We then describe the degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory, whose zeroth-order term is the degenerate adiabatic approximation, in its full generality. The parameter in the perturbative power-series expansion of the time-dependent wave function is directly associated to the inverse of the time it takes to drive the system from its initial to its final state. With the aid of the degenerate adiabatic perturbation theory we obtain rigorous necessary and sufficient conditions for the validity of the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics. Finally, to illustrate the power and wide scope of the methodology, we apply the framework to a degenerate Hamiltonian, whose closed-form time-dependent wave function is derived exactly, and also to other nonexactly solvable Hamiltonians whose solutions are numerically computed.
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 introduce a perturbative approach to solving the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation, named adiabatic perturbation theory (APT), whose zeroth-order term is the quantum adiabatic approximation. The small parameter in the power series expansion of the time-dependent wave function is the inverse of the time it takes to drive the system's Hamiltonian from the initial to its final form. We review other standard perturbative and nonperturbative ways of going beyond the adiabatic approximation, extending and finding exact relations among them, and also compare the efficiency of those methods against the APT. Most importantly, we determine APT corrections to the Berry phase by use of the Aharonov-Anandan geometric phase. We then solve several time-dependent problems, allowing us to illustrate that the APT is the only perturbative method that gives the right corrections to the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we propose an experiment to measure the APT corrections to the Berry phase and show, for a particular spin-1∕21∕21∕2 problem, that to first order in APT the geometric phase should be two and a half times the (adiabatic) Berry phase.
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.