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:2001.05243 · Physical Review A

Time-resolved tomography of a driven adiabatic quantum simulation

Gian Salis, Nikolaj Moll, Marco Roth, Marc Ganzhorn, Stefan Filipp

Published Dec 17, 2020• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A typical goal of a quantum simulation is to find the energy levels and eigenstates of a given Hamiltonian. This can be realized by adiabatically varying the system control parameters to steer an initial eigenstate into the eigenstate of the target Hamiltonian. Such an adiabatic quantum simulation is demonstrated by directly implementing a controllable and smoothly varying Hamiltonian in the rotating frame of two superconducting qubits, including longitudinal and transverse fields and iswap-type two-qubit interactions. The evolution of each eigenstate is tracked using time-resolved state tomography. The energy gaps between instantaneous eigenstates are chosen such that, depending on the energy transition rate, either diabatic or adiabatic passages are observed in the measured energies and correlators. Errors in the obtained energy values induced by finite ${T}_{1}$ and ${T}_{2}$ times of the qubits are mitigated by extrapolation to short protocol times.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.102.062611

Related papers

Eigenstate tracking in open quantum systems

Jun Jing, M. S. Sarandy, Daniel A. Lidar +2 more

Keeping a quantum system in a given instantaneous eigenstate is a control problem with numerous applications, e.g., in quantum information processing. The problem is even more challenging in the setting of open quantum systems, where environment-mediated transitions introduce additional decoherence channels. Adiabatic passage is a well-established solution but requires a sufficiently slow evolution time that is dictated by the adiabatic theorem. Here we develop a systematic projection theory formulation for the transitionless evolution of general open quantum systems described by time-local master equations. We derive a time-convolutionless dynamical equation for the target instantaneous eigenstate of a given time-dependent Hamiltonian. A transitionless dynamics then arises in terms of a competition between the average Hamiltonian gap and the decoherence rate, which implies optimal adiabaticity timescales. We show how eigenstate tracking can be accomplished via control pulses, without explicitly incorporating counter-diabatic driving, thus offering an alternative route to accelerate adiabaticity. We examine rectangular pulses, chaotic signals, and white noise, and find that, remarkably, the effectiveness of eigenstate tracking hardly depends on the details of the control functions. In all cases the control protocol keeps the system in the desired instantaneous eigenstate throughout the entire evolution, along an accelerated adiabatic path.

arXiv:1605.07523•Physical Review A•Oct 28, 2016•31 citations

Adiabatic theorem revisited: The unexpectedly good performance of adiabatic passage

Albert Benseny, Klaus Mølmer

Adiabatic passage employs a slowly varying time-dependent Hamiltonian to control the evolution of a quantum system along the Hamiltonian eigenstates. For processes of finite duration, the exact time-evolving state may deviate from the adiabatic eigenstate at intermediate times, but in numerous applications it is observed that this deviation reaches a maximum and then decreases significantly towards the end of the process. We provide a straightforward theoretical explanation for this welcome but often unappreciated fact. Our analysis emphasizes a separate adiabaticity criterion for high-fidelity state-to-state transfer and it points to new effective shortcut strategies for near-adiabatic dynamics.

arXiv:2010.05093•Physical Review A•Jun 16, 2021•25 citations

Adiabatic quantum simulations with driven superconducting qubits

Marco Roth, Nikolaj Moll, Gian Salis +4 more

We propose a quantum simulator based on driven superconducting qubits where the interactions are generated parametrically by a bichromatic magnetic flux modulation of a tunable bus element. Using a time-dependent Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, we analytically derive a multiqubit Hamiltonian which features independently tunable $XX$- and $YY$-type interactions as well as local bias fields over a large parameter range. We demonstrate the adiabatic simulation of the ground state of a hydrogen molecule using two superconducting qubits and one tunable bus element. The time required to reach chemical accuracy lies in the few microsecond range. Therefore, the proposed adiabatic protocol could be implemented using currently available superconducting circuits. Further applications of this technique may also be found in the simulation of interacting spin systems.

arXiv:1808.04666•Physical Review A•Feb 21, 2019•14 citations

Quantum adiabatic theorem with energy gap regularization

Nikolay Borisovich Ilin

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.

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics•Apr 1, 2022•1 citation

Adiabatic approximation with better than exponential accuracy for many-body systems and quantum computation

Daniel A. Lidar, A. T. Rezakhani, Alioscia Hamma

We derive a version of the adiabatic theorem that is especially suited for applications in adiabatic quantum computation, where it is reasonable to assume that the adiabatic interpolation between the initial and final Hamiltonians is controllable. Assuming that the Hamiltonian is analytic in a finite strip around the real time axis, that some number of its time-derivatives vanish at the initial and final times, and that the target adiabatic eigenstate is non-degenerate and separated by a gap from the rest of the spectrum, we show that one can obtain an error between the final adiabatic eigenstate and the actual time-evolved state which is exponentially small in the evolution time, where this time itself scales as the square of the norm of the time-derivative of the Hamiltonian, divided by the cube of the minimal gap.

•Aug 20, 2008•4 citations

ADIABATIC PROTOCOLS FOR OPERATOR MEASUREMENT BASED ENTANGLEMENT AND QUANTUM COMPUTING

Andrew D. Greentree, Simon J. Devitt, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg

The generation and exploitation of entangled states has become one of the most important technological challenges of the twenty-first century. In order to reliably generate multi-particle entangled states, one needs controllable two (or more) qubit interactions, and there have been many proposals for suitable systems. We have recently begun investigating adiabatic transfer protocols (Greentree et al. 2004), which are distinguished from conventional, nonadiabatic approaches by their robustness and relative insensitivity to noise. Focussing on the phosphorus in silicon paradigm we have shown how such transport leads to new quasi-2D architectures (Hollenberg et al. 2006), and surprising particle coupling schemes based on operator measurements (Devitt et al. 2005; Greentree et al. 2006), which in turn may lead to efficient mechanisms for syndrome identification in quantum error correction. Here we describe the realisation of these operator measurements more fully based on adiabatic passage of a control particle, highlighting the applicability of our protocols by showing how they can improve the scalability of other implementations. Introduction The pursuit of devices which can exploit quantum coherence is widely seen as one of the most important and challenging tasks facing twenty-first Century Technology. Defined by the use of coherent quantum systems (at their simplest: qubits, two-state systems) such devices enable a range of tasks, from quantum key distribution via single qubits (Bennett and Brassard 1984) or entangled states (Ekert 1991), to protocols for quantum teleportation (Bennett et al. 1993), efficient quantum simulation (Feynmann 1982; Abrams and Lloyd 1997) and factorisation (Shor 1994). At the heart of most such protocols is the exploitation of entanglement, where qubits that have been entangled, in some sense feel an interaction even if space-like separated. In fact, entanglement is a ubiquitous feature of quantum systems: the task for quantum information devices is to generate controlled and isolated entanglement, so that only the desired qubits are entangled with each other, and deleterious entanglement to the environment avoided. Broadly speaking, entanglement can be generated in one of two ways, either by direct interactions between qubits, or by collective measurement of two (or more) particles in particular bases that are, by their very nature, entangled. Such projective measurements are called operator measurements, and a flexible mechanism to realise them forms the basis of this paper. Operator measurements are intimately linked to the concept of quantum error correction (QEC) (Nielsen and Chuang 2000), and as QEC is an extremely important task for quantum computing, it is possible that our schemes may prove extremely useful in future quantum computers (QC). Operator measurements are also compatible with the concept of ‘repeat-until-success’ quantum computing (Lim et al. 2005; Barrett and Kok 2005; Lim et al. 2006) which has potential advantages for QC in realistic settings. Our method for generating operator measurements is based on protocols to transfer particles adiabatically around a quantum network. There are now several different protocols for such spatial adiabatic passage, which are all extensions of the original STIRAP (STImulated Raman Adiabatic Passage) (Vitanov et al. 2001) protocol. Spatial adiabatic passage protocols can be mediated via electromagnetic pulses (Brandes et al. 2001; Siewert et al. 2006), or direct control of wavefunction overlap (Greentree et al. 2004; Eckert et al. 2004; Petrosyan 2006). All such schemes share a common theme, namely that a particular eigenstate, which is in the null space of the Hamiltonian, can be smoothly evolved as a function of time. Such protocols are therefore extremely robust, requiring little regard for timing provided that the adiabaticity criterion (Vitanov et al. 2001) is respected. For concreteness, we will review the MRAP protocol (Multiple Recipient Adiabatic Passage) introduced by us earlier (Devitt et al. 2005; Greentree et al. 2006), and show explicitly how it can be used to mediate operator measurements. We will then comment on some of the implications of this protocol for QC designs, especially when concepts such as defect-tolerance are introduced. Multiple-Recipient Adiabatic Passage Consider a network, defined by four quantum dots that share a single electron, and two attached qubits, as depicted in Fig. 1(a). Employing quantum communication terminology, we suppose that Alice wishes to send a particle (with information encoded in the electronic spin states) to either Bob 1 or Bob 2, or to some arbitrary superposition of the Bobs, Australian Institute of Physics 17th National Congress 2006 – Brisbane, 3-8 December 2006 RiverPhys Paper No. 474 using the network. For clarity we refer to the particle transferred through the network as the bus particle. We label the quantum dots, A (Alice), 1 B (Bob 1), 2 B (Bob 2), C (Central). Also, the Bobs have qubits 1 Q and 2 Q which will be used later. We further assume that each participant has control of the coupling of their quantum dot to the central dot, and we label this coupling Ωα for α = A, B1, B2. With all dots maintained at constant energy, the Hamiltonian for this four dot system (ignoring the spin degree of freedom) is ( ) ( ) ( ) . . 2 2 1 1 c h C B t C B t A C t H B B A + Ω + Ω + Ω = where the couplings are allowed to vary as a function of time (for example by local control of surface gates to modify the barrier potential). The null space of the Hamiltonian above is a two-dimensional space, spanned by the vectors

•Jan 1, 2006•0 citations
A typical goal of a quantum simulation is to find the energy levels and eigenstates of a given Hamiltonian. This can be realized by adiabatically varying the system control parameters to steer an initial eigenstate into the eigenstate of the target Hamiltonian. Such an adiabatic quantum simulation is demonstrated by directly implementing a controllable and smoothly varying Hamiltonian in the rotating frame of two superconducting qubits, including longitudinal and transverse fields and iswap-type two-qubit interactions. The evolution of each eigenstate is tracked using time-resolved state tomography. The energy gaps between instantaneous eigenstates are chosen such that, depending on the energy transition rate, either diabatic or adiabatic passages are observed in the measured energies and correlators. Errors in the obtained energy values induced by finite T1{T}_{1}T1​ and T2{T}_{2}T2​ times of the qubits are mitigated by extrapolation to short protocol times.
Keeping a quantum system in a given instantaneous eigenstate is a control problem with numerous applications, e.g., in quantum information processing. The problem is even more challenging in the setting of open quantum systems, where environment-mediated transitions introduce additional decoherence channels. Adiabatic passage is a well-established solution but requires a sufficiently slow evolution time that is dictated by the adiabatic theorem. Here we develop a systematic projection theory formulation for the transitionless evolution of general open quantum systems described by time-local master equations. We derive a time-convolutionless dynamical equation for the target instantaneous eigenstate of a given time-dependent Hamiltonian. A transitionless dynamics then arises in terms of a competition between the average Hamiltonian gap and the decoherence rate, which implies optimal adiabaticity timescales. We show how eigenstate tracking can be accomplished via control pulses, without explicitly incorporating counter-diabatic driving, thus offering an alternative route to accelerate adiabaticity. We examine rectangular pulses, chaotic signals, and white noise, and find that, remarkably, the effectiveness of eigenstate tracking hardly depends on the details of the control functions. In all cases the control protocol keeps the system in the desired instantaneous eigenstate throughout the entire evolution, along an accelerated adiabatic path.
Adiabatic passage employs a slowly varying time-dependent Hamiltonian to control the evolution of a quantum system along the Hamiltonian eigenstates. For processes of finite duration, the exact time-evolving state may deviate from the adiabatic eigenstate at intermediate times, but in numerous applications it is observed that this deviation reaches a maximum and then decreases significantly towards the end of the process. We provide a straightforward theoretical explanation for this welcome but often unappreciated fact. Our analysis emphasizes a separate adiabaticity criterion for high-fidelity state-to-state transfer and it points to new effective shortcut strategies for near-adiabatic dynamics.
We propose a quantum simulator based on driven superconducting qubits where the interactions are generated parametrically by a bichromatic magnetic flux modulation of a tunable bus element. Using a time-dependent Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, we analytically derive a multiqubit Hamiltonian which features independently tunable XXXXXX- and YYYYYY-type interactions as well as local bias fields over a large parameter range. We demonstrate the adiabatic simulation of the ground state of a hydrogen molecule using two superconducting qubits and one tunable bus element. The time required to reach chemical accuracy lies in the few microsecond range. Therefore, the proposed adiabatic protocol could be implemented using currently available superconducting circuits. Further applications of this technique may also be found in the simulation of interacting spin systems.
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.
We derive a version of the adiabatic theorem that is especially suited for applications in adiabatic quantum computation, where it is reasonable to assume that the adiabatic interpolation between the initial and final Hamiltonians is controllable. Assuming that the Hamiltonian is analytic in a finite strip around the real time axis, that some number of its time-derivatives vanish at the initial and final times, and that the target adiabatic eigenstate is non-degenerate and separated by a gap from the rest of the spectrum, we show that one can obtain an error between the final adiabatic eigenstate and the actual time-evolved state which is exponentially small in the evolution time, where this time itself scales as the square of the norm of the time-derivative of the Hamiltonian, divided by the cube of the minimal gap.
The generation and exploitation of entangled states has become one of the most important technological challenges of the twenty-first century. In order to reliably generate multi-particle entangled states, one needs controllable two (or more) qubit interactions, and there have been many proposals for suitable systems. We have recently begun investigating adiabatic transfer protocols (Greentree et al. 2004), which are distinguished from conventional, nonadiabatic approaches by their robustness and relative insensitivity to noise. Focussing on the phosphorus in silicon paradigm we have shown how such transport leads to new quasi-2D architectures (Hollenberg et al. 2006), and surprising particle coupling schemes based on operator measurements (Devitt et al. 2005; Greentree et al. 2006), which in turn may lead to efficient mechanisms for syndrome identification in quantum error correction. Here we describe the realisation of these operator measurements more fully based on adiabatic passage of a control particle, highlighting the applicability of our protocols by showing how they can improve the scalability of other implementations. Introduction The pursuit of devices which can exploit quantum coherence is widely seen as one of the most important and challenging tasks facing twenty-first Century Technology. Defined by the use of coherent quantum systems (at their simplest: qubits, two-state systems) such devices enable a range of tasks, from quantum key distribution via single qubits (Bennett and Brassard 1984) or entangled states (Ekert 1991), to protocols for quantum teleportation (Bennett et al. 1993), efficient quantum simulation (Feynmann 1982; Abrams and Lloyd 1997) and factorisation (Shor 1994). At the heart of most such protocols is the exploitation of entanglement, where qubits that have been entangled, in some sense feel an interaction even if space-like separated. In fact, entanglement is a ubiquitous feature of quantum systems: the task for quantum information devices is to generate controlled and isolated entanglement, so that only the desired qubits are entangled with each other, and deleterious entanglement to the environment avoided. Broadly speaking, entanglement can be generated in one of two ways, either by direct interactions between qubits, or by collective measurement of two (or more) particles in particular bases that are, by their very nature, entangled. Such projective measurements are called operator measurements, and a flexible mechanism to realise them forms the basis of this paper. Operator measurements are intimately linked to the concept of quantum error correction (QEC) (Nielsen and Chuang 2000), and as QEC is an extremely important task for quantum computing, it is possible that our schemes may prove extremely useful in future quantum computers (QC). Operator measurements are also compatible with the concept of ‘repeat-until-success’ quantum computing (Lim et al. 2005; Barrett and Kok 2005; Lim et al. 2006) which has potential advantages for QC in realistic settings. Our method for generating operator measurements is based on protocols to transfer particles adiabatically around a quantum network. There are now several different protocols for such spatial adiabatic passage, which are all extensions of the original STIRAP (STImulated Raman Adiabatic Passage) (Vitanov et al. 2001) protocol. Spatial adiabatic passage protocols can be mediated via electromagnetic pulses (Brandes et al. 2001; Siewert et al. 2006), or direct control of wavefunction overlap (Greentree et al. 2004; Eckert et al. 2004; Petrosyan 2006). All such schemes share a common theme, namely that a particular eigenstate, which is in the null space of the Hamiltonian, can be smoothly evolved as a function of time. Such protocols are therefore extremely robust, requiring little regard for timing provided that the adiabaticity criterion (Vitanov et al. 2001) is respected. For concreteness, we will review the MRAP protocol (Multiple Recipient Adiabatic Passage) introduced by us earlier (Devitt et al. 2005; Greentree et al. 2006), and show explicitly how it can be used to mediate operator measurements. We will then comment on some of the implications of this protocol for QC designs, especially when concepts such as defect-tolerance are introduced. Multiple-Recipient Adiabatic Passage Consider a network, defined by four quantum dots that share a single electron, and two attached qubits, as depicted in Fig. 1(a). Employing quantum communication terminology, we suppose that Alice wishes to send a particle (with information encoded in the electronic spin states) to either Bob 1 or Bob 2, or to some arbitrary superposition of the Bobs, Australian Institute of Physics 17th National Congress 2006 – Brisbane, 3-8 December 2006 RiverPhys Paper No. 474 using the network. For clarity we refer to the particle transferred through the network as the bus particle. We label the quantum dots, A (Alice), 1 B (Bob 1), 2 B (Bob 2), C (Central). Also, the Bobs have qubits 1 Q and 2 Q which will be used later. We further assume that each participant has control of the coupling of their quantum dot to the central dot, and we label this coupling Ωα for α = A, B1, B2. With all dots maintained at constant energy, the Hamiltonian for this four dot system (ignoring the spin degree of freedom) is ( ) ( ) ( ) . . 2 2 1 1 c h C B t C B t A C t H B B A + Ω + Ω + Ω = where the couplings are allowed to vary as a function of time (for example by local control of surface gates to modify the barrier potential). The null space of the Hamiltonian above is a two-dimensional space, spanned by the vectors