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:2505.02953

Geometrical Amplitude factors in the the adiabatic evolution

Mustapha Maamache

Published May 5, 2025• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a quantum system initially in the n-th eigenstate, an adiabatic evolution of the Hamiltonian ensures that the system remains in the corresponding instantaneous eigenstate while acquiring a phase factor. This phase has two components: one resulting from standard time evolution and another associated with the dependence of the eigenstate on the varying Hamiltonian, known as the Berry phase. In this work, we explore the concept of geometric amplitudes in the context of a Hermitian Hamiltonian with imaginary eigenvalues. We introduce the notion of geometric amplitude and provide a novel derivation of this concept. Our study reveals that a system undergoing cyclic evolution under adiabatic conditions acquires an additional amplitude factor of purely geometric origin. To illustrate this idea, we apply it to a concrete case: a generalized harmonic oscillator.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2505.02953

Related papers

Hermitian hamiltonians and imaginary eigenvalues beyond the Hilbert space

Mustapha Maamache

In a quantum system initially in the $n$-th eigenstate, an adiabatic evolution of the Hamiltonian ensures that the system remains in the corresponding instantaneous eigenstate while acquiring a phase factor. This phase has two components: one resulting from standard time evolution and another associated with the dependence of the eigenstate on the varying Hamiltonian, known as the Berry phase. In this work, we explore the concept of geometric amplitudes in the context of a Hermitian Hamiltonian. We introduce the notion of geometric amplitude and provide a novel derivation of this concept. Our study reveals that a system undergoing cyclic evolution under adiabatic conditions acquires an additional amplitude factor of purely geometric origin. To illustrate this idea, we apply it to a concrete case: a generalized inverted harmonic oscillator. Although a pseudo-inner product can be introduced to make resonance states formally normalizable, this procedure relies on a non-unitary metric operator and defines a modified Hilbert space; it does not restore normalizability nor self-adjointness in the standard $L^2(R)$ framework.

Revista Mexicana de Física•Sep 1, 2026•0 citations

Adiabatic theorem and generalized geometrical phase in the case of pseudo-Hermitian systems

S Cheniti, Walid Koussa, A Medjber +1 more

Abstract A generalization of the adiabatic theorem for quantum systems governed by pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonians and details of its demonstration are given. Introducing a modified time-dependent metric giving a precise description of the quantum unitary evolution where the obtained effective Hamiltonian is observable because it is mean value is real. We show that an eigenstate of a pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonian slowly transported will acquire a real generalized geometrical phase factor which contains two contributions: the first one corresponds to the conventional Berry’s phase as expected and a new geometrical term that we call the metric geometrical phase. We will apply our results in the cases of the famous time dependent brachistochrone problem and a non-Hermitian displaced harmonic oscillator.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Aug 7, 2020•11 citations

Geometric-phase control of Krylov complexity in adiabatic dynamics

Han-Qi Zheng, Peng-Zhang He, Lei-Hua Liu +1 more

We show that geometric phases accumulated during adiabatic evolution can be converted into observable interference in Krylov space, leading to a geometric-phase-dependent Krylov oscillation. Adiabatic dynamics force Krylov complexity to vanish if the initial Krylov basis is an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian; Nevertheless, we demonstrate that the Krylov complexity will be non-vanishing if the initial Krylov basis is a superposition state rather than an eigenstate. Consequently, Krylov complexity is found to depend on the difference of dynamical phases in the Krylov space, which is deeply related to the Berry connections in the original Hilbert space. In particular, for a single qubit system with constant Lanczos coefficients, Krylov complexity oscillates harmonically at a frequency given by the strength of the external field and the geometric Berry phase. Therefore, our work may provide a novel avenue to probe the geometric phase from the Krylov complexity.

quant-pharXiv:2608.14325•Aug 17, 2026•0 citations

Geometric contribution to adiabatic amplification in non-Hermitian systems

Tomoki Ozawa, Henning Schomerus

Concepts from non-Hermitian quantum mechanics have proven useful in understanding and manipulating a variety of classical systems, such as those encountered in optics, classical mechanics, and metamaterial design. Recently, the non-Hermitian analog of the Berry phase for adiabatic processes was experimentally measured. In non-Hermitian systems, the Berry phase can have an imaginary part, which contributes to the amplification or decay of the total wave intensity. When the imaginary part of the Berry curvature is zero, this geometric amplification factor is determined solely by the initial and final points of the adiabatic path in parameter space, and it does not depend on how these points are connected by the path. We list classes of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians where this path independence is guaranteed by suitable symmetries, and we find that, for some of these classes, the amplification factor can be written only in terms of the Petermann factors of the initial and final points. Our result can, in turn, be used to experimentally obtain the Petermann factor by observing how the norm of the wave function changes under adiabatic processes. We validate our theory using a couple of concrete examples of physical relevance.

arXiv:2409.13595•Physical Review Research•Feb 18, 2025•7 citations

Two geometric phases can dramatically differ from each other even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner

Da-Jian Zhang, P. Z. Zhao, Guofu Xu

One milestone in quantum physics is Berry's seminal work [Proc.~R.~Soc.~Lond.~A \textbf{392}, 45 (1984)], in which a quantal phase factor known as geometric phase was discovered to solely depend on the evolution path in state space. Here, we unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change of the geometric phase accompanying an adiabatic evolution. This leads to the surprising observation that two geometric phases can dramatically differ from each other even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner.

arXiv:2111.10767•Nov 21, 2021•0 citations

The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects

Francisco De

In 1984 Berry addressed a quantum system undergoing a unitary and cyclic evolution under the action of a time-dependent Hamiltonian (M. V. Berry, 1984). The process was supposed to be adiabatic, meaning that the time scale of the system’s evolution was much shorter than the time scale of the changing Hamiltonian. Until Berry’s study, it was assumed that for a cyclic Hamiltonian the quantum state would acquire only so-called dynamical phases, deprived of physical meaning. Such phases could be eliminated by redefining the quantum state through a “gauge” transformation of the form |ψ〉 → eiα |ψ〉. However, Berry discovered that besides the dynamical, there was an additional phase that could not be “gauged away” and whose origin was geometric or topological. It depended on the path that |ψ〉 describes in the parameter space spanned by those parameters to which the Hamiltonian owed its time dependence. Berry’s discovery was the starting point for a great amount of investigations that brought to light topological aspects of both quantum and classical systems. Berry’s phase was soon recognized as a special case of more general phases that showed up when dealing with topological aspects of different systems. For example, the Aharonov-Bohm phase could be understood as a geometric phase. The rotation angle acquired by a parallel-transported vector after completing a closed loop in a gravitationally curved space-time region, is also a geometric, Berry-like phase. Another example is the precession of the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum. Berry’s original formulation was directly applicable to the case of a spin-1/2 system evolving under the action of a slowly varying magnetic field that undergoes cyclic changes. A spin-1/2 system is a special case of a two-level system. Another instances are two-level atoms and polarized light, so that also in these cases we should expect to find geometric phases. In fact, the first experimental test of Berry’s phase was done using polarized, classical light (A. Tomita, 1986). Pancharatnam (S. Pancharatnam, 1956) anticipated Berry’s phase when he proposed, back in 1956, how to decide whether two polarization states are “in phase”. Pancharatnam’s prescription is an operational one, based upon observing whether the intensity of the interferogram formed by two polarized beams has maximal intensity. In that case, the two polarized beams are said to be “in phase”. Such a definition is analogous to the definition of distant parallelism in differential geometry. Polarized states can be subjected to different transformations which could be cyclic or not, adiabatic or not, unitary or not. The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects

InTech eBooks•Feb 24, 2012•16 citations
In a quantum system initially in the n-th eigenstate, an adiabatic evolution of the Hamiltonian ensures that the system remains in the corresponding instantaneous eigenstate while acquiring a phase factor. This phase has two components: one resulting from standard time evolution and another associated with the dependence of the eigenstate on the varying Hamiltonian, known as the Berry phase. In this work, we explore the concept of geometric amplitudes in the context of a Hermitian Hamiltonian with imaginary eigenvalues. We introduce the notion of geometric amplitude and provide a novel derivation of this concept. Our study reveals that a system undergoing cyclic evolution under adiabatic conditions acquires an additional amplitude factor of purely geometric origin. To illustrate this idea, we apply it to a concrete case: a generalized harmonic oscillator.
In a quantum system initially in the nnn-th eigenstate, an adiabatic evolution of the Hamiltonian ensures that the system remains in the corresponding instantaneous eigenstate while acquiring a phase factor. This phase has two components: one resulting from standard time evolution and another associated with the dependence of the eigenstate on the varying Hamiltonian, known as the Berry phase. In this work, we explore the concept of geometric amplitudes in the context of a Hermitian Hamiltonian. We introduce the notion of geometric amplitude and provide a novel derivation of this concept. Our study reveals that a system undergoing cyclic evolution under adiabatic conditions acquires an additional amplitude factor of purely geometric origin. To illustrate this idea, we apply it to a concrete case: a generalized inverted harmonic oscillator. Although a pseudo-inner product can be introduced to make resonance states formally normalizable, this procedure relies on a non-unitary metric operator and defines a modified Hilbert space; it does not restore normalizability nor self-adjointness in the standard L2(R)L^2(R)L2(R) framework.
Abstract A generalization of the adiabatic theorem for quantum systems governed by pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonians and details of its demonstration are given. Introducing a modified time-dependent metric giving a precise description of the quantum unitary evolution where the obtained effective Hamiltonian is observable because it is mean value is real. We show that an eigenstate of a pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonian slowly transported will acquire a real generalized geometrical phase factor which contains two contributions: the first one corresponds to the conventional Berry’s phase as expected and a new geometrical term that we call the metric geometrical phase. We will apply our results in the cases of the famous time dependent brachistochrone problem and a non-Hermitian displaced harmonic oscillator.
We show that geometric phases accumulated during adiabatic evolution can be converted into observable interference in Krylov space, leading to a geometric-phase-dependent Krylov oscillation. Adiabatic dynamics force Krylov complexity to vanish if the initial Krylov basis is an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian; Nevertheless, we demonstrate that the Krylov complexity will be non-vanishing if the initial Krylov basis is a superposition state rather than an eigenstate. Consequently, Krylov complexity is found to depend on the difference of dynamical phases in the Krylov space, which is deeply related to the Berry connections in the original Hilbert space. In particular, for a single qubit system with constant Lanczos coefficients, Krylov complexity oscillates harmonically at a frequency given by the strength of the external field and the geometric Berry phase. Therefore, our work may provide a novel avenue to probe the geometric phase from the Krylov complexity.
Concepts from non-Hermitian quantum mechanics have proven useful in understanding and manipulating a variety of classical systems, such as those encountered in optics, classical mechanics, and metamaterial design. Recently, the non-Hermitian analog of the Berry phase for adiabatic processes was experimentally measured. In non-Hermitian systems, the Berry phase can have an imaginary part, which contributes to the amplification or decay of the total wave intensity. When the imaginary part of the Berry curvature is zero, this geometric amplification factor is determined solely by the initial and final points of the adiabatic path in parameter space, and it does not depend on how these points are connected by the path. We list classes of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians where this path independence is guaranteed by suitable symmetries, and we find that, for some of these classes, the amplification factor can be written only in terms of the Petermann factors of the initial and final points. Our result can, in turn, be used to experimentally obtain the Petermann factor by observing how the norm of the wave function changes under adiabatic processes. We validate our theory using a couple of concrete examples of physical relevance.
One milestone in quantum physics is Berry's seminal work [Proc.~R.~Soc.~Lond.~A \textbf{392}, 45 (1984)], in which a quantal phase factor known as geometric phase was discovered to solely depend on the evolution path in state space. Here, we unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change of the geometric phase accompanying an adiabatic evolution. This leads to the surprising observation that two geometric phases can dramatically differ from each other even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner.
In 1984 Berry addressed a quantum system undergoing a unitary and cyclic evolution under the action of a time-dependent Hamiltonian (M. V. Berry, 1984). The process was supposed to be adiabatic, meaning that the time scale of the system’s evolution was much shorter than the time scale of the changing Hamiltonian. Until Berry’s study, it was assumed that for a cyclic Hamiltonian the quantum state would acquire only so-called dynamical phases, deprived of physical meaning. Such phases could be eliminated by redefining the quantum state through a “gauge” transformation of the form |ψ〉 → eiα |ψ〉. However, Berry discovered that besides the dynamical, there was an additional phase that could not be “gauged away” and whose origin was geometric or topological. It depended on the path that |ψ〉 describes in the parameter space spanned by those parameters to which the Hamiltonian owed its time dependence. Berry’s discovery was the starting point for a great amount of investigations that brought to light topological aspects of both quantum and classical systems. Berry’s phase was soon recognized as a special case of more general phases that showed up when dealing with topological aspects of different systems. For example, the Aharonov-Bohm phase could be understood as a geometric phase. The rotation angle acquired by a parallel-transported vector after completing a closed loop in a gravitationally curved space-time region, is also a geometric, Berry-like phase. Another example is the precession of the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum. Berry’s original formulation was directly applicable to the case of a spin-1/2 system evolving under the action of a slowly varying magnetic field that undergoes cyclic changes. A spin-1/2 system is a special case of a two-level system. Another instances are two-level atoms and polarized light, so that also in these cases we should expect to find geometric phases. In fact, the first experimental test of Berry’s phase was done using polarized, classical light (A. Tomita, 1986). Pancharatnam (S. Pancharatnam, 1956) anticipated Berry’s phase when he proposed, back in 1956, how to decide whether two polarization states are “in phase”. Pancharatnam’s prescription is an operational one, based upon observing whether the intensity of the interferogram formed by two polarized beams has maximal intensity. In that case, the two polarized beams are said to be “in phase”. Such a definition is analogous to the definition of distant parallelism in differential geometry. Polarized states can be subjected to different transformations which could be cyclic or not, adiabatic or not, unitary or not. The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects