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

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry

A counterexample and a modification to the adiabatic approximation theorem in quantum mechanics

H. Gingold

Published Jul 1, 1991• 10 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract A counterexample to the adiabatic approximation theorem is given when degeneracies are present. A formulation of an alternative version is proposed. A complete asymptotic decomposition for n dimensional self‐adjoint Hamiltonian systems is restated and used.
DOI
10.1002/qua.560400103

Related papers

A sharp version of Ehrenfest’s theorem for general self-adjoint operators

Gero Friesecke, Bernd Schmidt

Abstract We prove the Ehrenfest theorem of quantum mechanics under sharp assumptions on the operators involved.

arXiv:1003.3372•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Feb 17, 2010•9 citations

Reexamination of the quantum adiabatic theorem

Yan Zhao

The quantum adiabatic theorem is a widely applied result in quantum mechanics. However, recently, counterexamples were produced, indicating that the transition probabilities in some systems do not converge as predicted by the adiabatic theorem [K. P. Marzlin and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)]. In this paper, we examine a proof of the adiabatic theorem, paying specific attention to the validity of the assumptions made in the proof. We show that the convergence of the transition probabilities is path dependent when the change in the Hamiltonian is large. Finally, we consider the application of this reformulated form of the adiabatic theorem to the adiabatic evolution paradigm in quantum computation.

Physical Review A•Mar 21, 2008•23 citations

Improved error bounds for the adiabatic approximation

Donny Cheung, Peter Høyer, Nathan Wiebe

The discovery of adiabatic quantum computing has revealed a need for rigorously proven bounds for the error in the adiabatic approximation. We present in this paper, a rigorous and elementary derivation of upper and lower bounds on the error incurred from using the adiabatic approximation for quantum systems that can be used to assess the runtime of adiabatic algorithms. Our bounds are often asymptotically tight in the limit of slow evolution for fixed Hamiltonians, and are used to provide sufficient conditions for the application of the adiabatic approximation. We show that our sufficiency criteria exclude the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample from the class of Hamiltonians that obey the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we demonstrate the existence of classes of Hamiltonians that resemble the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample Hamiltonian, but also obey the adiabatic approximation.

arXiv:1103.4174•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Sep 20, 2011•36 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

Discrete time adiabatic theorems for quantum mechanical systems

A. Dranov, Johannes Kellendonk, Ruedi Seiler

The theory of adiabatic asymptotics is adapted to systems with discrete time evolution. The corresponding theorems about the approximation of physical time evolution by the adiabatic time evolution are shown to hold true in a discrete setting.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Mar 1, 1998•23 citations

Validity of the adiabatic approximation in quantum mechanics

R. MacKenzie, Alexi Morin-Duchesne, H. Paquette +1 more

We analyze the validity of the adiabatic approximation, and in particular the reliability of what has been called the ``standard criterion'' for validity of this approximation. Recently, this criterion has been found to be insufficient. We will argue that the criterion is sufficient only when it agrees with the intuitive notion of slowness of evolution of the Hamiltonian. However, it can be insufficient in cases where the Hamiltonian varies rapidly but only by a small amount. We also emphasize the distinction between the adiabatic theorem and the adiabatic approximation, two quite different, although closely related, ideas.

arXiv:0706.0885•Physical Review A•Oct 5, 2007•39 citations
The quantum adiabatic theorem is a widely applied result in quantum mechanics. However, recently, counterexamples were produced, indicating that the transition probabilities in some systems do not converge as predicted by the adiabatic theorem [K. P. Marzlin and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)]. In this paper, we examine a proof of the adiabatic theorem, paying specific attention to the validity of the assumptions made in the proof. We show that the convergence of the transition probabilities is path dependent when the change in the Hamiltonian is large. Finally, we consider the application of this reformulated form of the adiabatic theorem to the adiabatic evolution paradigm in quantum computation.
The discovery of adiabatic quantum computing has revealed a need for rigorously proven bounds for the error in the adiabatic approximation. We present in this paper, a rigorous and elementary derivation of upper and lower bounds on the error incurred from using the adiabatic approximation for quantum systems that can be used to assess the runtime of adiabatic algorithms. Our bounds are often asymptotically tight in the limit of slow evolution for fixed Hamiltonians, and are used to provide sufficient conditions for the application of the adiabatic approximation. We show that our sufficiency criteria exclude the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample from the class of Hamiltonians that obey the adiabatic approximation. Finally, we demonstrate the existence of classes of Hamiltonians that resemble the Marzlin–Sanders counterexample Hamiltonian, but also obey the adiabatic approximation.
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 analyze the validity of the adiabatic approximation, and in particular the reliability of what has been called the ``standard criterion'' for validity of this approximation. Recently, this criterion has been found to be insufficient. We will argue that the criterion is sufficient only when it agrees with the intuitive notion of slowness of evolution of the Hamiltonian. However, it can be insufficient in cases where the Hamiltonian varies rapidly but only by a small amount. We also emphasize the distinction between the adiabatic theorem and the adiabatic approximation, two quite different, although closely related, ideas.