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

Physical Review A

Reexamination of the quantum adiabatic theorem

Yan Zhao

Published Mar 21, 2008• 23 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.77.032109

Related papers

Experimental Study of the Validity of Quantitative Conditions in the Quantum Adiabatic Theorem

Jiangfeng Du, Ling-Zhi Hu, Ya Wang +3 more

The quantum adiabatic theorem plays an important role in quantum mechanics. However, counter-examples were produced recently, indicating that their transition probabilities do not converge as predicted by the adiabatic theorem [K. P. Marzlin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004); D. M. Tong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110407 (2005)]. For a special class of Hamiltonians, we examine the standard criterion for adiabatic evolution experimentally and theoretically, as well as three newly suggested adiabatic conditions. We show that the standard criterion is neither sufficient nor necessary.

Physical Review Letters•Aug 7, 2008•73 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

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

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

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

Review of inconsistency of quantum adiabatic theorem

Yong Tao

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.

arXiv:1010.1321•Oct 7, 2010•0 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 quantum adiabatic theorem plays an important role in quantum mechanics. However, counter-examples were produced recently, indicating that their transition probabilities do not converge as predicted by the adiabatic theorem [K. P. Marzlin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004); D. M. Tong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110407 (2005)]. For a special class of Hamiltonians, we examine the standard criterion for adiabatic evolution experimentally and theoretically, as well as three newly suggested adiabatic conditions. We show that the standard criterion is neither sufficient nor necessary.
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.
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.
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.