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

Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics

Brownian motion, quantum corrections and a generalization of the Hermite polynomials

R. F. Álvarez-Estrada

Published Feb 28, 2009• 5 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.cam.2009.02.061

Related papers

Quantum Brownian motion and generalizations of Hermite polynomials

R. F. Álvarez-Estrada

Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics•Feb 5, 2010•3 citations

Brownian motion corrections to Schrödinger dynamics and the emergence of the probability interpretation

Stephen L. Adler

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 26, 2004•0 citations

Quantum Brownian Motion. II

Fabián H. Gaioli, Edgardo T. Garcia Alvarez, Diego G. Arbo

arXiv:quant-ph/9807049•International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Jan 1, 1999•3 citations

Random matrix approach to quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms

A. Boulatov, Vadim Smelyanskiy

We analyze the power of the quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm (QAA) for solving random computationally hard optimization problems within a theoretical framework based on random matrix theory (RMT). We present two types of driven RMT models. In the first model, the driving Hamiltonian is represented by Brownian motion in the matrix space. We use the Brownian motion model to obtain a description of multiple avoided crossing phenomena. We show that nonadiabatic corrections in the QAA are due to the interaction of the ground state with the ``cloud'' formed by most of the excited states, confirming that in driven RMT models, the Landau-Zener scenario of pairwise level repulsions is not relevant for the description of nonadiabatic corrections. We show that the QAA has a finite probability of success in a certain range of parameters, implying a polynomial complexity of the algorithm. The second model corresponds to the standard QAA with the problem Hamiltonian taken from the RMT Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE). We show that the level dynamics in this model can be mapped onto the dynamics in the Brownian motion model. For this reason, the driven GUE model can also lead to polynomial complexity of the QAA. The main contribution to the failure probability of the QAA comes from the nonadiabatic corrections to the eigenstates, which only depend on the absolute values of the transition amplitudes. Due to the mapping between the two models, these absolute values are the same in both cases. Our results indicate that this ``phase irrelevance'' is the leading effect that can make both the Markovian- and GUE-type QAAs successful.

Physical Review A•May 6, 2005•4 citations

Notes on a non-thermal fluctuation-dissipation relation in quantum Brownian motion

Xinyi Chen-Lin

We review how unitarity and stationarity in the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism naturally lead to a (quantum) generalized fluctuation-dissipation relation (gFDR) that works beyond thermal equilibrium. Non-Gaussian loop corrections are also presented. Additionally, we illustrate the application of this gFDR in various scenarios related to quantum Brownian motion and the generalized Langevin equation.

arXiv:2309.00151•Aug 31, 2023•0 citations

On the theory of quantum brownian motion

R.F Roose, R. Dagonnier

Physica•Feb 1, 1972•0 citations
We analyze the power of the quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm (QAA) for solving random computationally hard optimization problems within a theoretical framework based on random matrix theory (RMT). We present two types of driven RMT models. In the first model, the driving Hamiltonian is represented by Brownian motion in the matrix space. We use the Brownian motion model to obtain a description of multiple avoided crossing phenomena. We show that nonadiabatic corrections in the QAA are due to the interaction of the ground state with the ``cloud'' formed by most of the excited states, confirming that in driven RMT models, the Landau-Zener scenario of pairwise level repulsions is not relevant for the description of nonadiabatic corrections. We show that the QAA has a finite probability of success in a certain range of parameters, implying a polynomial complexity of the algorithm. The second model corresponds to the standard QAA with the problem Hamiltonian taken from the RMT Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE). We show that the level dynamics in this model can be mapped onto the dynamics in the Brownian motion model. For this reason, the driven GUE model can also lead to polynomial complexity of the QAA. The main contribution to the failure probability of the QAA comes from the nonadiabatic corrections to the eigenstates, which only depend on the absolute values of the transition amplitudes. Due to the mapping between the two models, these absolute values are the same in both cases. Our results indicate that this ``phase irrelevance'' is the leading effect that can make both the Markovian- and GUE-type QAAs successful.