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

On the power of controlled adiabatic evolutions

Mária Kieferová, Nathan Wiebe

Published Mar 23, 2014• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

A major challenge facing adiabatic quantum computing is that algorithm design and error correction can be difficult for adiabatic quantum computing. Recent work has considered addressing his challenge by using coherently controlled adiabatic evolutions in the place of classically controlled evolution. An important question remains: what is the relative power of controlled adiabatic evolution to traditional adiabatic evolutions? We address this by showing that coherent control and measurement provides a way to average different adiabatic evolutions in ways that cause their diabatic errors to cancel, allowing for adiabatic evolutions to combine the best characteristics of existing adiabatic optimizations strategies that are mutually exclusive in conventional adiabatic QIP. This result shows that coherent control and measurement can provide advantages for adiabatic state preparation. We also provide upper bounds on the complexity of simulating such evolutions on a circuit based quantum computer and provide sufficiency conditions for the equivalence of controlled adiabatic evolutions to adiabatic quantum computing.

Related papers

On the power of coherently controlled quantum adiabatic evolutions

Mária Kieferová, Nathan Wiebe

We provide a new approach to adiabatic state preparation that uses coherent control and measurement to average different adiabatic evolutions in ways that cause their diabatic errors to cancel, allowing highly accurate state preparations using less time than conventional approaches. We show that this new model for adiabatic state preparation is polynomially equivalent to conventional adiabatic quantum computation by providing upper bounds on the cost of simulating such evolutions on a circuit-based quantum computer. Finally, we show that this approach is robust to small errors in the quantum control register and that the system remains protected against noise on the adiabatic register by the spectral gap.

arXiv:1403.6545•New Journal of Physics•Dec 15, 2014•20 citations

How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation?

W. van Dam, M. Mosca, U. Vazirani

The authors analyze the computational power and limitations of the recently proposed 'quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm'. Adiabatic quantum computation is a novel paradigm for the design of quantum algorithms; it is truly quantum in the sense that it can be used to speed up searching by a quadratic factor over any classical algorithm. On the question of whether this new paradigm may be used to efficiently solve NP-complete problems on a quantum computer, we show that the usual query complexity arguments cannot be used to rule out a polynomial time solution. On the other hand, we argue that the adiabatic approach may be thought of as a kind of 'quantum local search'. We design a family of minimization problems that is hard for such local search heuristics, and establish an exponential lower bound for the adiabatic algorithm for these problems. This provides insights into the limitations of this approach. It remains an open question whether adiabatic quantum computation can establish an exponential speed-up over traditional computing or if there exists a classical algorithm that can simulate the quantum adiabatic process efficiently.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206003•Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science•Jan 1, 2001•175 citations

Adiabatic Quantum Computation is Equivalent to Standard Quantum Computation

Dorit Aharonov, Wim van Dam, Julia Kempe +3 more

The model of adiabatic quantum computation has recently attracted attention in the physics and computer science communities, but its exact computational power has been unknown. We settle this question and describe an efficient adiabatic simulation of any given quantum algorithm. This implies that the adiabatic computation model and the standard quantum circuit model are polynomially equivalent. We also describe an extension of this result with implications to physical implementations of adiabatic computation. We believe that our result highlights the potential importance of the adiabatic computation model in the design of quantum algorithms and in their experimental realization.

Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science•Dec 23, 2004•159 citations

Superadiabatic Controlled Evolutions and Universal Quantum Computation

Alan C. Santos, M. S. Sarandy

Adiabatic state engineering is a powerful technique in quantum information and quantum control. However, its performance is limited by the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics. In this scenario, shortcuts to adiabaticity, such as provided by the superadiabatic theory, constitute a valuable tool to speed up the adiabatic quantum behavior. Here, we propose a superadiabatic route to implement universal quantum computation. Our method is based on the realization of piecewise controlled superadiabatic evolutions. Remarkably, they can be obtained by simple time-independent counter-diabatic Hamiltonians. In particular, we discuss the implementation of fast rotation gates and arbitrary n-qubit controlled gates, which can be used to design different sets of universal quantum gates. Concerning the energy cost of the superadiabatic implementation, we show that it is dictated by the quantum speed limit, providing an upper bound for the corresponding adiabatic counterparts.

arXiv:1509.04215•Scientific Reports•Oct 29, 2015•125 citations

Lower bound on the time complexity of local adiabatic evolution

Zhenghao Chen, Pang Wei Koh, Yan Zhao

The adiabatic theorem of quantum physics has been, in recent times, utilized in the design of local search quantum algorithms, and has been proven to be equivalent to standard quantum computation, that is, the use of unitary operators [D. Aharonov et al. in Proceedings of the 45th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 2004, Rome, Italy (IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, 2004), pp. 42--51]. Hence, the study of the time complexity of adiabatic evolution algorithms gives insight into the computational power of quantum algorithms. In this paper, we present two different approaches of evaluating the time complexity for local adiabatic evolution using time-independent parameters, thus providing effective tests (not requiring the evaluation of the entire time-dependent gap function) for the time complexity of newly developed algorithms. We further illustrate our tests by displaying results from the numerical simulation of some problems, viz. specially modified instances of the Hamming weight problem.

Physical Review A•Nov 9, 2006•2 citations

Quantum gates with controlled adiabatic evolutions

Itay Hen

We introduce a class of quantum adiabatic evolutions that we claim may be interpreted as the equivalents of the unitary gates of the quantum gate model. We argue that these gates form a universal set and may therefore be used as building blocks in the construction of arbitrary ``adiabatic circuits,'' analogously to the manner in which gates are used in the circuit model. One implication of the above construction is that arbitrary classical boolean circuits as well as gate model circuits may be directly translated to adiabatic algorithms with no additional resources or complexities. We show that while these adiabatic algorithms fail to exhibit certain aspects of the inherent fault tolerance of traditional quantum adiabatic algorithms, they may have certain other experimental advantages acting as quantum gates.

arXiv:1401.5172•Physical Review A•Feb 12, 2015•37 citations
A major challenge facing adiabatic quantum computing is that algorithm design and error correction can be difficult for adiabatic quantum computing. Recent work has considered addressing his challenge by using coherently controlled adiabatic evolutions in the place of classically controlled evolution. An important question remains: what is the relative power of controlled adiabatic evolution to traditional adiabatic evolutions? We address this by showing that coherent control and measurement provides a way to average different adiabatic evolutions in ways that cause their diabatic errors to cancel, allowing for adiabatic evolutions to combine the best characteristics of existing adiabatic optimizations strategies that are mutually exclusive in conventional adiabatic QIP. This result shows that coherent control and measurement can provide advantages for adiabatic state preparation. We also provide upper bounds on the complexity of simulating such evolutions on a circuit based quantum computer and provide sufficiency conditions for the equivalence of controlled adiabatic evolutions to adiabatic quantum computing.
We provide a new approach to adiabatic state preparation that uses coherent control and measurement to average different adiabatic evolutions in ways that cause their diabatic errors to cancel, allowing highly accurate state preparations using less time than conventional approaches. We show that this new model for adiabatic state preparation is polynomially equivalent to conventional adiabatic quantum computation by providing upper bounds on the cost of simulating such evolutions on a circuit-based quantum computer. Finally, we show that this approach is robust to small errors in the quantum control register and that the system remains protected against noise on the adiabatic register by the spectral gap.
The authors analyze the computational power and limitations of the recently proposed 'quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm'. Adiabatic quantum computation is a novel paradigm for the design of quantum algorithms; it is truly quantum in the sense that it can be used to speed up searching by a quadratic factor over any classical algorithm. On the question of whether this new paradigm may be used to efficiently solve NP-complete problems on a quantum computer, we show that the usual query complexity arguments cannot be used to rule out a polynomial time solution. On the other hand, we argue that the adiabatic approach may be thought of as a kind of 'quantum local search'. We design a family of minimization problems that is hard for such local search heuristics, and establish an exponential lower bound for the adiabatic algorithm for these problems. This provides insights into the limitations of this approach. It remains an open question whether adiabatic quantum computation can establish an exponential speed-up over traditional computing or if there exists a classical algorithm that can simulate the quantum adiabatic process efficiently.
The model of adiabatic quantum computation has recently attracted attention in the physics and computer science communities, but its exact computational power has been unknown. We settle this question and describe an efficient adiabatic simulation of any given quantum algorithm. This implies that the adiabatic computation model and the standard quantum circuit model are polynomially equivalent. We also describe an extension of this result with implications to physical implementations of adiabatic computation. We believe that our result highlights the potential importance of the adiabatic computation model in the design of quantum algorithms and in their experimental realization.
Adiabatic state engineering is a powerful technique in quantum information and quantum control. However, its performance is limited by the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics. In this scenario, shortcuts to adiabaticity, such as provided by the superadiabatic theory, constitute a valuable tool to speed up the adiabatic quantum behavior. Here, we propose a superadiabatic route to implement universal quantum computation. Our method is based on the realization of piecewise controlled superadiabatic evolutions. Remarkably, they can be obtained by simple time-independent counter-diabatic Hamiltonians. In particular, we discuss the implementation of fast rotation gates and arbitrary n-qubit controlled gates, which can be used to design different sets of universal quantum gates. Concerning the energy cost of the superadiabatic implementation, we show that it is dictated by the quantum speed limit, providing an upper bound for the corresponding adiabatic counterparts.
The adiabatic theorem of quantum physics has been, in recent times, utilized in the design of local search quantum algorithms, and has been proven to be equivalent to standard quantum computation, that is, the use of unitary operators [D. Aharonov et al. in Proceedings of the 45th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 2004, Rome, Italy (IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, 2004), pp. 42--51]. Hence, the study of the time complexity of adiabatic evolution algorithms gives insight into the computational power of quantum algorithms. In this paper, we present two different approaches of evaluating the time complexity for local adiabatic evolution using time-independent parameters, thus providing effective tests (not requiring the evaluation of the entire time-dependent gap function) for the time complexity of newly developed algorithms. We further illustrate our tests by displaying results from the numerical simulation of some problems, viz. specially modified instances of the Hamming weight problem.
We introduce a class of quantum adiabatic evolutions that we claim may be interpreted as the equivalents of the unitary gates of the quantum gate model. We argue that these gates form a universal set and may therefore be used as building blocks in the construction of arbitrary ``adiabatic circuits,'' analogously to the manner in which gates are used in the circuit model. One implication of the above construction is that arbitrary classical boolean circuits as well as gate model circuits may be directly translated to adiabatic algorithms with no additional resources or complexities. We show that while these adiabatic algorithms fail to exhibit certain aspects of the inherent fault tolerance of traditional quantum adiabatic algorithms, they may have certain other experimental advantages acting as quantum gates.