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

The role of the geometric phases in adiabatic populations tracking for quantum dissipative systems

Arnaud Leclerc, David Viennot, Georges Jolicard

Published Feb 17, 2012• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

We show that the definition of instantaneous eigenstate populations for a dynamical non-selfadjoint system is not obvious. The naive direct extension of the definition used for the self-adjoint case leads to inconsistencies; the resulting artifacts can induce a false inversion of population or a false adiabaticity. We show that the inconsistency can be avoided by introducing geometric phases in another possible definition of populations. An example is given which demonstrates both the anomalous effects and their removal by our approach.

Related papers

The role of the geometric phases in adiabatic population tracking for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians

Arnaud Leclerc, David Viennot, Georges Jolicard

We show that the definition of instantaneous eigenstate populations for a dynamical non-self-adjoint system is not obvious. The naive direct extension of the definition used for the self-adjoint case leads to inconsistencies; the resulting artifacts can induce a false inversion of population or a false adiabaticity. We show that the inconsistency can be avoided by introducing geometric phases in another possible definition of populations. An example is given which demonstrates both the anomalous effects and their removal by our approach.

arXiv:1202.3290•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 2, 2012•21 citations

Consistency between adiabatic and non-adiabatic geometric phases for non-self-adjoint Hamiltonians

David Viennot, Arnaud Leclerc, Georges Jolicard +1 more

We show that the adiabatic approximation for non-self-adjoint Hamiltonians seems to induce two non-equal expressions for the geometric phase. The first one is related to the spectral projector involved in the adiabatic theorem, and the other one is the adiabatic limit of the non-adiabatic geometric phase. This apparent inconsistency is resolved by observing that the difference between the two expressions is compensated by a small deviation in the dynamical phases.

arXiv:2206.06748•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Jul 26, 2012•6 citations

Inconsistency of the theory of geometric phases in adiabatic evolution

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

We unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstates of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change in the geometric phase accompanying adiabatic evolution without degeneracies of the energy levels. This leads to the counterintuitive result that the values of two geometric phases computed from the general definition of the Berry phase [Samuel and Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2339 (1988)] can dramatically differ from each other in the adiabatic limit even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner. The result of this work indicates that the widely accepted theory of geometric phases is not very consistent in the context of adiabatic evolution involving superposed eigenstates.

Physical Review A•Apr 12, 2022•2 citations

Abelian and non-Abelian geometric phases in adiabatic open quantum systems

M. S. Sarandy, Daniel A. Lidar

We introduce a self-consistent framework for the analysis of both Abelian and non-Abelian geometric phases associated with open quantum systems, undergoing cyclic adiabatic evolution. We derive a general expression for geometric phases, based on an adiabatic approximation developed within an inherently open-systems approach. This expression provides a natural generalization of the analogous one for closed quantum systems, and we prove that it satisfies all the properties one might expect of a good definition of a geometric phase, including gauge invariance. A striking consequence is the emergence of a finite time interval for the observation of geometric phases. The formalism is illustrated via the canonical example of a spin-$1∕2$ particle in a time-dependent magnetic field. Remarkably, the geometric phase in this case is immune to dephasing and spontaneous emission in the renormalized Hamiltonian eigenstate basis. This result positively impacts holonomic quantum computing.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507012•Physical Review A•Jun 5, 2006•82 citations

A note on geometric phases

Franco Salmistraro

The usual definition of a geometric phase involves particular conditions on the behaviour of the state vector of a quantum system. We show that they can be removed in some cases by appealing directly to the Schrödinger equation. In this way we obtain an extension of a family of geometric phases previously introduced by us.

Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Jun 15, 1998•0 citations

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
We show that the definition of instantaneous eigenstate populations for a dynamical non-selfadjoint system is not obvious. The naive direct extension of the definition used for the self-adjoint case leads to inconsistencies; the resulting artifacts can induce a false inversion of population or a false adiabaticity. We show that the inconsistency can be avoided by introducing geometric phases in another possible definition of populations. An example is given which demonstrates both the anomalous effects and their removal by our approach.
We show that the definition of instantaneous eigenstate populations for a dynamical non-self-adjoint system is not obvious. The naive direct extension of the definition used for the self-adjoint case leads to inconsistencies; the resulting artifacts can induce a false inversion of population or a false adiabaticity. We show that the inconsistency can be avoided by introducing geometric phases in another possible definition of populations. An example is given which demonstrates both the anomalous effects and their removal by our approach.
We unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstates of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change in the geometric phase accompanying adiabatic evolution without degeneracies of the energy levels. This leads to the counterintuitive result that the values of two geometric phases computed from the general definition of the Berry phase [Samuel and Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2339 (1988)] can dramatically differ from each other in the adiabatic limit even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner. The result of this work indicates that the widely accepted theory of geometric phases is not very consistent in the context of adiabatic evolution involving superposed eigenstates.
We introduce a self-consistent framework for the analysis of both Abelian and non-Abelian geometric phases associated with open quantum systems, undergoing cyclic adiabatic evolution. We derive a general expression for geometric phases, based on an adiabatic approximation developed within an inherently open-systems approach. This expression provides a natural generalization of the analogous one for closed quantum systems, and we prove that it satisfies all the properties one might expect of a good definition of a geometric phase, including gauge invariance. A striking consequence is the emergence of a finite time interval for the observation of geometric phases. The formalism is illustrated via the canonical example of a spin-1∕21∕21∕2 particle in a time-dependent magnetic field. Remarkably, the geometric phase in this case is immune to dephasing and spontaneous emission in the renormalized Hamiltonian eigenstate basis. This result positively impacts holonomic quantum computing.
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.