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

Inconsistency of the theory of geometric phases in adiabatic evolution

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

Published Apr 12, 2022• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.105.042208

Related papers

Two geometric phases can dramatically differ from each other even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner

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

One milestone in quantum physics is Berry's seminal work [Proc.~R.~Soc.~Lond.~A \textbf{392}, 45 (1984)], in which a quantal phase factor known as geometric phase was discovered to solely depend on the evolution path in state space. Here, we unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change of the geometric phase accompanying an adiabatic evolution. This leads to the surprising observation that two geometric phases can dramatically differ from each other even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner.

arXiv:2111.10767•Nov 21, 2021•0 citations

Control of the Geometric Phase and Nonequivalence between Geometric-Phase Definitions in the Adiabatic Limit

Xiaosong Zhu, Peixiang Lu, Manfred Lein

If the time evolution of a quantum state leads back to the initial state, a geometric phase is accumulated that is known as the Berry phase for adiabatic evolution or as the Aharonov-Anandan (AA) phase for nonadiabatic evolution. We evaluate these geometric phases using Floquet theory for systems in time-dependent external fields with a focus on paths leading through a degeneracy of the eigenenergies. Contrary to expectations, the low-frequency limits of the two phases do not always coincide. This happens as the degeneracy leads to a slow convergence of the quantum states to adiabaticity, resulting in a nonzero finite or divergent contribution to the AA phase. Steering the system adiabatically through a degeneracy provides control over the geometric phase as it can cause a π shift of the Berry phase. On the other hand, we revisit an example of degeneracy crossing proposed by AA. We find that, at suitable driving frequencies, both geometric-phase definitions give the same result and the dynamical phase is zero due to the symmetry of time evolution about the point of degeneracy, providing an advantageous setup for manipulation of quantum states.

Physical Review Letters•Jan 20, 2022•23 citations

Adiabatic geometric phase of a general quantum state

Biao Wu, Jie Liu

A geometric phase is found for the adiabatic evolution of a general quantum state;it reduces to Berry phase when applied to eigenstates. This new phase applies to both linear quantum systems and nonlinear quantum systems,and should be particularly useful for the latter for which the adiabatic evolution of a general quantum state cannot be described in terms of a superposition of eigenstates.For linear quantum systems,our new phase becomes a statistical average of the Berry phases for all eigenstates involved.

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

Geometric Phase for Adiabatic Evolutions of General Quantum States

Biao Wu, Jie Liu, Qian Niu

The concept of a geometric phase (Berry's phase) is generalized to the case of noneigenstates, which is applicable to both linear and nonlinear quantum systems. This is particularly important to nonlinear quantum systems, where, due to the lack of the superposition principle, the adiabatic evolution of a general state cannot be described in terms of eigenstates. For linear quantum systems, our new geometric phase reduces to a statistical average of Berry's phases. Our results are demonstrated with a nonlinear two-level model.

arXiv:quant-ph/0403213•Physical Review Letters•Apr 13, 2005•72 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 in the Application of the Adiabatic Theorem

Karl-Peter Marzlin, Barry C. Sanders

The adiabatic theorem states that an initial eigenstate of a slowly varying Hamiltonian remains close to an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at a later time. We show that a perfunctory application of this statement is problematic if the change in eigenstate is significant, regardless of how closely the evolution satisfies the requirements of the adiabatic theorem. We also introduce an example of a two-level system with an exactly solvable evolution to demonstrate the inapplicability of the adiabatic approximation for a particular slowly varying Hamiltonian.

arXiv:quant-ph/0404022•Physical Review Letters•Oct 15, 2004•195 citations
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.
One milestone in quantum physics is Berry's seminal work [Proc.~R.~Soc.~Lond.~A \textbf{392}, 45 (1984)], in which a quantal phase factor known as geometric phase was discovered to solely depend on the evolution path in state space. Here, we unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change of the geometric phase accompanying an adiabatic evolution. This leads to the surprising observation that two geometric phases can dramatically differ from each other even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner.
If the time evolution of a quantum state leads back to the initial state, a geometric phase is accumulated that is known as the Berry phase for adiabatic evolution or as the Aharonov-Anandan (AA) phase for nonadiabatic evolution. We evaluate these geometric phases using Floquet theory for systems in time-dependent external fields with a focus on paths leading through a degeneracy of the eigenenergies. Contrary to expectations, the low-frequency limits of the two phases do not always coincide. This happens as the degeneracy leads to a slow convergence of the quantum states to adiabaticity, resulting in a nonzero finite or divergent contribution to the AA phase. Steering the system adiabatically through a degeneracy provides control over the geometric phase as it can cause a π shift of the Berry phase. On the other hand, we revisit an example of degeneracy crossing proposed by AA. We find that, at suitable driving frequencies, both geometric-phase definitions give the same result and the dynamical phase is zero due to the symmetry of time evolution about the point of degeneracy, providing an advantageous setup for manipulation of quantum states.
A geometric phase is found for the adiabatic evolution of a general quantum state;it reduces to Berry phase when applied to eigenstates. This new phase applies to both linear quantum systems and nonlinear quantum systems,and should be particularly useful for the latter for which the adiabatic evolution of a general quantum state cannot be described in terms of a superposition of eigenstates.For linear quantum systems,our new phase becomes a statistical average of the Berry phases for all eigenstates involved.
The concept of a geometric phase (Berry's phase) is generalized to the case of noneigenstates, which is applicable to both linear and nonlinear quantum systems. This is particularly important to nonlinear quantum systems, where, due to the lack of the superposition principle, the adiabatic evolution of a general state cannot be described in terms of eigenstates. For linear quantum systems, our new geometric phase reduces to a statistical average of Berry's phases. Our results are demonstrated with a nonlinear two-level model.
The adiabatic theorem states that an initial eigenstate of a slowly varying Hamiltonian remains close to an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at a later time. We show that a perfunctory application of this statement is problematic if the change in eigenstate is significant, regardless of how closely the evolution satisfies the requirements of the adiabatic theorem. We also introduce an example of a two-level system with an exactly solvable evolution to demonstrate the inapplicability of the adiabatic approximation for a particular slowly varying Hamiltonian.