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.
Adiabatic passage employs a slowly varying time-dependent Hamiltonian to control the evolution of a quantum system along the Hamiltonian eigenstates. For processes of finite duration, the exact time-evolving state may deviate from the adiabatic eigenstate at intermediate times, but in numerous applications it is observed that this deviation reaches a maximum and then decreases significantly towards the end of the process. We provide a straightforward theoretical explanation for this welcome but often unappreciated fact. Our analysis emphasizes a separate adiabaticity criterion for high-fidelity state-to-state transfer and it points to new effective shortcut strategies for near-adiabatic dynamics.
The adiabatic theorem is a powerful result concerning the evolution of quantum mechanical systems. Intuitively, it states the following: suppose we want to study the evolution of a quantum mechanical system governed by a given Hamiltonian
H (Def. 6.1), and the initial state of the system is the eigenstate of
H corresponding to its lowest eigenvalue. The laws of quantum physics tell us that the evolution of the system over time follows the Schrüdinger equation, Eq. (6.1). Suppose now that the Hamiltonian is not fixed, but rather, it changes very slowly over time, so that the evolution of the system is described by the differential equation
idtd∣ψ(t)⟩=H(t)∣ψ(t)⟩, and
H(t) is slowly changing. If, for any value of the time parameter
t, there is always a gap between the lowest eigenvalue of
H(t) and all other eigenvalues, then the adiabatic theorem asserts that the state of the system always remains in an eigenstate with the lowest eigenvalue throughout the evolution. One specific case of interest in this chapter occurs when the time-dependent Hamiltonian
H(t) varies from an initial (time-independent) Hamiltonian
HI to a final Hamiltonian
HF. If the change happens slowly, and the initial state of the system is an eigenstate of
HI with minimum eigenvalue, the adiabatic theorem asserts that the evolution eventually leads to the eigenstate with minimum eigenvalue of the final Hamiltonian
HF. This result can be used for optimization: imagine that the initial Hamiltonian encodes an easy problem for which we can construct the eigenstate with minimum eigenvalue, and the final Hamiltonian encodes a difficult optimization problem whose solution is given by the eigenstate with minimum eigenvalue. By the adiabatic theorem, evolving the eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian while slowly changing the Hamiltonian into the final one leads to the solution of the difficult optimization problem. Of course we need to know how slowly
HI should be changed into
HF. The adiabatic theorem is at the heart of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA), a framework that has been widely used to implement optimization algorithms on existing quantum hardware, because it has low requirements of quantum resources–although it does not guarantee improvements over classical algorithms in general. In this chapter we first discuss the adiabatic theorem, and then give an overview of QAOA.
The consistency of the quantum adiabatic theorem has been doubted recently. It is shown in the present paper that the difference between the adiabatic solution and the exact solution to the Schr\"odinger equation with a slowly changing driving Hamiltonian is small; while the difference between their time derivatives is not small. This explains why substituting the adiabatic solution back into the Schr\"odinger equation leads to ``inconsistency'' of the adiabatic theorem. Physics is determined completely by the state vector, and not by its time derivative. Therefore the quantum adiabatic theorem is physically correct.
The dynamics of a nonstationary quantum system whose Hamiltonian explicitly depends on time is called adiabatic if a system state that is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at the initial instant of time remains close to this eigenstate throughout the evolution. The degree of such closeness depends on the smallness of the parameter that determines the rate of change of the Hamiltonian. It is usually believed that one of the factors playing a decisive role for the stability of the adiabatic dynamics is the structure of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. As the quantum adiabatic theorem states in its usual formulation, deviations from the adiabatic evolution can be estimated from above by the ratio of the rate of change of the Hamiltonian to the minimum distance between the energy of the state that approximates the adiabatic dynamics and the rest of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. We analyze this dependence and prove theorems showing that the efficiency of the adiabatic approximation is more influenced by the rate of change of the Hamiltonian eigenvectors than by the dynamics of the spectrum. In a vast majority of physically meaningful cases, it turns out that controlling the dynamics of eigenvectors is sufficient for ensuring the adiabaticity, regardless of the dynamics of the spectrum as such.
The quantum adiabatic theorem states that if a quantum system starts in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, and this Hamiltonian varies sufficiently slowly, the system stays in this eigenstate. We investigate experimentally the conditions that must be fulfilled for this theorem to hold. We show that the traditional adiabatic condition as well as some conditions that were recently suggested are either not sufficient or not necessary. Experimental evidence is presented by a simple experiment using nuclear spins.