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

arXiv:quant-ph/0509073 · Physical Review Letters

Quantitative Conditions Do Not Guarantee the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation

D. M. Tong, Kuldip Singh, L. C. Kwek, C. H. Oh

Published Sep 9, 2005• 153 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this Letter, we point out that the widely used quantitative conditions in the adiabatic theorem are insufficient in that they do not guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation. We also reexamine the inconsistency issue raised by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] and elucidate the underlying cause.
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.95.110407

Related papers

Quantitative Condition is Necessary in Guaranteeing the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation

D. M. Tong

The quantitative condition has been widely used in the practical applications of the adiabatic theorem. However, it had never been proved to be sufficient or necessary before. It was only recently found that the quantitative condition is insufficient, but whether it is necessary remains unresolved. In this Letter, we prove that the quantitative condition is necessary in guaranteeing the validity of the adiabatic approximation.

arXiv:1004.3100•Physical Review Letters•Mar 25, 2010•98 citations

Sufficient Condition for Validity of Quantum Adiabatic Theorem

Yong Tao

In this paper, we attempt to give a sufficient condition of guaranteeing the validity of the proof of the quantum adiabatic theorem. The new sufficient condition can clearly remove the inconsistency and the counterexample of the quantum adiabatic theorem pointed out by Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 160408].

arXiv:1010.1326•Communications in Theoretical Physics•Mar 1, 2012•4 citations

Comment II on “Inconsistency in the Application of the Adiabatic Theorem”

Jie Ma, Yongping Zhang, Enge Wang +1 more

A Comment on the Letter by Karl-Peter Marzlin and Barry C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 7 November 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.128902©2006 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Sep 18, 2006•36 citations

Comment I on “Inconsistency in the Application of the Adiabatic Theorem”

Solomon Duki, Harsh Mathur, Onuttom Narayan

A Comment on the Letter by Karl-Peter Marzlin and Barry C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 15 October 2005DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.128901©2006 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Sep 18, 2006•36 citations

Quantum adiabatic theorem in light of the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency

Juan Ortigoso

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.

arXiv:1111.5195•Physical Review A•Sep 26, 2012•24 citations

Comment on “Quantitative Condition is Necessary in Guaranteeing the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation”

Meisheng Zhao, Jianda Wu

A Comment on the Letter by D. M. Tong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 120401 (2010). Also, see Comment Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 138902 (2011) by Daniel Comparat, on the same Letter by D. M. Tong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 120401 (2010). The author of the Letter offers a Reply to both Comments.

arXiv:1104.0277•Physical Review Letters•Apr 1, 2011•13 citations
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.