pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20952 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🪐 quant-ph

Adiabatic Error Cancellation in Berry Phase Estimation

Chusei Kiumi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Berry phase estimationadiabatic error cancellationRichardson extrapolationruntime randomizationHadamard testfinite-time adiabatic evolutionquantum phase estimation
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Pairing finite-time evolutions under opposite Hamiltonians cancels the leading adiabatic phase error in Berry phase estimation exactly.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Berry phase estimation relies on slow adiabatic evolution along a closed loop in parameter space, but finite runtime introduces phase errors that limit accuracy. The paper establishes that running the system forward under H and backward under -H cancels the dominant error term that falls off as one over runtime T. Richardson extrapolation then tames the leftover oscillatory error whose size is controlled by the Hamiltonian's time derivative at the loop's starting point. Runtime randomization drawn from suitable smooth distributions suppresses the residual error to any desired power of 1/T. This yields a practical randomized version of the Hadamard test that estimates Berry phases over the full range [0, 2π) with improved scaling under ordinary sampling costs.

Core claim

Combining finite-runtime evolutions under ±H along the loop cancels the leading O(T^{-1}) phase error exactly, and Richardson extrapolation further reduces the residual error to an oscillatory term with endpoint-controlled coefficient O(‖Ḣ(0)‖²Δ(0)^{-4}T^{-2}). Beyond this deterministic cancellation, runtime randomization with suitable smooth runtime distributions suppresses the remaining oscillatory contribution to O(T^{-M}) for any fixed M, leading to a randomized Hadamard-test algorithm for Berry phase estimation over the full range [0,2π) with improved runtime scaling under standard sample complexity.

What carries the argument

The adiabatic error-cancellation mechanism formed by pairing ±H finite-time evolutions, followed by Richardson extrapolation and statistical suppression through runtime randomization over smooth distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The Hamiltonian permits well-defined forward and backward evolutions along the closed loop, and suitable smooth runtime distributions exist that allow randomization to suppress the oscillatory residual to arbitrary order.

What would settle it

A direct computation or experiment on a simple two-level system where the combined +H and -H finite-time phases still differ from the true Berry phase by a nonzero O(T^{-1}) amount would falsify the exact cancellation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20952 by Chusei Kiumi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Quantum circuit for Step 1 of the Berry phase estimation algorithm. Two independent QPE procedures are run on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Randomized Hadamard-test subroutine used in the Berry phase estimation algorithm. For each trial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we show that Berry phase estimation admits a natural and universal adiabatic error-cancellation mechanism, making it a promising candidate for practical quantum computing before full fault tolerance. Combining finite-runtime evolutions under $\pm H$ along the loop cancels the leading $O(T^{-1})$ phase error exactly, and Richardson extrapolation further reduces the residual error to an oscillatory term with endpoint-controlled coefficient $O(\|\dot H(0)\|^2\Delta(0)^{-4}T^{-2})$. Beyond this deterministic cancellation, we establish that, for suitable smooth runtime distributions, runtime randomization suppresses the remaining oscillatory contribution to $O(T^{-M})$ for any fixed $M$, leading to a randomized Hadamard-test algorithm for Berry phase estimation over the full range $[0,2\pi)$ with improved runtime scaling under standard sample complexity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that Berry phase estimation admits a universal adiabatic error-cancellation scheme. Pairing finite-time evolutions under +H and -H along a closed loop exactly cancels the leading O(T^{-1}) phase error. Richardson extrapolation then reduces the residual to an oscillatory O(T^{-2}) term whose coefficient is controlled by endpoint quantities O(‖Ḣ(0)‖² Δ(0)^{-4}). Runtime randomization over suitable smooth distributions is shown to suppress the remaining oscillatory contribution to O(T^{-M}) for arbitrary fixed M, yielding a randomized Hadamard-test algorithm with improved scaling over the full [0,2π) range.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the result is significant for near-term quantum computing: it supplies both a deterministic cancellation mechanism and a stochastic suppression technique that together improve the runtime scaling of adiabatic Berry-phase estimation without requiring full fault tolerance. The deterministic part rests on algebraic integration-by-parts identities, while the randomization step, if constructively realized, would allow arbitrary polynomial error suppression with controlled overhead, directly addressing a practical bottleneck in geometric-phase algorithms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Derivation of deterministic cancellation and Richardson extrapolation] The exact O(T^{-1}) cancellation via ±H pairing and the subsequent reduction to an endpoint-controlled O(T^{-2}) oscillatory term are presented as direct consequences of the evolution operators. The manuscript must supply the explicit integration-by-parts steps on the adiabatic error integral (including verification that the closed-loop condition is preserved and that no unintended higher-order cancellations occur) to confirm these identities are load-bearing and free of hidden assumptions on the gap or derivatives.
  2. [Randomization analysis and Fourier-decay argument] The central claim that runtime randomization over smooth distributions suppresses the residual oscillatory integrand to O(T^{-M}) for any fixed M requires the distribution's Fourier transform to vanish to order M at frequencies set by the instantaneous gap and endpoint derivatives. The paper must exhibit an explicit family of admissible distributions (e.g., scaled compactly supported C^∞ mollifiers) that achieve this uniformly across the Hamiltonian family while remaining compatible with the adiabatic theorem and the closed-loop constraint; without such a construction the O(T^{-M}) statement remains conditional on an unverified existence assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation such as Ḣ(0), Δ(0), and the precise definition of the runtime distribution should be introduced with explicit equations in the main text rather than left implicit from the abstract.
  2. The abstract states results for the full range [0,2π); a brief remark on any restrictions arising from the gap condition or the support of the randomization measure would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The suggestions for greater explicitness in the derivations and constructions are helpful. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested details, as detailed in the point-by-point responses below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The exact O(T^{-1}) cancellation via ±H pairing and the subsequent reduction to an endpoint-controlled O(T^{-2}) oscillatory term are presented as direct consequences of the evolution operators. The manuscript must supply the explicit integration-by-parts steps on the adiabatic error integral (including verification that the closed-loop condition is preserved and that no unintended higher-order cancellations occur) to confirm these identities are load-bearing and free of hidden assumptions on the gap or derivatives.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's request for explicit steps. In the revised manuscript (Section III), we now include the full integration-by-parts derivation starting from the Dyson series for the time-ordered exponential. We apply integration by parts to the adiabatic error integral, using the closed-loop condition ∫_0^T Ḣ(t) dt = 0 to show exact cancellation of the O(T^{-1}) term under ±H pairing. Boundary terms yield the claimed O(‖Ḣ(0)‖² Δ(0)^{-4} T^{-2}) oscillatory remainder. We explicitly verify preservation of the closed-loop condition under the pairing and confirm that no unintended higher-order cancellations arise, relying only on the standard assumptions of a positive gap Δ(t) ≥ Δ_min > 0 and bounded first and second derivatives of H(t). These additions make the algebraic identities fully transparent without additional assumptions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The central claim that runtime randomization over smooth distributions suppresses the residual oscillatory integrand to O(T^{-M}) for any fixed M requires the distribution's Fourier transform to vanish to order M at frequencies set by the instantaneous gap and endpoint derivatives. The paper must exhibit an explicit family of admissible distributions (e.g., scaled compactly supported C^∞ mollifiers) that achieve this uniformly across the Hamiltonian family while remaining compatible with the adiabatic theorem and the closed-loop constraint; without such a construction the O(T^{-M}) statement remains conditional on an unverified existence assumption.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for an explicit construction. In the revised manuscript (Section IV), we now exhibit a concrete family: scaled compactly supported C^∞ bump functions (standard mollifiers) supported on [0,1] and rescaled to the runtime interval [0,T]. We prove that the Fourier transform of these distributions satisfies |ˆf(ω)| ≤ C_M (1+|ω|)^{-M} for arbitrary M, with constants C_M uniform over the family of Hamiltonians obeying the adiabatic gap and derivative bounds. This decay directly suppresses the oscillatory integrand to O(T^{-M}). The construction is normalized (hence compatible with the closed-loop constraint) and the ±H pairing is applied symmetrically, preserving compatibility with the adiabatic theorem. This renders the O(T^{-M}) claim fully rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation follows from operator integrals and distribution Fourier properties

full rationale

The central claims reduce to explicit integration-by-parts identities on the adiabatic phase error when the ±H pair is introduced, followed by Richardson extrapolation on the resulting O(T^{-2}) oscillatory term whose coefficient is controlled by endpoint quantities. The O(T^{-M}) suppression is stated as holding for suitable smooth runtime distributions whose Fourier transforms vanish to order M at the relevant frequencies; this is an existence claim under the adiabatic theorem assumptions rather than a self-referential fit or redefinition. No load-bearing step quotes a prior self-citation as a uniqueness theorem or smuggles an ansatz; the derivation remains self-contained once the Hamiltonian admits well-defined forward/backward evolutions and the distributions are admissible.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of quantum mechanics for time-dependent Hamiltonian evolution and the adiabatic theorem
    The claims rest on the existence of well-defined unitary evolutions generated by H(t) and -H(t) along a closed loop.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5427 in / 1256 out tokens · 48398 ms · 2026-05-10T00:13:48.612043+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hayakawa, K

    R. Hayakawa, K. Sakamoto, and C. Kiumi, Computa- tionalcomplexityofberryphaseestimationintopological phases of matter (2025), arXiv:2509.13423 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. A392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  8. [8]

    Simon, Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theorem, and berry’s phase, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    B. Simon, Holonomy, the quantum adiabatic theorem, and berry’s phase, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  9. [9]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    R. D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Theory of polar- ization of crystalline solids, Physical Review B47, 1651 (1993)

    1993

  12. [12]

    Resta, Manifestations of Berry’s phase in molecules and condensed matter, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter12, R107 (2000)

    R. Resta, Manifestations of Berry’s phase in molecules and condensed matter, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter12, R107 (2000)

    2000

  13. [13]

    Vanderbilt,Berry Phases in Electronic Structure The- ory(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    D. Vanderbilt,Berry Phases in Electronic Structure The- ory(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous Hall effect, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on electronic properties, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  16. [16]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. Törmä, Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands, Nature Communications6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    Törmä, S

    P. Törmä, S. Peotta, and B. A. Bernevig, Superconduc- tivity, superfluidity and quantum geometry in twisted multilayer systems, Nature Reviews Physics4, 528 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Quantized Hall conductance in a two- dimensional periodic potential, Physical Review Letters 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  19. [19]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Appearance of gauge structure in simple dynamical systems, Physical Review Letters52, 2111 (1984)

    1984

  20. [20]

    Zanardi and M

    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Holonomic quantum compu- tation, Physics Letters A264, 94 (1999)

    1999

  21. [21]

    Sjöqvist, D

    E. Sjöqvist, D. M. Tong, L. M. Andersson, B. Hes- smo, M. Johansson, and K. Singh, Non-adiabatic holo- nomicquantumcomputation,NewJournalofPhysics14, 103035 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    Fukui, Y

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, Chern numbers in discretized Brillouin zone: Efficient method of computing (spin) Hall conductances, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan74, 1674 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    R. Yu, X. L. Qi, A. Bernevig, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Equiv- alent expression ofZ2 topological invariant for band insu- lators using the non-Abelian Berry connection, Physical 16 Review B84, 075119 (2011)

    2011

  24. [24]

    A. A. Soluyanov and D. Vanderbilt, Computing topo- logical invariants without inversion symmetry, Physical Review B83, 235401 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    Zhang, Z

    C. Zhang, Z. Wei, and A. Papageorgiou, Adiabatic quan- tum counting by geometric phase estimation, Quantum Information Processing9, 369 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Murta, G

    B. Murta, G. Catarina, and J. Fernández-Rossier, Berry phase estimation in gate-based adiabatic quantum simu- lation, Physical Review A101, 020302 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Tamiya, S

    S. Tamiya, S. Koh, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Calculat- ing nonadiabatic couplings and Berry’s phase by vari- ational quantum eigensolvers, Physical Review Research 3, 023244 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Mootz and Y.-X

    M. Mootz and Y.-X. Yao, Efficient Berry phase calcu- lation via adaptive variational quantum computing ap- proach, APL Quantum3, 016111 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Beweis des adiabatensatzes, Zeitschrift fuer Physik51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  30. [30]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum me- chanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum me- chanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    1950

  31. [31]

    M. V. Berry, Quantum phase corrections from adiabatic iteration, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A 414, 31 (1987)

    1987

  32. [32]

    Aharonov and J

    Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution, Physical Review Letters58, 1593 (1987)

    1987

  33. [33]

    J. E. Avron, R. Seiler, and L. G. Yaffe, Adiabatic theo- rems and applications to the quantum hall effect, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics110, 33 (1987)

    1987

  34. [34]

    Nenciu, Linear adiabatic theory

    G. Nenciu, Linear adiabatic theory. exponential esti- mates, Communications in Mathematical Physics152, 479 (1993)

    1993

  35. [35]

    Jansen, M.-B

    S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quan- tum computation, Journal of Mathematical Physics48, 102111 (2007)

    2007

  36. [36]

    Rigolin, G

    G. Rigolin, G. Ortiz, and V. H. Ponce, Beyond the quan- tum adiabatic approximation: Adiabatic perturbation theory, Physical Review A78, 052508 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    Granet and H

    E. Granet and H. Dreyer, Hamiltonian dynamics on digi- tal quantum computers without discretization error, npj Quantum Information10, 10.1038/s41534-024-00877-y (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00877-y 2024

  38. [38]

    Kiumi and B

    C. Kiumi and B. Koczor, TE-PAI: Exact time evolution bysamplingrandomcircuits,QuantumScienceandTech- nology10, 045071 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    H.Pages, C.Kiumi, Y.Morohoshi, B.Koczor,andK.Mi- tarai, Low-resource quantum energy gap estimation via randomization, arXiv:2601.13881 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Hayata and Y

    T. Hayata and Y. Kikuchi, Continuous-time evolution via probabilistic angle interpolation and its applications (2026)

    2026

  41. [41]

    Carrera Vazquez, D

    A. Carrera Vazquez, D. J. Egger, D. Ochsner, and S. Woerner, Well-conditioned multi-product formulas for hardware-friendly hamiltonian simulation, Quantum7, 1067 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    J. D. Watson and J. Watkins, Exponentially reduced cir- cuit depths using trotter error mitigation, PRX Quantum 6, 10.1103/kw39-yxq5 (2025). Appendix A: Properties of the ideal adiabatic evolution We recall the adiabatic evolution introduced in the previous work [35]. As observed there, the correction term i T [ ˙P(s), P(s)]is chosen precisely so that the...

    work page doi:10.1103/kw39-yxq5 2025

  43. [43]

    IfP(s) =|ψ(s)⟩ ⟨ψ(s)|is the ground state projection andQ(s) = 1−P(s), then UA(s)P0 =P(s)U A(s), U A(s)Q0 =Q(s)U A(s), s∈[0,1] whereP 0 :=P(0) =|ψ(0)⟩ ⟨ψ(0)|andQ 0 :=Q(0) = 1−P 0

    Intertwining property Lemma 2(Intertwining property).Let HA(s) =H(s) + i T [ ˙P(s), P(s)], and letU A(s)be the unitary propagator determined by i∂sUA(s) =T H A(s)UA(s), U A(0) =I. IfP(s) =|ψ(s)⟩ ⟨ψ(s)|is the ground state projection andQ(s) = 1−P(s), then UA(s)P0 =P(s)U A(s), U A(s)Q0 =Q(s)U A(s), s∈[0,1] whereP 0 :=P(0) =|ψ(0)⟩ ⟨ψ(0)|andQ 0 :=Q(0) = 1−P 0...

  44. [44]

    Φ(τ) 3 τ 3 # =E

    Exact adiabatic evolution In this subsection, we prove the following: UA(s)|ψ(0)⟩=e −iθD(s)eiθB(s) |ψ(s)⟩. Proof.Using the intertwining propertyU A(s)P(0) =P(s)U A(s), we obtain P(s)U A(s)|ψ(0)⟩=U A(s)|ψ(0)⟩. Hence the stateΦ(s) :=U A(s)|ψ(0)⟩lies in the ground-state subspace ofH(s), and thereforeΦ(s) =e iα(s) |ψ(s)⟩for some real-valued functionα(s). Diff...