Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Asymptotic errors in adiabatic evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a window-averaged 'typical error' that makes adiabatic evolution errors path-independent in the hyperadiabatic regime.

desk verdict A useful idea undercut by a definition–derivation mismatch: the typical error as defined is a linear average, but Eq. (9) comes from averaging the square, so the central formula does not follow as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10641 v2 pith:3VHJYRIV submitted 2025-01-18 quant-ph

Thomas D. Cohen , Hyunwoo Oh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81Q1581P68 PACS 03.65.-w03.67.-a
keywords adiabatictheoremhyperadiabaticregimeswitchingtypicalerrorasymptoticseriesquantumstatepreparationspectralgaptime-averaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to make adiabatic evolution errors predictable in the regime where the evolution time $T$ is large but finite. The crude upper bounds available from the spectral gap and Hamiltonian norms are typically far too loose, while the switching theorem's actual error oscillates wildly through phase factors that depend on the whole trajectory. The authors therefore define a 'typical error' $\bar{\epsilon}(T)$ by averaging the true error over a window of evolution times near $T$. They claim that in the hyperadiabatic regime this typical error is a genuine asymptotic series $\bar{b}_n/T^n$, with $\bar{b}_n$ determined only by endpoint matrix elements, and that the true error never exceeds $\sqrt{2}\,\bar{\epsilon}(T)$ there. This matters for quantum state preparation because it offers a path-independent estimate and bound for diabatic errors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the window-averaged typical error, defined as $\bar{\epsilon}(T)\equiv (2\sqrt{T}\tau_0)^{-1}\int_{T-\sqrt{T}\tau_0}^{T+\sqrt{T}\tau_0} dT'\,\epsilon(T')$ for an arbitrary positive $\tau_0$. Averaging over this window washes out the phase factors $e^{iw_{j,g}T}$ that couple the endpoint contributions in the switching-theory coefficient $b_n$, leaving the endpoint-decoupled sum in Eq. (9). The same object supplies the bound because its square separates into an initial-point part and a final-point part, giving $\epsilon(T)\le \sqrt{2}\,\bar{\epsilon}(T)$ in the hyperadiabatic regime.

What would settle it

Pick two smooth Hamiltonians that have identical values and first-through-nth derivatives at $s=0$ and $s=1$ but differ in the middle of the path; numerically solve Eq. (3) and compute the window average Eq. (8) for large $T$. If the two averaged errors do not converge to the same $\bar{b}_n/T^n$ as $T$ grows, the endpoint-only formula is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the quasi-asymptotic switching series $\epsilon = \sum b_n T^{-n}+r$, the paper observes that the coefficients $b_n$ contain oscillatory cross terms $e^{\pm i w_{j,g} T}$. Averaging over a time window whose width is large compared with the inverse gap but small compared with $T$ removes these oscillations, and the result is $\bar{\epsilon}(T)=\bar{b}_n/T^n$ when the lowest nonvanishing endpoint derivative of the Hamiltonian is order $n$. The endpoint-only coefficient is $\bar{b}_n^2=\sum_{j\neq g}|\langle j(0)|H^{(n)}(0)|g(0)\rangle|^2/\Delta_{j,g}(0)^{2n+2} + \sum_{j\neq g}|\langle j(1)|H^{(n)}(1)|g(1)\rangle|^2/\Delta_{j,g}(1)^{2n+2}$. This quantity is claimed to be the correct description of the error's typical size, and the separation of the two endpoint contributions gives the bound $\epsilon(T)\le \sqrt{2}\,\bar{\epsilon}(T)$ in the hyperadiabatic regime.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that averaging over a window of evolution times makes the oscillating cross terms cancel and leaves the leftover non-power-law remainder negligible compared with $\bar{b}_n/T^n$; if the remainder survives the average at the same order, the endpoint-only formula Eq. (9) fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the hyperadiabatic regime, a user can predict the size of adiabatic state-preparation errors from endpoint derivatives and endpoint spectral gaps alone, without simulating or knowing the intermediate path.
  • Tuning the Hamiltonian so its first $n$ derivatives vanish at both endpoints improves the typical error to $\bar{b}_n/T^n$, and then $\sqrt{2}\bar{b}_n/T^n$ is a hard bound in that regime.
  • When the error is dominated by many excited states, the actual error stays close to the typical error for almost all large $T$, making the endpoint-only estimate a practical replacement for oscillating switching-theorem expressions.
  • Because $\bar{\epsilon}(T)$ is independent of $\tau_0$ for large $T$, redefinitions of the averaging window yield the same asymptotic answer; the formula is not an artifact of a particular averaging convention.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the endpoint-only formula suggests that in the hyperadiabatic regime the schedule between endpoints is essentially irrelevant for the typical error, so protocol design can focus on shaping endpoint derivatives and endpoint spectral gaps rather than the whole path.
  • Beyond the paper: the time-window average is operationally similar to an ensemble average over random phase factors; one testable extension is to add small random perturbations to the Hamiltonian's middle section and compare the resulting averaged error with Eq. (9).
  • Beyond the paper: if the phase factors cancel for many excited states, then systems with dense spectra should show smoother, more predictable adiabatic errors than few-level systems, which could guide choices of physical platforms for adiabatic quantum computation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies adiabatic evolution over a finite time T and the error ε(T) of Eq. (2) due to diabatic transitions. Building on the switching theorem's quasi-asymptotic series (Eqs. (4)), it defines a 'typical error' \bar ε(T) as an average of ε(T') over a narrow window of times around T (Eq. (8)). The central claims are that this typical error (i) obeys an asymptotic power law \bar b_n / T^n, (ii) depends only on the endpoint matrix elements of the Hamiltonian (Eq. (9)), and (iii) gives a universal upper bound ε(T) ≤ √2 \bar ε(T) in the hyperadiabatic regime (Eq. (10)). The claims are illustrated with a two-level example (Eq. (7)).

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would provide a smooth, path-independent estimate and bound for adiabatic state-preparation errors, which is practically relevant for quantum computation. The concrete two-level example and the authors' explicit admission that the derivation in Appendix A is 'loose' are useful and honest features. However, the stated results are not currently supported: Eq. (8) defines a linear time average, while Eq. (9) is derived from a root-mean-square average of the squared coefficient, and the remainder in Eq. (4b) is never controlled after averaging. The intended construction is plausible and likely repairable by redefining the typical error as an RMS average and supplying a remainder estimate, but as written the paper does not establish its main formulas.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (8) vs. Appendix A (Eqs. (A1)-(9))] Equation (8) defines \bar ε(T) as a linear average of ε(T') over T' in [T−√T τ0, T+√T τ0], but Eq. (9) is derived in Appendix A by squaring Eq. (6), averaging the oscillatory cross terms, and then taking a square root, i.e., a root-mean-square average. These two operations are not the same. For the paper's own example (7), the leading coefficient is b1(T') = 12.5 |cos(ωT'/2)|, so the long-window linear average gives 25/π ≈ 7.96, whereas Eq. (9) gives 6.25√2 ≈ 8.84, an 11% discrepancy. Consequently, Eq. (9) does not follow from Eq. (8) as stated; the formula can hold only if the typical error is redefined as an RMS average, or if an additional argument shows the linear average equals the endpoint expression, which is false in this example.
  2. [Appendix A, remainder in Eq. (4b)] The derivation in Appendix A averages Eq. (6) term by term but never applies the same averaging to the remainder r in Eq. (4b). The conclusion that the averaged remainder is subleading compared to \bar b_n/T^n is an unproved assumption; without an estimate showing that the averaged remainder is o(T^{-n}), the asymptotic-series claim for \bar ε(T) is not established. This is a load-bearing gap because Eq. (9) is the central result of the paper.
  3. [Eq. (10) and the 'mean square' statement] The upper bound (10) is not valid for the \bar ε defined in Eq. (8). In the example used above, the pointwise maximum of ε(T') is approximately 12.5/T', while √2 \bar ε(T) with the linear average is √2×(25/π)/T ≈ 11.26/T, so ε(T') can exceed √2 \bar ε(T). The bound does follow from Eq. (6) if \bar ε is the RMS average of ε, but with the current definition the assertion fails. The text's statement that 'the mean square of ε, \bar ε²(T), is given by ...' reflects the same confusion: by Eq. (8), \bar ε² is the square of a linear average, not the mean square of ε.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Text before Eq. (10)] There is a typo: 'hyperadiabtic' should be 'hyperadiabatic'.
  2. [Figures 1 and 2] The notation ε_T is used in the figures and captions but is not defined; Eq. (2) defines ε without a subscript.
  3. [Appendix A, last sentence] The claim that alternative definitions of the typical error 'will lead to the same formula as Eq. (8)' is unsupported; it should be proved or removed.
  4. [Paragraph after Eq. (9)] The notation \bar ε²(T) is ambiguous. If the mean-square error is intended, it should be written \overline{ε²}(T), since \bar ε² denotes the square of the linear average defined in Eq. (8).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central path-independent 'typical error' formula is the RMS-average alternative constructed from Eq. (6), not a consequence of the linear-average definition in Eq. (8).

  1. self definitional [Appendix A (derivation of Eq. (9) from Eq. (6)); main-text sentence after Eq. (9)]
    "On average, the last two terms oscillate rapidly and vanish, leaving the typical error to follow Eq. (9). There can be alternative definitions of the typical error, such as using a root-mean-square with timescale averaging. However, these alternatives will lead to the same formula as Eq. (8) when the timescale-dependent terms are averaged out."

    Eq. (9) is obtained in Appendix A by squaring Eq. (6), dropping the oscillating cross terms, and taking a square root—that is a root-mean-square average of b_n/T^n, not the linear average over T' defined in Eq. (8). The paper itself lists 'using a root-mean-square with timescale averaging' as an alternative definition and asserts it gives the same formula; thus Eq. (9) is exactly that alternative, defined from Eq. (6) with cross terms discarded, rather than a derived consequence of the stated typical error. The main text reinforces the conflation by calling 'the mean square of ϵ, ¯ϵ²(T)' the square of ¯ϵ. Consequently the central path-independent formula is equivalent by construction to the RMS quantity, and for the paper's own example the linear average is ≈7.96/T while Eq.

full rationale

The switching-theorem input Eq. (6) is external and the bound Eq. (10) is a genuine triangle-inequality consequence, so there is no load-bearing self-citation or fitted-input circularity. However, the central claim that the typical error is endpoint-only and path-independent reduces, by the paper's own Appendix A, to a root-mean-square average of Eq. (6) with the cross terms dropped by hand—explicitly one of the 'alternative definitions' the authors list. Since Eq. (8) defines the typical error as a linear average, Eq. (9) does not follow from that definition; it is a renamed RMS quantity. The numerical example still provides an independent check that the RMS envelope is useful, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the prior switching theorem and on an unproven assumption that the remainder of the switching series is negligible after averaging. No free parameters are fitted to data; the Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) is an illustrative example. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The switching theorem quasi-asymptotic series, Eq. (4), is valid, with coefficients given by Eq. (6).
    The paper relies on this prior result (citing Refs. [20-32,38-41]) without re-deriving it; the typical-error calculation starts from Eq. (6).
  • ad hoc to paper In the hyperadiabatic regime the leading term dominates and the remainder in Eq. (4b) is negligible both pointwise and after averaging.
    The paper assumes this to replace the error by the leading term; no rigorous definition of the hyperadiabatic regime or bound on the remainder is provided.
  • domain assumption The averaging window in Eq. (8) is large compared to the oscillation periods and small compared to T, so cross terms with oscillating phases average to zero.
    This is the mechanism behind Eq. (9) in Appendix A; it requires the product of the average gap and the window width to be much larger than 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymptotic errors in adiabatic evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VHJYRIV

@misc{pith2026250110641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymptotic errors in adiabatic evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VHJYRIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10641}
}
read the original abstract

The adiabatic theorem in quantum mechanics implies that if a system is in a discrete eigenstate of a Hamiltonian and the Hamiltonian evolves in time arbitrarily slowly, the system will remain in the corresponding eigenstate of the evolved Hamiltonian. Understanding corrections to the adiabatic result that arise when the evolution of the Hamiltonian is slow -- but not arbitrarily slow -- has become increasingly important, especially since adiabatic evolution has been proposed as a method of state preparation in quantum computing. This paper identifies two regimes, an adiabatic regime in which corrections are generically small and can depend on details of the evolution throughout the path, and a hyperadiabatic regime in which the error is given by a form similar to an asymptotic expansion in the inverse of the evolution time with the coefficients depending principally on the behavior at the endpoints. However, the error in this hyperadiabatic regime is neither given by a true asymptotic series nor solely dependent on the endpoints: the coefficients combine the contributions from both endpoints, with relative phase factors that depend on the average spectral gaps along the trajectory, multiplied by the evolution time. The central result of this paper is to identify a quantity, referred to as the typical error, which is obtained by appropriately averaging the error over evolution times that are small compared to the evolution time itself. This typical error is characterized by an asymptotic series and depends solely on the endpoints of the evolution, remaining independent of the details of the intermediate evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. It compares different estimates of errors with the true error, ϵT , as defined in Eq. (2), by directly solving the Schrodinger equation. The Hamiltonian is given as ¨ H(s) =  s(1 − s) 0.2 0.2 −s(1 − s)  , (7) where s ∈ [0, 1]. Note that H′ (s) is nonzero at the endpoints and therefore the asymptotic switching error ϵ1 is defined as b1/T where b1 is in Eq. (5). ϵB is defined from Ref. [15], which found the upper bo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. compares the true error, ϵT , with the typical error, ϵ¯, with its bound, √ 2¯ϵ. It shows that the typical error avoids the fluctuations seen in the actual error. It also illustrates that in the hyperadiabatic regime, the upper bound from the typical error matches the upper bound in the fluctations of the actually error extremely well. In summary, this paper demonstrated that when the system is in the hyperadiabatic… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V . Fock, Beweis des adiabatensatzes, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  2. [2]

    Born and R

    M. Born and R. Oppenheimer, Zur quantentheorie der molekeln, Annalen der Physik 389, 457 (1927), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19273892002

    doi:10.1002/andp.19273892002 1927

  3. [3]

    V ojta, Quantum phase transitions, Reports on Progress in Physics 66, 2069 (2003)

    M. V ojta, Quantum phase transitions, Reports on Progress in Physics 66, 2069 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Topological Insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010), arXiv:1002.3895 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Apolloni, C

    B. Apolloni, C. Carvalho, and D. de Falco, Quantum stochastic optimization, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 33, 233 (1989)

    1989

  7. [7]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quan- tum computation by adiabatic evolution (2000), arXiv:quant- ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem, Science 292, 472 (2001), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1057726

    doi:10.1126/science.1057726 2001

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Childs, E. Farhi, and J. Preskill, Robustness of adia- 2 Before entering the hyperadiabatic regime, the upper bound of the error may depend on the path through a measure known as the path length, de- noted as L ≡ R 1 0 ds d ds |g(s)⟩ − |g(s)⟩⟨g(s)| d ds |g(s)⟩ [41–46]. b...

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Roland and N

    J. Roland and N. J. Cerf, Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042308 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    van Dam, M

    W. van Dam, M. Mosca, and U. Vazirani, How powerful is adi- abatic quantum computation?, in Proceedings 42nd IEEE Sym- posium on F oundations of Computer Science (2001) pp. 279– 287

    2001

  4. [12]

    Aharonov, W

    D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to stan- dard quantum computation, in45th Annual IEEE Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science(2004) pp. 42–51

    2004

  5. [13]

    Aharonov and A

    D. Aharonov and A. Ta-Shma, Adiabatic quantum state generation, SIAM Journal on Computing 37, 47 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1137/060648829

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Jansen, M.-B

    S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation, Journal of Mathematical Physics 48, 10.1063/1.2798382 (2007), 102111, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2798382/16055030/102111 1 online.pdf

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Comparat, General conditions for quantum adiabatic evolu- tion, Phys

    D. Comparat, General conditions for quantum adiabatic evolu- tion, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012106 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Cheung, P

    D. Cheung, P. Høyer, and N. Wiebe, Improved error bounds for the adiabatic approximation, Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical 44, 415302 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Mozgunov and D

    E. Mozgunov and D. A. Lidar, Quantum adiabatic theorem for unbounded Hamiltonians with a cutoff and its application to 5 superconducting circuits, Phil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 381, 20210407 (2022), arXiv:2011.08116 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Burgarth, P

    D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, G. Gramegna, and K. Yuasa, One bound to rule them all: from Adiabatic to Zeno, Quantum 6, 737 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Garrido and F

    L. Garrido and F. Sancho, Degree of approximate validity of the adiabatic invariance in quantum mechanics, Physica28, 553 (1962)

    1962

  13. [21]

    L. M. Garrido, Generalized Adiabatic Invariance, Journal of Mathematical Physics 5, 355 (1964)

    1964

  14. [22]

    F. J. Sancho, mth-order adiabatic invariance for quantum sys- tems, Proceedings of the Physical Society 89, 1 (1966)

    1966

  15. [23]

    Nenciu, Adiabatic theorem and spectral concentration, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 82, 121 (1981)

    G. Nenciu, Adiabatic theorem and spectral concentration, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 82, 121 (1981)

    1981

  16. [24]

    J. E. Avron, R. Seiler, and L. G. Yaffe, Adiabatic theorems and applications to the quantum hall effect, Communications in Mathematical Physics 110, 33 (1987)

    1987

  17. [25]

    Joye and C.-E

    A. Joye and C.-E. Pfister, Exponentially small adiabatic invari- ant for the schroedinger equation, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics 140 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    G. Nenciu, Asymptotic invariant subspaces, adiabatic theorems and block diagonalisation, in Recent Developments in Quan- tum Mechanics: Proceedings of the Brasov Conference, Poiana Brasov 1989, Romania, edited by A. Boutet de Monvel, P. Dita, G. Nenciu, and R. Purice (Springer...

    1989

  19. [27]

    Nenciu, Linear adiabatic theory

    G. Nenciu, Linear adiabatic theory. exponential estimates, Communications in Mathematical Physics 152, 479 (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    G. A. Hagedorn and A. Joye, Elementary exponential error esti- mates for the adiabatic approximation, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 267, 235 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    D. A. Lidar, A. T. Rezakhani, and A. Hamma, Adiabatic ap- proximation with exponential accuracy for many-body sys- tems and quantum computation, Journal of Mathematical Physics 50, 102106 (2009), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3236685/15918956/102106 1...

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    A. T. Rezakhani, A. K. Pimachev, and D. A. Lidar, Accuracy versus run time in an adiabatic quantum search, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052305 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Elgart and G

    A. Elgart and G. A. Hagedorn, A note on the switch- ing adiabatic theorem, Journal of Mathematical Physics 53, 102202 (2012), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4748968/15598623/102202 1 online.pdf

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Y . Ge, A. Moln´ar, and J. I. Cirac, Rapid adiabatic preparation of injective projected entangled pair states and gibbs states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 080503 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Lenard, Adiabatic invariance to all orders, Annals of Physics 6, 261 (1959)

    A. Lenard, Adiabatic invariance to all orders, Annals of Physics 6, 261 (1959)

    1959

  26. [34]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 5, 435 (1950), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.5.435

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 5, 435 (1950), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.5.435

    1950 doi

  27. [35]

    Messiah, Quantum Mechanics V olume II (Elsevier Science B.V ., 1961)

    A. Messiah, Quantum Mechanics V olume II (Elsevier Science B.V ., 1961)

    1961

  28. [36]

    D. M. Tong, K. Singh, L. C. Kwek, and C. H. Oh, Quantitative Conditions Do Not Guarantee the Validity of the Adiabatic Ap- proximation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110407 (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0509073

    2005

  29. [37]

    D. M. Tong, Quantitative condition is necessary in guarantee- ing the validity of the adiabatic approximation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 120401 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    MacKenzie, E

    R. MacKenzie, E. Marcotte, and H. Paquette, Perturbative ap- proach to the adiabatic approximation, Phys. Rev. A73, 042104 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Rigolin, G

    G. Rigolin, G. Ortiz, and V . H. Ponce, Beyond the quantum adiabatic approximation: Adiabatic perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052508 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Passos, M

    M. Passos, M. Taddei, and R. de Matos Filho, Error-run-time trade-off in the adiabatic approximation beyond scaling rela- tions, Annals of Physics 418, 168172 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    T. D. Cohen and H. Oh, Corrections to adiabatic behav- ior for long paths, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062601 (2024), arXiv:2405.10294 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Boixo, E

    S. Boixo, E. Knill, and R. Somma, Eigenpath traversal by phase randomization, Quantum Info. Comput. 9, 833–855 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Boixo, E

    S. Boixo, E. Knill, and R. D. Somma, Fast quantum algorithms for traversing paths of eigenstates (2010), arXiv:1005.3034 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Chiang, G

    H.-T. Chiang, G. Xu, and R. D. Somma, Improved bounds for eigenpath traversal, Phys. Rev. A 89, 012314 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    T. D. Cohen and H. Oh, Efficient vacuum-state preparation for quantum simulation of strongly interacting local quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. A109, L020402 (2024), arXiv:2310.19229 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    T. D. Cohen, H. Oh, and V . Wang, Numerical study of compu- tational cost of maintaining adiabaticity for long paths, (2024), arXiv:2412.08626 [quant-ph]. Appendix A: A loose derivation of the typical error for the switching error formula While the typical error is formally de...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.