Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Time-independent counterdiabatic driving for emergent two-level subspaces in many-body systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A geodesic path in parameter space makes the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian time-independent for effective two-level systems, yielding unit-fidelity state transfer with a fixed-amplitude control field.

desk verdict Clean corollary with correct few-level examples; the Rydberg many-body extension has a factor-√N error in its leakage bound and the abstract oversells unit fidelity. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.12848 v2 pith:7Q4XVWEQ submitted 2026-07-14 quant-ph

Simon Dengis , Peter Schlagheck This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords counterdiabaticdrivingshortcutstoadiabaticityquantummetrictensorgeodesicprotocolLandau-ZenermodelSTIRAPRydbergblockadefixed-amplitudecontrol
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

Shortcuts to adiabaticity normally require auxiliary counterdiabatic fields that are shaped in time, which is hard in experiments. This paper argues that if the control parameters follow a geodesic of the quantum metric at constant speed, the norm of the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian becomes constant; when the counterdiabatic correction points along a fixed operator direction in an effective two-level system, the whole counterdiabatic Hamiltonian becomes time-independent. Then a single fixed-amplitude field exactly suppresses diabatic transitions. The claim is demonstrated for the Landau-Zener model, for the three-level STIRAP protocol, and for a collectively driven Rydberg ensemble in the blockade regime, where unit fidelity is reached on timescales well below conventional adiabatic times. The many-body realisation is approximate, and the paper itself identifies residual leakage out of the two-level subspace as the limiting factor, setting a minimal protocol duration.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameter-space geodesic under the quantum metric tensor. The metric is defined from the instantaneous eigenstates; its geodesics are the paths that extremise the length functional $L = \int dt (G_{\mu\nu} \dot{\lambda}^\mu \dot{\lambda}^\nu)^{1/2}$. The identity relating the counterdiabatic norm to this metric converts a geometric property of the path—constant speed $ds/dt$—into a physical property of the control, a constant $\|H_{\mathrm{CD}}\|$. The second ingredient is the fixed operator direction of the counterdiabatic correction: for an effective two-level Hamiltonian of the form $h_x(t)\sigma_x + h_z(t)\sigma_z$, the CD term is proportional to $\sigma_y$ with a single scalar amplitude, and constant norm forces that scalar to

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the full many-body Hamiltonian (10), without the two-level projection, and reduce T below $\pi \hbar /(\sqrt{N} V)$ with fixed CD amplitude; if the final W-state fidelity stays at unity rather than dropping, the paper's leakage bound is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the heart of the paper is the identity $\|H_{\mathrm{CD}}\|^2 = \hbar^2 G_{\mu\nu} \dot{\lambda}^\mu \dot{\lambda}^\nu$, which ties the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian to the quantum metric tensor. A geodesic parametrised at constant speed keeps $G_{\mu\nu} \dot{\lambda}^\mu \dot{\lambda}^\nu$ constant, hence $\|H_{\mathrm{CD}}\| = \hbar \ell_{\mathrm{geo}}/T$ is fixed by the geometric length of the protocol and its total duration. That alone only freezes the norm. The paper's additional step is to notice that in a two-level Hamiltonian with one missing control axis (for example $h_y = 0$), the counterdiabatic correction is forced along the uncontrolled axis ($\sigma_y$), so a constant norm becomes a constant operator. The result is an explicit, time-independent counterdiabatic term, e.g. $H_{\mathrm{CD}} = -(\theta_f - \theta_i) \hbar$

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the system truly stays inside the two-level (or dark-state) subspace, with the counterdiabatic term derived there remaining valid in the full Hilbert space; in the Rydberg case this requires the blockade energy V to dominate the auxiliary coupling, which fails when the protocol duration is short.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exact adiabatic following becomes possible with a time-independent auxiliary Hamiltonian in any effective two-level system whose counterdiabatic direction is fixed, removing the need for shaped pulses.
  • Unit-fidelity state preparation can be achieved for Landau-Zener transfer and STIRAP at protocol durations far below the adiabatic limit, using constant-amplitude controls.
  • In a Rydberg ensemble with blockade, W-state fidelity stays near unity for times much shorter than adiabatic ones, with the collective enhancement √N improving the effective coupling.
  • The protocol's cost, ∫∥H_CD∥ dt, is minimised by geodesic paths and equals ℏ times the geodesic length, giving a quantitative benchmark for control overhead.
  • Residual leakage into doubly excited states bounds the speedup; the paper gives a minimal duration T ≥ πℏ/(√N V) for the Rydberg realisation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the fixed-operator-direction condition is generic in driven few-level systems, so constant counterdiabatic driving may extend well beyond the two examples treated.
  • The constant-amplitude CD term could serve as a fixed baseline for higher-order leakage suppression; this is hinted at in the conclusion but not developed.
  • Since the complex Rabi frequency is only emulated by Floquet modulation, an explicit simulation of the full modulated Hamiltonian is a natural next test of whether the ideal constant-CD picture survives.
  • The geodesic viewpoint suggests a design principle for experiments: arrange the control axes so that the unavoidable counterdiabatic direction coincides with an already available static coupling in the hardware.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a constant-speed geodesic in the Riemannian manifold of quantum states makes the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian time-independent, and that for effective two-level systems whose counterdiabatic correction has a fixed operator direction the full counterdiabatic Hamiltonian is time-independent. The derivation is based on the relation between the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian and the quantum metric tensor. The construction is illustrated with the Landau-Zener model, three-level STIRAP, and a collectively driven Rydberg ensemble in the blockade regime. In the exact few-level examples the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian is shown to be a constant operator, e.g. Eq. (6). In the Rydberg case the counterdiabatic term is embedded as a constant collective σ_y field in Eq. (10), and numerical fidelities are reported as close to unity, with residual leakage at short times and a stated minimal duration T≥πℏ/(√N V).

Significance. The core observation—that geodesic parametrization converts a time-dependent counterdiabatic correction into a constant one for a useful class of two-level systems—is elegant and practically relevant. The analytic results for Landau-Zener and STIRAP are correct and provide a concrete simplification of shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocols. The paper also honestly includes a limitation section, which is a strength. However, the unqualified unit-fidelity claim in the abstract is not supported by the many-body Rydberg results, and the leakage analysis contains a quantitative error concerning the collective coupling to two-excitation states. The exact few-level part is a solid contribution; the many-body extrapolation needs revision before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract states 'In all cases, time-independent counterdiabatic driving achieves unit-fidelity state preparation', and the Conclusion repeats 'In all cases considered... unit-fidelity'. This is not supported by the Rydberg many-body section: the text after Fig. 4(c) concedes 'residual leakage appears at very short times' and 'residual effects of order Ω/V remain uncorrected', and Fig. 4(c) is described as yielding fidelities 'close to unity', not exactly unity. Unit fidelity is demonstrated only in the exactly reducible LZ and STIRAP examples. Please qualify the abstract and conclusions to distinguish exact two-level systems from emergent many-body subspaces.
  2. [Rydberg blockade and Conclusion] The minimal-duration bound T≥πℏ/(√N V) is quantitatively incorrect. The counterdiabatic term in Eq. (10), (Ω_CD/2)Σ_i σ_y^i, couples |W⟩ to the two-excitation Dicke manifold. The collective matrix element is (Ω_CD/2)√(2(N−1)) ≈ Ω_CD√(N/2). Substituting Ω_CD=πℏ/(√N T) gives ≈ πℏ/(√2 T), independent of N. The criterion for avoiding blockade-breaking leakage is therefore T ≳ πℏ/V (up to O(1) factors), not T ≥ πℏ/(√N V). This undermines the claimed collective √N speedup in the blockade-protected regime and means the many-body protocol is at best a high-fidelity approximate scheme, not a unit-fidelity one, for any finite T.
  3. [Theoretical framework, Eq. (4) and Supplement] The proof that a geodesic makes ∥H_CD∥ constant is standard and correct. However, the path from Eq. (4) to 'H_CD itself is time-independent' requires the additional condition that the CD operator has a fixed direction in operator space. This condition is satisfied in the exact LZ and STIRAP examples, but in the Rydberg embedding the CD operator has fixed direction in the full many-body operator space only in a trivial sense; its restriction to the {|G⟩,|W⟩} subspace is constant, while its off-subspace components are time-independent but produce leakage. The manuscript should state this distinction explicitly when claiming time-independence for the emergent two-level case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] Please define the basis states |G⟩ and |W⟩ and the sign convention for σ^z. The interaction term V/4(1+σ^z_i)(1+σ^z_j) assumes σ^z|ground⟩=-1 and σ^z|excited⟩=+1, but this is not stated.
  2. [STIRAP, after Eq. (7)] The condition '∆≠δ=0' is ambiguous. It should read 'δ=0 and ∆≠0'.
  3. [Eq. (10) and text above it] The statement that a complex Rabi frequency Ω+iΩ_CD is 'naturally incorporated' via (Ωσ_x^i+Ω_CD σ_y^i) depends on the phase convention for σ_x and σ_y. Please specify the convention or provide the explicit relation between the complex Rabi frequency and the Pauli operators.
  4. [Fig. 2(a)] The color scale label 'min max' is unclear, and the axes labels 'λ/J0' and 'J/J0' should be clarified to indicate the parametric path and the energy gap.
  5. [Supplement, Eq. (24)] For a two-level Hamiltonian with a general vector h, the trace normalization gives ∥H_CD∥² = 2(Ω_x²+Ω_y²+Ω_z²). Please state this normalization convention explicitly, as it is easy to misread if one expects a different operator norm.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the time-independent CD result follows from the standard quantum-metric identity (Eq. 4) plus the geodesic property, and the Rydberg amplitude is re-derived in the text, not imported as a fitted input.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The paper proves that ∥H_CD∥² = ℏ²G_μν λ̇^μ λ̇^ν (Eq. 4/13) and, in the Supplemental Material, that a geodesic has constant ds/dt = ℓ_geo/T, so the CD norm is constant. This is a direct mathematical consequence of the definition of a geodesic, not a fitted parameter or an assumption of the target result. The fixed-direction two-level step is also a logical implication: a vector of constant norm with a fixed operator direction has constant components. In each example, the geodesic is solved from the metric (gθθ=1/4 for Landau-Zener, gθθ=1 for the STIRAP dark state) and the CD amplitude is read off afterward; it is not adjusted to match the simulated fidelities, and the fidelity curves are genuine numerical outputs. For the Rydberg case, Ω_CD is derived in the text from the effective-LZ geodesic ('the matrix elements of the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian become time independent and are given by −i(α_f−α_i)ℏ/2T'), so the citation to [25,26] for the complex-Rabi embedding is not the source of the value; it is only a construction pointer. The self-citations [25,26,34] are contextual or concern the Floquet implementation, not load-bearing for the proof. The paper's own Conclusion admits residual leakage and Ω/V corrections in the many-body case, so the abstract's unqualified 'unit-fidelity' statement is an overclaim for that case; however, an overclaim is a correctness risk, not a circularity. No equation reduces by construction to its own input, and no prediction is a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No genuinely fitted free parameters are introduced; the chosen durations, endpoints, and blockade parameters are control/demonstration choices. The central theorem rests on the standard quantum-metric-CD relation and geodesic theory, while the many-body application rests on the approximate blockade confinement and an assumed Floquet implementation.

free parameters (2)
  • Protocol duration T and endpoint angles (θ_i, θ_f or α_i, α_f)
    Control inputs chosen for each run; CD amplitude scales as 1/T, so T determines the required constant field strength.
  • Rydberg simulation parameters (V/Ω=50, N=3,5,7) = V=50Ω; N=3,5,7
    Chosen to realize the blockade regime for the demonstration; not extracted from experiment.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Eq. (4): ||H_CD||² = ℏ² G_µν λdot^µ λdot^ν (quantum metric-counterdiabatic relation)
    Taken from Ref [36]; underlies the entire constant-norm argument.
  • standard math Geodesic paths have constant metric speed and are straight lines in Riemann normal coordinates
    Ref [33]; used to conclude ||H_CD|| is time-independent.
  • domain assumption For a two-level system with one control component zero, H_CD points along the fixed missing Pauli axis
    Used for LZ and effective Rydberg subspace; from Berry CD formula [15].
  • domain assumption Rydberg blockade V≫Ω confines dynamics to the {|G>,|W>} subspace
    Section 'Rydberg blockade'; this is approximate, leakage sets T≥πℏ/(√N V).
  • domain assumption Complex Rabi frequency Ω+iΩ_CD can be implemented by Floquet modulation without additional error
    Suggested with refs [46-48]; not simulated.
  • domain assumption STIRAP two-photon resonance δ=0 and dark-state manifold
    Restricts to resonant STIRAP; nonzero two-photon detuning would alter geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-independent counterdiabatic driving for emergent two-level subspaces in many-body systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7Q4XVWEQ

@misc{pith2026260712848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-independent counterdiabatic driving for emergent two-level subspaces in many-body systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7Q4XVWEQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.12848}
}
read the original abstract

We show that geodesic motion in the Riemannian manifold of quantum states provides a direct route to time-independent counterdiabatic driving. Using the relation between the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian and the quantum metric tensor, we prove that a constant-speed geodesic makes the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the counterdiabatic Hamiltonian constant. For effective two-level systems whose counterdiabatic correction has a fixed operator direction, this further implies that the full counterdiabatic Hamiltonian itself is time independent. We illustrate this result with the Landau-Zener model, three-level Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage and a collectively driven Rydberg ensemble in the blockade regime. Limitations of this approach in realistic many-body systems are discussed, where the two-level reduction is only emergent and leakage out of the effective subspace bounds the achievable speedup. In all cases, time-independent counterdiabatic driving achieves unit-fidelity state preparation on timescales substantially shorter than conventional adiabatic protocols while replacing temporally shaped auxiliary controls by fixed-amplitude fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates several aspects of constant coun￾terdiabatic driving applied to the Landau-Zener Hamil￾tonian (5). In particular, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates constant counterdiabatic driving applied to the STIRAP system. The use of such a pro￾tocol enables complete population transfer, and hence unit fidelity of the target state |3⟩, on timescales sig￾nificantly shorter than those achievable with a purely geodesic protocol (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the results obtained with the many￾body Hamiltonian (10) for the adiabatic preparation of the |W⟩ state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Beweis des Adiabatensatzes, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  2. [2]

    Landau, Zur Theorie der Energieubertragung

    L. Landau, Zur Theorie der Energieubertragung. II, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932)

    1932

  3. [3]

    Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels, Proc

    C. Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  4. [4]

    St¨ uckelberg, Theorie der unelastischen St¨ osse zwis- chen Atomen, Helv

    E. St¨ uckelberg, Theorie der unelastischen St¨ osse zwis- chen Atomen, Helv. Phys. Acta5, 369 (1932)

    1932

  5. [5]

    Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico vari- abile, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942)9, 43 (1932)

    E. Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico vari- abile, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942)9, 43 (1932)

    1924

  6. [6]

    M. V. Berry, Quantum Phase Corrections from Adiabatic Iteration, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A414, 31 (1987)

    1987

  7. [7]

    Unanyan, L

    R. Unanyan, L. Yatsenko, K. Bergmann, and B. Shore, Laser-induced adiabatic atomic reorientation with con- trol of diabatic losses, Optics Communications139, 48 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Fast Optimal Fric- tionless Atom Cooling in Harmonic Traps: Shortcut to Adiabaticity, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 063002 (2010)

    2010

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    M. G. Bason, M. Viteau, N. Malossi, P. Huillery, E. Ari- mondo, D. Ciampini, R. Fazio, V. Giovannetti, R. Man- nella, and O. Morsch, High-fidelity quantum driving, Na- ture Physics8, 147 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    del Campo, Shortcuts to Adiabaticity by Counterdia- batic Driving, Phys

    A. del Campo, Shortcuts to Adiabaticity by Counterdia- batic Driving, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 100502 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Ban and X

    Y. Ban and X. Chen, Counter-diabatic driving for fast spin control in a two-electron double quantum dot, Sci- entific Reports4, 6258 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Deffner, C

    S. Deffner, C. Jarzynski, and A. del Campo, Classical and Quantum Shortcuts to Adiabaticity for Scale-Invariant Driving, Phys. Rev. X4, 021013 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    del Campo and K

    A. del Campo and K. Kim, Focus on shortcuts to adia- baticity, New J. Phys.21, 050201 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Y.-H. Chen, W. Qin, X. Wang, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Shortcuts to Adiabaticity for the Quantum Rabi Model: Efficient Generation of Giant Entangled Cat States via Parametric Amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 023602 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. Rice, Adiabatic Population Transfer with Control Fields, J. Phys. Chem. A107, 9937–9945 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Fleischhauer, R

    M. Fleischhauer, R. Unanyan, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Coherent population transfer beyond the adiabatic limit: Generalized matched pulses and higher- order trapping states, Phys. Rev. A59, 3751 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems, Physics Reports697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, PNAS114, E3909 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Floquet-Engineering Counterdiabatic Protocols in Quan- tum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Prielinger, A

    L. Prielinger, A. Hartmann, Y. Yamashiro, K. Nishimura, W. Lechner, and H. Nishimori, Two-parameter counter- diabatic driving in quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013227 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    G. B. Mbeng and W. Lechner, Rotated ansatz for ap- proximate counterdiabatic driving, arXiv:2207.03553

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Petiziol, F

    F. Petiziol, F. Mintert, and S. Wimberger, Quantum con- trol by effective counterdiabatic driving, EPL145, 15001 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Dengis, S

    S. Dengis, S. Wimberger, and P. Schlagheck, Accelerated creation of NOON states with ultracold atoms via coun- terdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. A111, L031301 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Dengis, S

    S. Dengis, S. Wimberger, and P. Schlagheck, Multi- mode NOON-state generation with ultracold atoms via geodesic counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. A112, 042610 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Balducci, P

    F. Balducci, P. M. Schindler, A. Solfanelli, and M. Bukov, (Non-)Traversable Quantum Phase Transitions (2026), arXiv:2605.31472 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Time- optimal quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 060503 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Tomka, T

    M. Tomka, T. Souza, S. Rosenberg, and A. Polkovnikov, Geodesic Paths for Quantum Many-Body Systems, 7 arXiv:1606.05890 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. K. Nauth and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Quantum- brachistochrone approach to the conversion fromW to Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states for Rydberg-atom qubits, Phys. Rev. A106, 032605 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Commun. Math. Phys.76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    Het´ enyi and P

    B. Het´ enyi and P. L´ evay, Fluctuations, uncertainty re- lations, and the geometry of quantum state manifolds, Phys. Rev. A108, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Grav- itation(W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  26. [34]

    Dengis,Enhanced creation of many-body entanglement via geodesic counterdiabatic driving, Ph.D

    S. Dengis,Enhanced creation of many-body entanglement via geodesic counterdiabatic driving, Ph.D. thesis, Li` ege University, Belgium (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    A. T. Rezakhani, W.-J. Kuo, A. Hamma, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi, Quantum Adiabatic Brachistochrone, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 080502 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    del Campo, M

    A. del Campo, M. M. Rams, and W. H. Zurek, Assisted Finite-Rate Adiabatic Passage Across a Quantum Criti- cal Point: Exact Solution for the Quantum Ising Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 115703 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Bergmann, H

    K. Bergmann, H. Theuer, and B. W. Shore, Coherent population transfer among quantum states of atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 1003 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage in physics, chemistry, and beyond, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015006 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    X.-L. Feng, C. Wu, C. H. Lai, and C. H. Oh, Univer- sal quantum computation with trapped ions in thermal motion by adiabatic passage, Phys. Rev. A77, 062336 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Zhang, M

    T. Zhang, M. Maiw¨ oger, F. Borselli, Y. Kuriatnikov, J. Schmiedmayer, and M. Pr¨ ufer, Squeezing Oscillations in a Multimode Bosonic Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. X14, 011049 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Møller, L

    D. Møller, L. B. Madsen, and K. Mølmer, Quantum Gates and Multiparticle Entanglement by Rydberg Exci- tation Blockade and Adiabatic Passage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 170504 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132–142 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast Quantum Gates for Neutral Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  36. [44]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. M. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Dipole Blockade and Quantum Information Processing in Mesoscopic Atomic Ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 037901 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Goldman and J

    N. Goldman and J. Dalibard, Periodically Driven Quan- tum Systems: Effective Hamiltonians and Engineered Gauge Fields, Phys. Rev. X4, 031027 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Petiziol, B

    F. Petiziol, B. Dive, F. Mintert, and S. Wimberger, Fast adiabatic evolution by oscillating initial Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. A98, 043436 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Dengis, N

    S. Dengis, N. Dupont, P. Schlagheck, and N. Gold- man, Vortex NOON states for rotation sensing (2026), arXiv:2606.29509 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    ˇCepait˙ e, A

    I. ˇCepait˙ e, A. Polkovnikov, A. J. Daley, and C. W. Duncan, Counterdiabatic Optimized Local Driving, PRX Quantum4, 010312 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Ohga and T

    N. Ohga and T. Hatomura, Improving Variational Coun- terdiabatic Driving with Weighted Actions and Com- puter Algebra, PRX Quantum7, 020347 (2026). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Time-independent counterdiabatic Hamiltonian We start from the quantum geometric line element [31] ds2 ...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.