Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Geometrical scheduling of adiabatic control without information of energy spectra

T0 review · 4 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 A spectrum-free geometric metric can set the pace of quantum annealing schedules.

desk verdict A spectrum-free scheduling heuristic that works in some models and honestly fails in another; the metric is a guess, but the paper is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11846 v1 pith:YVTXMYU3 submitted 2025-01-21 quant-ph

Yuta Shingu , Takuya Hatomura This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumadiabaticbrachistochroneannealinggaugepotentialKrylovsubspacecounterdiabaticdrivingparameterschedulingtransverse-fieldIsingchainANNNImodel
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

This paper proposes a way to schedule adiabatic quantum control without ever diagonalizing the Hamiltonian. The idea is to replace the usual metric that requires energy spectra with the squared amplitude of an approximate counterdiabatic term, $g^*(\lambda)=\sum_k \alpha_k(\lambda)^2$, and then solve the geodesic equation of the quantum adiabatic brachistochrone using that metric. In numerical tests on a transverse-field Ising chain and on the ANNNI model in its ferromagnetic phase, the resulting schedules give lower relative ground-state energy errors than the commonly used linear schedule, even when the counterdiabatic term is truncated to a few basis operators. The paper also reports an antiferromagnetic ANNNI case in which the linear schedule wins at long annealing times, because nonadiabatic transitions can return the system to the ground manifold. If correct, the method provides a classically precomputable, spectrum-free path to improved annealing schedules.

What carries the argument

The central object is the squared norm of an approximate adiabatic gauge potential computed in a truncated Krylov basis. The paper generates odd basis operators $\hat{O}_{2k-1}$ by the Lanczos recurrence, fixes their coefficients $\alpha_k$ through the variational equation, and defines $g^*=\sum_k \alpha_k^2$. This positive, real, symmetric quantity plays the role that the quantum geometric tensor plays in the standard brachistochrone, but it is computable from the operator structure of $H(\lambda)$ alone. Solving the geodesic equation with this metric yields the schedule $\lambda(t)$.

What would settle it

In a system small enough for exact diagonalization, compute the schedule that solves the geodesic equation for $g^*$, then run the Schr\"odinger equation and compare final ground-state fidelity with a second schedule whose integrated $g^*$ is larger; if the $g^*$-optimal schedule is not at least as good, the metric is not a faithful nonadiabaticity gauge. The paper's own antiferromagnetic ANNNI data at $T \simeq 5.9$ already approach this test, since fidelity recovers only through nonadiabatic returns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the brachistochrone metric can be built from the truncated variational adiabatic gauge potential instead of from the quantum geometric tensor. The coefficients $\alpha_k$ come from expanding the potential in odd operators generated by the Lanczos recurrence, and the paper uses $g^*(\lambda)=\sum_k \alpha_k(\lambda)^2$ as the nonadiabaticity measure in the geodesic equation $\ddot{\lambda} + (1/2g^*)(\partial_\lambda g^*)\dot{\lambda}^2=0$, equivalently $\dot{\lambda}=C/\sqrt{g^*}$. Because the Lanczos recurrence and the variational equations use only commutators and Hilbert\textendash Schmidt inner products, no energy eigenvalues or eigenstates enter the construction. The benchmarks show lower relative errors than the linear schedule in the transverse-field Ising chain and the ferromagnetic ANNNI model, with truncated schedules often close to the full-basis result; in the antiferromagnetic ANNNI phase the advantage holds only at short annealing times.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the squared size of the approximate counterdiabatic term, $g^*(\lambda)$, faithfully measures how much nonadiabatic error a schedule will cause; the paper introduces this as an expectation rather than proving a bound, and the antiferromagnetic ANNNI case is a regime where it breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Schedules can be computed classically before any quantum run, because the construction needs only the operator form of the annealing Hamiltonian.
  • Truncation to a few Krylov basis operators captures most of the full-basis benefit in the benchmarks, so the classical cost can be kept low.
  • The metric's positivity, reality, and symmetry mean the same construction extends, in principle, to multiple control parameters.
  • In regimes where nonadiabatic transitions actively help, the geodesic schedule can be worse than a linear ramp; the method should be aimed at suppressing direct transitions rather than at exploiting returns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step, not pursued in the paper, is to use $g^*$ as an instantaneous monitor during a run and slow the schedule only where it spikes, instead of solving the global geodesic problem.
  • Because $g^*$ is classical to compute, its time integral could rank problem instances by expected annealing difficulty before hardware time is spent; this is an editorial inference.
  • The antiferromagnetic failure suggests a hybrid schedule: follow the geodesic where direct transitions dominate and switch toward linear where returns dominate; this is not analyzed in the paper.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a spectrum-free scheduling protocol for quantum annealing. Starting from the Krylov/Lanczos variational construction of an approximate adiabatic gauge potential, the authors define g*(lambda) = sum_k alpha_k(lambda)^2, the squared Hilbert-Schmidt amplitude of the truncated counterdiabatic Hamiltonian, and use it as the metric in the single-parameter quantum adiabatic brachistochrone equation. Solving lambda-dot = C / sqrt(g*(lambda)) yields a schedule that spends more time near parameter values where the approximate counterdiabatic amplitude is large. The method is benchmarked numerically on the transverse-field Ising chain and on the axial next-nearest-neighbor Ising (ANNNI) model. For the Ising chain and the ferromagnetic ANNNI phase, the resulting schedules give lower relative ground-state-energy errors than the linear schedule. For the antiferromagnetic-like ANNNI phase, the method improves on linear scheduling only for short annealing times and is worse for T larger than about 3.5; this failure is presented and discussed honestly. The authors conclude that their protocol removes the need for energy-spectrum information in adiabatic scheduling.

Significance. The proposal is concrete, reproducible in structure, and addresses a practical bottleneck: quantum adiabatic brachistochrone schedules normally require spectral data, which is unavailable or costly in quantum-annealing-scale problems. The numerical evidence that a truncated Krylov adiabatic gauge potential can produce useful schedules without gap information is interesting, and the authors deserve credit for explicitly reporting the antiferromagnetic ANNNI counterexample instead of selecting only favorable models. The paper also makes a clear algorithmic statement: coefficients are obtained by solving a tridiagonal linear system, and the schedule follows from a simple ODE. However, the central premise—that sqrt(g*(lambda)) is a valid nonadiabaticity metric—is asserted rather than derived, and the manuscript's own antiferromagnetic results show that this premise can fail in a way that is directly relevant to the claimed figure of merit. The current evidence base is therefore suggestive but not yet a general principle, and the variational/brachistochrone framing needs careful qualification before the paper can support its broader claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II A, Eq. (6)] The central premise that the Hilbert-Schmidt amplitude sqrt(g*(lambda)) of the truncated counterdiabatic Hamiltonian is an appropriate measure of nonadiabaticity is introduced with the phrase "we expect" and is never derived or bounded. The exact counterdiabatic norm in Eq. (D1) is a sum over all energy eigenstates, while g* is the squared norm of a truncated Krylov approximation; no result connects g* to the probability of leaving the instantaneous ground state or to the final ground-state fidelity. Because Eq. (7) and all schedules in the paper follow from this premise, this is a load-bearing assumption rather than a harmless technical choice.
  2. [Appendix A and Section II B, Eq. (7)] For a single parameter with fixed endpoints, the action in Eq. (A1) reduces to epsilon = integral sqrt(2 g(lambda)) |lambda-dot| dt = integral sqrt(2 g(lambda)) d-lambda, which is independent of the time dependence lambda(t) for any monotone schedule. Therefore the variational problem does not select a schedule, and Eq. (7), lambda-dot = C / sqrt(g(lambda)), is an affine-parameter choice rather than a consequence of minimizing a well-defined transition error. The paper should either derive Eq. (7) from a genuine minimization over schedules, for example using a cost functional tied to transition probability, or present the rule explicitly as a heuristic for dwelling where g* is large.
  3. [Section IV, Figs. 6-8] The antiferromagnetic-like ANNNI result is not a peripheral blemish. For T larger than about 3.5, every g*-based schedule, including the full-basis dA = 88 curve, has larger relative error than the linear schedule. The authors' own explanation—that fidelity recovery through nonadiabatic transitions improves the final ground-state energy—shows that g* does not measure the quantity relevant to the final figure of merit in this regime. The claim that the method "improves performance" should therefore be restricted to the regimes where the metric is aligned with the ground-state-energy objective, and the paper should state this limitation in the abstract and conclusion.
  4. [Section II B, Step 1, and Section IV] The scalability claim that the method works for large quantum-annealing systems is asserted rather than demonstrated. For disordered spin-glass problems the Lanczos basis count generically grows rapidly, and the symbolic computation in Step 1 is not analyzed for its cost or termination behavior. All numerical benchmarks are translation-invariant chains or the L = 6 ANNNI model; the statement in Section IV that "our method works even for large systems" is a conjecture unsupported by complexity analysis or random-instance tests. If the quantum-annealing motivation is to be retained, the authors should either provide such an analysis or substantially soften this claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The phrase "The horizontal line indicates the normalized time" should read "The horizontal axis indicates the normalized time."
  2. [Section III B] The full-basis ANNNI calculation is identified by dA = 88 because b_177 converges numerically to 0; the convergence tolerance or criterion used to declare this termination should be stated so that the "full basis" characterization is reproducible.
  3. [Equation (A1) and Eq. (1)] The normalization conventions connecting the multi-parameter action in Eq. (A1), the factor of 2, and the single-parameter connection Gamma(lambda) = (1/2g) partial_lambda g should be spelled out, since g* is defined without the factor of 2 and the geodesic equation is sensitive to this normalization.
  4. [Figures 2, 4, and 6] The relative-error curves appear to be single deterministic runs; stating whether any averaging over initial states or disorder realizations was performed, or noting that the results are deterministic, would improve interpretability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the schedule is computed from the Hamiltonian via Lanczos recurrence and the geodesic equation, with no outcome data fitted; the g* metric is a stated heuristic assumption, not an imported or self-referential result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the schedules in Figs. 1, 3, and 5 are obtained by solving the geodesic equation (1) with g(lambda) = g*(lambda), where g*(lambda) is computed from the Hamiltonian through the Lanczos recurrence (4) and the linear system (5). No measured relative-error data are used to set any schedule parameter, so the improvement claims are genuine numerical predictions against the external linear-schedule benchmark rather than fitted-input-called-prediction. The load-bearing premise, expressed in Sec. II A as "we expect that the amplitude of an approximate counterdiabatic Hamiltonian ... can be used as a measure of nonadiabaticity," is indeed asserted rather than derived from a bound, and the paper's own antiferromagnetic ANNNI result (Fig. 6) shows the premise can fail for T larger than about 3.5. However, an unjustified or even false heuristic is an assumption burden and a correctness risk, not circularity: the failure is discovered by the numerical simulation, which means the protocol has independent content. The self-citations to Hatomura's prior works (Refs. 13, 20, 25, 29, 31) are used as background and for the algebraic Krylov framework, which itself is attributed to Sels-Polkovnikov (Ref. 24), Bhattacharjee (Ref. 32), and Takahashi-del Campo (Ref. 33); none of these citations is used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem. The reparametrization-invariance observation about the action (A1) and the resulting affine-parameter form (7) is standard brachistochrone structure and does not make the prediction equivalent to its input. No step in the paper reduces, by definition or by construction, to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol introduces no new physical entities. It does introduce a heuristic metric g*(lambda) and a truncation hyperparameter dA; both are choices or postulates rather than derived quantities. The free parameter count is low because the schedule is fixed by the Hamiltonian and the boundary conditions, not by fitting to target outcomes.

free parameters (1)
  • truncation order dA = 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 20, 49, 88 depending on model
    The number of Lanczos basis operators kept in the approximate adiabatic gauge potential is chosen by hand for each simulation; performance varies with dA, as seen in the non-monotonic improvement in Fig. 4.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The quantum adiabatic brachistochrone action with metric g yields schedules that suppress nonadiabatic transitions.
    Background from Refs. [10,11], invoked in Sec. II A and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The exact adiabatic gauge potential is spanned by the odd Krylov basis operators generated by the Lanczos recurrence (4).
    From Refs. [32,33], used in Sec. II A to justify the operator basis for the approximate counterdiabatic Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper The Hilbert-Schmidt amplitude of the truncated counterdiabatic Hamiltonian, sqrt(g*), measures nonadiabaticity.
    Introduced as an expectation in Sec. II A after Eq. (6), without derivation; this is the central premise of the protocol.
  • domain assumption Truncating the Lanczos recurrence to dA basis operators leaves a useful approximate adiabatic gauge potential whose norm gives a meaningful schedule.
    Assumed for scalability in Sec. II B Step 1 and Sec. IV; only tested on specific models, not on generic disordered spin glasses.
  • domain assumption Symbolic computation of nested commutators for large disordered systems remains tractable.
    Step 1 of Sec. II B requires a basis count that is at most polynomial in system size; the authors state this but do not demonstrate it for general quantum annealing instances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometrical scheduling of adiabatic control without information of energy spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVTXMYU3

@misc{pith2026250111846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometrical scheduling of adiabatic control without information of energy spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVTXMYU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11846}
}
read the original abstract

Adiabatic control is a fundamental technique for manipulating quantum systems, guided by the quantum adiabatic theorem, which ensures suppressed nonadiabatic transitions under slow parameter variations. Quantum annealing, a heuristic algorithm leveraging adiabatic control, seeks the ground states of Ising spin glass models and has drawn attention for addressing combinatorial optimization problems. However, exponentially small energy gaps in such models often necessitate impractically long runtime to satisfy the adiabatic condition. Despite this limitation, improving the quality of approximate solutions remains crucial for practical applications. The quantum adiabatic brachistochrone provides a method to enhance adiabaticity by minimizing an action representing nonadiabaticity via the variational principle. While effective, its implementation requires detailed energy spectra, complicating its use in quantum annealing. Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving offer alternative approaches for accelerating adiabatic processes. However, the theory of shortcuts to adiabaticity often faces challenges such as nonlocal control requirements, high computational cost, and trade-offs between speed and energy efficiency. In this work, we propose a novel quantum adiabatic brachistochrone protocol tailored for quantum annealing that eliminates the need for energy spectrum information. Our approach builds on advancements in counterdiabatic driving to design efficient parameter schedules. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through numerical simulations on the transverse-field Ising chain and axial next-nearest neighbor Ising models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Obtained schedules for the transverse-field Ising chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Relative error of quantum annealing in the transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Obtained schedules for the ANNNI model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relative error of quantum annealing in the ANNNI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fidelity of the obtained state to the ground state of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Fidelity of the obtained state to the ground state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Calculate the recurrence formula (4) by using sym- bolic computation [37] and determine the truncated set of the basis operators { ˆOi}

    work page

  2. [2]

    (5) by using symbolic computation and solve it

    Construct Eq. (5) by using symbolic computation and solve it

    work page

  3. [3]

    Solve the geodesic equation (1) with g(λ) = g∗(λ) in Eq. (6). We remark on each step below. Step 1. In disordered systems, the number of the basis operators in the Lanczos method (4) rapidly increases compared with the system size. In practice, we have to truncate most of the high-order basis operators. For the next step, the number of the basis operators...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum me- chanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 5, 435 (1950)

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum me- chanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 5, 435 (1950)

    1950

  5. [5]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model, Physical Review E 58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    Farhi, J

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

    arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Roland and N

    J. Roland and N. J. Cerf, Quantum search by local adi- abatic evolution, Physical Review A 65, 042308 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in Physics 2, 5 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in Physics 2, 5 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Yarkoni, E

    S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. B¨ ack, and S. Schmitt, Quan- tum annealing for industry applications: introduction and review, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 104001 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    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 Physics 48, 102111 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    A. T. Rezakhani, W.-J. Kuo, A. Hamma, D. A. Li- dar, and P. Zanardi, Quantum adiabatic brachistochrone, Physical Review Letters 103, 080502 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    A. T. Rezakhani, D. F. Abasto, D. A. Lidar, and P. Za- nardi, Intrinsic geometry of quantum adiabatic evolution and quantum phase transitions, Physical Review A 82, 012321 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Takahashi, Hamiltonian engineering for adiabatic quantum computation: Lessons from shortcuts to adi- abaticity, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 061002 (2019)

    K. Takahashi, Hamiltonian engineering for adiabatic quantum computation: Lessons from shortcuts to adi- abaticity, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 061002 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Hatomura, Suppressing nonadiabatic transitions dur- ing adiabatic generation of highly entangled states in bosonic josephson junctions, Physical Review A 100, 043619 (2019)

    T. Hatomura, Suppressing nonadiabatic transitions dur- ing adiabatic generation of highly entangled states in bosonic josephson junctions, Physical Review A 100, 043619 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Kazhybekova, S

    A. Kazhybekova, S. Campbell, and A. Kiely, Minimal ac- tion control method in quantum critical models, Journal of Physics Communications 6, 113001 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Adiabatic population transfer with control fields, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 107, 9937 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Fast optimal friction- less atom cooling in harmonic traps: Shortcut to adia- baticity, Physical Review Letters 104, 063002 (2010). 9

    2010

  13. [21]

    Torrontegui, S

    E. Torrontegui, S. Ib´ a˜ nez, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, M. Mod- ugno, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity, Ad- vances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 62, 117 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    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, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    T. Hatomura, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: theoretical framework, relations between different methods, and ver- satile approximations, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 102001 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    del Campo, M

    A. del Campo, M. M. Rams, and W. H. Zurek, Assisted finite-rate adiabatic passage across a quantum critical point: Exact solution for the quantum ising model, Phys- ical Review Letters 109, 115703 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    A. C. Santos and M. S. Sarandy, Superadiabatic con- trolled evolutions and universal quantum computation, Scientific Reports 5, 15775 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Campbell and S

    S. Campbell and S. Deffner, Trade-off between speed and cost in shortcuts to adiabaticity, Physical Review Letters 118, 100601 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114, E3909 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Hatomura and T

    T. Hatomura and T. Mori, Shortcuts to adiabatic classi- cal spin dynamics mimicking quantum annealing, Physi- cal Review E 98, 032136 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    A. B. ¨Ozg¨ uler, R. Joynt, and M. G. Vavilov, Steering random spin systems to speed up the quantum adiabatic algorithm, Physical Review A 98, 062311 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hartmann and W

    A. Hartmann and W. Lechner, Rapid counter-diabatic sweeps in lattice gauge adiabatic quantum computing, New Journal of Physics 21, 043025 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Passarelli, V

    G. Passarelli, V. Cataudella, R. Fazio, and P. Lucignano, Counterdiabatic driving in the quantum annealing of the p -spin model: A variational approach, Physical Review Research 2, 013283 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Hatomura, Iterative classical superadiabatic algorithm for combinatorial optimization, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 205302 (2020)

    T. Hatomura, Iterative classical superadiabatic algorithm for combinatorial optimization, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 205302 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Hayasaka, T

    H. Hayasaka, T. Imoto, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. Kawabata, A general method to construct mean field counter dia- batic driving for a ground state search, arXiv:2305.08352 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hatomura and K

    T. Hatomura and K. Takahashi, Controlling and explor- ing quantum systems by algebraic expression of adiabatic gauge potential, Physical Review A 103, 012220 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Bhattacharjee, A lanczos approach to the adiabatic gauge potential, arXiv:2302.07228 (2023)

    B. Bhattacharjee, A lanczos approach to the adiabatic gauge potential, arXiv:2302.07228 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity in krylov space, Physical Review X14, 011032 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    H. Kim, M. Fishman, and D. Sels, Variational adiabatic transport of tensor networks, PRX Quantum 5, 20361 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Pandey, P

    M. Pandey, P. W. Claeys, D. K. Campbell, A. Polkovnikov, and D. Sels, Adiabatic eigenstate deformations as a sensitive probe for quantum chaos, Physical Review X 10, 041017 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems, Physics Reports 697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Meurer, C

    A. Meurer, C. P. Smith, M. Paprocki, O. ˇCert ´ ık, S. B. Kirpichev, M. Rocklin, A. T. Kumar, S. Ivanov, J. K. Moore, S. Singh, T. Rathnayake, S. Vig, B. E. Granger, R. P. Muller, F. Bonazzi, H. Gupta, S. Vats, F. Johans- son, F. Pedregosa, M. J. Curry, A. R. Terrel, ˇStˇ ep´ ...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Selke, The annni model — theoretical analysis and ex- perimental application, Physics Reports 170, 213 (1988)

    W. Selke, The annni model — theoretical analysis and ex- perimental application, Physics Reports 170, 213 (1988)

    1988

  34. [42]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quan- tum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters 123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Funo, J.-N

    K. Funo, J.-N. Zhang, C. Chatou, K. Kim, M. Ueda, and A. del Campo, Universal work fluctuations during short- cuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving, Physical Review Letters 118, 100602 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Zanardi and N

    P. Zanardi and N. Paunkovi´ c, Ground state overlap and quantum phase transitions, Physical Review E 74, 031123 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Zanardi, P

    P. Zanardi, P. Giorda, and M. Cozzini, Information- theoretic differential geometry of quantum phase tran- sitions, Physical Review Letters 99, 100603 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

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