One bound to rule them all: from Adiabatic to Zeno

Daniel Burgarth1, Paolo Facchi2,3, Giovanni Gramegna4,5,6, and Kazuya Yuasa7

1Center for Engineered Quantum Systems, Macquarie University, 2109 NSW, Australia
2Dipartimento di Fisica and MECENAS, Università di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy
3INFN, Sezione di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy
4Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, I-34151 Trieste, Italy
5INFN, Sezione di Trieste, I-34151 Trieste, Italy
6Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Institut für Theoretische Physik, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
7Department of Physics, Waseda University, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

We derive a universal nonperturbative bound on the distance between unitary evolutions generated by time-dependent Hamiltonians in terms of the difference of their integral actions. We apply our result to provide explicit error bounds for the rotating-wave approximation and generalize it beyond the qubit case. We discuss the error of the rotating-wave approximation over long time and in the presence of time-dependent amplitude modulation. We also show how our universal bound can be used to derive and to generalize other known theorems such as the strong-coupling limit, the adiabatic theorem, and product formulas, which are relevant to quantum-control strategies including the Zeno control and the dynamical decoupling. Finally, we prove generalized versions of the Trotter product formula, extending its validity beyond the standard scaling assumption.

The quantum dynamics of time-dependent systems is extraordinarily complex even for the simplest examples. Approximations are therefore the key to understanding this rich dynamics, with applications ranging across all areas of quantum physics, and important consequences for quantum information processing and control. However, such approximations are often ad hoc or do not provide a good handle to bound the error made in simplifying the dynamics. Here, we describe a simple tool which we use to bound a surprisingly wide range of time-dependent phenomena, ranging from the famous Adiabatic Theorems, via the commonly used Rotating-Wave Approximation and the Trotter Product Formulas with importance in quantum simulation, to the conceptually puzzling Zeno Paradox. One bound to bring them all, and in mathematics bind them.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] Dynamical Systems III, Vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, edited by V. I. Arnold (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-662-02535-2

[2] J. A. Sanders, F. Verhulst, and J. Murdock, Averaging Methods in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2007).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-0-387-48918-6

[3] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Generalized Adiabatic Theorem and Strong-Coupling Limits, Quantum 3, 152 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2019-06-12-152

[4] L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms, revised ed. (Dover, New York, 1987).
https:/​/​store.doverpublications.com/​0486655334.html

[5] M. Mehring, Principles of High Resolution NMR in Solids, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1983).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-642-68756-3

[6] P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A Quantum Engineer's Guide to Superconducting Qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.5089550

[7] A. Laucht, S. Simmons, R. Kalra, G. Tosi, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, S. Freer, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Breaking the Rotating Wave Approximation for a Strongly Driven Dressed Single-Electron Spin, Phys. Rev. B 94, 161302 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.94.161302

[8] U. Haeberlen and J. S. Waugh, Coherent Averaging Effects in Magnetic Resonance, Phys. Rev. 175, 453 (1968).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.175.453

[9] O. Gamel and D. F. V. James, Time-Averaged Quantum Dynamics and the Validity of the Effective Hamiltonian Model, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052106 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.82.052106

[10] G. W. Series, A Semi-Classical Approach to Radiation Problems, Phys. Rep. 43, 1 (1978).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0370-1573(78)90070-4

[11] D. Zeuch, F. Hassler, J. J. Slim, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Exact Rotating Wave Approximation, Ann. Phys. 423, 168327 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.aop.2020.168327

[12] S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros, The Magnus Expansion and Some of Its Applications, Phys. Rep. 470, 151 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.physrep.2008.11.001

[13] Q. Xie and W. Hai, Analytical Results for a Monochromatically Driven Two-Level System, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032117 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.82.032117

[14] H.-J. Schmidt, J. Schnack, and M. Holthaus, Floquet Theory of the Analytical Solution of a Periodically Driven Two-Level System, arXiv:1809.00558 [quant-ph] (2018).
arXiv:1809.00558

[15] T. Chambrion, Periodic Excitations of Bilinear Quantum Systems, Automatica 48, 2040 (2012).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.automatica.2012.03.031

[16] N. Augier, U. Boscain, and M. Sigalotti, On the Compatibility between the Adiabatic and the Rotating Wave Approximations in Quantum Control, in Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (IEEE, New York, 2019), pp. 2292–2297.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​CDC40024.2019.9029191

[17] R. Robin, N. Augier, U. Boscain, and M. Sigalotti, Ensemble Qubit Controllability with a Single Control via Adiabatic and Rotating Wave Approximations, arXiv:2003.05831 [math-ph] (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.48550/​arXiv.2003.05831
arXiv:2003.05831

[18] N. Augier, U. Boscain, and M. Sigalotti, Effective Adiabatic Control of a Decoupled Hamiltonian Obtained by Rotating Wave Approximation, arXiv:2005.02737 [math.OC] (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.48550/​arXiv.2005.02737
arXiv:2005.02737

[19] D. D'Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2022).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1201/​9781003051268

[20] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Eternal Adiabaticity in Quantum Evolution, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032214 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.103.032214

[21] A. Messiah, Quantum Mechanics (Dover, New York, 2017).
https:/​/​store.doverpublications.com/​048678455x.html

[22] T. Kato, On the Adiabatic Theorem of Quantum Mechanics, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 5, 435 (1950).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1143/​JPSJ.5.435

[23] J. E. Avron and A. Elgart, Adiabatic Theorem without a Gap Condition, Commun. Math. Phys. 203, 445 (1999).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s002200050620

[24] A. Joye, General Adiabatic Evolution with a Gap Condition, Commun. Math. Phys. 275, 139 (2007).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-007-0299-y

[25] J. E. Avron, M. Fraas, G. M. Graf, and P. Grech, Adiabatic Theorems for Generators of Contracting Evolutions, Commun. Math. Phys. 314, 163 (2012).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00220-012-1504-1

[26] P. Facchi and S. Pascazio, Quantum Zeno Subspaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 080401 (2002).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.89.080401

[27] P. Facchi and S. Pascazio, Quantum Zeno Dynamics: Mathematical and Physical Aspects, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 493001 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8113/​41/​49/​493001

[28] P. Facchi and M. Ligabò, Quantum Zeno Effect and Dynamics, J. Math. Phys. 51, 022103 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.3290971

[29] L. S. Schulman, Continuous and Pulsed Observations in the Quantum Zeno Effect, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1509 (1998).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.57.1509

[30] P. Facchi, S. Tasaki, S. Pascazio, H. Nakazato, A. Tokuse, and D. A. Lidar, Control of Decoherence: Analysis and Comparison of Three Different Strategies, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022302 (2005).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.71.022302

[31] E. W. Streed, J. Mun, M. Boyd, G. K. Campbell, P. Medley, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Continuous and Pulsed Quantum Zeno Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 260402 (2006).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.97.260402

[32] F. Schäfer, I. Herrera, S. Cherukattil, C. Lovecchio, F. S. Cataliotti, F. Caruso, and A. Smerzi, Experimental Realization of Quantum Zeno Dynamics, Nat. Commun. 5, 3194 (2014).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​ncomms4194

[33] Z. Gong, N. Yoshioka, N. Shibata, and R. Hamazaki, Universal Error Bound for Constrained Quantum Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 210606 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.124.210606

[34] Z. Gong, N. Yoshioka, N. Shibata, and R. Hamazaki, Error Bounds for Constrained Dynamics in Gapped Quantum Systems: Rigorous Results and Generalizations, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052122 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.101.052122

[35] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser Stability for Conserved Quantities in Finite-Dimensional Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 150401 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.126.150401

[36] R. P. Feynman, Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20, 367 (1948).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.20.367

[37] B. Simon, Functional Integration and Quantum Physics (Academic Press, New York, 1979), Vol. 86.
https:/​/​www.elsevier.com./​books/​functional-integration-and-quantum-physics/​simon/​978-0-12-644250-2

[38] M. Suzuki, Decomposition Formulas of Exponential Operators and Lie Exponentials with Some Applications to Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Physics, J. Math. Phys. 26, 601 (1985).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.526596

[39] M. Suzuki, General Theory of Fractal Path Integrals with Applications to Many-Body Theories and Statistical Physics, J. Math. Phys. 32, 400 (1991).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.529425

[40] L. M. Sieberer, T. Olsacher, A. Elben, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, F. Haake, and P. Zoller, Digital Quantum Simulation, Trotter Errors, and Quantum Chaos of the Kicked Top, npj Quant. Inf. 5, 78 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-019-0192-5

[41] M. C. Tran, Y. Su, D. Carney, and J. M. Taylor, Faster Digital Quantum Simulation by Symmetry Protection, PRX Quantum 2, 010323 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.010323

[42] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, G. Gramegna, and S. Pascazio, Generalized Product Formulas and Quantum Control, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 435301 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8121/​ab4403

[43] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Quantum Zeno Dynamics from General Quantum Operations, Quantum 4, 289 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-07-06-289

[44] G. Teschl, Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems (American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 2012).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1090/​gsm/​140

[45] T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic Quantum Computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.90.015002

[46] R. S. Strichartz, A Guide to Distribution Theory and Fourier Transforms (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​5314

[47] S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, Bounds for the Adiabatic Approximation with Applications to Quantum Computation, J. Math. Phys. 48, 102111 (2007).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.2798382

[48] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, V. Giovannetti, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Non-Abelian Phases from Quantum Zeno Dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042107 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.88.042107

[49] J. Z. Bernád, Dynamical Control of Quantum Systems in the Context of Mean Ergodic Theorems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 065303 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8121/​aa5576

[50] A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter Error with Commutator Scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.11.011020

[51] T. G. Kurtz, A Random Trotter Product Formula, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 35, 147 (1972).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1090/​S0002-9939-1972-0303347-5

[52] E. Campbell, Random Compiler for Fast Hamiltonian Simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.123.070503

[53] A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and Y. Su, Faster Quantum Simulation by Randomization, Quantum 3, 182 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2019-09-02-182

[54] Y. Ouyang, D. R. White, and E. T. Campbell, Compilation by Stochastic Hamiltonian Sparsification, Quantum 4, 235 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-02-27-235

[55] C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. A. Tropp, Concentration for Random Product Formulas, PRX Quantum 2, 040305 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.040305

[56] L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical Suppression of Decoherence in Two-State Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.58.2733

[57] L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.82.2417

[58] D. Vitali and P. Tombesi, Using Parity Kicks for Decoherence Control, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4178 (1999).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.59.4178

[59] P. Zanardi, Symmetrizing Evolutions, Phys. Lett. A 258, 77 (1999).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​S0375-9601(99)00365-5

[60] L.-M. Duan and G.-C. Guo, Suppressing Environmental Noise in Quantum Computation through Pulse Control, Phys. Lett. A 261, 139 (1999).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​S0375-9601(99)00592-7

[61] L. Viola, Quantum Control via Encoded Dynamical Decoupling, Phys. Rev. A 66, 012307 (2002).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.66.012307

[62] C. Uchiyama and M. Aihara, Multipulse Control of Decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032313 (2002).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.66.032313

[63] L. Viola and E. Knill, Random Decoupling Schemes for Quantum Dynamical Control and Error Suppression, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060502 (2005).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.94.060502

[64] L. F. Santos and L. Viola, Enhanced Convergence and Robust Performance of Randomized Dynamical Decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 150501 (2006).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.97.150501

[65] L. Viola and L. F. Santos, Randomized Dynamical Decoupling Techniques for Coherent Quantum Control, J. Mod. Opt. 53, 2559 (2006).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500340600955633

[66] L. F. Santos and L. Viola, Advantages of Randomization in Coherent Quantum Dynamical Control, New J. Phys. 10, 083009 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​10/​8/​083009

[67] R. Hillier, C. Arenz, and D. Burgarth, A Continuous-Time Diffusion Limit Theorem for Dynamical Decoupling and Intrinsic Decoherence, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48, 155301 (2015).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8113/​48/​15/​155301

[68] A. Hahn, D. Burgarth, and K. Yuasa, Unification of Random Dynamical Decoupling and the Quantum Zeno Effect, New J. Phys. (in press).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​ac6b4f

[69] P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Pascazio, Unification of Dynamical Decoupling and the Quantum Zeno Effect, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032314 (2004).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.69.032314

Cited by

[1] Daniel Burgarth, Paolo Facchi, and Robin Hillier, "Stability and convergence of dynamical decoupling with finite amplitude control", arXiv:2205.00988.

[2] Hannes Lagemann, Dennis Willsch, Madita Willsch, Fengping Jin, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen, "Numerical analysis of effective models for flux-tunable transmon systems", arXiv:2201.02402.

[3] Alexander Hahn, Daniel Burgarth, and Kazuya Yuasa, "Unification of Random Dynamical Decoupling and the Quantum Zeno Effect", arXiv:2112.04242.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2022-07-03 18:04:35). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

On Crossref's cited-by service no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2022-07-03 18:04:34).