MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406799095 · doi:10.1103/physreva.111.012215

Nonadiabatic quantum optimization for crossing quantum phase transitions

2025· article· en· W4406799095 on OpenAlexaff
András Grabarits, Federico Balducci, Barry C. Sanders, Adolfo del Campo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHorizon 2020Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsQuantumPhysicsQuantum phase transitionQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the optimal driving of the ground state of a many-body quantum system across a quantum phase transition in finite time. In this context, excitations caused by the breakdown of adiabaticity can be minimized by adjusting the schedule of the control parameter that drives the transition. Drawing inspiration from the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, we characterize the timescale of onset of adiabaticity for several optimal control procedures. Our analysis reveals that schedules relying on local adiabaticity, such as Roland-Cerf's local adiabatic driving and the quantum adiabatic brachistochrone, fail to provide a significant speedup over the adiabatic evolution in the transverse-field Ising and long-range Kitaev models. As an alternative, we introduce a framework, nonadiabatic quantum optimization (NAQO), that, by exploiting the Landau-Zener formula and taking into account the role of higher-excited states, outperforms schedules obtained via both local adiabaticity and state-of-the-art numerical optimization. NAQO is not restricted to exactly solvable models, and we further confirm its superior performance in a disordered nonintegrable model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207