in adiabatic quantum computation ( aqc ) @xcite quantum algorithms are implemented by initializing a system in an easily prepared ground state , followed by adiabatic evolution subject to a hamiltonian whose final ground state represents the solution to a computational problem .
it is known that this model is computationally equivalent to the standard circuit model of quantum computation , in the sense that each model can simulate the other with polynomial resource overhead @xcite . while error correction methods have been proposed for aqc @xcite , and arguments
have been put forth that aqc  is inherently insensitive to certain types of errors @xcite , unlike the circuit model it is still an open question whether aqc  can be made fault tolerant subject to realistic noise models pertaining to aqc  in an open system setting . indeed , even what constitutes a consistent picture of adiabatic evolution in open systems is still the subject of some debate @xcite .
nevertheless , experiments in aqc using superconducting qubits have made great strides recently @xcite .
the performance of adiabatic quantum algorithms is characterized by the adiabatic error , i.e. , the fidelity loss between the actual time - evolved state ( the solution of the schrdinger equation ) and the instantaneous ground state , calculated at the final time @xmath0 . since the adiabatic theorem fock , kato , messiah : book , teufel : book guarantees that in the limit of arbitrarily slow evolution the error approaches zero , one expects that a more slowly varying hamiltonian and/or a longer evolution time should result in higher fidelity or accuracy .
this is the _ accuracy - time tradeoff _ in quantum adiabatic algorithms .
this tradeoff is often formalized by the adiabatic condition , which states ( roughly ) that the variation rate of the hamiltonian should be @xmath1 the adiabatic error times the gap squared .
a clear disadvantage of this condition is the inherent vagueness of @xmath1 ,  which makes it difficult to reliably quantify the evolution time _ vs _ the desired accuracy .
moreover , violations of the traditional adiabatic condition have been reported @xcite , in the sense that the condition is neither necessary nor sufficient for adiabatic evolution . while these violations have been explained as being either due to inconsistent manipulations @xcite or due to resonant transitions amin
, it appears that there is no single adiabatic theorem .
rather , a number of different rigorous conditions have been derived , which apply under various mathematical assumptions @xcite . a rigorous condition which holds for analytic hamiltonians and exibits the explicit scaling with system size , needed for aqc resource quantification ,
was derived in ref .
@xcite .    in this work
we perform a comprehensive analysis of the adiabatic error for the case of an adiabatic quantum search algorithm , in a closed system setting .
we focus on quantum search not only because it is an important example of a quantum speedup @xcite , but also because it is amenable to an exact analytical treatment .
indeed , rather than relying on a particular form of the adiabatic theorem , our approach is based on an exact treatment of the underlying dynamics .
we calculate the adiabatic error as an explicit function of the evolution time .
we work out the formal @xmath2 expansion of the error  often used in rigorous treatments of the adiabatic theorem
through which we provide a large-@xmath0 _ polynomial _ upper bound for the adiabatic error .
we shall argue that a leading order truncation of this series expansion can result in misleading estimates for the scaling of the evolution time _ vs _ system size .
we draw this conclusion on the basis of a careful study of the adiabatic error , showing that it may exhibit a short-@xmath0 _ exponential _ decay , which is hidden in the formal polynomial expansion .
we show that this short - time exponential decay heralds the correct scaling for the evolution time _ vs _ system size ( a quadratic speedup over classical search ) , avoiding the overestimation that results from the long - time polynomial decay , and which leads to a loss of the quantum speedup .
additionally , we propose specific adiabatic evolution paths ( `` interpolations'')inspired by a procedure for minimization of time functionals for adiabatic evolution @xcite  and use these to illustrate our results .
we also examine the applicability of the traditional measure of the evolution time and contrast this to what we obtain from our analysis .
this careful analysis enables us to show explicitly how one can reduce the adiabatic error as a function of the evolution time .
the structure of this paper is as follows .
we start with some general background in sec .
[ ad - int ] by delineating the framework of adiabatic quantum computation , the definition of the adiabatic error , and the adiabatic theorem . in sec .
[ qsham ] , we specialize to the specific problem of quantum search . there
we introduce a general hamiltonian interpolation for the search problem , and analytically solve the corresponding schrdinger equation .
section  [ aderror ] contains the core of our results .
we first derive an exact expression for the adiabatic error in subsection  exactr .
next , in subsection  [ approx ] , we approximate this expression and show how the polynomial and exponential behaviors emerge . since estimation of the adiabatic error requires specific interpolation paths , we derive a general interpolation for the search hamiltonian in subsection  ham , and investigate in detail three special cases . the adiabatic error for the general interpolation together with the special cases is estimated in subsection  [ erpaths ] . in subsection
[ strategy ] , we discuss a strategy for controllably reducing the adiabatic error .
there we show how one can employ a freedom in the interpolation to manipulate the adiabatic error .
this accounts for the performance - resource tradeoff .
we conclude with a summary of the results and an outlook in sec .
we begin by defining the adiabatic error as it arises in the context of aqc .
we also provide a brief review of some pertinent facts concerning the traditional  adiabatic theorem , also in the context of aqc .
however , we note that in the sequel we shall not use the adiabatic theorem ; rather , we shall treat the dynamics directly by solving the schrdinger equation , and later enforce adiabaticity by means of a @xmath2 expansion .
let us treat the total evolution time @xmath0 as a parameter and define the the scaled ( dimensionless ) time@xmath3.\]]assume that we have an @xmath4-dimensional quantum system that evolves for a total time @xmath0 under the hamiltonian @xmath5 with spectral decomposition @xmath6
\label{h}\]]where @xmath7 for @xmath8 , except that the ground state energy is separated from the rest of the spectrum by a nonvanishing gap @xmath9possible level crossing among excited eigenstates @xmath10 shall not concern us here because in the following we shall only focus on the ground state @xmath11 .
we assume that the system is closed , i.e. , the evolution is governed by the schrdinger equation @xmath12where from now on dot denotes @xmath13 , and we set @xmath14 .
the initial state is assumed to be the ground state , i.e. , @xmath15    _ remark_. we shall use the subscript @xmath0 to indicate the parametric dependence on @xmath0 . when symbols already have a subscript we shall avoid the additional @xmath0 subscript so as not to clutter the notation .
a central quantity of interest to us is the adiabatic error  @xmath16 , which quantifies the distance between the instantaneous ground state and the actual state : @xmath17note that @xmath16 is a distance and ( in)fidelity measure in their rigorous sense .
indeed , the trace distance @xmath18 and fidelity @xmath19 between two arbitrary density operators @xmath20 and @xmath21 are defined as @xcite @xmath22where @xmath23 is the trace norm ( sum of singular values of @xmath24 ) . for pure states @xmath25 it is not hard to show that @xmath26 and @xmath27 .
thus@xmath28    an equivalent and useful formulation of @xmath16 is the following .
let @xmath29 denote the ground - state eigenprojection .
the connection between the initial preparation @xmath30 and the time evolved state @xmath31 is given by @xmath32where the unitary operator @xmath33called the adiabatic intertwiner @xcite  determines the evolution in the eigenspace @xmath31 and its orthogonal complement @xmath34 : @xmath35one can assign a ( dimensionless ) adiabatic hamiltonian ,  @xmath36 , to this evolution defined via @xmath37on the other hand , the evolution operator generated as @xmath38dictates the actual dynamics : @xmath39thus the error @xmath16 in fact measures the difference between @xmath40 and @xmath33 , or equivalently how far the unitary operator @xmath41is from @xmath42 ( identity ) .
indeed , we have @xmath43which vanishes iff @xmath44 .
the above formulations have presumed that the degeneracy of the ground - state eigensubspace does not change in time .
nonetheless , there may be situations in which this degeneracy preservation assumption does not hold .
in fact , as we shall see later , the quantum search problem we study in this paper falls into this category .
let us assume that the initial state is pure , @xmath45 , but the instantaneous ground - state eigenprojection @xmath31 is not necessarily rank-@xmath46 , accounting for the possibility of degeneracy .
intuitively , if the actual state @xmath47 only has components in the support of @xmath31 the algorithm has achieved its goal at the instant @xmath48 , whereas a less than full overlap denotes lack of success at this instant .
the overlap of @xmath49 and the support of @xmath31 can be quantified , e.g. , with @xmath50 , whence we define the following performance error : @xmath51it is evident that @xmath52 , with @xmath53 iff the actual state has vanishing overlap with the support of the instantaneous ground - state eigenprojection , while @xmath54 iff the actual state resides anywhere in the support .
we can write @xmath55 $ ] and @xmath56=\mathrm{tr}[p(0)\omega _ { t}(\tau ) p(0)\omega _ { t}^{\dag } ( \tau ) ] $ ] . using this ,
note the difference between @xmath57|^{2}}\]]and @xmath58}.\]]namely , in the nondegenerate case @xmath59 iff @xmath60 , indicating that the evolution was perfectly adiabatic . in the degenerate case ,
on the other hand , algorithmic success does not require the evolution to be perfectly adiabatic since only nonvanishing overlap with the ground - state eigensubspace is required , i.e. , @xmath54 iff @xmath61 $ ] , whereas complete failure requires the dynamics to remove any overlap with the ground - state eigensubspace , i.e. , @xmath53 iff @xmath62 $ ] .
while the error as defined in eq .
( [ error - final - form ] ) is not necessarily a distance in the strict sense , it is adequate for quantifying the adiabatic error .
note also that @xmath63 reduces to @xmath16 when the ground state is nondegenerate . from now on we shall be using these various expressions for the adiabatic error as appropriate in the rest of this paper .
one variant of the traditionaladiabatic theorem @xcite states that given an @xmath64 and a time - dependent hamiltonian @xmath65 with a nondegenerate ground state , the adiabatic error satisfies @xmath66 , provided that @xmath67 in which @xmath68 is the standard operator norm , defined as the maximum singular value , i.e. , @xmath69 which reduces to @xmath70 for normal operators .
as remarked in the introduction , this condition is hardly quantitative due to the intrinsic vagueness of @xmath1 , and has been the subject of critique ( consistent with its lack of rigor ) @xcite , justifications @xcite , and rigorous improvements avron:871,avron:872,nenciu:93,martinez , hagedornjoye:02,jrs , ohara:042319,boixo , lrh .
nevertheless , it remains a useful rule of thumb , as long as it is applied with appropriate care .
an immediate implication of the adiabatic theorem is that , assuming it is initialized in the ground state , the system remains close to the final ground state at @xmath71 .
thus , by choosing the hamiltonian such that @xmath72 corresponds to a _
simple _ ground state @xmath73 ( simple in the sense that it is easily preparable ) , and @xmath74 represents a hamiltonian whose ground state @xmath75 identifies the solution to a computationally _ hard _ problem , one can devise an adiabatic version for the corresponding algorithmic or computational task .
this is precisely the insight that led to the advent of aqc @xcite .
a simple `` annealing schedule '' , or `` path '' , between @xmath72 and @xmath74 is the following linear interpolation in @xmath48 : @xmath76 in physical situations , however , one often realizes the dynamics by tuning some time - dependent control knobs or couplings @xmath77 of the hamiltonian .
this suggests that a generalization of eq .
( [ aaa ] ) can be introduced by assuming access to a controllable set of non - commuting , linearly - independent primitive hamiltonians @xmath78 combined , e.g. , as @xmath79=\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i}(\tau ) h_{i}$ ] .
further generalizations can be introduced as well @xcite . however , for our purposes in this paper we shall consider the parametrization rolandcerf , qab @xmath80with the boundary conditions @xmath81    two remarks are in order regarding aqc .
( i ) a primary goal in aqc is to make @xmath82 decrease more rapidly for a given @xmath0 and problem size , or alternatively , to make @xmath0 smaller for a given @xmath83 and problem size .
often the problem size is given by @xmath4 , the dimension of the hilbert space .
however , in the context of many - body quantum systems , where the hilbert space is a tensor product of subsystems ( e.g. , qubits ) , @xmath84 is the correct measure of problem size , coinciding with system size .
( ii ) the run time  complexity of a quantum algorithm should be defined as @xmath85not @xmath0 @xcite .
this _ regularization _ is required because of the energy - time tradeoff in quantum mechanics , in the sense that multiplication of @xmath65 in eq .
( [ cond ] ) by some positive factor @xmath86 manifests itself as dividing @xmath0 by the same factor , making it possible to decrease @xmath0 arbitrarily by choosing @xmath86 sufficiently large .
this tradeoff can also be understood via the schrdinger equation ( [ eqscalt ] ) , in which the final state of a system evolving under hamiltonian @xmath65 for @xmath0 is the same as that of a system evolving under @xmath87 for @xmath88 .
this ambiguity is fixed by the definition of @xmath89 as in eq .
( [ runt ] ) .
scaling of @xmath90 with system size , for a given upper bound on the error @xmath91 , determines the run time complexity of the corresponding quantum algorithm .
grover s quantum search algorithm @xcite performs a search for @xmath92 marked  items among @xmath4 items of an unsorted database , presuming that there is an oracle  for distinguishing the marked from the unmarked items .
the algorithm in its original form ( @xmath93 ) comprises the following steps : ( i ) assign orthonormal quantum states ( i.e. , labels ) @xmath94 to the items , ( ii ) prepare the quantum system in the equal superposition state @xmath95 , and ( iii ) apply the grover operator  encompassing the oracle
repeatedly @xcite .
the algorithm finds a marked item after @xmath96 calls of the oracle  a quadratic speedup over the best classical algorithm  and is provably optimal for any @xmath4 ( not necessarily very large ) @xcite .
various generalization of the algorithm have been introduced ( e.g. , refs .
@xcite ) , and it has also been implemented experimentally in a number of physical settings ( e.g. , refs .
@xcite ) .    an adiabatic hamiltonian version of the search algorithm was first introduced in ref .
@xcite , but failed to display the expected quadratic speedup as it relied on the linear interpolation of eq .
( [ aaa ] ) .
this was fixed in ref .
@xcite by using a non - linear but one - dimensional interpolation with @xmath97 [ recall eq .
( 2-d - interpol ) ] , which moves fast when away from the minimum gap , but slows down near it . as shown in ref .
@xcite , this result can be further improved , in the sense of a smaller adiabatic error , by adopting a two - dimensional interpolation as in eq .
( [ 2-d - interpol ] ) , @xmath98with the two projective hamiltonians @xmath99where @xmath100 is the equal superposition of all of the labelstates ( items ) , @xmath101 is the projection over the subspace @xmath102 of the marked items ( @xmath103 ) , and @xmath104 is a dimensional constant which sets the energy scale . in other words ,
the initial state @xmath105 is the ground state of the initial hamiltonian @xmath106 , while any state supported fully on @xmath102 is a ground state of the final ( oracle ) hamiltonian @xmath107 .
note that unlike previous treatments of adiabatic quantum search @xcite , the hamiltonian @xmath107 has a degenerate ground eigenspace spanned by @xmath108 .
we remark that the search hamiltonian ( [ search - ham ] ) is a member of the following class of projective hamiltonians qab , aqc - intrinsic , aharonovta - shma : @xmath109where @xmath110 , @xmath111 , with @xmath112 and @xmath113 fixed ( normalized ) vectors in the system hilbert space , for which @xmath114 is a given function of @xmath4 . in the case of the search problem , we have @xmath115 , @xmath116 , whence @xmath117 .
the results of this paper can be generalized to other members of the class of projective hamiltonians .      in the computational basis ,
in which @xmath118 , the schrdinger equation ( [ eqscalt ] ) becomes @xmath119 , \]]with the initial value @xmath120 .
it can be seen from this expression that the marked components all behave similarly , as do the unmarked components .
hence we can rewrite the state @xmath121 as @xmath122where the subscripts u  and m  denote unmarked  and marked , respectively .
the normalization condition now reads @xmath123by defining the ( unnormalized ) two - dimensional vector @xmath124and the ( non - hermitian ) reduced hamiltonian matrix @xmath125 in which @xmath126is the fraction of the marked items , the schrdinger equation reduces to @xmath127with the initial condition @xmath128 .
therefore , not only is the parameter space of the problem two - dimensional , it is described by an effectively two - dimensional hamiltonian ( in the m - u representation ) .
this reduction from the real hamiltonian @xmath129 [ eq .  ( [ search - ham ] ) ] to the effective hamiltonian @xmath130 [ eq .
( [ pseudoham ] ) ] will prove useful in our analysis below .
later in the paper we shall need the norm of the hamiltonian as well .
this can be calculated easily from eqs .
( [ op - norm ] ) and ( [ pseudoham ] ) , and yields : @xmath131and similarly , @xmath132      the hamiltonian @xmath133 ( [ search - ham ] ) has three distinct dimensionless eigenvalues @xmath134 , where @xmath135where @xmath136is the dimensionless gap ( hence @xmath137 ) and @xmath138 is @xmath139-fold degenerate .
let @xmath140 and @xmath141 denote the pauli matrices .
let us define the similarity matrix@xmath142and the unitary@xmath143/2}. \label{formofa}\]]then the effective hamiltonian @xmath144 [ eq .  ( [ pseudoham ] ) ] satisfies @xmath145where @xmath146is the hermitian core of @xmath147 , and we easily find that @xmath148\openone+\delta ( \tau ) \widehat{a}(\tau ) \sigma _ { z}\widehat{a}^{\dag } ( \tau ) \right\ } .
\label{uni - interp}\]]this last result is remarkable :  it states that , up to an overall ( time - dependent ) shift @xmath149\openone$ ] and a conformal factor @xmath150 , the reduced hamiltonian @xmath151 is a _ unitary interpolation _
@xmath152 @xcite .
we will exploit this observation below .
the non - hermitian reduced hamiltonian @xmath144 and its hermitian core @xmath151 have the same set of eigenvalues @xmath153 , and we have the spectral resolution@xmath154where @xmath155and @xmath156 are the eigenvectors of @xmath157 , corresponding to the eigenvalues @xmath158 .
the unitary operator @xmath159 acts as a reduced adiabatic intertwiner [ eq .  ( [ ad - int ] ) ] , in the sense that for the reduced projection @xmath160 we have @xmath161    _ remark . _
we emphasize that throughout the paper hat and tilde denote states or operators in the reduced representation ; the only exception is @xmath162 .      in solving the schrdinger equation and calculating the adiabatic error @xmath82 ,
it is more convenient to work with the normalized state @xmath163equation  ( [ sch-1 ] ) now becomes @xmath164with @xmath165 . solving this equation results in @xmath166 in which @xmath167\
] ] is the time - ordered reduced evolution operator .
having observed that the grover search problem can be cast as a conformal unitary interpolation , we outline a general , systematic approach for solving the corresponding class of schrdinger equations using the dyson series expansion @xcite .
consider as a specialization of the general time - dependent hamiltonian of eq .
( [ h ] ) the conformal unitary interpolation hamiltonian   @xmath168 in which @xmath169is the spectral decomposition of the ( traceless ) initial hamiltonian @xmath72 , the unitary operator @xmath33 satisfies the adiabatic schrdinger equation ( [ ad - schr ] ) generated by the adiabatic hamiltonian @xmath170 @xcite , and ( the dimensionless gap ) @xmath171 is a smooth function with the initial value @xmath172 .
it is also useful to think of the time - dependent hamiltonian @xmath5 [ eq .
( [ h_t ] ) ] as the adiabatic interaction picture hamiltonian , though normally an interaction picture transformation does not involve a time - dependent prefactor such as @xmath173 .
it is evident that the eigenvalues and eigenprojections of @xmath5 satisfy @xmath174equation ( [ spect ] ) implies that the spectrum of @xmath5 evolves conformally with @xmath150 , i.e. , all the eigenvalues are multiplied by the same factor , while eq .
( [ ap : p ] ) implies that the eigenprojections are unitarily connected , and the degeneracy is constant in time .
comparison of eqs .
( [ ad - int ] ) and ( [ ap : p ] ) reveals that @xmath175 and here too , @xmath33 plays the role of the adiabatic intertwiner .    rather than solving the schrdinger equation @xmath176we solve the equation of motion for the adiabatic interaction picture  propagator   [ cf .
( [ omega ] ) ] @xmath177this provides a more direct tool for the calculation of the adiabatic error [ eq .
( [ def : ad - err ] ) ] .
let us define @xmath178note that @xmath179 has dimensions of energy while @xmath180 is dimensionless . in the adiabatic interaction picture
the ( dimensionless ) perturbation  is @xmath181 , i.e. , it follows from eqs .
( [ ad - schr ] ) and ( [ wdot ] ) that @xmath182\omega _ { t}(\tau ) .
\label{omega - dott}\]]we also define the two unitaries @xmath183 and @xmath184 through the following equations : @xmath185it is easily seen that @xmath186 also satisfies eq .
( [ omega - dott ] ) , so that @xmath187    to simplify the analysis , we only consider hamiltonians for which @xmath188 in which @xmath189 is an integrable function and @xmath190 is a constant ( @xmath48-independent )  and traceless operator belonging to the space of linear operators acting on the system hilbert space .
thus from eq .
( [ h_1 ] ) we obtain @xmath191    note that , from eqs .
( [ h_0 ] ) and ( [ v_0 ] ) , @xmath192where @xmath193 is shorthand for @xmath194we shall use the similar shorthand @xmath195wherever convenient . inserting @xmath196 into eq .
( [ v_1 ] ) yields @xmath197 in which the kernel @xmath198 is defined as @xmath199equation ( [ v_1-eq ] ) , or equivalently the volterra equation @xmath200can be solved iteratively , yielding the dyson series @xmath201      now we apply the method described above to the adiabatic quantum search problem . recall that we are working with the reduced states and operators ( hence the hat over all reduced quantities , except the gap @xmath162 [ eq .  ( [ gap ] ) ] )
comparing eq .
( [ hhat ] ) with eq .
( [ h_t ] ) implies that @xmath202after excluding the trivial term @xmath203 from @xmath204 .
similarly , eqs .
( [ formofa ] ) and ( [ h_a ] ) yield @xmath205\right ]   \notag \\ & \overset{\text{(\ref{gap})}}{=}&\sqrt{r(1-r)}\frac{x_{1}\dot{x}_{2}-\dot{x}_{1}x_{2}}{\delta ^{2 } } ,   \label{h_a } \\
\widehat{\xi } & = & \sigma _ { y}.\end{aligned}\]]as a result , from eqs .  ( [ v_0-form ] ) and ( [ kernel ] )
we obtain @xmath206where the phase factor @xmath207~\mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } \]]compensates for the removal of the trivial term from @xmath208 .
some simple algebra then yields @xmath209where , for @xmath210 , the dyson series terms are @xmath211and @xmath212 .
this completes the derivation of @xmath213
in the previous section , we worked out the solution to the schrdinger equation in the quantum search problem . having collected the pertinent ingredients , we now return to calculating our main object of interest , @xmath16 .    after deriving an exact formula for the error , we proceed with approximating it in the large system - size limit , identified with @xmath214 .
we start with the well - known polynomial expansion of @xmath82 in terms of @xmath0 , which works well for large times . in refining
this result , we show that in fact two regimes are discernible in the behavior of @xmath82 vs @xmath0 : ( i ) the onset of _ exponential _ decrease , followed by ( ii ) a _ polynomial _ tail .
this dichotomy will appear to be crucial in a correct characterization of the scaling of the run time of the algorithm with system size .
the exact behavior of the error in the algorithm depends strongly on the form of the interpolation one chooses for the hamiltonian .
inspired by our earlier study aiming at minimizing the adiabatic error in quantum algorithms @xcite , we shall suggest a general class of interpolations , which includes three specific cases already studied in the literature .
next , we investigate the specific behavior of the adiabatic error for each interpolation , separately .
finally , we shall suggest methods for suppressing the adiabatic error even further .
recall that the adiabatic quantum search hamiltonian ( [ search - ham ] ) has a nondegenerate ground state @xmath105 at the initial time @xmath215 , whereas the ground - state eigenprojection at the final time @xmath216 is @xmath217 , which is @xmath92-fold degenerate . here ,
any full superposition of the form @xmath218 will work equally well , whereas if @xmath219 does not have complete support over @xmath217 then this indicates that the algorithm has partially failed .
hence , following the discussion in sec .
ad - int [ eq .  ( [ error - final - form ] ) ] ,
the adiabatic error at the final time is determined by @xmath220    an equivalent formulation can be obtained for the two - dimensional reduction we discussed in sec .
[ qsham ] . in this representation @xmath221
is replaced by @xmath222 [ eq .  ( [ state - red ] ) ] ; similarly , the instantaneous ground state is represented by the nondegenerate state @xmath223 [ eq .  ( [ phi - hat ] ) ] .
thus we can employ the error formula appropriate for the non - degenerate case [ eq .
( [ def : ad - err2 ] ) ] , whereby @xmath224 in which @xmath225 is given by eq .
( [ o - hat ] ) , and in the last line we used the unitarity of @xmath225 .
the equality of eqs .
( [ er ] ) and ( [ ad - error ] ) is immediately seen from @xmath226    inserting @xmath225noting eqs .
( [ v0 ] ) and ( [ v1])into eq .
( [ ad - error ] ) yields the following _ exact _ expression for the adiabatic error at the final time : @xmath227which is upperbounded by @xmath228from the above equations we can in principle calculate the adiabatic error or its bound given that we know all @xmath229 s .
_ the value of @xmath230 will be important later . in this case , we have @xmath231 , thence eq .
( [ ad - error ] ) yields @xmath232 in which we used the boundary conditions ( [ bc-2 ] ) in @xmath233 .
this relation is valid for any interpolation that satisfies the boundary conditions
.      an exact calculation of the adiabatic error from eq .
( [ error ] ) can be challenging because of the infinite number of terms in the summand and the fact that each term contains a multiple integral . to alleviate this difficulty , in this subsection we approximate the upper bound on @xmath82 from eq .
( [ error ] ) from the first few @xmath234 s , and argue that this suffices for most algorithmic purposes .
we start from an expansion in powers of @xmath2 , based on integration by parts , and explain its limitations .
we then provide more careful analyses , based on the residue theorem and on the stationary phase method , both of which lead to an exponential error estimate .
the most common rigorous adiabatic approximation employs an expansion in powers of @xmath2 , presuming that @xmath0 is large  @xcite .
let us now show how one can systematically expand the adiabatic error as a polynomial in@xmath2 by extracting powers of @xmath2 from each term @xmath235 through integration by parts .    from the identity @xmath236 [ valid for any differentiable function @xmath237 , we obtain the following relation by integration by parts : @xmath238 .
\notag\end{aligned}\]]notice how this extracted a @xmath2 in front of the first term . in the second integral on the right hand side we can iterate the same trick of replacing the exponential with its derivative ; which generates @xmath239 and higher order terms .
this provides a systematic way for generating @xmath240 expansions of exponential integrals , as we shall see more specifically below for the @xmath235 s .    using eq .
( [ ibp - identity ] ) , we obtain @xmath241 .
\label{i1}\end{aligned}\]]applying once more the exponential identity ( [ ibp - identity ] ) for the second integral above gives rise to @xmath242 terms ; whence , @xmath243+o\bigl(\frac{1}{t^{2}}\bigr ) ,   \notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]i.e . , @xmath244 .
in analogous fashion , for @xmath245 we obtain @xmath246 ,   \notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]from which @xmath247-\frac{\widehat{h}_{a}(0)}{(jt)^{2}}\bigl[\frac{\widehat{h}_{a}(\tau ) e^{-ijt\int^{\tau } \delta } } { \delta ( \tau ) }   \notag \\ & & -\widehat{h}_{a}(0)\bigr]+o\bigl(\frac{1}{t^{3}}\bigr ) ,   \label{i2}\end{aligned}\]]and @xmath248 . by induction
, one can conclude from eq .
( [ inttran ] ) that @xcite @xmath249for @xmath250 .
thus , from eq .
( [ error ] ) the adiabatic error bound becomes @xmath251+o\bigl(\frac{1}{t^{2}}\bigr ) .
\label{addelta}\end{aligned}\]]this relation can be simplified further . from the boundary conditions ( bc-1 ) and ( [ bc-2 ] ) , we obtain @xmath252 [ eq .  ( [ gap ] ) ] , @xmath253 and @xmath254 [ eq .  ( [ h_a ] ) ] . thus eq .  ( addelta ) reduces to @xmath255+o\bigl(\frac{1}{t^{2}}\bigr ) .
\label{er - simp}\]]proceeding in a similar manner , one can in principle obtain the exact form of the coefficient of each @xmath256 term , for arbitrary @xmath250 .
_ remarks .
_ let us make some remarks regarding the polynomial expansion , and in particular eq .
( [ er - simp ] ) .
\(i ) notice that often the @xmath240 series is _ truncated _ after the first or at most the second order term , on the basis of the assumption that for sufficiently large @xmath0 the first couple of terms should give a reliable and accurate upper bound .
however , without correctly defining what large  @xmath0 means , a truncation after the first few terms might be unjustifiable .
in fact , in addition to @xmath0 , the system size @xmath84 ( introduced here through @xmath257 ) and the gap @xmath150 are also key players in the estimation of @xmath16 .
the minimum ( system - size dependent ) gap @xmath258 works in general as a bottleneck for the performance of quantum algorithms ( e.g. , refs .
farhi1,farhi2,latorre , qab , schaller ) .
specifically , where the gap closes or becomes small , the adiabatic approximation may not hold , indicative of a quantum phase transition  ( in the thermodynamic limit ) sachdev : book , latorre , schutzhold:06,schaller2,aminchoi .
this implies that the coefficients of some high order @xmath256 terms might have a stronger gap dependence than those of lower order terms . with this caveat ,
neglecting those higher order terms is not always possible .
in fact , it is not difficult to see that the coefficient of the @xmath239 has a @xmath259 dependence ( see also ref .
@xcite ) , stronger than the @xmath260 dependence of the coefficient of the @xmath2 term in @xmath261 [ eq .  ( [ h_a ] ) ] .
\(ii ) for similar reasons , an estimate of @xmath0 arising from @xmath262 ( for a given @xmath83 ) along with a truncated @xmath240 expansion , is not always reliable .
we shall see this explicitly later in this section .
\(iii ) one might argue that @xmath263 results from an energy - time uncertainty relation such as @xmath264 [ presuming @xmath82 is directly related to the uncertainty in measurement of energy ] .
however , this argument is not rigorous and should not be considered as a replacement for the analysis leading to the @xmath240 expansion ( unless justified carefully ) .
a rigorous energy - time uncertainty relation is given , for example , by the mandelstam - tamm inequality @xmath265\times t_{\psi } [ k]\geq 1/2,\]]in which @xmath266\equiv \delta _ { \psi } [ k]/|\mathrm{d}\langle \psi    @xmath267\equiv \sqrt{\langle \psi |x^{2}|\psi \rangle -\langle \psi |x|\psi \rangle ^{2}}$ ] @xcite .
hence , as is well known the naive relation @xmath268\times t\approx 1 $ ] should be treated with care .
strictly , a relation between @xmath269 $ ] and @xmath82 can be constructed as the following .
note that we can write @xmath270where @xmath271 is orthogonal to @xmath272 [ eq .  [ ad - error ] ] .
hence , after some algebra we obtain @xmath273\bigl|_{\tau = 1}}+o(\delta _ { \text{ad}}^{2 } ) .
\hskip-3 mm & & \end{aligned}\]]despite this relation , connecting @xmath0 and @xmath274 $ ] is not straightforward .
although using different versions of the energy - time uncertainty relation @xcite may provide additional insights , we shall not further pursue this here .
[ [ residue - theorem - analysis ] ] residue theorem analysis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    in the previous subsection we used integration by parts to arrive at a polynomial expansion .
let us now show that an alternative , more careful analysis based on the residue theorem of complex analysis , reveals that the adiabatic error decays _ exponentially _ for sufficiently short times . in some sense , this exponential behavior is reminiscent of the well - known landau - zener formula for two - state quantum systems @xcite , which  in its simplest form  states that the _ tunneling probability _
@xmath275 from @xmath276 to @xmath277 , for the hamiltonian @xmath278 , is @xmath279we notice that @xmath280 is in fact intimately related to @xmath82 in this simple two - state case , as @xmath281the exponentiality of the adiabatic error _ vs _ time and (
some power of ) the gap has been previously established in generality in rigorous treatments of the adiabatic theorem nenciu:93,martinez , hagedornjoye:02,lrh ( see also ref .
@xcite in a more restricted setting ) .    in what follows we focus on @xmath282
; higher order terms can be treated similarly .
we start from eq .
( [ error ] ) , whence @xmath283here   denotes the higher order terms @xmath284 ( @xmath210 ) , whose neglect we justify below in the specific examples we discuss .
an exponential error term can be obtained , for example , by extending the integral to the complex time plane and using an appropriate closed contour for the application of the residue theorem @xcite . a precursor to this treatment of the adiabatic error
can be found , e.g. , in ref .
@xcite .
if @xmath285 ( @xmath286 ) is not constant it has poles at points @xmath287 where the gap vanishes : @xmath288 [ eq .  ( [ h_a ] ) ] . from eq .
( [ gap ] ) , we obtain @xmath289 , or ( assuming @xmath290 ) @xmath291where @xmath292 . the poles @xmath287 can in principle be obtained by inverting this relation for a given interpolation @xmath293 .
note , however , that there might exist other singularities ( typically at infinity ) arising from the exponential @xmath294 in eq .
( h1-int ) . therefore , estimating the integral ( [ h1-int ] ) requires finding all contributing singularities in a suitably chosen contour @xmath295 in the complex @xmath48-plane .
the value of the integral @xmath296 can now be obtained by calculating the residues of the integrand at the poles enclosed inside the contour , @xmath297}\widehat{h}_{a}(z)e^{ijt\int^{z}\delta } \mathrm{d}z\bigr| .
\label{tmp - eq-1}\end{aligned}\]]for example , if the poles @xmath287 are _ simple _ and arise from @xmath298 , calculating the integral becomes straightforward .
recall that @xmath299 [ eq .  ( [ h_a ] ) ] and the residue of a rational function @xmath300 at a simple pole @xmath301 is given by @xmath302 @xcite .
thus , in this case we obtain @xmath303=   \label{residue } \\
\hskip-5 mm & & \frac{\sqrt{r(1-r)}\dot{x}_{21}(z_{0})e^{ijt\int^{z_{0}}\delta } } { \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}\bigl[\bigl(1-x_{21}(z)\bigr)^{2}+4rx_{21}(z)\bigr]\bigl|_{z_{0}}}\approx \frac{1}{4i}e^{ijt\int^{z_{0}}\delta } \notag,\end{aligned}\]]where in the last line we assumed @xmath304 .
note that this computation of the residues does not necessarily hold when @xmath305 , or when @xmath287 is at infinity .
this yields that an exponentially decreasing contribution emerges from @xmath306 $ ] of the exponential within the integrand  perhaps in addition to a generically non - exponentially - decreasing term .
thus , from eq .
( [ residue ] ) we find @xmath307 } + r_{t}^{\prime } ( 1 ) ,   \label{xx}\]]where @xmath308 results from the non - exponential contribution of the residue at @xmath287 and @xmath309 encapsulates the collective nonvanishing contribution of other segments of the contour as well as other non - exponentially - decreasing contributions emerging from the  terms in eq .
( [ h1-int ] ) . ) , and from eq .
( [ tmp - eq-1 ] ) , we obtain : @xmath310 .
this is in good agreement with eq .
( [ t=0-eq ] ) when @xmath311 and @xmath312 . ]    [ [ stationary - phase - analysis ] ] stationary phase analysis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    an alternative and complementary approach for obtaining the exponential contribution to the adiabatic error is to use the stationary phase method .
this method is appropriate for obtaining asymptotic value of complex integrals of the form @xmath313 , where @xmath314 is a large number and @xmath315 is a path for the integration .
assuming @xmath316 is a slowly - varying function over @xmath315 and @xmath317 is an analytic function , one can argue that the major contribution to the integral comes from the point(s ) @xmath287 at which @xmath317 has a minimum , whence hayek : book @xmath318    to apply this result to eq .
( [ h1-int ] ) , we replace @xmath317 and @xmath319 with @xmath320 and @xmath285 , respectively .
accordingly , @xmath287 is where @xmath321 .
the minimum point @xmath287 is often a complex number .
in fact , in quantum many - body situations , the gap @xmath162 is a nonnegative function , often with a nonvanishing minimum , which becomes zero in the thermodynamic limit @xcite . in such cases
, @xmath317 does indeed have a minimum .
it is also required that @xmath322 be finite [ this of course is not satisfied when @xmath323 has a pole or singularity at @xmath287 ] . if all these conditions are satisfied , eqs .
( [ h1-int ] ) and ( [ spm ] ) yield @xmath325 } ,   \label{st - ph}\]]as we wished .
this relation complements eq .
( [ residue ] ) in that it may be applicable when eq .
( [ residue ] ) is not .
[ [ discussion ] ] discussion + + + + + + + + + +    the emergence of the exponential dependence of @xmath326 on @xmath0 [ eqs .
( [ xx ] ) and ( [ st - ph ] ) ] in contrast to the polynomial dependence [ eq .
( [ er - simp ] ) ] is remarkable , as it indicates a much faster decay of the adiabatic error than what is suggested by the standard @xmath2 expansion . in the exponential regime
it suffices that @xmath0 be large compared to @xmath327 $ ] , or roughly @xcite:@xmath328this is a less stringent condition than the standard condition ( [ cond ] ) or its more rigorous counterparts avron:871,avron:872,nenciu:93,martinez , hagedornjoye:02,jrs , ohara:042319,boixo , lrh , involving higher powers of the gap .
the crossover point @xmath329 between the exponential and the polynomial regimes can be estimated by solving @xmath330}\approx   \frac{\sqrt{r}}{jt^{\star } } \bigl(|\dot{x}_{1}(1)|+|\dot{x}_{2}(0)|\bigr ) , \label{crossover}\]]in which @xmath331 is a non - exponential prefactor given by eq .
( [ xx ] ) or ( [ st - ph ] ) . if @xmath332 ( @xmath333 ) the exponential ( polynomial ) behavior prevails .
later in this section , we show explicitly that the expected run time for the quantum search algorithm is often given by the exponential contribution ; the polynomial regime may _ overestimate _ the minimum run time required for reasonable accuracy .
since the scaling of the run time depends on which interpolation we choose for the hamiltonian , in the following we shall obtain specific interpolations by employing some recently developed results for ( partial ) minimization of the adiabatic error @xcite .
the set of available control knobs ( @xmath334 ) , as well as the way one varies them , determine the specific hamiltonian interpolation implemented in a laboratory setting .
theoretically , though , there are various ways by which one can obtain families of hamiltonians for an adiabatic quantum algorithm .
one natural choice is interpolations which minimize physical  cost .
for example , in the setting of refs .
rolandcerf , qab , time functionals were constructed from a _ local _ version of the adiabatic condition ( [ cond ] ) , whose minimization resulted in a set of euler - lagrange equations for the underlying interpolations .
a different method was suggested in ref .
@xcite , where it was shown that in the standard @xmath240 expansion of the adiabatic error @xmath16 [ general counterpart of eq .
( [ addelta ] ) or ( [ er - simp ] ) ] , the coefficient of the @xmath2 term has a _ geometric _ part , in a differential geometric sense .
specifically , this geometric coefficient , in terms of the ground - state eigenprojection , @xmath31 is@xmath335\bigr\vert~\mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } .
\label{geometric}\]]minimizing this coefficient yields adiabatic geodesic  interpolations , which partially decrease @xmath336 for a given @xmath0 .
it follows from standard variational calculus @xcite that the geodesic interpolations satisfy the following equation @xmath337\bigr\vert\bigl|_{\mathbf{x}_{\text{geo}}(\tau ) } = \text{const . } , \label{geo - eq}\]]where the constant is chosen to satisfy boundary conditions .
we adopt this method in the following and derive geodesic interpolations for the adiabatic quantum search .      in the reduced two - dimensional representation , @xmath338 is replaced with @xmath339 . thus we have @xmath340noting with the help of eqs .
( [ formofa ] ) , ( [ phi - hat ] ) , and ( [ h_a ] ) that @xmath341we find @xmath342\bigr\vert & = & \sqrt{2\langle \dot{\widehat{\phi } } _ { -}|\dot{\widehat{\phi } } _ { -}\rangle }   \notag \\ & \overset{\text{(\ref{phi - hat})}}{=}&\sqrt{2}|\widehat{h}_{a}|.\end{aligned}\]]hence , according to eq .
( [ geo - eq ] ) , a class of adiabatic geodesics can be obtained from @xmath343which implies that the adiabatic hamiltonian @xmath344 is in fact constant . in other words , from @xmath345 [ eq .  ( [ formofa ] ) ]
we can see that @xmath346this equation suggests that a more general choice for the intertwiner @xmath347 can be obtained by @xmath348 , for some arbitrary differentiable @xmath349 ; i.e. , @xmath350 . in terms of @xmath323
, this translates into choosing @xmath351 . in terms of the geometric factor ( geometric )
, this simply means that on the geodesic , the time is determined by @xmath352 rather than @xmath48 . to see this , note that @xmath353\bigr\vert~\mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } & = & \int_{0}^{\theta ( \tau ) }
\bigl\vert\lbrack \partial _ { \theta } p(\theta ) , p(\theta ) ] \bigr\vert~\mathrm{d}\theta ,   \notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]which in turn , from variational calculus , gives the following equation for the geodesics : @xmath354\bigr\vert\bigl|_{\mathbf{x}_{\text{geo}}(\theta ( \tau ) ) } = \mathrm{const . }   \label{geo - eq2}\]]hence , @xmath355\bigr\vert & = & \frac{1}{\dot{\theta}}\bigl\vert\lbrack \dot{\widehat{p}}_{-},\widehat{p}_{-}]\bigr\vert   \notag \\ & = & \sqrt{2}\frac{|\widehat{h}_{a}|}{\dot{\theta } }   \notag \\ & = & \mathrm{const.},\end{aligned}\]]where we assumed @xmath356 , @xmath357 , and @xmath358 . as a result
, we choose the adiabatic geodesic satisfying @xmath359    we remark that introducing an arbitrary nondecreasing function @xmath360 will serve as more than a generalization .
in fact , we show below that @xmath349 allows us to substantially enhance the suppression of the adiabatic error .
for example , choosing a @xmath349 such that it is a differentiable function of @xmath48 ( up to some controllable order , say , @xmath361 ) , with vanishing derivatives ( up to the same order @xmath361 ) at the initial and final times , can suppress the adiabatic error [ up to @xmath362 .
this property  which comes at the relatively small price of sufficient control at the beginning and end of the dynamics  may have immediate applications in experimental realizations of quantum annealing and aqc .
the above geodesic equation can be solved analytically . recall that @xmath363 , with the boundary values @xmath364 and @xmath365 [ eqs .
( [ bc-1 ] ) and ( [ bc-2 ] ) ] . then from eq .  ( h_a )
we find @xmath366^{2}+4rx_{21}(\tau ) } = \varphi \dot{\theta}(\tau ) ,   \label{weak}\]]the solution to this equation can be written as follows : @xmath367}{\sin [ 2(1-\theta ( \tau ) ) \varphi ] } ,   \label{relat}\]]where we must choose @xmath368.\]]observe that @xmath369 has the following symmetry : @xmath370which is satisfied , for example , by requiring @xmath371equations  ( [ relat ] ) and ( [ symmetry ] ) identify a two - dimensional interpolation for the quantum search hamiltonian .    notice that , given eq .
( [ relat ] ) , we can also add another relation ( satisfying the boundary conditions ) so as to find other classes of interpolation .
for example , we can choose @xmath372 in which @xmath373 can be a smooth function with the boundary values @xmath374 ; e.g. , @xmath375 or @xmath376 .
choosing a form for @xmath373 corresponds to assuming a given @xmath377 [ eq .
( [ hnorm ] ) ] , which implies a given control over the maximum amount of the available energy in the system .
thus , eqs .
( [ relat ] ) and ( [ bc-3 ] ) yield @xmath378}{2\sin ( \varphi ) \cos [ ( 1 - 2\theta ( \tau ) ) \varphi ] }   \notag \\ & = & \frac{a(\tau ) } { 2}\bigl[1+\cot ( \varphi ) \tan [ ( 1 - 2\theta ( \tau ) ) \varphi ] \bigr ] ,   \label{x1 } \\
\hskip-6 mm x_{2}\bigl(\theta ( \tau ) \bigr ) & = & \frac{a(\tau ) \sin [ 2\theta ( \tau ) \varphi ] } { 2\sin ( \varphi ) \cos [ ( 1 - 2\theta ( \tau ) ) \varphi ] }   \notag \\ & = & \frac{a(\tau ) } { 2}\bigl[1-\cot ( \varphi ) \tan [ ( 1 - 2\theta ( \tau ) ) \varphi ] \bigr ] .
\label{x2}\end{aligned}\]]note that this interpolation also satisfies the symmetry ( [ symmetry ] ) .
it is clear that one can consider other auxiliary or control conditions over the hamiltonian different from eq .
( [ bc-3 ] ) . in the following ,
we address three special cases : ( i ) the hamiltonian interpolation is linear in time , namely , @xmath379 ; ( ii ) hamiltonians with constant norm ; specifically , @xmath380 ; and , ( iii ) hamiltonians with constant gap ; specifically , @xmath381 .      if we choose @xmath382,\]]and assume @xmath383 , from eqs .
( [ x1 ] ) and ( [ x2 ] ) we obtain the simple linear interpolation @xmath384      let us assume @xmath385 .
the constraint @xmath386 implies that @xmath387 [ eq .  ( [ hnorm ] ) ] , or equivalently @xmath388 [ eq .  ( [ bc-3 ] ) ] .
hence , in this case from eqs .
( [ x1 ] ) and ( [ x2 ] ) we obtain @xmath389 ,   \label{rcpath1 } \\
x_2\bigl(\theta(\tau ) \bigr ) = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{r}}{2\sqrt{1-r}}\tan\bigl[\bigl(1 - 2\theta(\tau)\bigr)\varphi\bigr ] .   \label{rcpath2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this interpolation is a generalization of the interpolation obtained in refs .
@xcite by using a local adiabatic condition .      rather than assuming condition ( [ bc-3 ] ) , here we consider the case
in which the gap is constant , e.g. , @xmath390 . hence combining the following relation [ eq .
( [ gap ] ) ] : @xmath391^{2}+4rx_{1}\bigl(\theta ( \tau ) \bigr)x_{2}\bigl(\theta ( \tau ) \bigr)=1,\]]and eq .
( [ relat ] ) yields @xmath392 ,   \label{constgapx1 } \\
x_{2}\bigl(\theta ( \tau ) \bigr ) & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{r(1-r)}}\sin \bigl[2\theta ( \tau ) \varphi \bigr ] .
\label{constgapx2}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      having given a general recipe for adiabatic interpolations and having obtained three particular interpolations , we proceed to compute the adiabatic error for each of these interpolations .
our main interest here is to analyze how the run time scales with system size for each of these three interpolations .
we shall also contrast the result for each case with the estimate obtained from the traditional adiabatic theorem . as a result , we will demonstrate that the traditional adiabatic condition is not always reliable for estimation of the minimum run time ( given an error threshold ) , whereas the time we obtain from the exponential regime of the adiabatic error is in fact accurate .
a remarkable feature of this result is that the estimated times ( in an appropriate sense ) need not be very large .       for the linear interpolation @xmath393 , obtained by numerically solving the corresponding schrdinger equation , for @xmath394 .
the dashed lines represent the exponential fits @xmath395 [ eq .  ( [ b2 ] ) ] and the polynomial fit @xmath396 [ eq .  ( [ b1 ] ) ] , from left to right , respectively.,width=321 ]    in this case , @xmath397 , so that we have @xmath398hence the traditional adiabatic condition ( [ cond ] ) implies that , for @xmath262 , we should have @xmath399or equivalently from eq .
( [ runt ] ) , @xmath400that is , that the adiabatic quantum search with a linear interpolation hamiltonian requires a run time @xmath401 [ recall @xmath402 , hence performing no better than a classical search algorithm @xcite .
note , however , that if we truncate the @xmath240 expansion ( er - simp ) after the first term , in the @xmath214 limit we obtain @xmath403i.e . , @xmath404 , which is not the right estimate .
this illustrates the caveat we discussed in sec .
[ aderror ] .
now we employ the results we developed in sec .
[ aderror ] for estimating the exponential regime of @xmath82 [ eq .
( [ xx ] ) ] .
it is obvious that for this case there exist no point at which both @xmath405 and @xmath406 vanish .
thus , the pole @xmath287 ( where the gap vanishes ) is obtained simply by inverting eq .
( [ poles ] ) , i.e. , @xmath407the integral over the gap can be evaluated explicitly as @xmath408 = \frac{\pi r}{8\sqrt{1-r}}.\]]for the integral ( [ residue ] ) , we choose the contour @xmath295 to be a rectangle composed of : ( i ) @xmath409 the real line @xmath410 $ ] , ( ii ) @xmath411 , the line connecting @xmath412 to @xmath413 , ( iii ) @xmath414 , the line connecting @xmath413 to @xmath415 , and ( iv ) @xmath416 , the line connecting @xmath413 to @xmath417 . from the form of @xmath323 , we can easily see that @xmath418 [ because @xmath419 and @xmath420 [ because @xmath421 .
this means that for @xmath214 and in the regime in which @xmath422 gives the dominant contribution to @xmath82 , the error exhibits an exponentially decreasing behavior as @xmath423 in this regime , for @xmath262 it is sufficient to have @xmath424whereby we can estimate the following run time : @xmath425this result agrees perfectly with the expected @xmath401 scaling , with a _ logarithmic _
( rather than inverse ) dependence on the error @xmath83 .
figure  [ fig.linear ] depicts the adiabatic error vs time , calculated by solving the corresponding schrdinger equation numerically .
it illustrates the exponential and polynomial regimes .
_ here we could not use eq .
( [ st - ph ] ) because @xmath323 has poles @xmath426 .      here for simplicity , we assume @xmath427 . from eqs .
( rcpath1 ) and ( [ rcpath2 ] ) , the gap ( [ gap ] ) is @xmath428 ,   \label{g - c - n}\]]with the minimum value @xmath429 at @xmath430 , and eqs .
( [ hnorm ] ) and ( [ hdotnorm ] ) yield @xmath431,\end{aligned}\]]the latter with the maximum value @xmath432 at @xmath433 .
thus , according to the traditional adiabatic condition ( [ cond ] ) , in order to have @xmath262 , we should require @xmath434and in turn , @xmath435which is larger than the expected @xmath436 grover - like scaling rolandcerf , qab .     for the constant - norm interpolation [ eqs .
( [ rcpath1 ] ) and ( rcpath2 ) ] , obtained by numerically solving the corresponding schrdinger equation , for @xmath437 .
the dashed lines represent the exponential fit @xmath438 [ eq .  ( [ dellin ] ) ] and the polynomial fit @xmath439 [ eq .
( [ c1])].,width=321 ]    on the other hand , truncation of the corresponding @xmath240 expansion ( [ er - simp ] ) results in @xmath440 in which we used @xmath441 [ eqs .
( [ rcpath1 ] ) and ( [ rcpath2 ] ) ] and @xmath442 . hence
, @xmath443which of course is incorrect .
now we show that a careful treatment of @xmath282 , as in sec .
[ aderror ] , results in an exponential adiabatic error , and gives the correct scaling for the run time .
here , we note that @xmath444 [ eq .  ( [ h_a ] ) ] , from which @xmath445 ^{-i\frac{jt\sqrt{r}}{2\varphi } } \mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } ,   \notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]where we used the identity @xmath446 . for @xmath214 [ @xmath447 ,
this gives rise to @xmath448^{-i\frac{jt\sqrt{r}}{2\varphi } } \mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } \right\vert    \notag \label{integralbeta } \\
& \approx & \frac{\pi } { 2}\int_{0}^{1}[\tan ( \pi \tau ^{\prime } /2)]^{-i\frac{jt\sqrt{r}}{2\varphi } } \mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } + o(\sqrt{r } ) .
\notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]further simplification can be obtained by using the identity @xmath449^{-i\alpha } \mathrm{d}\tau ^{\prime } = \mathrm{sech}(\pi \alpha /2)$ ] ( for @xmath450 ) and the inequality @xmath451 ( for @xmath452 ) ; hence , @xmath453this is the corresponding _ exponential _ behavior for the constant - norm hamiltonian interpolation .
it implies that for @xmath66 it is sufficient to have @xmath454or equivalently , @xmath455which is the expected grover - like @xmath436 scaling rolandcerf , qab , but with a logarithmic dependence on the error .
although eq .
( [ residue ] ) may not be applicable to the case of constant - norm interpolation ( for @xmath323 does not have any singularity ) , we can apply eq .
( [ st - ph ] ) instead .
in fact , eq .  ( g - c - n ) implies that @xmath456hence , @xmath408 = \frac{\pi \sqrt{r}}{4\varphi } \overset{r\ll 1}{\approx } \frac{\sqrt{r}}{2},\]]and in turn [ eq .
( [ st - ph ] ) ] @xmath457with some non - exponentially decreasing @xmath458 .
this results in a scaling similar to eq .
( [ mmm ] ) .      in this case
[ @xmath381 ] , from eqs .
( [ hnorm ] ) , ( [ hdotnorm ] ) , ( [ constgapx1 ] ) , and ( [ constgapx2 ] ) we obtain @xmath460|/\sqrt{r } , \\ & \vert \dot{h}(\tau ) \vert /j=&\varphi |\sin [ ( 1 - 2\tau ) \varphi ] |/\sqrt{r}. \label{temp1}\end{aligned}\]]hence , according to the traditional adiabatic condition ( [ cond ] ) , in order to have @xmath262 , it is sufficient to have @xmath461whereby @xmath462which is quadratically larger than the grover - like @xmath436 scaling .     for the constant - gap interpolation [ eqs .  ( [ constgapx1 ] ) and ( constgapx2 ) ] . here ,
@xmath463 ( blue and green , respectively ) , and the dashed lines ( red ) show the @xmath464 envelopes . the points @xmath465 , where @xmath466 , are given by eq .  ( [ t_k]).,width=321 ]    on the other hand , noting that @xmath441 [ eqs .
( [ constgapx1 ] ) and ( [ constgapx2 ] ) ] , the truncation of the corresponding @xmath240 expansion after the first term yields @xmath467or equivalently @xmath468clearly , eqs .
( [ rr1 ] ) and ( [ rr2 ] ) are not in agreement .
it is interesting to note that here one can in fact solve the schrdinger equation exactly .
the operator @xmath469 [ eq .  ( [ o - hat ] ) ] satisfies the following equation : @xmath470 in which @xmath471}{\sqrt{r}}\openone+\sigma _ { z}\right ) -\varphi \sigma _ { y}.   \notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]since @xmath472 is time - independent , integration of eq .
( [ temp3 ] ) is straightforward : @xmath473 .
\notag \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]thus , from eq .
( [ ad - error ] ) the adiabatic error is exactly @xmath474    figure  [ fig.constg ] depicts @xmath82 for two different values of @xmath257 .
note that for large evolution times @xmath475 , we obtain @xmath476this implies that , in the @xmath214 limit , in order for @xmath262 it is sufficient to have @xmath477which is the grover - like scaling @xmath436 .
notice that in this limit the adiabatic error behaves inverse - linearly , @xmath478 , which is in perfect agreement with eq .
( [ temp4 ] ) .
in addition , we observe that there exist @xmath0s less than the above limit in in which the adiabatic error can vanish ( hence instantaneous full adiabaticity ) . according to eq .
( [ c - g - t ] ) , we have @xmath479 where @xmath480for @xmath481 .
the existence of such @xmath465s is in agreement with ref .
figure  [ fig.constg ] shows @xmath82 for two different values of @xmath257 .
_ as is evident here the adiabatic error does not show any exponential behavior .
in fact , neither of the methods we discussed in subsection  [ expl ] is applicable .      here
, we discuss the behavior of the exponential @xmath482}$ ] for the general interpolation we derived in subsection  [ path - g ] .
our analysis is based on a formal power series expansion of @xmath483 and @xmath484 in terms of @xmath257recall that we are interested in the regime @xmath485 .
we further assume that @xmath352 does not depend explicitly on @xmath257 .
consider the following formal expansions : @xmath486 in which @xmath487 and @xmath488 are some nonnegative numbers ( to be determined later ) , @xmath489 , and @xmath490 .
we notice that the linear and constant - gap interpolations ( subsections  lin - sec and [ c - gap ] ) do not admit expansions as in eqs .
( [ e1 ] ) and ( [ e2 ] ) .
equation ( [ gap ] ) hence yields @xmath491similarly , inserting eqs .
( [ e1 ] ) and ( [ e2 ] ) into @xmath363 gives @xmath492on the other hand , eq .
( [ relat ] ) yields @xmath493the symmetry @xmath494 [ eq .  ( [ symmetry ] ) ] requires that @xmath495which in turn implies @xmath496 . comparing the terms with the same powers of @xmath257 in eqs .
( [ x21 - 1 ] ) and ( [ x21 - 2 ] ) , we conclude that @xmath497and @xmath498after inserting the above relations back into eq .
( [ delta - r ] ) and using eq .
( [ fg - eq ] ) , we obtain @xmath499now we assume that @xmath500 everywhere , or if there exist points at which @xmath501 vanishes , their contribution to the integral @xmath502 $ ] is not substantial .
note that the previous condition is in fact a condition on the norm of the hamiltonian  because from eq .
( [ hnorm ] ) @xmath503therefore , provided that for large times the adiabatic error asymptotically behaves as in eq .
( [ residue ] ) or ( [ st - ph ] ) , we obtain @xmath504\bigr|},\]]where @xmath458 is a non - exponential function of @xmath0 ( which may also depend weakly on @xmath257 ) . hence , in the @xmath214 limit for @xmath66 , it is sufficient to have @xmath505\bigr|.\]]this in turn implies the following scaling for the run time : @xmath506\bigr|\bigr ) .
\notag   \label{generalt } \\ & & \end{aligned}\]]the overall @xmath257-dependence here comes from @xmath507 and @xmath508 ; e.g. , we recover the grover - like @xmath436 scaling if @xmath287 does not depend on @xmath257 .
this analysis then highlights in a fairly general way the interplay between @xmath257 , @xmath0 , and @xmath82 in the quantum search algorithm .      for most applications it is desirable to make the adiabatic error as small as possible .
we have seen that @xmath82 contains exponential terms , suppressed by the polynomially - decaying terms .
therefore , it is useful to somehow extend the dominance of the exponential term by reducing the contribution of the polynomial term , e.g. , by prolonging the dominance of the exponential regime or by enforcing higher order polynomial behavior . in the following
we shall discuss a control strategy for reducing the adiabatic error by manipulation of the boundary conditions ( see , e.g. , refs .
@xcite ) .
equation  ( [ er - simp ] ) demonstrates explicitly how the adiabatic error depends on the boundary conditions , up to @xmath509 .
interestingly , if we choose @xmath510 , the prefactor of the @xmath2 vanishes , whence @xmath511 . in a similar fashion
, one can see that by enforcing suitable ( extra ) boundary conditions on the interpolation @xmath512 the prefactor of the @xmath239 or even higher order terms can be made zero .
this implies that by manipulating the boundary conditions of the interpolation , one may achieve smaller adiabatic errors .
this observation is a manifestation of the following general theorem : if the hamiltonian @xmath65 is sufficiently differentiable , forcing _ all _ time derivatives of the hamiltonian up to some order @xmath361 to vanish at the boundaries,@xmath513is sufficient for @xmath514 sancho , hagedornjoye:02,jrs , lrh .
it is interesting to note that the very same condition together with the assumption of the _ analyticity _ of @xmath65 in a small strip around the real axis in the _ complex _
@xmath48-plane give rise to @xmath515 , where @xmath516 [ up to an @xmath517 prefactor ] @xcite .
we obtained above are in fact weaker than requiring @xmath518 [ sufficient for @xmath519 . ]
this is a remarkable result , in that it guarantees that with sufficient smoothness at two points one can substantially suppress the adiabatic error .
this is a fairly low price to pay for higher accuracy . in particular , in experimental realizations , manipulating hamiltonian interpolations only at the beginning and the end ( as opposed to from beginning to end ) , may offer a less demanding control strategy than one seeking to control the dynamics instantaneously along the entire evolution .
now we show that in the framework we developed earlier , enforcing the required smoothness properties can be achieved by choosing an appropriate @xmath352 function .
we recall that this function was fairly arbitrary ; we required that it be a monotonically increasing differentiable function ( @xmath356 ) satisfying the boundary conditions @xmath357 and @xmath358 .
we require further that @xmath520 ( for a given @xmath481 ) have the following property : @xmath521namely , the first @xmath361 derivatives should vanish at the boundaries .
this property is sufficient for fulfilling eq .
( [ hdz ] ) because @xmath522 .
an example of such @xmath523 is the regularized incomplete beta function , @xmath524 in which @xmath525 , with @xmath526 , and @xmath527 @xcite .      to demonstrate
explicitly how the conditions ( [ hdz ] ) affect the adiabatic error , we employ the method developed in refs .
hagedornjoye:02,lrh for approximating the coefficients in the @xmath240 expansion of @xmath82 .
one can construct an approximate ( unnormalized ) ansatz for the solution to the schrdinger equation ( [ eqscalt ] ) in the powers of @xmath2 as follows : @xmath528,\end{aligned}\]]with the error @xmath529here , @xmath530 and @xmath531 are given as follows @xcite : @xmath532it is evident that @xmath533 .
provided that all @xmath534 derivatives of @xmath65 vanish at the boundaries , eq .
( [ hdz ] ) , all the terms except @xmath75 and @xmath535 will vanish @xcite ( see also ref .
@xcite , where with a condition different than eq .
( [ fs ] ) all the terms except @xmath536 vanish ) .
let us define @xmath537since @xmath538 ( for normalized @xmath539 and @xmath540 ) is a distance [ eq .
( [ delta - d ] ) ] , from the triangle inequality @xmath541 we have : @xmath542notice that @xmath543 can also be written as follows : @xmath544^{2}[1+o(1/t)]^{2 } } }   \notag \\ & \approx & \sqrt{1-(1 + 2\mathrm{re}[\langle \widehat{\psi } _ { n}(1)|\widehat{r}_{n}(1)\rangle ] ) }   \notag \\ & = & o\bigl(\frac{1}{t^{n+2}}\bigr ) ,   \label{delta1-t-2}\end{aligned}\]]where @xmath545    on the other hand , a straightforward calculation ( supplemented with induction ) shows that @xmath546this bound holds true for any interpolating paths @xmath512 for which @xmath547 . as can be seen , @xmath543 is negligible in comparison to @xmath548 , hence we obtain @xmath549this result is a generalization of eq .
( [ er - simp ] ) .
for example , in the case of the constant - gap interpolation ( subsection  [ c - gap ] ) , this error reduces to @xmath550 in comparison with eq .
( [ cg-1 ] ) . figure  [ fig : errorbeta ] depicts @xmath82 for the constant - norm interpolation [ eqs .
( rcpath1 ) and ( [ rcpath2 ] ) ] .
it can be seen that by increasing @xmath361 the exponential regime dominates longer , while the polynomial regime is pushed farther away to the region of large evolution times
. however , this improvement comes at a price .
the rate of exponentiality decreases with increasing @xmath361 ; that is , if @xmath551 and @xmath66 for an @xmath83 in the exponential regime for the larger @xmath361 , then @xmath552 [ see the inset of fig .
[ fig : errorbeta ] ] .
in other words , for some values of @xmath83 , increasing @xmath361 might give rise to an increased run time . of course , if @xmath83 is such that the polynomial regimes dominate for both values of @xmath553 and @xmath554 , the interpolation with the larger @xmath361 ( @xmath554 ) results in a smaller run time
.     obtained by numerically solving the schrdinger equation corresponding to the constant - norm interpolation with @xmath555 the regularized beta function [ eq .  ( [ beta ] ) ] , for @xmath556 ( here @xmath557 ) .
the dashed ( red ) lines represent @xmath558 and @xmath559 [ eq .  ( [ er])].,width=321 ]
nevertheless , @xmath561 helps remove the polynomial terms arbitrarily , hence extending the exponential regime farther . additionally , the exponent of the exponential term is controllable through varying the parameters @xmath86 and @xmath568 . in this case ,
asymptotic evaluation of the integral ( [ inttran ] ) with the stationary phase method results in a faster - than - polynomial convergence to zero .
for example , with @xmath569 and @xmath570 for the constant - norm interpolation , we can approach an exponential convergence similarly to the case with @xmath571 .
the achievement of an exponentially small @xmath82 for such functions may be understood as an instance of rigorously derived exponentially small errors for a general class of functions called the gevrey class @xcite .
it is evident that manipulating the @xmath352 function may also affect the exponent @xmath572 $ ] .
this can be observed in fig .
[ fig : errorbeta ] ( the inset ) through the change of the slope of the exponential lines in the log plot .
a side consequence of using a @xmath573 with the desired boundary conditions ( [ theta - cond ] ) is that increasing @xmath361 may adversely increase the value of @xmath0 for which @xmath262 ( in the exponential regime ) . to quantify how choosing a @xmath523 for the hamiltonian interpolation affects the performance of the algorithm , we propose the following measure : @xmath574namely , the average adiabatic error up to time @xmath0 , for a given @xmath361 . a larger average error may be interpreted as less efficient performance .
the above problem with the effect of @xmath361 on exponentiality may be partially alleviated in some cases .
recall that in subsection  [ path - g ] we found a fairly general interpolation , which resulted in the parametrization @xmath575 [ eq .  ( [ relat])]it was later that we added further conditions so as to find @xmath576 and @xmath577 separately . rather than assuming the condition  ( [ bc-3 ] ) , let us impose @xmath578for some @xmath579
. we should be mindful of the fact that , from eq .
( [ hnorm - f ] ) , modifying @xmath501 leads to a modification of the norm of the hamiltonian , or equivalently the maximum energy of the system ; this is a cost , which should be taken care of in the correct estimation of @xmath89 [ eq .  ( [ runt ] ) ] .
additionally , from eq .
( [ gg-0 ] ) it is seen that  since we assumed @xmath580(up to the leading order in @xmath257 ) the gap @xmath162 vanishes where @xmath581 ; i.e. , @xmath582 . in this case , the exponent @xmath583 $ ] [ eq .  ( [ xx ] ) ]
becomes @xmath584 = \nonumber\\   \mathrm{im}\left[\int_0^{{z_0}_+}\csc\bigl(\pi\theta(\tau')\bigr)~\mathrm{d}\tau'\right ] + \frac{\zeta}{2}. \label{mm}\end{aligned}\]]therefore , by appropriately choosing @xmath585subject to the condition @xmath586we can tune the exponent of the exponential term in @xmath82 .
this in turn gives us control over the run time in the exponential regime .
furthermore , as we argued earlier , replacing @xmath587 causes the polynomial terms of @xmath82 to be @xmath588 .
thus , we are now in possession of two control parameters @xmath361 [ more precisely @xmath523 ] and @xmath585 with which we can manipulate how the adiabatic error behaves in either of the exponential and polynomial regimes
. this type of control may have applications in experiments in which adiabaticity plays a role .
as an example , let @xmath523 be the regularized beta function [ eq .  ( [ beta ] ) ] . for @xmath590 and after employing stirling s approximation for the factorial function ( @xmath591 @xcite ) ,
we obtain @xmath592whereby @xmath593as a result , for example , in order to keep the maximum energy constant , while having the advantages of @xmath594 , we should choose @xmath595 .
adiabatic evolution is characterized by a tradeoff between the total time taken and the error in the final state reached , relative to the desired adiabatic state . motivated by a desire to understand and optimize this tradeoff , in this work we performed a detailed analysis of the adiabatic error for the case of an adiabatic quantum search algorithm . rather than using the traditional adiabatic condition , with its associated pitfalls , we chose to calculate the adiabatic error directly by solving the schrdinger equation .
this enabled us to derive an exact relation for the adiabatic error .
building on this exact result , we employed a formal polynomial series expansion in @xmath2 for calculating the error term by term .
this also allowed us to bound the adiabatic error .
we showed that the polynomial expansion should be truncated carefully if we aim to obtain a reliable estimate for the run time of the algorithm .
we demonstrated that employing a different technique based on complex analysis reveals , in fairly general situations , a regime of exponential time - dependent decay of the adiabatic error , preceding a polynomial regime .
the latter has been shown to be a general feature of adiabatic hamiltonians , whereas the existence of an exponential precursor is not always guaranteed .
we showed how , in case these two regimes both exist , one can estimate the crossover region  i.e .
, the time at which a transition between the two regimes takes place . equipped with this
, we provided an estimate for the minimum time required for the algorithm to achieve a given accuracy threshold . discerning
the exponential regime enabled us to give an improved total time estimate , circumventing the overestimate arising from the error bound using only the polynomial expansion .
indeed , the total time estimated from the exponential regime always gave the correct scaling with system size ( the well - known quadratic speedup over classical search ) , while the estimate resulting from the polynomial regime resulted in unreliable and even erroneous results .
we also obtained a specific class of hamiltonian interpolations for the search problem . to this end , we employed a recently developed theory , based on the geometry of adiabatic evolutions , for obtaining suitable adiabatic interpolations .
this theory separates the adiabatic error into geometric and non - geometric parts , and minimizes the former .
we discussed three special cases of the resulting class of interpolations in detail : ( i ) linear , ( ii ) constant - norm , and ( iii ) constant - gap interpolations .
finding strategies for minimizing the required total time as a function of a given resource ( system size , for example ) is a desirable goal for many applications , and is also of fundamental importance for the control of quantum systems .
we demonstrated explicitly how by imposing fairly general controllability assumptions , which should be experimentally straightforward to realize in certain scenarios , one can achieve a significant reduction of the adiabatic error , and hence improve algorithmic performance .
the method we used relied on a polynomial expansion of the adiabatic error , and resulted in the suppression of polynomial terms in @xmath2 by requiring smoothness for interpolations at the initial and final times .
it is evident that controlling the interpolation in this manner , at only two points , has a substantial advantage over instantaneous control of the hamiltonian along the entire evolution .
however , we demonstrated that there is an extra price to pay for this error reduction : the exponential regime ( if exists ) is extended , but with a slower rate of decay .
this , in turn , may result in an overestimation of the run time of the algorithm for some values of the error threshold .
we proposed a measure for quantifying the performance of an adiabatic interpolation with various controllability properties . in some cases
, we also suggested a remedy for the above problem .
this fix necessitated further control over the hamiltonian interpolation , directly related to the amount of accessible energy in the system .
the interplay between the degree of required control over hamiltonian interpolations and the run time needed for achieving a given accuracy was thus clearly exhibited .
although we focused on the quantum search problem , our methods and most of our results are applicable ( perhaps with minor modifications ) to a wider class of problems  as discussed in the text . since a principal goal in adiabatic quantum algorithms , adiabatic quantum transport , quantum annealing , and other applications of the adiabatic theorem , is the design of algorithms with favorable performance - resource tradeoff , we hope that our results will be of use in related physical applications .