Cited by 103Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Information and Cryptography

Cost of counterdiabatic driving and work output

Open access
Zheng, Yuanjian, Campbell, Steve, De Chiara, Gabriele, Poletti, Dario·2016·Physical Review A

Abstract

Unitary processes allow for the transfer of work to and from Hamiltonian systems. However, to achieve nonzero power for the practical extraction of work, these processes must be performed within a finite time, which inevitably induces excitations in the system. We show that depending on the time scale of the process and the physical realization of the external driving employed, the use of counterdiabatic quantum driving to extract more work is not always effective. We also show that by virtue of the two-time energy measurement definition of quantum work, the cost of counterdiabatic driving can be significantly reduced by selecting a restricted form of the driving Hamiltonian that depends on the outcome of the first energy measurement. Lastly, we introduce a measure, the exigency, that quantifies the need for an external driving to preserve quantum adiabaticity which does not require knowledge of the explicit form of the counterdiabatic drivings, and can thus always be computed. We apply our analysis to systems ranging from a two-level Landau-Zener problem to many-body problems, namely, the quantum Ising and Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.94.042132

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zheng, Y., Campbell, S., De Chiara, G., & Poletti, D.
Affiliations
  • Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Physical Review A
Published
2016-10-28
Volume
94
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-9926
  • 2469-9934
OpenAlex
W2543062628
Cited by
103
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Singapore University of Technology and Design (EPD2012-045)
  • Ministry of Education - Singapore (MOE2014-T2-2-119, WBS R-144-000-350-112)
  • John Templeton Foundation (ID 43467)
  • European Cooperation in Science and Technology (MP1209)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Advanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
counterdiabatic driving, quantum work, Landau-Zener problem, quantum Ising model, Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, many-body systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review