Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Quantum Thermodynamics

Quantum annealing: the fastest route to quantum computation?

arXiv

Authors: C. R. Laumann, R. Moessner, A. Scardicchio, S. L. Sondhi

Year

2014

Paper ID

46346

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

113

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In this review we consider the performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm for the solution of decision problems. We divide the possible failure mechanisms into two sets: small gaps due to quantum phase transitions and small gaps due to avoided crossings inside a phase. We argue that the thermodynamic order of the phase transitions is not predictive of the scaling of the gap with the system size. On the contrary, we also argue that, if the phase surrounding the problem Hamiltonian is a Many-Body Localized (MBL) phase, the gaps are going to be typically exponentially small and that this follows naturally from the existence of local integrals of motion in the MBL phase.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Quantum Thermodynamics research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2014 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
In this review we consider the performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm for the solution of decision problems.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:1411.5710 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5710 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5710

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.