The single number that determines whether an adiabatic algorithm is fast or hopeless is the
minimum spectral gap along the schedule. This lesson makes the relationship between gap and
runtime concrete and computes the gap for the single-qubit model.
The gap controls the runtime
Recall the adiabatic condition: the runtime must satisfy
The numerator depends only mildly on the problem; the denominator is the bottleneck. Because the
gap enters squared, halving the minimum gap quadruples the required runtime. The whole game
of designing an adiabatic algorithm is keeping Δmin from becoming exponentially small.
Computing the gap for the single qubit
For H(s)=−(1−s)X−sZ write a=1−s, b=s. The operator aX+bZ is
aX+bZ=(baa−b),
with eigenvalues ±a2+b2. The two energies of H(s)=−(aX+bZ) are therefore
E0,1(s)=∓a2+b2, giving the gap
Δ(s)=2(1−s)2+s2.
Minimizing the quadratic (1−s)2+s2 over s: its derivative is −2(1−s)+2s=4s−2,
which vanishes at s=21. There
Δmin=241+41=221=2≈1.414.
Hard problems, small gaps
For NP-hard optimization problems encoded into HP, the minimum gap typically appears late in
the schedule, near s=1, and can scale as Δmin∼2−cn for some constant
c>0. Then the runtime T∼1/Δmin2 grows exponentially in the number of qubits
n — the adiabatic counterpart of an exponential-time classical search. Locating and widening
the minimum gap (through better schedules, catalysts, or reformulations) is an active research
area.
Try it
Numerically find the minimum gap of the single-qubit schedule by scanning s∈[0,1] and
returning the smallest value of Δ(s)=2(1−s)2+s2. The grader checks that your
returned number equals 2.
Run your code to see the quantum state.
A grid scan returns Δmin≈1.414=2, attained at s=0.5.
Sign in on the full site to ask questions and join the discussion.