lee yang theorems and the complexity of computing averages
play

Lee-Yang Theorems and the Complexity of Computing Averages Piyush - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lee-Yang Theorems and the Complexity of Computing Averages Piyush Srivastava Caltech Joint work with Alistair Sinclair Western States Mathematical Physics Meeting February 17, 2015 Journal ref. : Communications in Mathematical Physics, 329


  1. Lee-Yang Theorems and the Complexity of Computing Averages Piyush Srivastava Caltech Joint work with Alistair Sinclair Western States Mathematical Physics Meeting February 17, 2015 Journal ref. : Communications in Mathematical Physics, 329 (3), 827–858, 2014.

  2. Outline Background: Ising model and computational complexity Zeros of polynomials: From phase transitions to complexity Extended Lee-Yang type theorems Beyond the Ising model (if time permits. . . ) 1

  3. Background: The Ising model 2

  4. The Ising model [Ising, 1925] Classical statistical physics model of magnetism in bulk Graph G = ( V, E ) . Configuration σ assigns { + , −} spin to each vertex in V Edge activity 0 < J < 1 models local interactions Vertex activity λ > 0 models magnetic field ( λ > 1 favors + spins) + w ( σ ) = λ 2 J 2 J + − J w ( σ ) = λ #(+) J #(+ , − ) Weight of σ : π ( σ ) = 1 Gibbs distribution: Z w ( σ ) 3

  5. The Ising model [Ising, 1925] Classical statistical physics model of magnetism in bulk Graph G = ( V, E ) . Configuration σ assigns { + , −} spin to each vertex in V Edge activity 0 < J < 1 models local interactions Vertex activity λ > 0 models magnetic field ( λ > 1 favors + spins) + w ( σ ) = λ 2 J 2 J + − J w ( σ ) = λ #(+) J #(+ , − ) Weight of σ : π ( σ ) = 1 Gibbs distribution: Z w ( σ ) Partition function: Z ( J, λ ) = � σ w ( σ ) Magnetization: µ ( J, λ ) is the average number of ‘+’ spins 3

  6. The Ising model: Computational problems Question 1 Can we get efficient algorithms for computing averages like the magnetization? Failing that. . . Question 2 Can we prove that these problems are computationally hard? 4

  7. Proving hardness: Computational complexity 5

  8. Computational complexity: Complexity classes Complexity theory: classifies problems based on algorithmic “hardness” Consider a given logic circuit C C ( x ) x Efficiency Efficient algorithm ≡ Runs in time polynomial in input size 6

  9. Computational complexity: Complexity classes Complexity theory: classifies problems based on algorithmic “hardness” Consider a given logic circuit C C ( x ) x Circuit-Eval Given C and x , is C ( x ) = True ? Efficient algorithm Complexity class P Efficiency Efficient algorithm ≡ Runs in time polynomial in input size 6

  10. Computational complexity: Complexity classes Complexity theory: classifies problems based on algorithmic “hardness” Consider a given logic circuit C C ( x ) x Circuit-Eval Circuit-SAT Given C and x , is Given C , is there an x such that C ( x ) = True ? C ( x ) = True ? ⊆ Efficient checking Efficient algorithm No efficient search! Complexity class P Complexity class NP Efficiency Efficient algorithm ≡ Runs in time polynomial in input size 6

  11. Computational complexity: Complexity classes Complexity theory: classifies problems based on algorithmic “hardness” Consider a given logic circuit C C ( x ) x Circuit-Eval Circuit-SAT #Circuit-SAT Given C and x , is Given C , is there an Given C , how many x x such that are there such that C ( x ) = True ? C ( x ) = True ? C ( x ) = True ? ⊆ ⊆ Efficient checking Efficient checking Efficient algorithm No efficient counting! No efficient search! Complexity class P Complexity class NP Complexity class #P Efficiency Efficient algorithm ≡ Runs in time polynomial in input size 6

  12. Computational complexity: Hard problems Definition A problem A is hard for a class C if an efficient algorithm for A implies efficient algorithms for all problems in C . 7

  13. Computational complexity: Hard problems Definition A problem A is hard for a class C if an efficient algorithm for A implies efficient algorithms for all problems in C . Theorem [Cook 1971; Levin 1973; Valiant 1979] Circuit-SAT is hard for NP. #Circuit-SAT is hard for #P. Many natural optimization and counting problems have been proved hard [Karp, 1972; Valiant, 1979, . . . ] ◮ . . . Traveling salesperson problem, finding satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula, finding maximum cuts in a graph, counting dimer coverings, etc. P � = NP conjecture Efficient algorithms do not exist for these hard problems One of the most important open problems in mathematics and computer science 7

  14. Computational complexity: Proving hardness How do we prove a problem A is hard for a class (say #P)? Reductions: Start with a problem H known to be hard for # P Hypothetical algorithm α Solves A efficiently 8

  15. Computational complexity: Proving hardness How do we prove a problem A is hard for a class (say #P)? Reductions: Start with a problem H known to be hard for # P Hypothetical algorithm α Subroutine Construct algorithm β Solves A efficiently Solves H efficiently calls Efficient algorithm α for A = ⇒ Efficient algorithm β for H ⇓ H is hard = ⇒ A is hard 8

  16. Computational complexity and spin systems Partition Functions: Exact Computation Ising model: #P-hard for any fixed λ > 0 and 0 < J < 1 Extensive theory on the classification of partition functions of various spin systems based on complexity [e.g., Cai et al., 2010] Averages: Exact Computation Unlike the rich theory for the case of partition functions, not much was known ◮ Ising model: Computing magnetization is trivial for λ = 1 (spins are symmetric, so magnetization = n/ 2 ). Other λ ? ◮ Other spin systems: ? 9

  17. Complexity of averages: Our results Ising model Theorem For any fixed λ � = 1 and 0 < J < 1 computing the magnetization of the Ising model is #P-hard. This is true even for bounded degree graphs (with degree ≥ 4 ). Comm. Math. Phys. (2014) 10

  18. Complexity of averages: Our results Ising model Theorem For any fixed λ � = 1 and 0 < J < 1 computing the magnetization of the Ising model is #P-hard. This is true even for bounded degree graphs (with degree ≥ 4 ). Monomer-dimer model Theorem For any fixed λ > 0 , computing the average monomer number in the monomer-dimer model with edge weights from the set { 1 , 2 , 3 } is #P-hard. This is true even for bounded degree graphs (with degree ≥ 5 ). Comm. Math. Phys. (2014) 10

  19. Complexity of averages: Our results Ising model Theorem For any fixed λ � = 1 and 0 < J < 1 computing the magnetization of the Ising model is #P-hard. This is true even for bounded degree graphs (with degree ≥ 4 ). Monomer-dimer model Theorem For any fixed λ > 0 , computing the average monomer number in the monomer-dimer model with edge weights from the set { 1 , 2 , 3 } is #P-hard. This is true even for bounded degree graphs (with degree ≥ 5 ). Comm. Math. Phys. (2014) 10

  20. Complexity of averages and Zeros of polynomials 11

  21. Proving #P-hardness: Partition functions Recall that � J #(+ , − ) λ #(+) Z ( J, λ ) = σ ∈{ + , −} V Interpolation k =1 α k λ k as a polynomial in λ (here n = | V | ) View Z ( J, λ ) = � n Show that coefficients α k encode the solution to a #P-hard problem (e.g. # Max-Cut ) Find the coefficients α k using polynomial interpolation 12

  22. Proving #P-hardness: Partition functions Recall that � J #(+ , − ) λ #(+) Z ( J, λ ) = σ ∈{ + , −} V Interpolation k =1 α k λ k as a polynomial in λ (here n = | V | ) View Z ( J, λ ) = � n Show that coefficients α k encode the solution to a #P-hard problem (e.g. # Max-Cut ) Find the coefficients α k using polynomial interpolation Shows that computing Z ( J, λ ) is hard—at least when λ is part of the input 12

  23. Proving #P-hardness: Magnetization The magnetization µ ( J, λ ) can be written as σ # (+) λ #(+) J # of cut edges = λZ ′ � σ #(+) w ( σ ) � µ ( J, λ ) = = Z , Z ( J, λ ) Z ( J, λ ) where Z ′ = ∂ ∂λ Z ( J, λ ) 13

  24. Proving #P-hardness: Magnetization The magnetization µ ( J, λ ) can be written as σ # (+) λ #(+) J # of cut edges = λZ ′ � σ #(+) w ( σ ) � µ ( J, λ ) = = Z , Z ( J, λ ) Z ( J, λ ) where Z ′ = ∂ ∂λ Z ( J, λ ) Interpolation View µ ( J, λ ) as a rational function in λ The coefficients encode the solution to a #P-hard problem Find the coefficients of Z (and Z ′ ) using rational interpolation 13

  25. Proving #P-hardness: Magnetization The magnetization µ ( J, λ ) can be written as σ # (+) λ #(+) J # of cut edges = λZ ′ � σ #(+) w ( σ ) � µ ( J, λ ) = = Z , Z ( J, λ ) Z ( J, λ ) where Z ′ = ∂ ∂λ Z ( J, λ ) Interpolation � View µ ( J, λ ) as a rational function in λ The coefficients encode the solution to a #P-hard problem Find the coefficients of Z (and Z ′ ) using rational interpolation 13

  26. Proving #P-hardness: Magnetization The magnetization µ ( J, λ ) can be written as σ # (+) λ #(+) J # of cut edges = λZ ′ � σ #(+) w ( σ ) � µ ( J, λ ) = = Z , Z ( J, λ ) Z ( J, λ ) where Z ′ = ∂ ∂λ Z ( J, λ ) Interpolation � View µ ( J, λ ) as a rational function in λ � The coefficients encode the solution to a #P-hard problem Find the coefficients of Z (and Z ′ ) using rational interpolation 13

  27. Proving #P-hardness: Magnetization The magnetization µ ( J, λ ) can be written as σ # (+) λ #(+) J # of cut edges = λZ ′ � σ #(+) w ( σ ) � µ ( J, λ ) = = Z , Z ( J, λ ) Z ( J, λ ) where Z ′ = ∂ ∂λ Z ( J, λ ) Interpolation � View µ ( J, λ ) as a rational function in λ � The coefficients encode the solution to a #P-hard problem ? Find the coefficients of Z (and Z ′ ) using rational interpolation 13

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend