In computer science, a holographic algorithm is an algorithm that uses a holographic reduction. A holographic reduction is a constant-time reduction that maps solution fragments many-to-many such that the sum of the solution fragments remains unchanged. These concepts were introduced by Leslie Valiant, who called them holographic because "their effect can be viewed as that of producing interference patterns among the solution fragments". The algorithms are unrelated to laser holography, except metaphorically. Their power comes from the mutual cancellation of many contributions to a sum, analogous to the interference patterns in a hologram. Holographic algorithms have been used to find polynomial-time solutions to problems without such previously known solutions for special cases of satisfiability, vertex cover, and other graph problems. They have received notable coverage due to speculation that they are relevant to the P versus NP problem and their impact on computational complexity theory. Although some of the general problems are #P-hard problems, the special cases solved are not themselves #P-hard, and thus do not prove FP = #P. Holographic algorithms have some similarities with quantum computation, but are completely classical. == Holant problems == Holographic algorithms exist in the context of Holant problems, which generalize counting constraint satisfaction problems (#CSP). A #CSP instance is a hypergraph G=(V,E) called the constraint graph. Each hyperedge represents a variable and each vertex v {\displaystyle v} is assigned a constraint f v . {\displaystyle f_{v}.} A vertex is connected to an hyperedge if the constraint on the vertex involves the variable on the hyperedge. The counting problem is to compute ∑ σ : E → { 0 , 1 } ∏ v ∈ V f v ( σ | E ( v ) ) , ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\sigma :E\to \{0,1\}}\prod _{v\in V}f_{v}(\sigma |_{E(v)}),~~~~~~~~~~(1)} which is a sum over all variable assignments, the product of every constraint, where the inputs to the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} are the variables on the incident hyperedges of v {\displaystyle v} . A Holant problem is like a #CSP except the input must be a graph, not a hypergraph. Restricting the class of input graphs in this way is indeed a generalization. Given a #CSP instance, replace each hyperedge e of size s with a vertex v of degree s with edges incident to the vertices contained in e. The constraint on v is the equality function of arity s. This identifies all of the variables on the edges incident to v, which is the same effect as the single variable on the hyperedge e. In the context of Holant problems, the expression in (1) is called the Holant after a related exponential sum introduced by Valiant. == Holographic reduction == A standard technique in complexity theory is a many-one reduction, where an instance of one problem is reduced to an instance of another (hopefully simpler) problem. However, holographic reductions between two computational problems preserve the sum of solutions without necessarily preserving correspondences between solutions. For instance, the total number of solutions in both sets can be preserved, even though individual problems do not have matching solutions. The sum can also be weighted, rather than simply counting the number of solutions, using linear basis vectors. === General example === It is convenient to consider holographic reductions on bipartite graphs. A general graph can always be transformed it into a bipartite graph while preserving the Holant value. This is done by replacing each edge in the graph by a path of length 2, which is also known as the 2-stretch of the graph. To keep the same Holant value, each new vertex is assigned the binary equality constraint. Consider a bipartite graph G=(U,V,E) where the constraint assigned to every vertex u ∈ U {\displaystyle u\in U} is f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} and the constraint assigned to every vertex v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} . Denote this counting problem by Holant ( G , f u , f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v}).} If the vertices in U are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is the tensor product of f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} with itself |U| times, which is denoted by f u ⊗ | U | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}.} Likewise, if the vertices in V are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Let the constraint f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a row vector and the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a column vector. Then the Holant of this constraint graph is simply f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Now for any complex 2-by-2 invertible matrix T (the columns of which are the linear basis vectors mentioned above), there is a holographic reduction between Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v}).} To see this, insert the identity matrix T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | {\displaystyle T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}} in between f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} to get f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = f u ⊗ | U | T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) ) ⊗ | U | ( f v ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) ) ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle =\left(f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(f_{v}(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}\right)^{\otimes |V|}.} Thus, Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v})} have exactly the same Holant value for every constraint graph. They essentially define the same counting problem. === Specific examples === ==== Vertex covers and independent sets ==== Let G be a graph. There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the vertex covers of G and the independent sets of G. For any set S of vertices of G, S is a vertex cover in G if and only if the complement of S is an independent set in G. Thus, the number of vertex covers in G is exactly the same as the number of independent sets in G. The equivalence of these two counting problems can also be proved using a holographic reduction. For simplicity, let G be a 3-regular graph. The 2-stretch of G gives a bipartite graph H=(U,V,E), where U corresponds to the edges in G and V corresponds to the vertices in G. The Holant problem that naturally corresponds to counting the number of vertex covers in G is Holant ( H , OR 2 , EQUAL 3 ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(H,{\text{OR}}_{2},{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}).} The truth table of OR2 as a row vector is (0,1,1,1). The truth table of EQUAL3 as a column vector is ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ) T = [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 {\displaystyle (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}} . Then under a holographic transformation by [ 0 1 1 0 ] , {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}},} OR 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle {\text{OR}}_{2}^{\otimes |U|}{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ 2 ) ⊗ | U | ( ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 1 0 ] ) ⊗ 3 + ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ) ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =\left((0,1,1,1){\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 2}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}+\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(1,1,1,0)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = NAND 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | , {\displaystyle ={\text{NAND}}_{2}^{\otim
Read more →
