SciPost Submission Page

Fast counting with tensor networks

by Stefanos Kourtis, Claudio Chamon, Eduardo R. Mucciolo, Andrei E. Ruckenstein

This is not the current version.

Submission summary

As Contributors: Stefanos Kourtis
Preprint link: scipost_201908_00005v1
Date submitted: 2019-08-05
Submitted by: Kourtis, Stefanos
Submitted to: SciPost Physics
Discipline: Physics
Subject area: Condensed Matter Physics - Computational
Approaches: Theoretical, Computational

Abstract

We introduce tensor network contraction algorithms for counting satisfying assignments of constraint satisfaction problems (#CSPs). We represent each arbitrary #CSP formula as a tensor network, whose full contraction yields the number of satisfying assignments of that formula, and use graph theoretical methods to determine favorable orders of contraction. We employ our heuristics for the solution of #P-hard counting boolean satisfiability (#SAT) problems, namely monotone #1-in-3SAT and #Cubic-Vertex-Cover, and find that they outperform state-of-the-art solvers by a significant margin.

Ontology / Topics

See full Ontology or Topics database.

Tensor networks
Current status:
Has been resubmitted



Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 2 on 2019-10-17 Invited Report

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_201908_00005v1, delivered 2019-10-17, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1238

Strengths

1- The paper is well-organized and well-written.
2- The paper is perfectly understandable for the tensor-network expert who is not familiar with CSPs, and (I assume) the other way around.
3- The benchmarks or "numerical experiments" are sound and the comparison with other state-of-the-art methods is convincing.

Weaknesses

none

Report

It would be good to clearly mention somewhere to what extent the two test cases are favourable to the tensor-network algorithms as compared to other techniques. The speed-ups that the authors found for these two cases, are these expected to be generic for a broad class of problems?

Requested changes

none

  • validity: high
  • significance: good
  • originality: ok
  • clarity: top
  • formatting: perfect
  • grammar: perfect

Anonymous Report 1 on 2019-8-25 Invited Report

Report

The paper seems to be written well and discussions are convincing. I recommend the publication.

  • validity: good
  • significance: good
  • originality: good
  • clarity: good
  • formatting: good
  • grammar: good

Login to report or comment