← Atlas

Algorithms · Quantum query algorithm

Effective resistance of an electrical network

Given oracle access to a weighted graph on N vertices of maximum degree d whose edge weights are conductances, so that an edge of weight w carries resistance 1/w, estimate the effective resistance between a chosen pair of vertices s and t to within a factor of 1 + ε. Wang poses it as ENA-ER: for a network with |V| = N, deg(G) ≤ d, edge conductances normalized to 1 ≤ w_e ≤ c for every edge — equivalently edge resistances in [1/c, 1] — and spectral gap λ2(L_G) ≥ λ > 0, estimate R_eff(s, t) up to multiplicative error ε, succeeding with probability at least 2/3, given a procedure Pv that on input a vertex index and a number k returns the k-th edge incident to that vertex and a procedure Pe that on input an edge index returns that edge's two endpoints and its weight, both of which Wang assumes can be implemented in time poly(log(N)).

Attested & literatureUpdated

View frozen graph

  • Record typeLiterature reference
  • Speedup class (secondary source)Exponential
  • Primary source on the speedupStated by the primary source: "In particular, their dependence on N is exponentially better than that of known classical algorithms."
  • Reported costWang's abstract states a running time of poly(d, c, log(N), 1/λ, 1/ε) for computing voltages, currents, dissipated powers and effective resistances, where N is the number of vertices, d the maximum unweighted degree, c the ratio of largest to smallest edge resistance, λ the spectral gap of the normalized Laplacian and ε the accuracy; that this is a time bound and not only a query count rests on his assumption that the graph-access procedures can themselves be implemented in time poly(log(N)). For the resistance problem alone the paper gives two counts, both in uses of the two graph-access procedures Pv and Pe and both gate-efficient in its own sense: the linear-systems route is O((c d^2/(λ ε)) · poly log(c d/(λ ε))), and the quantum-walk route is O(min{c^0.5 d^1.5/(ε λ), c d^0.5/(ε λ^1.5)} · poly log(c d/(ε λ))). Wang also proves a lower bound of Ω(1/√λ) queries for any of his four electrical-network problems, and reads it as saying his algorithms are optimal up to polynomial factors. Ito and Jeffery report bounds of a different kind in a different query model: Õ(n √(R_st(G)) / ε^(3/2)) for estimating R_st(G) to relative accuracy ε, and Õ(n √(R_st(G)/µ) / ε) when µ is a lower bound on λ2(G), both in O(log n) space, and both linear rather than logarithmic in n.
  • Papers3

A part this method uses, worked through

This page says quantum walk — here is a concrete, runnable instance of it.

A discrete-time quantum walk on a 4-cycle

One coin qubit, two position qubits (4 positions on a cycle), 3 steps starting at position 0.

q0q1q2Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Quantum walk step (4-cycle)

Where it ends up

  • 11050%
  • 11150%

The position always reads 3, for either value of the coin: constructive interference on this small cycle concentrates the walk onto a single position after exactly 3 steps.

Open this part in Studio

A part this method uses, worked through

This page says phase estimation — here is a concrete, runnable instance of it.

Phase estimation of P(3*pi/4)

3 counting qubits estimating the phase of P(3π/4), which is 2π·3/8 exactly: a phase 3-bit QPE can represent exactly.

q0q1q2q3XHadamard layer(3)Controlled phase powers(3)QFT inverse(3)

Where it ends up

  • 1011100%

The counting register reads 011 = 3 with probability 1: angle/(2π) = 3/8, recovered exactly.

One of its steps changes only phase: the outcome probabilities stay put while the state does not.

Open this part in Studio
TakesNothingWhat joins here

No input port at this edge: the record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read one off — and unlike a declared hole, nothing has been recorded about what belongs here.

Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.

ReturnsNothingWhat joins here

No output port at this edge: the record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read one off — and unlike a declared hole, nothing has been recorded about what belongs here.

Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.

This record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read an interface off. Absent rather than empty. See all 152 →

References

  • Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Analyzing Large Sparse Electrical Networks

    Guoming Wang · 2013

    Primary source, and the only one of the three whose own text states an exponential separation for this row's problem. It proposes two classes of quantum algorithms for analyzing large sparse electrical networks, the first based on solving linear systems and the second on using quantum walks, computes voltages, currents, dissipated powers and effective resistances in time poly(d, c, log(N), 1/λ, 1/ε), and states that their dependence on N is exponentially better than that of known classical algorithms. It also shows that the polynomial dependence on 1/λ is necessary, which it reads as its algorithms being optimal up to polynomial factors. Consult it for the graph-access model, since the time bound rests on the assumption that those procedures run in time poly(log(N)), and for its convention that edge weights are conductances and an edge of weight w has resistance 1/w. Note that the title and the parameterisation both changed across versions: the Zoo cites the first version, titled Quantum algorithms for approximating the effective resistances of electrical networks, whose abstract is stated in terms of the expansion φ of the graph and which uses the Harrow, Hassidim and Lloyd algorithm directly.

  • Approximate Span Programs

    Tsuyoshi Ito, Stacey Jeffery · 2015

    Companion source for the span-program bounds the Zoo cites for this row. It shows how any span program that decides a problem can also be used to approximate the span program witness size, and applies that to effective resistance through the st-connectivity span program of Belovs and Reichardt, whose positive witness size is half of R_st(G). It reports the first upper bounds in the adjacency query model on the quantum time complexity of estimating R_st(G), and states that a linear dependence on n is necessary, so its results cannot be significantly improved. Consult it for the comparison it draws itself between the adjacency and edge-list query models, and for the caveats it lists on estimating a witness size through a linear-systems algorithm instead. Note that the abstract arxiv.org/abs/1507.00432 serves is worded differently from the abstract typeset in the paper itself, though the two bounds are the same.

  • Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations

    Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, Seth Lloyd · 2008

    The linear-systems algorithm the Zoo names as the basis of one of Wang's two algorithms. Given a sparse N by N matrix A with condition number kappa and a vector b, it estimates the expectation value of an operator with respect to the solution of Ax = b in poly(log N, kappa) time, which its abstract calls an exponential improvement over the best classical algorithm; that exponential is about solving linear systems, not about estimating a resistance. The first version of Wang's paper applies it to the Laplacian system whose solution encodes the electric potentials; the current version uses a later linear-system algorithm in its place.

Attested & literature
  • Peer-reviewed paper
Method
Curation only. The problem statement was recorded from the literature; the speedup class is checked against the record's own primary paper, which states it; the primary reference's title, authors and submission year were read from its arXiv abs page; the complexity claim was taken from a clause of that paper's abstract (Abstract of arXiv:1311.1851 as arxiv.org/abs/1311.1851 serves it today, which is v10 (LaTeX rendered into Unicode): "These algorithms compute various electrical quantities, including voltages, currents, dissipated powers and effective resistances, in time poly(d, c, log(N), 1/λ, 1/ε), where N is the number of vertices in the network, d is the maximum unweighted degree of the vertices, c is the ratio of largest to smallest edge resistance, λ is the spectral gap of the normalized Laplacian of the network, and ε is the accuracy. Furthermore, we show that the polynomial dependence on 1/λ is necessary." The assumption that turns the query counts below into a time bound is section 2.4 of that version, closing the model description: "We assume that Pv, Pe and Pi are all efficient, in the sense that they can be implemented in time poly(log(N))." The two resistance-specific counts are Corollary 2 of that version, "The ENA-ER problem can be solved by a gate-efficient quantum algorithm that makes O(cd^2/(λε) · poly log(cd/(λε))) uses of Pv and Pe", and Corollary 3, "The ENA-ER problem can be solved by a gate-efficient quantum algorithm that makes O(min{c^0.5 d^1.5/(ελ), cd^0.5/(ελ^1.5)} · poly log(cd/(ελ))) uses of Pv and Pe", each with its bound transcribed out of the display equation the corollary sets it in; the lower bound is the opening of section 5, "we prove that in order to solve any of the ENA-V, ENA-C, ENA-P, ENA-ER problems, one has to make Ω(1/√λ) queries to the graph. This lower bound implies that our algorithms are optimal up to polynomial factors and hence cannot be greatly improved." The adjacency-model figures are the abstract of arXiv:1507.00432 as arxiv.org/abs/1507.00432 serves it (LaTeX rendered into Unicode), which is worded differently from the abstract typeset inside the paper's only version: "we give the first upper bounds in the adjacency query model on the quantum time complexity of estimating the effective resistance between s and t, R_{s,t}(G), of Õ((1/ε^(3/2)) n √(R_{s,t}(G))), and, when µ is a lower bound on λ2(G), by our phase gap lower bound, we can obtain Õ((1/ε) n √(R_{s,t}(G)/µ)), both using O(log n) space." The same two bounds are Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 4.3 of that version, where they are stated as time complexities with space complexity O(log n). The Zoo states the running time in a third parameterisation, "poly( log n, d, 1/φ, 1/ε), where φ is the expansion of the graph", which is the v1 abstract's "Both of them have running time poly(log n, d, c, 1/φ, 1/ε)" with c dropped.). No circuit was constructed, simulated or run.
Result
Pass · the record's problem, speedup class and primary reference agree with the two sources named above.
Caveat
This is a literature record: no circuit was built, compiled, simulated or run, and no network instance was solved. Every figure above is asymptotic and states no constant, and what Wang counts is uses of the two graph-access procedures, so gate counts beyond his gate-efficiency claim, the cost of implementing those procedures — which he assumes to be poly(log(N)) rather than bounding it — and any runtime on hardware are outside it. The exponential separation is narrower than the Zoo's one-word class: Wang states it about the dependence on the graph's size alone, the running time is polynomial in d, c, 1/λ and 1/ε, and the paper's first version is explicit that the algorithms run much faster than the known classical algorithms in the case that the graph is sufficiently sparse and expanding, and the edge weights do not vary much. The classical side is the fastest algorithm known — Wang cites Spielman and Teng for a nearly-linear-time solve of the Laplacian system, and Spielman and Srivastava for an Ω(m) cost of approximating effective resistances, m being the number of edges — not a proven lower bound, so the separation is conditional on that state of the art. The three references the Zoo groups here are not interchangeable: Ito and Jeffery state that theirs are the first quantum algorithms for this problem in the adjacency query model and that Wang studied it in the edge-list model, and their own bounds are linear in n rather than logarithmic, so the Exponential class does not describe them. Finally, the Zoo's statement of this row diverges from the paper in four places, and a reader arriving from the Zoo should expect all four: it cites the paper under the title of its first version; it reads the edge weights as the resistances, where Wang reads them as the conductances and normalizes those to [1, c], which is the reciprocal convention; it attributes the linear-systems route to Harrow, Hassidim and Lloyd, which is what that first version does, while the current version builds its variants on Childs, Kothari and Somma instead; and it states the bound in the expansion of the graph, where the current version states it in the spectral gap of the normalized Laplacian.
Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Analyzing Large Sparse Electrical Networks ↗
Kind
curated reference
Reviewed by
Leona Quantum curation pass
License
Citation metadata only; source publication terms apply
effective resistanceelectrical networkquantum walklinear systemsspan programoracle

Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.