Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:53:22.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complexity of Ising Polynomials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2012

TOMER KOTEK
TOMER KOTEK*
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel (e-mail: tkotek@cs.technion.ac.il)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with the partition function of the Ising model from statistical mechanics, which is used to study phase transitions in physical systems. A special case of interest is that of the Ising model with constant energies and external field. One may consider such an Ising system as a simple graph together with vertex and edge weights. When these weights are considered indeterminates, the partition function for the constant case is a trivariate polynomial Z(G;x,y,z). This polynomial was studied with respect to its approximability by Goldberg, Jerrum and Paterson. Z(G;x,y,z) generalizes a bivariate polynomial Z(G;t,y), which was studied in by Andrén and Markström.

We consider the complexity of Z(Gt,y) and Z(G;x,y,z) in comparison to that of the Tutte polynomial, which is well known to be closely related to the Potts model in the absence of an external field. We show that Z(G;x,y,z) is #P-hard to evaluate at all points in 3, except those in an exceptional set of low dimension, even when restricted to simple graphs which are bipartite and planar. A counting version of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, #ETH, was introduced by Dell, Husfeldt and Wahlén in order to study the complexity of the Tutte polynomial. In analogy to their results, we give under #ETH a dichotomy theorem stating that evaluations of Z(G;t,y) either take exponential time in the number of vertices of G to compute, or can be done in polynomial time. Finally, we give an algorithm for computing Z(G;x,y,z) in polynomial time on graphs of bounded clique-width, which is not known in the case of the Tutte polynomial.

Keywords

Primary 05C31Secondary 05C8582B20
Type
Paper
Information
Combinatorics, Probability and Computing , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , September 2012 , pp. 743 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Andrén, D. and Markström, K. (2009) The bivariate Ising polynomial of a graph. Discrete Appl. Math. 157 2515–2524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Andrzejak, A. (1998) An algorithm for the Tutte polynomials of graphs of bounded treewidth. Discrete Math. 190 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Bulatov, A. A. and Grohe, M. (2005) The complexity of partition functions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 348 148–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Cai, J., Chen, X. and Lu, P. (2010) Graph homomorphisms with complex values: A dichotomy theorem. In ICALP 1 (Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., and Spirakis, P. G., eds), Vol. 6198 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 275–286.Google Scholar
[5]Courcelle, B. and Olariu, S. (2000) Upper bounds to the clique width of graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 101 77–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Dell, H., Husfeldt, T. and Wahlen, M. (2010) Exponential time complexity of the permanent and the Tutte polynomial. In ICALP 1 (Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., and Spirakis, P. G., eds), Vol. 6198 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 426–437.Google Scholar
[7]Dyer, M. and Greenhill, C. (2000) The complexity of counting graph homomorphisms. Random Struct. Alg. 17 260–289.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Vertigan, D. L.Jaeger, F. and Welsh, D. J. A. (1990) On the computational complexity of the Jones and Tutte polynomials. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 108 35–53.Google Scholar
[9]Fisher, M. E. (1966) On the dimer solution of planar Ising models. J. Math. Phys. 7 1776–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Flajolet, P. and Sedgewick, R. (2009) Analytic Combinatorics, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Fomin, F. V., Golovach, P. A., Lokshtanov, D. and Saurabh, S. (2010) Algorithmic lower bounds for problems parameterized with clique-width. In SODA (Charikar, M., ed.), SIAM, pp. 493–502.Google Scholar
[12]Giménez, O., Hlinený, P. and Noy, M. (2006) Computing the Tutte polynomial on graphs of bounded clique-width. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 20 932–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Goldberg, L. A., Grohe, M., Jerrum, M. and Thurley, M. (2010) A complexity dichotomy for partition functions with mixed signs. SIAM J. Comput. 39 3336–3402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Goldberg, L. A., Jerrum, M. and Paterson, M. (2003) The computational complexity of two-state spin systems. Random Struct. Alg. 23 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Graham, R. L., Knuth, D. E. and Patashnik, O. (1994) Concrete Mathematics, second edition. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
[16]Impagliazzo, R. and Paturi, R. (1999) Complexity of k-SAT. In Proc. 14th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity: CCC-99, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 237–240.Google Scholar
[17]Jerrum, M. and Sinclair, A. (1993) Polynomial-time approximation algorithms for the Ising model. SIAM J. Comput. 22 1087–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Kasteleyn, P. W. (1967) Graph theory and crystal physics. In Graph Theory and Theoretical Physics (Harary, F., ed.), Academic Press, pp. 43–110.Google Scholar
[19]Makowsky, J. A. (2004) Algorithmic uses of the Feferman–Vaught theorem. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 126 159–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Makowsky, J. A., Rotics, U., Averbouch, I. and Godlin, B. (2006) Computing graph polynomials on graphs of bounded clique-width. In WG 2006 (Fomin, F. V., ed.), Vol. 4271 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 191–204.Google Scholar
[21]Noble, S. D. (1998) Evaluating the Tutte polynomial for graphs of bounded tree-width. In Combin. Probab. Comput. 7 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Noble, S. D. (2009) Evaluating a weighted graph polynomial for graphs of bounded tree-width. Electron. J. Combin. 16 R64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Oum, S. (2005) Approximating rank-width and clique-width quickly. In WG 2005 (Kratsch, D., ed.), Vol. 3787 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
[24]Oum, S. and Seymour, P. (2006) Approximating clique-width and branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]Sinclair, A., Srivastava, P. and Thurley, M. (2011) Approximation algorithms for two-state anti-ferromagnetic spin systems on bounded degree graphs. In SODA (Rabani, Y., ed.), SIAM, pp. 941–953.Google Scholar
[26]Sokal, A. D. (2005) The multivariate Tutte polynomial (alias Potts model) for graphs and matroids. In Surveys in Combinatorics (Webb, B. S., ed.), Vol. 327 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–226.Google Scholar
[27]Thurley, M.The Complexity of Partition Functions. PhD thesis, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
[28]van der Waerden, B. L. (1941) Die lange Reichweite der regelmässigen Atomanordnung in Mischkristallen. Z. Physik 118 573–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29]Vertigan, D. (2006) The computational complexity of Tutte invariants for planar graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 35 690–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30]Vertigan, D. and Welsh, D. J. A. (1992) The computational complexity of the Tutte plane: the bipartite case. Combin. Probab. Comput. 1 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31]Xia, M., Zhang, P. and Zhao, W. (2007) Computational complexity of counting problems on 3-regular planar graphs. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 384 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[32]Zhang, J., Liang, H. and Bai, F. (2011) Approximating partition functions of the two-state spin system. Inform. Process. Lett. 111 702–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar