Researcher profile

Sandy Irani

Sandy Irani contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

A Comparison of Performance Measures for Online Algorithms

This paper provides a systematic study of several proposed measures for online algorithms in the context of a specific problem, namely, the two server problem on three colinear points. Even though the problem is simple, it encapsulates a core challenge in online algorithms which is to balance greediness and adaptability. We examine Competitive Analysis, the Max/Max Ratio, the Random Order Ratio, Bijective Analysis and Relative Worst Order Analysis, and determine how these measures compare the Greedy Algorithm, Double Coverage, and Lazy Double Coverage, commonly studied algorithms in the context of server problems. We find that by the Max/Max Ratio and Bijective Analysis, Greedy is the best of the three algorithms. Under the other measures, Double Coverage and Lazy Double Coverage are better, though Relative Worst Order Analysis indicates that Greedy is sometimes better. Only Bijective Analysis and Relative Worst Order Analysis indicate that Lazy Double Coverage is better than Double Coverage. Our results also provide the first proof of optimality of an algorithm under Relative Worst Order Analysis.

preprint2010arXiv

An Efficient Algorithm for approximating 1D Ground States

The DMRG method is very effective at finding ground states of 1D quantum systems in practice, but it is a heuristic method, and there is no known proof for when it works. In this paper we describe an efficient classical algorithm which provably finds a good approximation of the ground state of 1D systems under well defined conditions. More precisely, our algorithm finds a Matrix Product State of bond dimension $D$ whose energy approximates the minimal energy such states can achieve. The running time is exponential in D, and so the algorithm can be considered tractable even for D which is logarithmic in the size of the chain. The result also implies trivially that the ground state of any local commuting Hamiltonian in 1D can be approximated efficiently; we improve this to an exact algorithm.

preprint2010arXiv

The Quantum and Classical Complexity of Translationally Invariant Tiling and Hamiltonian Problems

We study the complexity of a class of problems involving satisfying constraints which remain the same under translations in one or more spatial directions. In this paper, we show hardness of a classical tiling problem on an N x N 2-dimensional grid and a quantum problem involving finding the ground state energy of a 1-dimensional quantum system of N particles. In both cases, the only input is N, provided in binary. We show that the classical problem is NEXP-complete and the quantum problem is QMA_EXP-complete. Thus, an algorithm for these problems which runs in time polynomial in N (exponential in the input size) would imply that EXP = NEXP or BQEXP = QMA_EXP, respectively. Although tiling in general is already known to be NEXP-complete, to our knowledge, all previous reductions require that either the set of tiles and their constraints or some varying boundary conditions be given as part of the input. In the problem considered here, these are fixed, constant-sized parameters of the problem. Instead, the problem instance is encoded solely in the size of the system.