Madrid duo fire up quantum contender to Google search

Dec 14, 2011 by Nancy Owano weblog
Comparison of the hierarchies that result from the Classical and the Quantum PageRank. For more details, please see the paper at arXiv:1112.2079v1 [quant-ph]

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two Madrid scientists from The Complutense University think they have an algorithm that may impact the nature of the world's leading search engine. In essence, they are saying Hey, world, Google This. "We have found an instance of this class of quantum protocols that outperforms its classical counterpart and may break the classical hierarchy of web pages depending on the topology of the web," say the researchers.

Google's represents of the idea that the importance of a webpage is measured by the number of important papers that point towards it. PageRank from not only measures a web page’s popularity by how many sites, but the authority of the sites linking to the page.

Giuseppe Paparo and Miguel Martín-Delgado at The Complutense University in Madrid are taking the Google approach a step further. They have revealed a quantum version of the algorithm, and they have presented their findings in a paper dated December 9, “Google in a Quantum Network.”

The distinguishing feature is speed. Quantum algorithms produce results “extremely rapidly,” note reports, faster than a so called “classical” algorithm.

In their research using a tree graph, the outperformed the classical algorithm in ranking the root page. They achieved similar results using a directed graph. The quantum algorithm identified the highest ranking page faster than a classical algorithm.

In quantum networks, information is routed as quantum bits, or qubits, rather than classical.

Technologists familiar with quantum computing believe that the classical web will be replaced, or enhanced, by a network of quantum nodes. Nonetheless, the recent research can be seen as an early step.

The possibility of establishing a quantum network of practical use is still under active investigation, say the authors, and they acknowledge they are not the first to explore the waters. “Some early versions of them, modest as they may be, have been designed and realized in real world in the recent years or in some instances they are under way.”

The authors say that what they are introducing is not something opposite to Google’s approach, but rather a quantum PageRank algorithms “in a scenario in which some kind of quantum network is realizable out of the current classical internet web, but no quantum computer is yet available. “

They say their work is a “quantization” of the PageRank protocol that is used to list web pages according to their importance.

“We have found an instance of this class of quantum protocols that outperforms its classical counterpart and may break the classical hierarchy of depending on the topology of the web.”

The authors also recognize their study has limitations and that more research is needed. Their ultimate goal is devising a quantum algorithm that can overcome difficulties but their explorations were only on small networks. They said it would be interesting to perform computations with the quantum PageRank applied to very large networks “with the properties exhibited by the complex structure of the real web.”

Explore further: 'Cavity protection effect' helps to conserve quantum information

More information: Google in a Quantum Network, arXiv:1112.2079v1 [quant-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1112.2079

Abstract
We introduce the characterization of a class of quantum PageRank algorithms in a scenario in which some kind of quantum network is realizable out of the current classical internet web, but no quantum computer is yet available. This class represents a quantization of the PageRank protocol currently employed to list web pages according to their importance. We have found an instance of this class of quantum protocols that outperforms its classical counterpart and may break the classical hierarchy of web pages depending on the topology of the web.

via Arxiv Blog

Related Stories

Entanglement can help in classical communication

Mar 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- When most of us think of entanglement, our minds jump immediately to quantum communication. "Entanglement has become very well known and useful in quantum communication," Robert Prevedel tells PhysOrg.com. Preved ...

Quantum correlations -- without entanglement

Aug 24, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Few people doubt the "quantumness" of entanglement. Quantifying the quantum correlation of entanglement is something that is relatively regular right now. However, things change a bit when it comes to quantum ...

Pure mathematics behind the mechanics

Feb 07, 2008

Dutch researcher Peter Hochs has discovered that the same effects can be observed in quantum and classical mechanics, if quantisation is used.

Recommended for you

User comments : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Cave_Man
4 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2011
?Every time they change the damn search engine I have to learn how to search again!!!

Anyone prefer google the way it was 5 years ago? It was a little quirky to learn how to search but once you got it down you could find ANYTHING you wanted.

Now its like if im searching the same keywords or similar keywords over and over its not because i want the SAME EXACT results as last time right? If im searching for information I want whats out there not what google THINKS I want and usually not the most "popular" pages.......

Sh#t!
Nanobanano
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2011
I actually agree.

The "most popular" pages are often not even relevant, or full of bad information.

I often find myself having to manually pore over stuff on Google now.

And you are right, 5 years ago that wasn't the case.
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Dec 14, 2011
Then just use bing... oh wait bing copies google results.

http://news.cnet....264.html

yahoo? wait, thats just bing...

metacrawler?
gwrede
2 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2011
Google should let people choose. Some people actually know what they are looking for, some others even know about boolean operators, and of course then there's this majority who can't even spell.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2011
you can choose. Go into the advanced search. You can even do a "tool w/p rawa1" and probably find a few posts down here.

:-) sorry rawa... kinda.

although with the general mood on this site you could probably search for any poster "w/p idiot" and find some hits.
SemiNerd
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2011
I actually agree.

The "most popular" pages are often not even relevant, or full of bad information.

I often find myself having to manually pore over stuff on Google now.

And you are right, 5 years ago that wasn't the case.

I don't suppose this could be that the size of the web has grown a little in the last 5 years? The article is talking about a faster implementation of the Google algorithm, not a new one. In other words, you'll still be inundated with noise, it will just happen faster.

----> just what I need. sheesh
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Dec 14, 2011
If you hit the back button from any google search link, google will give you the option to block that site from all searches you do in the future. But you may need to be signed in to a google account for that to work, not sure if it will work with just cookies.

so if you really hate techcrunch for instance, you can never see their content in a google search again. Or more likely you will ban stupid spam sites.
Anyone not have a google account that can attest to that feature working or not?
Deesky
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011
Anyone prefer google the way it was 5 years ago? It was a little quirky to learn how to search but once you got it down you could find ANYTHING you wanted.

I doubt that the actual search engine has changed much at all (just minor tweaks). The most visible changes have been to the UI, and with that, I have to agree that the changes have not been for the better.

They keep changing the left column options etc, live search (hate it, but at least you can turn if off), but my biggest dislike is the image search where you get a messy mosaic of variously sized thumbnails which you have to hover over to see any details like pic size and url - argh).

Also, was this quantum algorithm run on a classical computer?
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2011
Great I always wanted to shop online in parallel universes. But how will they calculate the shipping?
Yogaman
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
Also, was this quantum algorithm run on a classical computer?

No, but if one existed, they'd like to, according to the first sentence of the abstract at the provided link:

"We introduce the characterization of a class of quantum PageRank algorithms in a scenario in which some kind of quantum network is realizable out of the current classical internet web, but no quantum computer is yet available."

Don't you feel better just knowing that the algorithm class is characterized?
MarkyMark
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
Great I always wanted to shop online in parallel universes. But how will they calculate the shipping?

Lol this one made me smile. And yep five years ago was better for the stated reasons. Just as well we are decades from a home Quantum computer i guess.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
Don't you feel better just knowing that the algorithm class is characterized?

You should. Much like the algorithms for large number factorization via quantum computing have already been characterized.
It never hurts to know what you can use something for before it's been built. Makes investors more likely to fund the research rather than just having the funding 100% tax-based
Temple
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2011
?Every time they change the damn search engine I have to learn how to search again!!!

Anyone prefer google the way it was 5 years ago? It was a little quirky to learn how to search but once you got it down you could find ANYTHING you wanted.

Now its like if im searching the same keywords or similar keywords over and over its not because i want the SAME EXACT results as last time right? If im searching for information I want whats out there not what google THINKS I want and usually not the most "popular" pages.......

Sh#t!


Hear, hear!

I miss being able to search for the following:

word-phrase

And it would only find instances of either "wordphrase", "word-phrase", or "word phrase".

They changed it not long ago and removed that feature, diluting all the search results to anything where "word" and "phrase" were simply near each other. I loved that old feature and hate the new behaviour.