From low-degree hardness to unconditional polynomial-time hardness
Sourced from the work of Guanyi Chen, Jian Ding, Shuyang Gong, Zhangsong Li
§ Problem Statement
Setup
For each , let and . Fix constants , , , and subsampling rate , with as .
This setup follows Chen et al. (2025).
The formal correlated-SBM model and detection setup below follow the source paper. First sample latent labels uniformly (equivalently, i.i.d. uniform on ). Conditional on , sample independent edges with
Then sample independent Bernoulli variables and , and an independent uniform permutation . The observed pair is
Let be the law of (after marginalizing ). Let be the null law where and are independent Erd\H{o}s-R'enyi graphs .
The detection problem is to construct tests ; success with vanishing error means
A randomized polynomial-time test means runtime (including internal randomness).
A partial matching estimator is a randomized polynomial-time map . One concrete notion of nontrivial partial recovery is: there exists such that
Let denote the Otter constant in this paper's notation, i.e., the inverse of the classical rooted-tree growth constant (so ), equivalently for unlabeled rooted trees.
The source establishes a sharp transition for low-degree methods but leaves unconditional polynomial-time hardness open.
Unsolved Problem
Prove or refute unconditionally (that is, beyond the low-degree-polynomial framework) that whenever
no randomized polynomial-time algorithm can distinguish from with vanishing error; and similarly no randomized polynomial-time algorithm can achieve nontrivial partial recovery of the latent matching .
§ Discussion
§ Significance & Implications
Chen et al. (arXiv:2409.00966v2) proves a sharp transition for low-degree polynomial tests/computations, not an unconditional polynomial-time lower bound for all algorithms. Establishing or refuting the corresponding unconditional polynomial-time hardness would close this complexity-theoretic gap.
§ Known Partial Results
Chen et al. (2024): The paper establishes the threshold for low-degree polynomial tests (and corresponding low-degree hardness evidence via reductions for related tasks). It does not prove unconditional polynomial-time impossibility for all randomized polynomial-time algorithms below that threshold.
§ References
Guanyi Chen, Jian Ding, Shuyang Gong, Zhangsong Li (2024)
Annals of Statistics (to appear)
📍 Section 1: Definition 1.1 (model), Problem 1.2 (detection problem), Theorem 1.3 (low-degree threshold), and the adjacent item-(2) discussion on the lack of complexity-theoretic tools/open unconditional-hardness gap.
Primary source; first preprint posted in 2024, with cited revised version v2 dated 2025-07-22.