Unsolved

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 nn, let [n]={1,,n}[n]=\{1,\dots,n\} and Un={{i,j}:1i<jn}U_n=\{\{i,j\}:1\le i<j\le n\}. Fix constants k2k\ge 2, λ>0\lambda>0, ϵ(0,1)\epsilon\in(0,1), and subsampling rate s(0,1)s\in(0,1), with k,λ=O(1)k,\lambda=O(1) as nn\to\infty.

This setup follows Chen et al. (2025).

The formal correlated-SBM model and detection setup below follow the source paper. First sample latent labels σ\*[k]n\sigma^\*\in[k]^n uniformly (equivalently, i.i.d. uniform on [k][k]). Conditional on σ\*\sigma^\*, sample independent edges (Gij){i,j}Un(G_{ij})_{\{i,j\}\in U_n} with

P(Gij=1σ\*)={(1+(k1)ϵ)λn,σ\*(i)=σ\*(j),(1ϵ)λn,σ\*(i)σ\*(j).\mathbb P(G_{ij}=1\mid \sigma^\*)= \begin{cases} \frac{(1+(k-1)\epsilon)\lambda}{n}, & \sigma^\*(i)=\sigma^\*(j),\\[1mm] \frac{(1-\epsilon)\lambda}{n}, & \sigma^\*(i)\ne \sigma^\*(j). \end{cases}

Then sample independent Bernoulli(s)(s) variables (Jij){i,j}Un(J_{ij})_{\{i,j\}\in U_n} and (Kij){i,j}Un(K_{ij})_{\{i,j\}\in U_n}, and an independent uniform permutation π\*Sn\pi^\*\in S_n. The observed pair (A,B)(A,B) is

Aij=GijJij,Bij=Gπ\*1(i),π\*1(j)Kij({i,j}Un).A_{ij}=G_{ij}J_{ij},\qquad B_{ij}=G_{\pi^{\* -1}(i),\,\pi^{\* -1}(j)}K_{ij}\quad (\{i,j\}\in U_n).

Let PnP_n be the law of (A,B)(A,B) (after marginalizing σ\*,π\*,G,J,K\sigma^\*,\pi^\*,G,J,K). Let QnQ_n be the null law where AA and BB are independent Erd\H{o}s-R'enyi graphs G(n,λs/n)G(n,\lambda s/n).

The detection problem is to construct tests φn:{0,1}Un×{0,1}Un{0,1}\varphi_n:\{0,1\}^{U_n}\times\{0,1\}^{U_n}\to\{0,1\}; success with vanishing error means

Pn(φn=0)+Qn(φn=1)0.P_n(\varphi_n=0)+Q_n(\varphi_n=1)\to 0.

A randomized polynomial-time test means runtime nO(1)n^{O(1)} (including internal randomness).

A partial matching estimator is a randomized polynomial-time map π^n(A,B)Sn\widehat\pi_n(A,B)\in S_n. One concrete notion of nontrivial partial recovery is: there exists η>0\eta>0 such that

lim infnPn ⁣(1n{i[n]:π^n(i)=π\*(i)}η)>0.\liminf_{n\to\infty} P_n\!\left(\frac1n\big|\{i\in[n]:\widehat\pi_n(i)=\pi^\*(i)\}\big|\ge \eta\right)>0.

Let α0.338\alpha\approx 0.338 denote the Otter constant in this paper's notation, i.e., the inverse of the classical rooted-tree growth constant ρ2.955765\rho\approx 2.955765\ldots (so α=1/ρ\alpha=1/\rho), equivalently tm=Θ(αmm3/2)t_m=\Theta(\alpha^{-m}m^{-3/2}) 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

s<min ⁣{α,1λϵ2},s<\min\!\left\{\sqrt{\alpha},\frac{1}{\lambda\epsilon^2}\right\},

no randomized polynomial-time algorithm can distinguish PnP_n from QnQ_n with vanishing error; and similarly no randomized polynomial-time algorithm can achieve nontrivial partial recovery of the latent matching π\*\pi^\*.

§ Discussion

Loading 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 s=min{α,1/(λϵ2)}s=\min\{\sqrt{\alpha},1/(\lambda\epsilon^2)\} 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

[1]

A Computational Transition for Detecting Correlated Stochastic Block Models by Low-Degree Polynomials

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.

§ Tags