A Tight Lower Bound for Counting Hamiltonian Cycles via Matrix Rank
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For even $k$, the matchings connectivity matrix $\mathbf{M}_k$ encodes which pairs of perfect matchings on $k$ vertices form a single cycle. Cygan et al. (STOC 2013) showed that the rank of $\mathbf{M}_k$ over $\mathbb{Z}_2$ is $Θ(\sqrt 2^k)$ and used this to give an $O^*((2+\sqrt{2})^{\mathsf{pw}})$ time algorithm for counting Hamiltonian cycles modulo $2$ on graphs of pathwidth $\mathsf{pw}$. The same authors complemented their algorithm by an essentially tight lower bound under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH). This bound crucially relied on a large permutation submatrix within $\mathbf{M}_k$, which enabled a "pattern propagation" commonly used in previous related lower bounds, as initiated by Lokshtanov et al. (SODA 2011). We present a new technique for a similar pattern propagation when only a black-box lower bound on the asymptotic rank of $\mathbf{M}_k$ is given; no stronger structural insights such as the existence of large permutation submatrices in $\mathbf{M}_k$ are needed. Given appropriate rank bounds, our technique yields lower bounds for counting Hamiltonian cycles (also modulo fixed primes $p$) parameterized by pathwidth. To apply this technique, we prove that the rank of $\mathbf{M}_k$ over the rationals is $4^k / \mathrm{poly}(k)$. We also show that the rank of $\mathbf{M}_k$ over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is $Ω(1.97^k)$ for any prime $p\neq 2$ and even $Ω(2.15^k)$ for some primes. As a consequence, we obtain that Hamiltonian cycles cannot be counted in time $O^*((6-ε)^{\mathsf{pw}})$ for any $ε>0$ unless SETH fails. This bound is tight due to a $O^*(6^{\mathsf{pw}})$ time algorithm by Bodlaender et al. (ICALP 2013). Under SETH, we also obtain that Hamiltonian cycles cannot be counted modulo primes $p\neq 2$ in time $O^*(3.97^\mathsf{pw})$, indicating that the modulus can affect the complexity in intricate ways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it