Inapproximability of Counting Permutation Patterns

TL;DR

This paper proves that, under ETH, approximating the count of permutation patterns is as hard as exact counting, refuting previous conjectures that approximation is easier.

Contribution

It establishes tight lower bounds for approximate permutation pattern counting, showing it is computationally as hard as exact counting under ETH.

Findings

Approximate counting cannot be done in time $f(k) \, n^{o(k/ ext{log} k)}$ within a certain multiplicative factor.

The lower bounds match those for exact counting, indicating similar computational difficulty.

An $n^{k/2}$-approximation can be computed efficiently, nearly matching the lower bound.

Abstract

Detecting and counting copies of permutation patterns are fundamental algorithmic problems, with applications in the analysis of rankings, nonparametric statistics, and property testing tasks such as independence and quasirandomness testing. From an algorithmic perspective, there is a sharp difference in complexity between detecting and counting the copies of a given length-$k$ pattern in a length-$n$ permutation. The former admits a $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)} \cdot n$ time algorithm (Guillemot and Marx, 2014) while the latter cannot be solved in time $f(k)\cdot n^{o(k/\log k)}$ unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) fails (Berendsohn, Kozma, and Marx, 2021). In fact already for patterns of length 4, exact counting is unlikely to admit near-linear time algorithms under standard fine-grained complexity assumptions (Dudek and Gawrychowski, 2020). Recently, Ben-Eliezer, Mitrovi\'c and Sristava (2026) showed that for patterns of length up to 5, a $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation of the pattern count can be computed in near-linear time, yielding a separation between exact and approximate counting for small patterns, and conjectured that approximate counting is asymptotically easier than exact counting in general. We strongly refute their conjecture by showing that, under ETH, no algorithm running in time $f(k)\cdot n^{o(k/\log k)}$ can approximate the number of copies of a length-$k$ pattern within a multiplicative factor $n^{(1/2-\varepsilon)k}$. The lower bound on runtime matches the conditional lower bound for exact pattern counting, and the obtained bound on the multiplicative error factor is essentially tight, as an $n^{k/2}$-approximation can be computed in $2^{\mathcal{O}(k^2)}\cdot n$ time using an algorithm for pattern detection.