ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Polynomial-Time MIMO Detection at the ML Threshold

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

polynomial-time-mimo-detection-at-the-maximum-likelihood-thresholdTheoretical computer scienceposer not recordedrecorded: candidate

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

In the square Gaussian binary MIMO model y=ρ/NHx+wy = \sqrt{\rho/N}\,Hx^\star + w, exhaustive maximum-likelihood detection recovers xx^\star once ρ>2logN\rho > 2\log N, while sphere decoding at that threshold scale costs exp{Θ(N/logN)}\exp\{\Theta(N/\log N)\}. Whether any polynomial-time detector reaches the same first-order threshold, or whether a computational-statistical gap separates them, was open. The claim: rounded linear MMSE followed by steepest single-bit descent recovers xx^\star with failure probability tending to zero, uniformly over every transmitted word, in O(N3)O(N^3) operations.

Context

An average-case claim about the Gaussian model, not a contradiction of the worst-case NP-hardness of integer least squares. If it holds, no computational-statistical gap separates polynomial-time detection from exhaustive maximum likelihood at first order in this model.

MIMO detection is a heavily studied problem with fifty years of literature and direct wireless-engineering stakes, and the computational-statistical gap question is a recognized one, but it was not a named conjecture with a standing attribution.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptGPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5 with Dimitris Papailiopoulos ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.6, Claude Fable 5
    people
    Dimitris Papailiopoulos

    The manuscript's footnote in full: "The results in this paper were proved by GPT-5.6 and Claude Fable 5, which also drafted the initial manuscript. The author posed the problem, directed several rounds of proof simplification, verified all mathematical arguments, edited the manuscript, and takes full responsibility for its content." By the author's public account, Claude proposed the algorithm (signed LMMSE plus greedy bit flips) and GPT repaired and simplified the proof over several days of directed iteration.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.