Inapproximability of the independent set polynomial in the complex plane
Abstract
We study the complexity of approximating the independent set polynomial of a graph with maximum degree when the activity is a complex number. This problem is already well understood when is real using connections to the -regular tree . The key concept in that case is the "occupation ratio" of the tree . This ratio is the contribution to from independent sets containing the root of the tree, divided by itself. If is such that the occupation ratio converges to a limit, as the height of grows, then there is an FPTAS for approximating on a graph with maximum degree . Otherwise, the approximation problem is NP-hard. Unsurprisingly, the case where is complex is more challenging. Peters and Regts identified the complex values of for which the occupation ratio of the -regular tree converges. These values carve a cardioid-shaped region in the complex plane. Motivated by the picture in the real case, they asked whether marks the true approximability threshold for general complex values . Our main result shows that for every outside of , the problem of approximating on graphs with maximum degree at most is indeed NP-hard. In fact, when is outside of and is not a positive real number, we give the stronger result that approximating is actually #P-hard. If is a negative real number outside of , we show that it is #P-hard to even decide whether , resolving in the affirmative a conjecture of Harvey, Srivastava and Vondrak. Our proof techniques are based around tools from complex analysis -- specifically the study of iterative multivariate rational maps.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.1711.00282,
title = {Inapproximability of the independent set polynomial in the complex plane},
author = {Ivona Bezakova and Andreas Galanis and Leslie Ann Goldberg and Daniel Stefankovic},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00282},
year = {2026}
}
Comments
The proof of Lemma 12 doesn't work as written here since the value returned by Phi_i in GetPoint (p17) may lie outside of B(z_0,r). See Lemma 5.3 of arXiv:2512.11504 by Bencs, Piombi, and Regts, where this is fixed via contraction over B(m,3r) (their modified Lemma can be used to establish Propositions 6 and 15, see Remark 5.4 of their paper). We thank them for pointing this out