A Black-Box Workload Barrier for Exact Girth via Multi-Scale Nearest-Source Estimation in CONGEST

We isolate the direct strategy of retuning and repeatedly invoking the same nearest-source estimator. The definition below distinguishes the information visible to the black-box controller from the fresh source identities and internal nearest-source tables hidden inside each estimator call. This makes the adaptive stopping argument measure-theoretically explicit.

[Fresh exchangeable nearest-source call] Fix $G$ and let $\mathcal{G}$ be the information $\sigma$-field available immediately before a source set is sampled. Let the source cardinality $Q\in\{0,\ldots,n\}$ and capacity $k\geq 1$ be $\mathcal{G}$-measurable. A fresh exchangeable nearest-source call samples $S$ so that, conditional on $\mathcal{G}$, $S$ is uniform among all $Q$-subsets of $V$, and returns only the scalar value $\textsc{Estimate}(G,S,k)$. Equivalently, after conditioning on all pre-sampling information and on the realized cardinality, the source-set distribution is invariant under every permutation of the vertex names. Independent Bernoulli sampling is included because, conditional on its realized cardinality, the selected set is uniform.

[Black-box exactification with adaptive stopping] A black-box exactification is defined on a probability space with an algorithm-visible transcript filtration $(\mathcal{F}_{j})_{j\geq 0}$. The $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{F}_{j}$ contains everything exposed to the controller after the first $j$ completed estimator calls: previous controller-visible randomness, all previously chosen parameters, and the scalar outputs $M_{1},\ldots,M_{j}$. It explicitly excludes the identities of the fresh samples and the internal nearest-source tables of completed calls.

Before call $j\geq 1$, the controller decides from $\mathcal{F}_{j-1}$ whether to stop. If it continues, it may reveal additional pre-sampling randomness and choose a cardinality $Q_{j}$ and capacity $k_{j}$. Let $\mathcal{G}_{j}\supseteq\mathcal{F}_{j-1}$ be the resulting pre-sampling $\sigma$-field. The continuation event and the values $Q_{j},k_{j}$ are $\mathcal{G}_{j}$-measurable. Conditional on $\mathcal{G}_{j}$, a fresh uniform $Q_{j}$-subset $S_{j}$ is drawn and the call computes

Only the scalar $M_{j}$ is added to the next controller-visible transcript $\mathcal{F}_{j}$, the sample identities and source tables are discarded from the black-box interface. The algorithm then repeats or stops. Let $T\geq 1$ be the number of executed calls. By construction, $T$ is a stopping time with respect to $(\mathcal{F}_{j})_{j\geq 0}$, and the returned value is $\min_{1\leq j\leq T}M_{j}$.

For an executed call define

and define the total retained-source workload

We restrict attention to algorithms with $T<\infty$ almost surely and $\mathbb{E}[W]<\infty$, otherwise the workload lower bound is vacuous.

The information flow for an executed call is therefore

In particular, $k_{j}$ cannot be correlated with the identities in $S_{j}$ through randomness revealed only after the source set is drawn. Later parameter choices may nevertheless depend arbitrarily on all earlier scalar outputs.

Figure 1 emphasizes the interface restriction used by the theorem: source identities and nearest-source tables affect the scalar $M_{j}$ inside a call but are not available to the controller when choosing a later call.

[Closure under direct retuning of the multi-scale template] Consider an algorithm obtained from the unweighted undirected multi-scale nearest-source template of Chechik et al. 2 solely by changing any combination of: (i) the number or order of estimator calls, (ii) per-call independent Bernoulli sampling probabilities or fixed uniform source-set cardinalities, (iii) per-call nearest-source capacities, and (iv) future parameters and a continuation/stopping decision as functions of previous scalar estimator outputs. If calls use fresh samples, do not preserve or jointly compress their internal source tables, invoke no additional graph-aware cycle routine, and return the minimum scalar estimate seen, then the resulting algorithm is a black-box exactification in the sense of Definition 2.2.

A fixed-cardinality source set is uniform by assumption. For independent Bernoulli sampling, conditioning on its realized cardinality $Q_{j}$ makes every $Q_{j}$-subset equally likely. Thus each call satisfies Definition 2.2 conditional on the complete pre-sampling state. Changes to scale order, sampling density, and capacity are precisely choices of $(Q_{j},k_{j})$ made before the fresh sample is revealed. Dependence on earlier scalar outputs is allowed through $\mathcal{F}_{j-1}$, and a scalar-output stopping rule makes $T$ a stopping time with respect to the controller-visible filtration. The remaining hypotheses are exactly the state-discard and output restrictions in Definition 2.2.

Proposition 2.2 is the model-naturalness claim used in this paper. The class is still deliberately restricted. It excludes graph-aware source selection or preprocessing, retention or combination of source-table state across calls, joint compression of several calls, and any additional exact-cycle subroutine. Section 4 treats these exclusions as substantive escape routes rather than implementation details.

Table 2 collects the symbols used repeatedly in the model and the hard-family proof. Local proof variables are defined where they first appear.

The mathematical argument was developed by explicit theorem decomposition and adversarial checking of each quantifier: the hard graph is deterministic, all shortest paths are unique, the sampling bound is conditional on the realized source-set cardinality, and the final probability estimate uses only a union bound, so independence across layers is unnecessary. The supplementary verification program constructs finite instances directly from the definition and checks the structural identities used in the proof. No simulation is used to infer or fit an asymptotic exponent.

For an integer $t\geq 1$, let

Start with a cycle

whose indices are taken modulo $g_{t}$. At each cycle vertex $c_{i}$, attach a complete rooted binary tree with $2^{t}-1$ new vertices by connecting $c_{i}$ to the root. The root-to-leaf depth inside the attached tree is $t-1$, so every attached-tree vertex is at graph distance at most $t$ from its cycle attachment vertex. Denote the resulting graph by $H_{t}$. Figure 2 illustrates both the construction and the metric crowding at the antipodal endpoint that drives the lower bound.

[Basic properties] For every $t\geq 1$, the graph $H_{t}$ satisfies

and $D(H_{t})=6t$. In particular, $g(H_{t})=\Theta(\log n_{t})$ and $D(H_{t})=\Theta(\log n_{t})$.

Each of the $g_{t}$ cycle vertices contributes itself together with $2^{t}-1$ new tree vertices, hence $n_{t}=g_{t}2^{t}$. A cycle vertex has two cycle neighbors and one attached-tree neighbor. A tree vertex has degree at most three. Because every added component is a tree attached by a single edge, $C_{t}$ is the unique cycle, and therefore the girth is $g_{t}$.

A vertex is at distance at most $t$ from its attachment vertex. The distance between any two cycle vertices is at most $\lfloor g_{t}/2\rfloor=4t$. Thus every pair of vertices is at distance at most $t+4t+t=6t$. Conversely, choose leaves at depth $t-1$ in two attached trees whose cycle anchors are at cycle distance $4t$. Each chosen leaf is at graph distance exactly $t$ from its anchor, and the attached trees cannot shortcut the cycle, so the two leaves are at distance $t+4t+t=6t$. Hence $D(H_{t})=6t$. Finally,

so $t=\Theta(\log n_{t})$, and the last two claims follow.

The odd cycle makes all shortest paths in $H_{t}$ unique. This removes parent-pointer ambiguity and allows an exact characterization of every candidate produced by a complete source tree.

For a vertex $s$, let $a(s)=c_{i}$ be the unique cycle vertex at which the component containing $s$ attaches to the cycle, taking $a(s)=s$ when $s\in C_{t}$. Define

Let $r=4t=(g_{t}-1)/2$. For $a(s)=c_{i}$, define the antipodal edge

Both endpoints of $e_{i}$ are at cycle distance $r$ from $c_{i}$.

[Unique witness edge] Fix a source $s\in V(H_{t})$ with $a(s)=c_{i}$. In the complete BFS tree rooted at $s$, every edge of $H_{t}$ except $e_{i}$ is a parent-child edge. The edge $e_{i}$ is not a parent-child edge, and its witness value is

Every edge belonging to an attached binary tree is a bridge of $H_{t}$. Hence, for any root $s$, the unique shortest path to the farther endpoint of such an edge contains the edge, making the nearer endpoint its BFS parent.

It remains to consider the cycle. Since $g_{t}=2r+1$ is odd, between $c_{i}$ and any cycle vertex there is a unique shorter arc. For every cycle edge other than $e_{i}$, the distances of its endpoints from $c_{i}$ differ by one, and the closer endpoint is the predecessor of the farther endpoint along its unique shortest path from $c_{i}$. Prefixing the unique path from $s$ to $c_{i}$ shows that the same parent-child relation holds in the BFS tree rooted at $s$.

The endpoints of $e_{i}$ are both at distance $r$ from $c_{i}$, hence both at distance $\delta(s)+r$ from $s$. Neither can be the other’s parent. Substituting these distances into Equation (1) yields

The same conclusion applies to a partial nearest-source table whenever $s$ is retained at both endpoints of an edge: source detection reports exact distances and the same forced parent pointers.

[Exactness requires a cycle source] A call $\textsc{Estimate}(H_{t},S,k)$ outputs $g_{t}$ only if there exists a cycle vertex $s=c_{i}\in S$ that is retained at both endpoints of its antipodal edge $e_{i}$. Conversely, if such a cycle source is retained at both antipodal endpoints, the call outputs $g_{t}$.

By Lemma 3.2, a retained source $s$ can contribute only the candidate $g_{t}+2\delta(s)$. This equals $g_{t}$ exactly when $\delta(s)=0$, namely when $s$ lies on the cycle. If a cycle source is retained at both endpoints of $e_{i}$, that edge contributes $g_{t}$. Since the estimator never outputs a value below the girth 2, the global minimum is exactly $g_{t}$.

The exact source characterized above is hard to retain. The reason is not that its antipodal endpoint is far away in an absolute sense: all relevant distances are only $O(\log n_{t})$. The reason is that a linear number of vertices have smaller distance to that endpoint. In this subsection, $d_{C_{t}}(u,v)$ denotes shortest-path distance measured along the cycle $C_{t}$.

[Linear antipodal crowding] Let $s=c_{i}$ be a cycle vertex and let $x=c_{i+4t}$ be one endpoint of its antipodal edge. At least

vertices of $H_{t}$ are strictly closer to $x$ than $s$ is. In particular,

The same statement holds for the other antipodal endpoint.

We have $d(x,s)=4t$. Consider every cycle anchor $c_{j}$ satisfying

There are exactly $4t-1$ such anchors. Consider the anchor-plus-tree cluster consisting of an anchor together with all vertices of its attached binary tree. Every vertex $v$ in any such cluster satisfies

The $4t-1$ corresponding anchor-plus-tree clusters are disjoint and each has $2^{t}$ vertices, proving the first claim. Moreover,

for every $t\geq 1$. Symmetry gives the second endpoint.

We now isolate the elementary sampling fact that drives the barrier.

[Uniform-subset rank bound] Let $z$ be a distinguished vertex and suppose a set $A$ of $N$ other vertices is strictly closer than $z$ to some vertex $x$. Let $S$ be a uniformly random $Q$-subset of an $n$-vertex ground set. For any $k\geq 1$,

The first bound is immediate from $\Pr[z\in S]=Q/n$. For the second, generate the uniform $Q$-subset by taking the first $Q$ positions of a uniformly random permutation of all $n$ vertices. Restrict this permutation to the $N+1$ vertices $A\cup\{z\}$. The relative rank of $z$ in this restricted permutation is uniform on $\{1,\ldots,N+1\}$.

If $z\in S$ and at most $k-1$ vertices strictly closer to $x$ are selected before the cutoff, then at most $k-1$ members of $A$ can occur before $z$ in the full permutation: every member of $A$ preceding $z$ is also selected because $z$ itself appears among the first $Q$ positions. Thus the event in Equation (7) implies that the relative rank of $z$ inside $A\cup\{z\}$ is at most $k$. This occurs with probability at most $k/(N+1)$.

The argument also covers Bernoulli sampling. Conditional on the random sample cardinality $Q$, a Bernoulli sample is uniform among all $Q$-subsets. More generally, it covers every exchangeable source-set distribution, which is a mixture of uniform fixed-cardinality samples.

[Per-call exactness] Consider a fresh exchangeable nearest-source call on $H_{t}$. Conditional on arbitrary values $Q$ and $k$, let $B=\min\{Q,k\}$. Then

Consequently,

By Corollary 3.2, exactness requires at least one cycle source $s=c_{i}$ to be selected and retained at both endpoints of $e_{i}$. It is necessary in particular that $s$ be retained at one fixed antipodal endpoint $x$. By Lemma 3.3, at least $N_{t}\geq n_{t}/3$ vertices are strictly closer to $x$ than $s$. Lemma 3.3 therefore gives

A union bound over the $g_{t}$ possible cycle sources yields Equation (8). Taking expectation over $Q$ and $k$ yields Equation (9).

We now lift the per-call bound to an adaptively stopped composition. Cross-call independence is not required. The only probabilistic restriction used below is the conditional exchangeability of the fresh source set after the algorithm has already chosen to execute the call and fixed its parameters.

[Adaptive retained-source workload barrier] Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a black-box exactification in the sense of Definition 2.2, with stopping time $T$ and total retained-source workload $W=\sum_{j=1}^{T}B_{j}$. On $H_{t}$,

Consequently, success probability at least $2/3$ requires

For $j\geq 1$, let $L_{j}=\{T\geq j\}$ be the event that call $j$ is executed. Because the stopping decision is based on $\mathcal{F}_{j-1}$, $L_{j}$ is $\mathcal{F}_{j-1}$-measurable and hence $\mathcal{G}_{j}$-measurable. For bookkeeping, on $L_{j}^{c}$ set $B_{j}=0$ and regard the event that call $j$ outputs $g_{t}$ as false, extend $\mathcal{G}_{j}$ arbitrarily there. Let $E_{j}$ denote the event that call $j$ is executed and its scalar output equals $g_{t}$, and let $\mathbf{1}_{L_{j}}$ denote the indicator of $L_{j}$.

On $L_{j}$, conditional on $\mathcal{G}_{j}$, the source set is a fresh uniform $Q_{j}$-subset. Lemma 3.3 therefore gives

Because the estimator never returns a value below the true girth 2 and $T<\infty$ almost surely, the final minimum equals $g_{t}$ only if at least one event $E_{j}$ occurs. Hence, by a countable union bound followed by conditional expectation and Tonelli’s theorem for nonnegative terms,

This proves Equation (10). Setting the left-hand side to at least $2/3$ yields the explicit constant $2n_{t}/(9g_{t})$. Lemma 3.1 gives $g_{t}=\Theta(\log n_{t})$.

Theorem 3.4 is the principal result. It refers only to the amount of nearest-source state retained across the sequence of oracle-style estimator calls. It does not assume that the estimator is implemented by any particular packet schedule.

[Round barrier for the standard packetized realization] Suppose every estimator invocation is executed sequentially using the unmodified packetized realization described in Section 2.1.3, which explicitly sends the retained source records across each edge and does not reuse messages between calls. Let $R$ be the total number of CONGEST rounds. Then, on $H_{t}$,

In particular, success probability at least $2/3$ implies

Thus no $O(n^{1-\varepsilon})$ exact-girth algorithm for all graphs, for fixed $\varepsilon>0$, is obtained merely by executing such retuned black-box estimator calls in the standard sequential way.

In an executed call $j$, every vertex retains $B_{j}=\min\{Q_{j},k_{j}\}$ source records. The standard estimator realization serializes these records in $O(\log n_{t})$-bit CONGEST packets when exchanging the complete retained table with each neighbor. Consequently, there is an absolute constant $c>0$ such that this table-exchange stage uses at least $cB_{j}$ rounds for each call. With sequential invocations and no cross-call message reuse, pathwise

Taking expectations and applying Theorem 3.4 proves Equation (12), the remaining claims follow from Equation (11) and $g_{t}=\Theta(\log n_{t})$.

[Scope of the round corollary] Corollary 3.4 is implementation-specific. The more fundamental statement is Theorem 3.4, which is a workload barrier inside the black-box model. Neither result applies to an arbitrary CONGEST algorithm that chooses sources from graph-dependent information, preserves and combines source tables across calls, jointly compresses several calls, computes additional cycle certificates, or abandons the nearest-source estimator. In particular, a simple graph-aware preprocessing step such as extracting the 2-core already defeats the specific obstruction on $H_{t}$.

The workload scale $n_{t}/g_{t}$ has a simple source-hitting interpretation. The following observation is included only as context for that scale, it is not a second principal contribution.

[Contextual exact-girth bound under a girth promise] Suppose an undirected unweighted graph $G$ has girth $g\geq h$, where $h\geq 1$ is known. There is a randomized CONGEST algorithm that computes the exact girth with probability at least $2/3$ in

rounds up to absolute constants in the source-sampling probability. With high probability, exact girth can be computed in

rounds.

If $G$ is acyclic, the exact answer is $+\infty$, the proposition is relevant to the cyclic case, so assume $g<\infty$ and fix one shortest cycle $C$. For constant success probability, choose exactly

sources uniformly without replacement, where $c>0$ is a sufficiently large absolute constant. If $q<n$, then

Choose $c$ so that this probability is at most $1/3$. The source count is deterministically $q=O(n/h)$. Run complete source detection from every sampled source and retain all sampled sources. If $s\in S\cap V(C)$, the shortest cycle is covered by a source at distance zero, so the estimator returns exactly $g$ 2. Source detection and the table exchange use $O(q+D)=O(n/h+D)$ rounds 6.

For high probability, choose instead

The same hypergeometric bound gives failure probability at most $n^{-c}$, and the running time is $\widetilde{O}(n/h+D)$.

For the family $H_{t}$, the constant-success form costs $O(n_{t}/g_{t}+D)=O(n_{t}/\log n_{t})$ rounds, matching the $n_{t}/g_{t}$ source-workload scale of Theorem 3.4 up to constant factors within this simple source-hitting strategy. The high-probability form introduces the usual logarithmic amplification.

The results above are purely analytic. We nevertheless provide a small verification program as supplementary material to guard against implementation-level misunderstandings of the hard family. The program explicitly constructs $H_{t}$ for $t=1,\ldots,6$, runs BFS from every source for the witness check, and checks four statements independently of the proofs: (i) the graph has the claimed unique odd cycle and maximum degree, (ii) a deepest leaf has eccentricity $6t$, confirming the stated diameter together with the analytic upper bound, (iii) every source has exactly one non-parent graph edge in its BFS tree and its candidate value is $g_{t}+2\delta(s)$, and (iv) every cycle source has at least $n_{t}/3$ strictly closer competitors at each required antipodal endpoint.

Table 3 reports the generated values. These checks are not evidence for the asymptotic theorem, they are reproducibility tests for the construction and the exact witness identity used in Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3.

The hard family does not contradict the approximation guarantee of Chechik et al. Their analysis does not require an exact cycle source to remain among the nearest sources at the antipodal edge. A source at distance $\delta>0$ can legitimately generate the value $g_{t}+2\delta$, and multi-scale sampling controls this additive term sufficiently to obtain a multiplicative approximation. Our proof uses the much stricter equality condition $g_{t}+2\delta=g_{t}$, which forces $\delta=0$. The separation is therefore exactly between approximate coverage and exact certification.

A common failure mode in CONGEST lower-bound constructions is that a claimed communication obstruction is already explained by a large hop diameter. Here $D(H_{t})=O(\log n_{t})$. Moreover, the maximum degree is three and the unique cycle has logarithmic length. The obstruction is the nearest-source ranking at the antipodal edge: a linear-size metric ball lies strictly in front of the only sources that can certify equality.

The theorem points toward several routes that are not covered by the barrier. First, a graph-aware algorithm might identify candidate cycle vertices or the 2-core and sample them with higher probability. On $H_{t}$, computing the 2-core immediately exposes the unique cycle, so the present family cannot support a lower bound against arbitrary preprocessing. This transparency is intentional: the purpose of $H_{t}$ is to isolate a failure of the black-box estimator composition, not to hide the cycle from every distributed algorithm. Second, an algorithm might retain richer information than a bounded list of closest sources, for example compact sketches that preserve non-nearest cycle certificates. Third, several calls could share state or be jointly compressed, invalidating the additive workload interpretation. Fourth, an exact algorithm could combine source sampling with dedicated short-cycle detection or a decomposition theorem.

These are not technical loopholes to be hidden, they are the principal boundary of the result. The contribution is the abstraction in Proposition 2.2 together with Theorem 3.4: the recent nearest-source approximation template cannot be made exact by scale/capacity retuning plus scalar-output adaptivity alone. We make no claim that exact girth itself intrinsically requires near-linear rounds.

A stronger negative result would replace the transparent cycle-of-trees family with graphs in which the shortest-cycle vertices are not locally distinguishable from a linear fraction of the graph, and would allow the algorithm to preserve state across phases. One possible target is an indistinguishability statement for algorithms whose only global metric information consists of $k$ nearest-source labels per vertex, regardless of how those labels are scheduled. Such a theorem would move from a black-box barrier toward a genuine information restriction and would be of independent interest.